tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38321537439334809792024-02-21T05:45:42.857-08:00JFK Assassination Conspiracy UpdateDr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-51405637293389883612011-05-17T07:04:00.000-07:002011-05-17T07:10:45.896-07:00US government official: JFK cover-up, film fabrication<i></i><br />
<div class="entry-meta"><span class="meta-prep meta-prep-author"><strong>Editor's NOTE:</strong></span><br />
</div><div class="entry-meta"></div><div class="entry-meta"><span class="meta-prep meta-prep-author">Even though this piece is over a year old it provides an excellent summary of what has been learned about the Zapruder film over the past 2 decades.</span><br />
</div><div class="entry-meta"></div><div class="entry-meta"><span class="meta-prep meta-prep-author">--Dr. J. P. Hubert</span><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><div class="entry-meta"></div><div class="entry-meta"></div><div class="entry-meta"><span class="meta-prep meta-prep-author"><em>Intrepid Report</em></span></div><div class="entry-meta"><span class="meta-prep meta-prep-author">Posted on</span> April 7, 2010 <span class="byline"><span class="meta-sep">by</span> Jim Fetzer</span><br />
<br />
</div><div class="entry-meta"></div><div class="entry-content">MADISON, Wisconsin—Douglas Horne, who served as the Senior Analyst for Military Affairs of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), has now published <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0984314431/mbookshop1-20"><strong><span style="color: red;">INSIDE THE ARRB</span></strong></a> (2009), a five-volume study of the efforts of the board to declassify documents and records held by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other government organizations related to the assassination of JFK.<br />
<br />
As a former government official, historian, and author, he is speaking out to disabuse the public of any lingering belief that THE WARREN REPORT (1964), THE HSCA FINAL REPORT (1979), Gerald Posner’s CASE CLOSED (1963), or Vincent Bugliosi’s RECLAIMING HISTORY (2007) represent the truth about what is known about the assassination of our 35th president, even remotely! Indeed, in relation to a new article, <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Birds-of-a-Feather-Subver-by-Jim-Fetzer-100121-980.html"><strong><span style="color: red;">“Birds of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Law”</span></strong></a><span style="color: red;">,</span> Horne has made a forceful declaration to set the record straight<em>:</em><br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">I know, from my former role as a government official on the staff of the ARRB (from 1995–1998), that there is overwhelming evidence of a government-directed medical cover-up in the death of JFK, and of wholesale destruction of autopsy photographs, autopsy x-rays, early versions of the autopsy report, and biological materials associated with the autopsy. Furthermore, dishonest autopsy photographs were created; skull x-rays were altered; the contents of the autopsy report changed over time as different versions were produced; and the brain photographs in the National Archives cannot be photographs of President Kennedy’s brain—they are fraudulent, substitute images of someone else’s brain.</div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><br />
</div>Over and beyond the medical evidence, however, Horne—in Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), has also demonstrated that the home movie of the assassination known as “the Zapruder film”—and others that correspond to it, such as the Nix and Muchmore films—have been massively edited to remove indications of Secret Service complicity in the crime and to add other events to these films in order to sow confusion and conceal evidence of the true causes of death of John F. Kennedy.<br />
<br />
There are many proofs that the film has been fabricated—including that the driver brought the limo to a halt to make sure he would be killed; that his brains were blown out to the left-rear; and that a motorcycle patrolman accompanying the limo rode forward at the time of the stop to inform Dallas Chief of Police Jessie Curry that the president had been hit. But none of these events appears in the extant version of the film, which has been massively edited. That these events occurred has been established by more than 60 witness reports of the limo stop, where the wound to the back of his head was confirmed by 40 witnesses, including virtually all the physicians at Parkland Hospital, who described cerebellum as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound. The blow-out to the right-front, as seen in the film, therefore, is not authentic. <a href="http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/994">Read it ALL...</a></div><br />
<h3></h3>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-59309904470156749772011-05-08T15:42:00.000-07:002011-05-08T18:46:19.542-07:00Probable JFK Assassination "Hit Team" Member Dies<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" name="main"></a><br />
<div class="post" id="post-1660"><div class="postMeta fix"><div class="container"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b>Editor's NOTE:</b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Orlando Bosch was a CIA trained Cuban Exile assassin who according to confessed JFK Assassination plotter Chauncey Holt was present in <place><placename>Dealey</placename> <placetype>Plaza</placetype></place> on <date day="22" month="11" year="1963">November 22, 1963</date>. Holt indicated that Bosch's presence would have been because of his unique killing abilities which he was well-known for. Whether he was actually a "shooter", a spotter or served some other role is not known with certainty.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">It is unfortunate that he was pardoned by former President G H W Bush and that he never confessed or was indicted for his probable role in killing President Kennedy. His role as a CIA "hit-man" apparently protected him from ever being brought to justice since his involvement became part of the extensive cover-up which was begun on November 22 by Lyndon B Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://machetera.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/orlando-bosch-historys-first-passenger-plane-bomber-dead-in-miami/">Bosch along with Louis Posada Carriles was found guilty of hiring two men to plant a bomb in a Cubana Airliner which subsquently crashed in the Caribean</a>. Through a combination of political pressure and actual physical threats to the civilian judge involved in the notorioius case in Venezuela, the <a href="http://www.stabroeknews.com/2011/news/breaking/04/27/cubana-airline-bombing-accused-orlando-bosch-dies-in-miami/">two men managed to escape imprisonment for their crime after serving 11 years in jail.</a> As a result Bosch was able to claim that he had been acquitted of the crime--a true travesty of justice brought about through perfidy.<br />
<br />
It would be an understatement to say that this man was a true miscreant, a <em>bottom-feeder</em> of the first order.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><date day="28" month="4" year="2011">April 28, 2011</date> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b><a href="http://alexandermilne.co.uk/articles/cubana-airliner-bomber-orlando-bosch-dies-untroubled-by-us-justice/">Alexander Milne</a></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Freelance features writer</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Cubana airliner bomber Orlando Bosch dies unrepentant and untroubled by </b><country-region><place><b>US</b></place></country-region><b> justice</b></span></div></div></div><div class="entry"><div class="wp-caption alignleft" id="attachment_1661" style="width: 160px;"><img alt="Orlando Bosch: unrepentant bomber of Cubana Flight 455, pardoned by Bush Senior" class="size-thumbnail wp-image-1661" height="139" src="http://alexandermilne.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Orlando-Bosch-150x139.jpg" title="Orlando Bosch" width="150" /> <br />
<div class="wp-caption-text"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Orlando Bosch: unrepentant bomber of Cubana Flight 455, pardoned by Bush Senior</span></div></div><br />
So farewell then,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Bosch" jquery1304893864862="2" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: #3c6c92;"> Orlando Bosch Avila</span></strong></a>, Cuban exile and anti-Castro terrorist whose role in the 1976 bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner (killing 73 passengers and crew) was well-known to the US authorities – as indicated by <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/19761008.pdf" jquery1304893864862="3" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: #3c6c92;">this recently-declassified FBI document.</span></strong></a><br />
<br />
Despite multiple evidence of Bosch’s bloody complicity in the Cubana outrage and other politically-motivated murders, not to mention his shameless, Al Qaeda-style assertion that <strong>“All of Castro’s planes are warplanes”</strong> (and therefore justifiable targets), the Cuban-American lobby’s unrivalled clout in Washington helped Bosch and his co-conspirator <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles" jquery1304893864862="4" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: #3c6c92;">Luis Posada Carriles</span></strong></a> evade justice in several jurisdictions.<br />
<br />
He did go to prison for a few years for other, lesser offences but managed to avoid being called to account for the worst crime of all. In fact, he even received a pardon from outgoing US President George H.W. Bush, a man who, as ex-Director of the CIA, certainly knew where the bodies were buried (usually that’s just a metaphor).<br />
<br />
Unfortunately Bosch’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-13217705" jquery1304893864862="5" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: #3c6c92;">BBC obituary</span></strong></a> somehow neglected to mention this rather interesting detail of the Bush Family’s flexible approach to the “War on Terror”.<br />
<br />
<strong>Indeed, the entire US government’s hypocrisy is unrivalled. Had Bosch and his companeros been Arab bombers of civilian planes, their feet would not have touched the ground on a one-way trip to the US concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay……</strong><br />
<br />
<span id="more-1660"></span><br />
Orlando Bosch was born in August 1926, a week after his nemesis and fellow Cuban Fidel Castro. Both were students at Havana University, both from middle-class backgrounds, both leaders of their respective student bodies. But their paths soon diverged after the 1959 Revolution as Bosch gave up a career as a paediatrician, a curer of childhood ailments, and dedicated himself instead to the killing of innocents, all in the name of “a free Cuba”, of course.<br />
<br />
It is even alleged that Bosch can be glimpsed in the infamous Zapruder film of the assassination of John F Kennedy. He is supposed to be the dark-skinned person next to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbrella_Man_(JFK_assassination)" jquery1304893864862="6" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: #3c6c92;">Umbrella Man</span></strong></a>, one of many shadowy figures in the Great American Parlour Game, “Who Shot JFK?”<br />
<br />
Bosch claimed that he was at home in Miami that day, which might well be true; given the opportunity to participate (alongside Gloria Estefan’s father and other ex-Batista diehards) in the April 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, the bold Orlando said, in the words of Samuel Goldwyn, “Include me out”, claiming that he was still p*****d off because the Americans had refused to support his own plan for a guerilla war in the Escambray Mountains.<br />
<br />
As a dedicated anti-Castro fighter, you’d have thought that he might have swallowed his pride and taken part in the Bay of Pigs debacle, or at least joined the subsequent counter-revolutionary campaign in the Escambray Mountains – <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escambray_Rebellion" jquery1304893864862="7" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: #3c6c92;">the “War Against the Bandits”</span></strong></a>, which lasted from 1959-65.<br />
<br />
But apparently Senor Bosch wasn’t so keen on hand-to-hand combat.<br />
<br />
I<strong>t is fortunate for the Cuban Revolution that its most implacable foes have also been cowards and dunderheads as often at war with each other as with Havana.</strong></div></div>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-17191022616500732092011-05-06T08:41:00.000-07:002011-05-07T07:38:21.874-07:00New Information Available on Dealey Plaza "Hit Teams"Readers interested in further information on the Dealey Plaza "hit-teams" should review<a href="http://jfkassassinationconspiracyupdate.blogspot.com/p/jfk-assassination-co-conspirators.html"> THIS.</a><br />
<br />
It is an area which is still ripe for further research but time is beginning to run-out in that most of the people who were directly involved are now dead. <br />
<br />
I encourage those with an interest to listen to the video tape confession of James E. Files who claims to have been the Grassy Knoll Assassin and those of Chauncey Holt who has said that he was one of the so-called "3 tramps" and also the person who forged the false credentials for the fake Secret Service Agents who appeared in Dealey Plaza after the JFK limousine sped to Parkland Hospital. <br />
<br />
We now know that there were no genuine Secret Service Agents in Dealey Plaza after the Presidential Party passed through and yet many witnesses report encountering men in suits who flashed their fake Secret Service ID's. These men were there for several reasons. First they made certain that the assassins were able to escape unscathed and second, they were there to confiscate photographic film from witnesses who had taken still and moving pictures of the motorcade. This allowed the conspirators to control the visual evidence and ultimately to alter the Zapruder film and other home movies taken that day in such a way as to match what quickly became known as the "lone-nut assassin" theory. Last, these men were able to determine the names of witnesses who might need to be pressured into changing their impressions of what they saw that day. Some of those who could not be intimidated met their demise in numbers which far exceed those which are compatible with chance alone, meaning, they were murdered. <br />
<br />
These early maneuvers carried out by the fake Secret Service agents were critical to the overall success of the conspiracy perhaps even more so than the "stand-down" of the actual Secret Service Agents themselves whose inaction resulted in JFK being killed. Control of the crime scene was key in terms of altering objective evidence that was incompatible with what their "official (false) version" ultimately became.<br />
<br />
<strong><u>With Respect to Chauncey Holt:</u></strong><br />
<br />
--Holt Says <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyEY92tEA8Y&feature=related">Oswald was Falsely Accused! </a> Holt always felt a sympathy for Oswald and doesn't think its right that Oswald's wife and children should be stigmatized the way they have been all these years. His video remarks in this regard appear extremely genuine. As he makes them he is literally moved to tears.<br />
<br />
--Holt testified <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%3Cobject%20style=%22height:%20390px;%20width:%20640px%22%3E%3Cparam%20name=%22movie%22%20value=%22http://www.youtube.com/v/oXlLSg0btss?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oXlLSg0btss?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>">he saw multiple assassins in Dealey Plaza in the vicinity of Houston and Elm Streets on November 22, 1963 including but not limited to Louis Posada, Freddy Lugo, Rip Roberson and Orlando Bosch</a>.<br />
<br />
<strong><u>With Respect to James Files:</u></strong><br />
<br />
--<a href="http://www.blogger.com/%3Cobject%20style=%22height:%20390px;%20width:%20640px%22%3E%3Cparam%20name=%22movie%22%20value=%22http://www.youtube.com/v/XTVH--eqWg4?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XTVH--eqWg4?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>">Files confessed to killing John F. Kennedy with a head shot from the Grassy Knoll</a> using a hand-held <a href="http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/fireball1.htm">Remington Fireball XP-100</a> with scope in which he had placed a mercury bullet. Files says that if JKF's body is every exhumed we will know it is his body if the mercury that would still be present in his skull is found. Interestingly, the world's foremost medical expert on the JFK Assassination case, Dr. David W. Mantik believes he can see evidence of mercury on the JFK skull X-rays.Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-63947446589871641602011-05-01T06:26:00.000-07:002011-05-01T07:39:32.398-07:00JFK Assassination: Key to Global War on TerrorBy: Dr. J. P. Hubert<br />
<br />
<a href="http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/08/after-jfk-assassination-true-coup-detat.html">The JFK Assassination is the key to understanding what is currently transpiring in the United States</a>. <strong>One of the reasons why President John F. Kennedy was murdered is that he wanted to end the Cold War through negotiation with the Soviet Union rather than “win it”</strong> [which was the position of the war hawks in his own administration as well as the private corporations which were then part of the military industrial complex (MIC)]. Then as now the defense contractors were making incredible sums of money on armament production and loathed the idea that it might come to an end.<br />
<br />
Today <strong>the so-called Global War on Terror (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">GWT</span>) has replaced the “Cold-War” as a justification for continued massive military/intelligence spending that still inures to the benefit of the MIC (now the MIMIC).</strong> The basic arrangement is the same. The <em>Regime </em>creates a plausible justification for placing the country on a constant war footing and then proceeds to invent reasons why the war(s) must continue.<br />
<br />
The actual reason a state of constant war has become "necessary" is that given our loss of traditional manufacturing base the US economy is critically dependent on creating a demand for the production of armaments. <strong>Munitions manufacturing after all is the only industry in which the US still leads the</strong> <strong>world.</strong> Virtually <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">everything</span> else has already been <em>off-shored</em> and <em>out-sourced</em> to third world countries where slave labor wages are utilized by US multinational corporations for the creation of immoral and obscene profits, the ill-gotten gains obtained in large part from the killing of innocent non-combatants in foreign wars.<br />
<br />
<strong>The US economy then, is being artificially propped-up through the continual starting and prosecuting of unnecessary and immoral wars of aggression.</strong> The current situation benefits the private armament manufacturers and insures that no nation or combination thereof is able or willing to challenge American hegemony, thus perpetuating the status <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">quo</span>. This scenario will continue until the USA is <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">recognizably</span> bankrupt as a result of its total inability to service the now astronomically massive national debt. The powerful elites will then simply move on like a hoard of locusts to another geographical location where they can repeat their <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">rapacious</span> activities having long since moved their bounteous personal assets <em>off-shore.</em> Herein lies the real meaning of the vaunted "New World Order" of the <em>Globalists.</em>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-56022017116559996412011-04-29T09:10:00.000-07:002011-04-29T09:10:52.451-07:00Lee Harvey Oswald did not Kill President Kennedy: The Evidence<div class="entry-info"><span class="entry-author"><strong>Editor' NOTE:</strong></span></div><div class="entry-info"><span class="entry-author"><strong></strong></span> </div><div class="entry-info"><span class="entry-author">I post this piece for two reasons. First, I agree with the conclusion based upon a review of the relevant evidence. Second, to elicit comments from readers regarding some of the assertions made here by Dr. Salerian.</span></div><div class="entry-info"><span class="entry-author"></span> </div><div class="entry-info"><span class="entry-author">--Dr. J. P. Hubert</span></div><div class="entry-info"><span class="entry-author"><strong></strong></span> </div><div class="entry-info"><span class="entry-author"><strong>By: </strong><strong>Alen J. Salerian, M.D.</strong></span></div><div class="entry-info"><span class="entry-author"></span><strong>Published:</strong> <abbr class="published" title="2009-02-17T08:28:59+00:00">February 17, 2009</abbr></div><div class="entry-info"><abbr class="published" title="2009-02-17T08:28:59+00:00"><em><a href="http://www.historicalevidence.net/lee-harvey-oswald-did-not-kill-president-kennedy-the-evidence-2/">International Center for Evidence Based History</a></em></abbr></div><div class="entry-info"><abbr class="published" title="2009-02-17T08:28:59+00:00"></abbr><span class="entry-cat"><strong>Posted in: </strong>JFK</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Consistent with the Warren Report, at present, the U.S. government’s official belief is that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin who killed President John F. Kennedy on Elm Street at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. Although many hypotheses have questioned the scientific validity of the Warren Report and hence Oswald’s guilt, there has never been any peer-reviewed evidence of Oswald’s innocence. <strong>This paper offers evidence to demonstrate that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill President Kennedy and from the moment he was arrested to his death, he was framed up as the fall guy</strong>. </span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">We studied the evidence of Oswald’s potential participation in the assassination from three separate angles. (A) Review of Oswald’s previous work consistent with his services for the U.S. government. (B) Review of the evidence by the Dallas city police and FBI declaring Oswald as a suspect in the assassination. (C) Review of forensic evidence to prove Oswald’s innocence. </span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Review of Evidence of Oswald’s Work for the U.S. Government </span></span></span></strong></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Several documents clearly demonstrate that Lee Harvey Oswald had worked for the U.S. government. </span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1.</span></span><span> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The evidence shows that Lee Harvey Oswald contracted gonorrhea in the line of duty in 1958. For some other background information <a href="http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2011/02/its-all-in-theater.html">see THIS</a></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2.</span></span><span> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Oswald also worked for the CIA and carried an identification card DD Form 1173, which was the same type of ID carried by U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers who was a civilian employee and a CIA contract agent (Dallas Municipal Archives and Records Center). </span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">3.</span></span><span> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Shortly before his arrest in the assassination of President Kennedy, Oswald had contact with the FBI as an informer. (Editor: True, it is my understanding that solid evidence now exists that he did this prior to the planned assassination attempt in Chicago and prior to the actual assassination in Dallas)</span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The Evidence That Oswald was Framed</span></span></span></strong></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1.</span></span><span> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Oswald was framed at the killer precisely 70 minutes after the assassination when there was no reason to make him a suspect for the assassination. (Editor: absolutely true. There was no legitimate reason to have suspected him as early as the Dallas Police allegedly did) </span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2.</span></span><span> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The Dallas police misled the public by declaring that Oswald was the primary suspect, for he was supposedly the only missing employee at the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, where the evidence shows that there were at least four people missing. </span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The Evidence That Oswald Did Not Kill Officer Tippit </span></span></span></strong></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1.</span></span><span> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The ballistic evidence did not match Oswald’s gun. The ballistic expert from the FBI concluded that it was not possible to determine whether or not the bullets had been fired from Oswald’s weapon. No external physical evidence such as fingerprints or shirt fibers linking Oswald to the crime scene was established. </span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2.</span></span><span> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The ballistic evidence proved that Oswald was not the killer of Officer Tippit. Of the four bullets extracted from Tippit’s body, there were three Western Winchesters and one Remington Peters. Oswald’s revolver (a .38) contained six rounds of live ammunition at the time of his arrest. The four empty shells found at that time at the murder site were two Remington's and two Winchesters and Oswald’s revolver did not eject empty cases. Rather, Oswald’s revolver had an automatic ejection system, whereby all six shells should have been ejected at once. </span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ballistic Evidence Proving Oswald’s Innocence </span></span></span></strong></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo4; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1.</span></span><span> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The trajectory of the bullets suggests that the bullet that struck JFK was shot from the front, consistent with a frontal entry and exit from the back according to the autopsy findings. Fragments of JFK’s skull and blood splattered the motorcycle policeman who was behind the presidential limousine on the left side, again consistent with a shot with a frontal entry. </span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo4; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2.</span></span><span> </span></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Paraffin tests conducted on Lee Harvey Oswald were negative on his face, which meant Oswald had not fired a rifle that day. The FBI submitted the paraffin tests to the Atomic Energy Commission’s facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where Dr. Frank Dyer and Dr. Juel Emery tested them using neutron activation analysis. They concluded that the cheek testing could not be specifically associated with a rifle, therefore exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald. </span></span></span></div>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-88531514332884703552011-04-28T06:54:00.000-07:002011-04-29T06:57:43.247-07:00Barry Ernest Finds Witnesses Who Exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald<h1 align="left"><strong><span style="font-size: small;"><em>Accidental History: The Girl on the Stairs</em></span></strong></h1><h1 align="left"><span style="font-size: small;">a book by Barry Ernest</span></h1><div align="left"><br />
</div><div align="left"><strong><span style="font-size: small;">Reviewed by Joseph E. Green and Jim DiEugenio</span></strong></div><h1 align="left"><span style="font-size: x-small;">From: <a href="http://www.ctka.net/reviews/accidental_history.html">Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination</a></span></h1><blockquote><blockquote><em>At first she thought it was firecrackers. But when she saw the chaos and the terror on all the faces below, she knew it was something far worse. She turned from the window and grabbed the arm of a co-worker. “Come on.” She whispered. “Let’s find out what’s going on down there.” In this split second, her innocence—and that of a nation’s—came to an end</em>.</blockquote></blockquote>The above is how <a href="http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/">Barry Ernest</a> begins his interesting and unusual book, <em>The Girl on the Stairs</em>. The JFK assassination, like any historical event, had a ripple effect on the history of the country and, indeed, the world. And while many of these effects were foreseeable—for example, the expansion of the war in Vietnam—there were an infinite number of others that were not. Some of the most tragic stories that emerged in the wake of the assassination concern the deaths of those who became accidental players by hearing and seeing things they were not supposed to, and whose documentation began with <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKjonesP.htm">Penn Jones</a> in his <em>Forgive My Grief</em> series. Still others involved those who were not murdered, but instead were forced into a life of hiding and jumping at shadows.<br />
<br />
Barry Ernest’s book tells two stories. One is about himself: his journey from being a believer in the Warren Report to that of being a fierce critic of that now, quite discredited, volume. Therefore he begins the book at a rather appropriate place and time. In fact, it is actually beyond appropriate. It is almost symbolic. Barry was a student at Kent State in 1967. This is the college where the expansion of the Vietnam War would, in three short years, lead to the infamous shooting of students by the National Guard and produce one of the most iconic photographs of that tumultuous era. The first scene of the book is him sitting outside the cafeteria. A fellow student named Terry approaches and asks him about a dialogue from a previous class where Barry actually defended the Warren Report. The student then asks Barry if he had ever seen or heard of the Zapruder film, and if he had read the entire 26 volumes of the Warren Commission. Barry said no to each. The student left him a copy of an interview by <a href="http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKlaneM.htm">Mark Lane</a>, and said, “Read this.” Barry did—right then and there. Hours later, in twilight, he then went to a bookstore and searched for Lane’s book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Judgment-Critique-Commissions-President/dp/0851360114/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303588484&sr=8-1"><em>Rush to Judgment</em></a>. This is how the first story—that of personal discovery and evolution—begins.<br />
<br />
And it was through Lane’s book that Barry was introduced to the heroine of the second story he will tell. That second story is about the plight of one of these ordinary people who was swept up by events: <strong>Victoria Adams, the notable “girl on the stairs.”</strong> She <strong>was an employee who worked in the same building as one Lee Harvey Oswald.</strong> The problem caused by her presence is very simple and easily summarized. Adams, along with her friend Sandra Styles, stood on the fourth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the moment of the murder. She testified to hearing three shots, which from her vantage point appeared to be coming from the right of the building (i.e., from the grassy knoll). She and Styles then ran to the stairs to head down. This was the only set of stairs that went all the way to the top of the building. Both she and her friend took them down to the ground floor. She did not see or hear Oswald. Yet, she should have if he were on the sixth floor traveling downwards. Which is what the Commission said he did after he shot Kennedy.<br />
<br />
This is the first problem, in a nutshell. <strong>Why did Adams not see a scrambling Oswald, flying down the stairs in pursuit of his Coca-Cola?</strong> Because of the Warren Commission’s timeline, we know Oswald had to have gone down the stairs during this period in order to be accosted in time by a motorcycle policeman. In addition, as we are later to discover, <strong>Adams also reports seeing Jack Ruby on the corner of Houston and Elm, “questioning people as though he were a policeman.”</strong><br />
<br />
From here the parallel stories broaden out. For Barry began to read more books critical of the Commission. And he would then compare what was in these books with the testimony and evidence in the 26 volumes. Like many people before him, he found something rather disturbing: the evidence and testimony did not completely back up the summary conclusions in the Warren Report. The Commission had selectively chosen evidence to make their case. And they had deliberately tried to discredit witnesses and testimony that contradicted their guilty verdict about Oswald. And the witness that they did this to that really kindled Barry’s curiosity was Victoria Adams. As the author writes at the end of Chapter 1, “What if she was right?”<br />
<br />
Adams did not find the government eager to hear her story. This is why they badgered her day and night: the FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police, and the Sheriff’s Department. And Victoria noticed something discriminatory about all the attention she was getting: the other witnesses in her office did not receive it, e.g., Sandy Styles who ran down the stairs with her, or Elsie Dorman or Dorothy May Garner who watched the motorcade with her.<br />
<br />
The attention didn’t stop. In fact, even when she moved to a different address these agents followed her. Even though she had left no forwarding address and her new apartment was not in her name. But they still found her. They followed her when she went to lunch. They followed her when she walked around town. When she sent a letter to a friend in San Francisco describing what she saw and did that day as a witness, the friend never got the letter. The question they posed was always the same: When did you run down the stairs after the shooting?<br />
<br />
Then, another odd thing happened. <strong>When David Belin and the Warren Commission requested her to testify, it was her alone</strong>. Sandra Styles was not with her. In fact, <strong>Barry could find no evidence that the Commission questioned Styles at all.</strong> Further, during her appearance, Belin had handed her a diagram of the first floor of the Texas School Book Depository, the place where she and Oswald worked at that time. He asked her to point out where she saw two other employees (i.e., William Shelley and Billy Lovelady) when she arrived at the bottom of the stairway. When Barry went to look up this exhibit in the Commission volumes—Commission Exhibit 496—he discovered something odd. It was not the document in the testimony. It was a copy of the application form Oswald filled out for his job at the Depository.<br />
<br />
Further, although Styles did not testify that day, or at all, both Lovelady and Shelley did. And as Barry read their testimony <strong>it appeared to him that the Commission was making use of them to discredit Adams</strong>. Commission lawyer Joe Ball made sure he asked Shelley when and if he saw Adams after the shooting. And when Barry read Lovelady’s testimony his mouth flew open. Lovelady brought up Adams’ name before Ball did! And he called her by her nickname, “Vickie.” <strong>Barry was puzzled as to what prompted this spontaneous reference to Adams. Did Lovelady know in advance that Ball was going to specifically ask about her?</strong><br />
<br />
Indeed, when she read her own testimony in the Warren Commission—and the Commission’s use of it—<strong>Adams was startled to find major discrepancies, including the time interval as to when she started down the stairs after she heard the shots.</strong> This began for her a lifelong burden of living in the shadows, avoiding any publicity dealing with her testimony or her treatment at the hands of the Commission. When her employer, publishing house Scott Foresman, offered her a chance to transfer out of Dallas to Chicago in 1966, she took it. (p. 35) While there, she actually now began to read the Warren Report. <strong>She now noted what they had done with Lovelady and Shelley. This stupefied her. Because she did not recall seeing either man after she and Styles arrived on the first floor. (p. 36)</strong><br />
<br />
However, although the book drops in on her from time to time—and it builds towards Barry’s hunt for her, discovering documents that bear out her veracity, and interviewing her in a climactic scene—the principle narrative is the journey of the author himself, who was a teen-ager at the time of the assassination, and went on to became acquainted with some of the earliest critics. He and Terry became working partners at deciphering the fraud of the Warren Report. They would visit each other’s dorms to discus the latest deception they found in the volumes, e.g., how <strong>the Commission cut corners and accepted false witnesses to place Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting; the dubious way they reconstructed his movements after he left the Depository; the quality of the witnesses to the Tippit shooting, etc. These all begin to fuel doubts in him about his former belief in the Warren Commission.</strong><br />
<br />
In fact, Barry became so obsessed with this mystery that he ignored his studies. He flunked out of Kent State. (p. 33)<br />
<br />
<center><strong>II</strong></center>Going home to Altoona, Pennsylvania, he could not find the 26 Commission volumes there. So he began to read the works of the first generation critics—every one of them. (Read about the first generation critics in John Kelin’s highly-acclaimed <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Future-Generation-Assassination-Kennedy/dp/0916727327/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303595537&sr=8-1"><em>Praise from a Future Generation</em></a>. See the first chapter of Kelin’s book <a href="http://www.ctka.net/sample/chapter.html">here</a>.) <br />
<br />
He then decided to visit Dallas. There he met a man named Eugene Aldredge. Aldredge had found a bullet mark on the sidewalk near Elm, which showed a missed shot. He told the FBI about it, but they ignored it. (p. 37) He interviewed Roy Truly a manager of the Depository about the incident right after the shooting where he and policeman Marion Baker encountered Oswald on the second floor drinking a Coke. (p. 41) And he learned something odd during their talk: No one other than employees were allowed onto the sixth floor. (p. 42) But Barry did go to the second floor. Here he examines the lunchroom area around where Truly and Baker allegedly encountered Oswald. (p. 43) Here he begins a quite interesting discussion about how Baker could have seen Oswald through the window of the pneumatic door. He makes somewhat the same argument that Howard Roffman did in his excellent book <em>Presumed Guilty</em>. Truly said he saw no one as he proceeded up the stairs in front of Baker. (ibid) So a question now emerged: “If that door already was closed as Truly passed in advance of the policeman, why would Oswald stand stationary behind it until Baker appeared?” (ibid) For this is how Baker said he noticed Oswald, through the window of the door. The author comes to the same conclusion that others who had read Roffman: If one takes Baker at his word, Oswald had to have come up to the lunchroom from another set of stairs, a one flight stairway <em>from the first floor</em> for Baker to have seen him as he said he did. This bolstered Victoria Adams’ story for Barry. He tried to visit her on this trip but found out she had left for Chicago already. (p. 44)<br />
<br />
He then made a visit to Penn Jones In Midlothian, Texas. Jones, who had two sets, sold him the 26 volumes for $76.00. (p. 39) Penn introduced him to Roger Craig, and he also became involved with Harold Weisberg early on. Both Jones and Weisberg immediately see something in him and venture to tap his skills to assist them; Weisberg as a researcher, Jones to interview people who would not talk to him because he was too well known. He also knew David Lifton long before he came onto the scene with <em>Best Evidence</em>. This is all quite intriguing, although the portraits of these men are a bit sketchy and lacking in depth. Jones sends Barry to interview a couple of witnesses. But they seem quite scared and apprehensive. S. M. Holland agreed to meet with him, but brought two men with him since he felt he had been abused and taken advantage of in the past. (p. 53) He talks to <strong>Carolyn Walther, a witness who told the FBI she had seen two men, one with a rifle, in either the fourth or fifth floor southeast window that day. Yet she had not been called to testify by the Commission</strong>. (p. 54) But she told Barry that she also told the FBI that she had seen two black men below where the man with a rifle was. This would put the two men on the sixth floor, since the black employees were on the fifth floor. She kept this to herself at the time since she thought the two men were some kind of guards. <strong>She said that after the shooting she encountered an acquaintance, Abraham Zapruder, who told her Kennedy had been shot from the front and pointed to his forehead.</strong> (p. 55)<br />
<br />
Barry then visited the scene of policeman J. D. Tippit’s shooting. Here, he meets a witness that no agent of government had talked to, a <strong>Mrs. Higgins who lived nearby. She offered him some very important information. She had heard the shots and ran out her front door to see Tippit lying in the street. Barry asked her what time it was. She said it was 1:06.</strong> He asked her how she recalled that specific time. She said because she was watching TV and the announcer said it. So she automatically checked her clock when he said it and he was right. <strong>Barry concludes that it was not possible that Oswald could have traversed the distance from his apartment to the scene of Tippit’s murder in time to do the shooting</strong>. (p. 58) This is when she heard the shots. <strong>She also said she got a look at a man running form the scene with a handgun. When Barry asked her what he looked like she replied it was definitely not Oswald</strong>. (p. 59)<br />
Barry then timed the Commission’s story on how long it would take Oswald to get to the Texas Theater from 10<sup><span style="font-size: medium;">th</span></sup> and Patton, the Tippit murder scene. This, the Commission said, took 24 minutes. Yet it was shorter by a third than Oswald’s walk from his apartment to 10<sup><span style="font-size: medium;">th</span></sup> and Patton. Yet it took twice as long for Oswald to traverse? (ibid) <strong>The Commission says it took Oswald 24 minutes to walk that distance. It took Barry ten minutes.</strong><br />
<br />
When Barry got back to Pennsylvania he investigated a strange case near to his home, in Martinsburg. A woman named Margaret Hoover told agents she had discovered a discarded piece of paper in her back yard. On the paper were the handwritten words, “Lee Oswald” “Jack Ruby” “Rubenstein” and “Dallas, Texas”. The problem was that this discovery occurred not after the assassination but before. (p. 63) She had a brother who tipped off the FBI to this event. The woman told the Bureau that she had also found a railroad company ticket from Miami dated 9/25/63 to Washington. Both papers were found near where the trash was burned by a resident in her apartment house. This resident was Dr. Julio Fernandez, a Cuban refuge and a local junior high teacher. According to the FBI report, she furnished the FBI with the envelope and ticket stub, but not the scrap of paper with the names.<br />
<br />
When Barry tracked this story down, it turned out that Hoover showed the papers to her daughter and her daughter also recalled the name “Silver Bell” or “Silver Slipper.” But the FBI got the daughter to partially retract: she now said she only saw the names of Ruby and Dallas, and she was not quite sure of even that. When they interviewed Hernandez, he explained the ticket as being for his son to come north to see him from Miami. (p. 64)<br />
<br />
Barry wrote to Mrs. Hoover. He found out that the FBI had lied: the woman <em>had given</em> them the paper with the names on it. She also added that Fernandez had worked in Washington before moving to Pennsylvania. He had worked for the CIA after escaping Cuba post-Castro. (p. 65)<br />
<br />
He and Terry now decided to visit the National Archives to view the Zapruder film. Like everyone else they were shocked by what it depicted. But further, they were angered by the fact that the Commission had never mentioned the backward movement of Kennedy’s head and body, which was contrary to what would have happened if Oswald had shot the president from behind. Surely they had seen the film. Why did they ignore it? (p. 69)<br />
<br />
It was this event that evaporated any belief Barry maintained in the Commission. But it did something worse to Terry. The man who had first instigated Barry’s interest in that blind belief was now sapped and disgusted. He decided it was the end of the road for him. He gave up. Barry never heard from him after this trip.<br />
<br />
<center><strong>III</strong></center>At the National Archives, he located the November 24<sup><span style="font-size: medium;">th</span></sup> FBI report that Victoria Adams had given. It was remarkably consistent with her later one on March 23<sup><span style="font-size: medium;">rd</span></sup>. She said that she had immediately gone down the stairs with Styles after the shooting. And there was no mention of her seeing Shelley or Lovelady. (p. 75) <br />
Barry did some further digging into her testimony and statements. It turned out that the Dallas Police questioned her also. This was on February 17<sup><span style="font-size: medium;">th</span></sup>. Way after the FBI and Warren Commission had taken over control of the case from the DPD. In reading this statement, <strong>Barry discovered that it was this report that inserted Lovelady and Shelley into her story. It was written by none other than the avuncular, smiling Jim Leavelle, the man who accompanied Oswald out of police HQ to be killed by Jack Ruby</strong>. (p. 76) But further, Barry noticed that there was no questioning of the other three women who were watching the motorcade with Adams: Styles, Elsie Dorman, and Dorothy Garner. He thought this was odd since they could confirm if Adams left the window quickly, as she said she had.<br />
<br />
Barry also discovered something else that was odd. The FBI did time-reconstructions to simulate Oswald coming down the stairs. They also did one to simulate Truly and Baker coming up the stairs. But <strong>he could find none that tried to replicate Adams coming down the stairs. (p. 78) Even though they were keenly aware of the problem she posed to their verdict about Oswald.</strong> So much so that counselors Joe Ball and David Belin wrote a memo about this subject that ended: “We should pin down this time sequence of her running down the stairs.” But Barry could find no evidence that they did. (p. 79)<br />
<br />
At the Archives, Barry met Harold Weisberg. Weisberg asked him to do some work for him. He thought that people would be more eager to talk to someone like him, since he had a low profile. So when he visited Dallas again in August of 1968, he did so. He asked some questions of Sheriff Bill Decker. One of them was if he had kept any more than the 92 pages of files he gave to the Commission. Decker did not buy that one. That question ended the interview. (p. 83)<br />
<br />
Barry also got the opportunity to meet Roger Craig via Penn Jones. Craig wanted to meet Barry outside Dallas. And he did at his sister’s house. Once there Barry asked him about all the secrecy. <strong>Craig replied that his problems began in 1965</strong> when the first essays began to appear critical of the Commission. Many had his name in them. Then <strong>people wanted to talk to him, but Decker gave him strict orders not to talk to anyone.</strong> Then in July of 1967, Decker fired him. Then, in November of that year, <strong>there was an assassination attempt against him. (p. 93)</strong><br />
<br />
<strong>Craig went on to repeat the famous story of Oswald getting in a Rambler station wagon and escaping down Elm Street with a Latin looking fellow driving</strong>. Craig then said he saw Oswald at the station later and Fritz asked him about the car Craig saw him run off in. Oswald replied that the car belonged to Mrs. Paine and then exclaimed with disgust, “Everyone will know who I am now.” (p. 94) <strong>When Barry asked him if he was sure the man he saw entering the car was Oswald, Craig said yes he was</strong>. And he added that the Commission had altered his testimony in 14 separate instances. (p. 95) Craig added something quite interesting about the lawyer who examined him, David Belin:<br />
<blockquote>When Belin interrogated me... he would ask me certain questions and, whenever an important question would come up... he would have to know the answer beforehand, he would turn off the recorder and instruct the stenographer to stop taking notes. Then he would ask for the question, and if the answer satisfied him, he would turn the recorder back on, instruct the stenographer to start writing again, and he would ask me the same question, and I would answer it.<br />
However, while the recorder was off, if the answer did not satisfy him... he would turn the recorder back on and instruct the stenographer to start writing again and then he would ask me a completely different question.</blockquote>He then added that none of these interruptions were noted in the transcript as entered in the Warren Commission. (p. 95)<br />
<br />
On the way back from Craig’s sister’s house, the police stopped their car. The pretext was that the car had gone through a red light. When Barry insisted the light was green, the cop came around to the passenger window and asked him for his ID. Noting he was from out of state, he asked him what he was doing in Texas. Barry replied that he was visiting friends. The two policemen then went to the front of the car out of earshot. They returned and said they would let it go this time. Craig looked relieved. When Barry told the story to Penn Jones, Penn said that he was lucky Craig was with him. (p. 98)<br />
<br />
While in Dallas, Barry visited with newsman Wes Wise. He tells him a story about Ruby being in Dealey Plaza that Saturday before he shot Oswald. The reason he gave Wes was he wanted to see the wreath and flowers that were being laid there for Kennedy. But Wes expected a different reason. The county jail was nearby, which Oswald was going to be transferred to. But yet Garret Hallmark, a parking garage attendant said Ruby used his phone that day before proceeding to Dealey Plaza. He told the man on the other end that he had information the transfer would take place on Saturday, that afternoon. Garret got the impression that Ruby was looking for corroboration for that information. Ruby then said that because of all the people carrying flowers, the transfer could be delayed. (p. 101) Ruby’s odd Saturday activities were further described by policeman D. V. Harkness who saw Ruby at the entrance to the county jail that day. (p. 102) But when Harkness brought this interesting point up, Belin dropped it instantly. SOP for the Commission.<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><strong>IV</strong></center>On this trip, Barry tried to locate Adams. He searched various residences and left a message with Roy Truly, but nothing turned up. <br />
<br />
Adams had gone to college in California and attained a degree in Business Administration. She had graduated summa cum laude and gone into real estate. But one day in the library she came upon a set of Warren Commission volumes. She began to go over them very carefully this time. She recalled that a messenger had delivered her testimony to her at work and <strong>she was given the opportunity to make corrections. She did so. But now she saw they were not entered. (p. 106) She also noted that at the end of her appearance it said she waived her right to review her testimony. This was not so. And she noted that her own testimony had her actually talking to Shelley and Lovelady. But they were not on the first floor when she got there.</strong> (ibid) Further, she did not recall the Shelley/Lovelady stuff in the copy she had corrected in Dallas.<br />
<br />
Barry had enlisted in the Naval Reserve and had been overseas. When he returned it was after Garrison had lost the Clay Shaw trial. The critics were now divided against each other, e.g., Jones <strong>had accused Weisberg of being a CIA agent.</strong> (p. 128) America was withdrawing from Vietnam after losing the war. The movie <em>Jaws</em> was about to change Hollywood. And to top it off, Warren Commissioner Jerry Ford was now president. To the victors belong the spoils.<br />
Barry went back to college, got married, and had a son. One day he picked up Belin’s book defending the Warren Commission, <em>November 22, 1963: You are the Jury</em>. In leafing through it he saw that <strong>Belin used the testimony of Lovelady and Shelley to discredit Adams.</strong> This is the way it worked: Shelley and Lovelady had left the building and gone over to the railway yards about a block away. They then returned and said they saw Adams on the first floor. If this was accurate then the likelihood was that Adams came down the stairs later than she said, when Oswald would have been in the lunchroom already. (p. 129) Belin used these two men without referring to the fact that Lovelady seemed cued in advance. In fact, he spent three pages on the matter.<br />
<br />
Just when Barry thought the Kennedy case, and Victoria Adams, were now finis, something happened to change all that. In 1975, Geraldo Rivera showed the Zapruder film on national television. It caused a minor earthquake across the land. Now came the inquiries into CIA scandals by Representative Otis Pike and Senator Frank Church. With the exposure of the CIA–Mafia plots to kill Castro, and the writing of the Schweiker-Hart report about how poorly the Warren Commission and FBI performed their duties in the investigation of President Kennedy’s death, the time was ripe for a new investigation of the murder. Unfortunately, the House Select Committee on Assassinations was a disappointment. The author does a nice job briefly summarizing many of their shortcomings. Barry wrote them about Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles. He never got anything back. (p. 132)<br />
<br />
But now the nation was faced with two verdicts on the JFK case. The HSCA had concluded, however limply, that the murder was a result of a conspiracy. But now the critics were even more divided and scattered. Barry began to think that maybe Terry was right. It was time to quit.<br />
<br />
Victoria Adams had moved to Seattle. And she had become a successful businesswoman who was now listed in <em>Who’s Who of American Women</em> and <em>Who’s Who in the World</em>. Now she and her husband decided to travel the country back and forth in a five-wheel trailer. They did that for six years. (p. 142) She also wrote a newsletter called Principles in Action, a chronicle of what she saw and heard on her travels. She also wrote a cookbook called <em>No More than 4 Ingredients</em>. Ironically, she liked Pennsylvania so much, she and her husband stayed there for several months, near Harrisburg. Which is where Barry was living in 1991. Then Oliver Stone’s film <em>JFK</em> came out. This caused the creation of the Assassination Records Review Board. After a visit with Weisberg, Barry decided to look through some documents. (p. 145) He also began to read through the HSCA volumes. After reviewing them thoroughly, and summarizing their major findings for us, he notes that they never found and reinterviewed Adams. (p. 148)<br />
<br />
From here, the book slows down—takes a detour so to speak—as Barry now looks back at the work of the Warren Commission through the declassified Executive Sessions. Barry also now reviews some of the newly declassified medical evidence showing that there was a hole in the back of Kennedy’s head. He also tried to get in contact with Francis Adams, one of the Warren Commission senior counsel. Adams worked for about a month and then left. His duties were assumed totally by Arlen Specter. It was never clear as to why. And when Lee Rankin, the Commission executive director, was asked about Adams, he replied he should have fired him the first day. (p. 171) Further, there <strong>was nothing left behind to explain exactly why he left.</strong> Nothing until a quote about leaving showed up in 1966 that said that he was too busy at his law firm and that he had a “different concept of the investigation.” (p. 172) There was no reply to any of Barry’s queries to Adams. But when he died, Barry wrote his surviving wife. He got a call back form his daughter Joyce Adams. She first wanted to know if Barry had spoken to ‘Specter.’ She said the name like the late Jean Hill would intone it. Barry said he had not. Joyce laughed when she heard about the “too busy at the law firm” excuse. He would have never joined up if that were the case. <strong>She thought the real reasons was he did not like the way they were proceeding, “If he didn’t think it was being run properly, he would be the type to leave.”</strong> (p. 173)<br />
<br />
Barry then asked if her father had many notes, or writings or kept personal papers from his days with the Commission. Joyce quietly said that he had. They were kept in longhand. Barry asked to review the file. Joyce said this was in her sister Judith’s possession. She said she had to talk to her sister first and would get back to him after. She never did. It is unfortunate that this information was not turned over to the ARRB, for whatever was in those files would have been very important to discover.<br />
<br />
<center><strong>V</strong></center>In the nineties, <strong>Barry discovered a document from the Warren Commission that very much bolstered the Adams testimony. Addressed to Rankin, it summarized the corrections she wanted in her testimony—the ones that were not made</strong>. But it also helped explain why the Commission never talked to any of the possible corroborating witnesses who watched the motorcade with her. <strong>In the letter, the very last sentence says “Miss Garner, Miss Adams’ supervisor, stated this morning that after Miss Adams went downstairs she (Miss Garner) saw Mr. Truly and the policeman come up.” </strong>(p. 176) <br />
<br />
Obviously, <strong>if they had come up after, then Adams had left when she said she did. </strong>Barry notes that he felt like someone had punched him in the gut when he read this. The date of the letter was June 2, 1964. But <strong>even with this in their hands, the Commission went ahead and did all they could to discredit Adams</strong>. They wrote “...she actually came down the stairs several minutes after Oswald and after Truly and Baker as well.” (ibid) This was written in spite of the fact they had this new evidence in their hands saying the opposite. And this is why the Commission never formally deposed the three corroborating witnesses.<br />
<br />
When the author showed this letter from Marcia Joe Stroud, the Dallas US Attorney, to Weisberg, Harold told him to write a book about Adams. The author then makes one more try to find Adams or her corroborating witnesses. He visits Dallas and talks to Gary Mack, who Harold referred him to. Mack says he cannot help him.<br />
<br />
It was not until 2002, when his son convinced him to buy a computer to type his book, that he found Adams via email. What follows, in Chapters 27 through 29, is a fascinating, long interview with Adams, now aged 61. She goes over her experience that day in full detail: arriving at work, waiting for the motorcade, running down the stairs, seeing Ruby in suit and hat talking to people like a reporter, etc. This interview is really the high point of the book. What it reveals about Leavelle, the Dallas Police, and David Belin is powerful stuff. <strong>Adams concludes that Oswald could not have been on those stairs. He was not on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, he was on a lower floor.</strong> (p. 211)<br />
Beginning to master the Internet, <strong>Barry then finds Sandra Styles. (p. 217) She confirms Adams. She says the two left the window when Secret Service agent Clint Hill jumped on the back of the car. </strong>(p. 218) And she said she <strong>neither saw nor heard anyone on the stairs on the way down. And she did not recall Lovelady or Shelley on the ground floor when they got there either.</strong> (p. 219) (Editor's <strong>bold</strong> emphasis throughout) Styles said the only interview she gave was to the FBI and it was not in depth or probing.<br />
<br />
The book ends on a sad note. Adams died of cancer in 2007 at the rather young age of 66. We are lucky that Barry found her before she passed.Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-57579105675969970882011-04-26T09:05:00.000-07:002011-04-26T09:10:41.361-07:00TSBD 6th Floor Museum Denies Possession of Large Format LIFE Magazine (Zapruder) Transparencies<dt class="entry-title"><a class="subj-link" href="http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/5665.html"><strong>Where Are the Large Format LIFE Magazine Transparencies of the Zapruder Film?</strong></a><strong> </strong></dt><br />
<br />
<dd class="entry-text"><br />
<dl class="vcard author"><dt><img alt="" class=" ContextualPopup" height="100" src="http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/109875704/23853509" title="" up_url="http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/109875704/23853509" width="66" /> </dt>
<dt>Douglas P. Horne</dt>
<dt> </dt>
<dt><span class="ljuser ljuser-name_" lj:user="insidethearrb" style="white-space: nowrap;"><strong>Inside</strong> <strong>the ARRB</strong></span></dt>
<dt><abbr class="updated" title="2011-04-09T13:17:00+03:00">April 9th, 13:17</abbr> </dt>
</dl><div class="entry-content">SUMMARY: In April of 1997 I personally located the large format LIFE magazine transparencies of individual Zapruder film frames---the transparencies that had featured so prominently in Josiah Thompson's 1967 book "Six Seconds in Dallas"---in the office of attorney Jamie Silverberg, who at that time was representing the film's owners, the LMH Company. At the time I was a Senior Analyst on the ARRB staff, and was conducting an official ARRB examination of the LMH company's holdings. On December 30, 1999 the LMH Company transferred both the copyright to the Zapruder film, and reportedly, all of its film holdings, to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. (After obtaining a windfall profit of 16 million dollars, plus interest, from the U.S. government---in just compensation for the taking of the film by the Review Board---the LMH company had decided it was time to get rid of the troublesome political albatross around its neck.) </div></dd><dd class="entry-text"><div class="entry-content"></div></dd><dd class="entry-text"><div class="entry-content"></div></dd><dd class="entry-text"><div class="entry-content"></div></dd><dd class="entry-text"><div class="entry-content"></div></dd><dd class="entry-text"><div class="entry-content">On January 26, 2000 the Dallas Morning News published an article about the LMH Company's donation to the Museum, which indicated all of the associated film items had been physically transferred to the museum "nine days ago," and which further stated: "Gary Mack, the Museum's Archivist, was all but whistling Tuesday as he examined what may be the gem of the bunch---oversized transparencies of each Zapruder film frame believed to have been made in 1963 or 1964." It seems reasonable to conclude that this statement by the article's author can only have referred to the same LIFE magazine transparencies which I had discovered in the office of Jamie Silverberg on April 10, 1997. In November of 2010, in response to a question about the whereabouts of the LIFE magazine transparencies made by a visiting researcher, Megan Bryant---the Sixth Floor Museum's Director of Collections and Intellectual Property---said that the Museum did NOT POSSESS the LIFE magazine transparencies. When she was asked a follow-on question by the same person about the January 2000 article in the Dallas Morning News, she stated that the article had been in error. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? I present the details of this mystery below. <a href="http://more.../">Read it ALL...</a></div></dd>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-37501928258080116872011-04-23T16:39:00.000-07:002011-04-24T15:31:43.369-07:00We Need Jesse Ventura for President in 2012<span style="font-family: inherit;">By: Dr. J. P. Hubert, concerned citizen</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It really would be great if Jesse Ventura were willing to run for President on the Independent ticket in 2012. With his widespread fame and recognition including all the work he has done on US conspiracies, his broad background as a Navy Seal, Professional Wrestler, Politician, Actor, College Lecturer and Radio Host, he is probably the only person who could attract the interest as well as political and financial support necessary to mount a serious challenge to President Obama and the Republican nominee. He would also be able to qualify for inclusion at major Presidential debate venues. This would allow him to bring the truth to tens of millions of Americans simultaneously. His message would be impossible to ignore.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Recall that in 1992 Ross Perot ran and managed to get 20% of the popular vote. Much of what he had to say about NAFTA, the loss of US manufacturing jobs, the national debt and budget deficit problems became a reality. Both Clinton and G H W Bush were wrong on all those issues. Even though Perot lost, his presence helped our country stave-off the plans of Plutocrats and Globalist unfair traders for awhile. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Governor Ventura has the ability to present complex issues </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">in an understandable way especially our many national conspiracies since the creation of the CIA, DIA, NSA etc after WW II. Without that as a backdrop for our next Presidential election, we cannot expect anything significant to change. Americans must be made to understand and accept what has truly happened to this country over the past 48 years. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">As the late Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty has written, since the murder of President John F. Kennedy, the country has been taken-over by a powerful Cabal, an Oligarchy of the Super-Rich, a virtual Plutocracy which now controls both major US political parties and the so-called main stream media. In a very real sense, since the coup-de-tat of November 22, 1963, the representative, constitutional democratic republic brought into being by our founder's has ceased to exist. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Even if Jesse Ventura lost the election, he might be able to mobilize enough Americans to alter the current (terminal) trajectory we find ourselves on. The situation is truly grave. We do not have a great deal of time to salvage the nation. Please visit Jesse Ventura's new web site </span><a href="http://weaintgottimetobleed.com/"><span style="font-family: inherit;">We Ain't Got Time to Bleed</span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> and ask/beg him to consider running for President. He is a patriot of the highest order a man who possesses the courage to speak truth to power. We desperately need him now like we never have before. </span><br />
<br />
Please pass the word.</div>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-66304136239266145402011-04-23T07:56:00.000-07:002011-04-23T07:58:25.632-07:00Jim Fetzer Interviewed Jesse Ventura on The Real DealOn April 4, 2011, Jim Fetzer interviewed former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura on <a href="http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2011-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2012-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=45">Fetzer's Real Deal radio program</a>. Ventura has written a new book with Dick Russell entitled: <br />
<br />
<em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Documents-Government-Doesnt-Want-Read/dp/1616082267/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303570099&sr=1-1-fkmr1">63 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You to Read</a></em><br />
<br />
Based on Fetzer's interview I have ordered several copies of Governor Ventura's book. I will be providing more posts subsequent to reading it.<br />
<br />
I recommend that readers obtain copies of his other book as a companion:<br />
<br />
<span id="btAsinTitle"><em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/American-Conspiracies-Dirty-Government-Tells/dp/160239802X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1303570099&sr=1-1">American Conspiracies: Lies, Lies, and More Dirty Lies that the Government Tells Us</a></em></span><br />
<br />
Governor Ventura is to be commended for having the courage, insight and motivation necessary to help Americans understand what has been transpiring in the United States since November 22, 1963.<br />
<br />
Thank you Jesse Ventura and keep up the excellent work!Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-34448022308293217572011-04-22T08:06:00.000-07:002011-04-22T08:20:36.674-07:00Jesse Ventura Says Lee Harvey Oswald was to be Killed in the Texas Theatre<span class="Apple-style-span"><strong style="background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><em>Jesse Ventura, the former Governor of Minnesota has told Alex Jones that he believes Lee Harvey Oswald was to be killed in the Texas Theatre in Dallas Texas the day President John F. Kennedy was murdered. Here is a partial transcript:</em></strong></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><strong style="background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Jesse Ventura:</strong> Yep, we talked to Jim right in the theatre and Jim will reveal stuff tonight that’s very interesting, extremely interesting. Well, here’s one interesting thing you got, Alex; food for thought of common sense. Now you’ve just had the murder of the president, little while away you have a murder of a police officer on the street. Now the only phone call made was that someone went into the movie theatre and didn’t buy a ticket. Now if that happened in that sequence of order: the murder of the president, a half hour later the murder of a police officer, and a half hour later somebody doesn’t buy a ticket to go into a theatre. How come nearly 20 cops in 8 or 9 squad cars arrive to arrest a guy who didn’t buy a ticket to the theatre?</span><br />
<br />
<div id="main-wrapper"><div class="main section" id="main"><div class="widget Blog" id="Blog1"><div class="blog-posts hfeed"><div class="date-outer"><div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-body entry-content">Alex Jones: Well, normally, specially in 1963, they would just send in the theatre manager to throw you out or demand you buy a ticket.<br />
<br />
Jesse Ventura: Well, not only that, but as a police dispatcher, you got the president murdered out there, you got a police officer shot dead on the street. You’re going to dispatch 20 cops to a movie theatre?<br />
<br />
Alex Jones: It shows it was all staged.<br />
<br />
<strong></strong>Jesse Ventura: <span class="Apple-style-span">It was all staged.<strong> </strong>I believe that<strong> Oswald was supposed to die in the theatre, and I think that’s where the screw up came up. That they were going to get him and kill him there for resisting arrest.</strong> And that way they’d do him in there. But something went afoul, I believe, and they had to then take him into custody and then, of course, they then had to get Ruby to kill him. By the way, there’s a phenomenal new book on it out, Alex, I don’t know if you know about it. Have you heard of Judyth Vary Baker?</span></div><div class="post-body entry-content" style="background-clip: initial; background-color: transparent; background-origin: initial; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-top-width: 0px; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, "Bitstream Charter", serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0px 0px 24px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span class="Apple-style-span"> <a href="http://judythbaker.blogspot.com/2011/04/jesse-ventura-speaks-on-me-lee-how-i.html">MORE</a>...</span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-69982936516153621732011-04-21T16:10:00.000-07:002011-05-01T15:24:33.945-07:00Judyth Vary Baker Defends Herself Against Attack by Stephen Roy<span style="font-size: 14pt;">By: Dr. J. P. Hubert</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Judyth Vary Baker has penned <a href="http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/04/david-ferrie-why-he-is-important-in.html#comment-form">a spirited defense of her position in response to disparaging remarks by Stephen Roy at Jim Fetzer's site</a>. (Roy is otherwise known as David Blackburstat). Roy alleges that what Ms. Baker has reported with respect to David Ferrie in her book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=lee+and+me&tag=googhydr-20&index=stripbooks&hvadid=7076374031&ref=pd_sl_97ajqsl6t9_b"><em>Lee and Me:</em> <em>How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald,</em> Trineday, 2010</a> is false. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Let me simply say that I believe in the veracity of Judyth Vary Baker. I spent weeks studying her book <i>Me and Lee </i>and was unable to disprove anything she has written. </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">I believe that Judyth Vary Baker has presented more than enough supporting evidence to establish that she is in fact the high school cancer research “phenom” from </span><place><city><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Bradenton</span></city><span style="font-size: 14pt;">, </span><state><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Florida</span></state></place><span style="font-size: 14pt;">; that she had a romantic relationship with Lee Oswald and that the two worked together at the Reily Coffee Company in </span><place><city><span style="font-size: 14pt;">New Orleans</span></city><span style="font-size: 14pt;">, </span><state><span style="font-size: 14pt;">La.</span></state></place><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> during the summer of 1963.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">I believe that Ms. Baker has established beyond reasonable doubt (BRD) that she was engaged in a clandestine program with Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, Dr. Alton Ochsner and Lee Oswald that summer to develop what she was told was a cancer causing bio-weapon intended for the murder of Fidel Castro. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">I believe on the basis of the evidence Ms. Baker presented as well as all the other relevant evidence now extant that Lee Oswald did not actually shoot at or kill President Kennedy and likely attempted to stop an earlier assassination attempt on the President’s life which had been planned for </span><city><place><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Chicago</span></place></city><span style="font-size: 14pt;">. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">The only thing that Ms. Baker has written in her book that in my opinion has not yet been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt is her claim that Oswald actually tried to stop the assassination of President Kennedy from within </span><place><placename><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Dealey</span></placename><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><placetype><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Plaza</span></placetype></place><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> on </span><date day="22" month="11" year="1963"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">November 22, 1963</span></date><span style="font-size: 14pt;">. She has said that Lee Oswald told her that an "abort team" was going to attempt to stop the assassination and that he was going to join them in their efforts. If such a "team" existed it would be important to find another witness who can corroborate it if at all possible. That is not to say I doubt Ms Baker's claim, because for Oswald to have cooperated with an "abort team" would be very compatible with all the other evidence now available about Mr. Oswald. Unfortunately, it is possible that Lee Oswald was lied to about an abort team in an attempt to keep him in position as the "patsy."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><br />
</span><span style="font-size: 14pt;">My only point is that in order to prove (BRD) that Lee Oswald tried to abort the </span><place><placename><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Dealey</span></placename><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> </span><placetype><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Plaza</span></placetype></place><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> carnage, more supporting evidence is needed. I strongly suspect that even at this late date such evidence may be available. Ms. Baker may actually have access to this evidence while not consciously being aware of it or may be able to help find it. It is very important from the perspective of correcting American history and for the purpose of removing the scandal associated with his name and the shame felt for so many years by his daughters and other family members that such evidence is presented if at all possible. At the very least, the US government owes the family a profound apology for the way Mr. Oswald's reputation was sullied. It may even turn out that he was an unrecognized albeit unsuccessful hero on November 22, 1963.</span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">It is unfortunate that there are those who continue in their attempts to heap scorn on Ms Baker. Mr. Stephen Roy <span style="color: black;"> </span>is one such individual who has contested what she has written about David Ferrie in her book <em>Me and Lee, </em>among other things. As already mentioned, Ms. Baker has done a superb job defending herself against </span><city><place><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Roy</span></place></city><span style="font-size: 14pt;">’s attempts to discredit her in a piece at Jim Fetzer’s site. To review it click the link above.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 14pt;">Powerful forces appear to exist that do not want the truth to come out about who murdered JFK and who is responsible for maintaining the cover-up all these years. There is ample evidence that establish the extent to which the professional media have been placed at the service of the </span><country-region><place><span style="font-size: 14pt;">US</span></place></country-region><span style="font-size: 14pt;"> intelligence community. Interested readers should investigate the details of <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird">Operation Mockingbird</a></em>. No doubt some of these have been assigned to the task of undermining Ms Baker's credibility, either directly or through surrogates. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">If James W. Douglass, former Governor Jesse Ventura and others are correct that at least 2 Oswald’s existed, it would be nice to know which one Ms. Baker thinks she had the romantic relationship with. While not certain, I don’t believe she discussed this issue directly in her book. I suspect (because of other data I have reviewed) that she may not believe more than one Oswald existed despite the evidence which seems to strongly suggest it. I have not yet been able to resolve this problem myself. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">For what it's worth and as an aside, those who believe there were at least 2 Oswald’s claim that a man named Harvey Oswald was the faux defector (an actual US intelligence agent) to the Soviet Union, the one that married Marina (Russian born <span style="font-size: x-small;">Marina Nikolayevna Prusakova),</span> and was the one killed by Jack Ruby two days after the Assassination. That would seem to suggest that it was “Harvey” who Ms. Baker knew. Yet, she seems certain that the man she had a relationship with was called “Lee.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This part of the Oswald story remains very confusing. It would be great to settle that issue once and for all.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div align="left"></div>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-15673906901255190192011-04-08T07:58:00.000-07:002011-04-12T16:57:10.516-07:00David W. Mantik's Review of "Hear No Evil" Now Available at CTKA<h2 align="center"><span style="font-size: small;"><strong>Hear No Evil: Social Constructivism and the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination</strong><br />
<strong>by Donald Byron Thomas</strong></span></h2><h3 align="center"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_580396288">A Comprehensive Review: Part One</a></span></h3><h3 align="center"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.ctka.net/reviews/mantik_thomas_review_pt1.html">by David Mantik</a></span></h3><div align="center"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><strong>Editor's NOTE:</strong></div><div align="center"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">Mantik's review is an extremely scholarly treatment of Donald B. Thomas' book which from my perspective settles beyond reasonable doubt that the so-called dictabelt audio tape evidence in the JFK Assassination case is too weak/adulterated to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn with respect to what happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. It should no longer be utilized by JFK Assassination Conspiracy researchers in making their case. There is a virtual plethora of other evidence which establishes to a metaphysical degree of certainty that President Kennedy was murdered by a high cabal of powerful interests which also successfully put in place a complex and still existent cover-up. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">There are other interesting observations which Dr. Mantik makes in his lengthy review which are worthy of note and which make a complete reading of his essay mandatory for serious JFK Assassination Conspiracy researcher's.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">--Dr. J. P. Hubert </div>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-24681812379869990092011-03-25T07:30:00.000-07:002011-04-26T08:54:48.065-07:00DID ZAPRUDER FILM “THE ZAPRUDER FILM”?<div class="date-posts"><div class="post-outer"><div class="post hentry"><div class="post-body entry-content"><strong>Editor's NOTE:</strong><br />
<br />
Jim Fetzer forwarded a link to the following piece which I strongly encourage readers to peruse. It addresses several new questions about the "Zapruder Film" which I find fascinating including whether: <br />
<br />
--First, even if the <em>Z-film</em> was a complete and totally accurate depiction of events in Dallas Texas on November 22, 1963, should it have been legally possible to obtain a personal copyright for it? <br />
<br />
--In Fetzer's words; "The second is that if the film has been altered and is no longer an accurate film of an historical event, especially when is marketed as genuine, does it deserve copyright protection?" <br />
<br />
Fetzer and Pincer argue in the negative on both accounts.<br />
<br />
The interested reader will find a good dose of other very interesting information in the article including a detailed algorithmic presentation of how to determine Zapruder Film Fakery. <br />
<br />
For those who are not familiar with the latest thinking re: the <em>Z-film,</em> Dr. Fetzer is saying that while Abraham Zapruder did take a film of the JFK motorcade in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, the original "out of camera" film has been so completely reworked and altered by the conspirators that it no longer bears any resemblance to what actually occurred that fateful day in several crucial respects. <br />
--Dr. J. P. Hubert<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>DID ZAPRUDER FILM “THE ZAPRUDER FILM”?</strong><br />
<br />
Jim Fetzer (with Mike Pincher)<br />
Tuesday, March 22, 2011<br />
<br />
At first consideration, the question sounds very odd on its face. How could Zapruder have not taken “the Zapruder film”? So here is some background. As many readers may be aware, I organized a JFK research group in 1992 of the most highly-qualified persons to ever study the case, including a world authority on the human brain, who was also an expert on wound ballistics; a Ph.D. in physics who was also an M.D. and board-qualified in radiation oncology; another M.D. who had been present in Trauma Room #1 when JFK was brought in for care and, two days later, was responsible for the treatment of his alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, in Trauma Room #2; a legendary photo-analyst, who had testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and later advised Oliver Stone on the production of "JFK"; and another Ph.D. in physics, this time with a specialization in electromagnetism, which includes the properties of light and of optics and images of moving objects. <br />
<br />
We discovered that the autopsy X-rays had been altered to conceal a massive blow-out at the back of the head; that another person's brain shown in diagrams and photographs at the National Archives had been substituted for that of JFK; and that the most famous footage in history, the Zapruder film, had been recreated by the removal of some frames and by the introduction of others, using the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects applied to original footage to create a new film. I organized and moderated the first symposium on the authenticity of the film in Dallas in 1996 and would subsequently organize and moderate a conference on this subject in Duluth in 2003. (The conference is now available on YouTube in 66 segments, under the heading, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSghy2TkIY">“Zapruder Fakery”</a>.) Later that year, I would publish my third collection of studies by experts on different aspects of the case, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_sq_top?ie=UTF8&keywords=the%20great%20zapruder%20film%20hoax%202003&index=blended&pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=081269547X&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=13RKBWC571YPYW5THAVT">THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003),</a> one of the greatest photographic scams of history.<span style="font-size: small;"> </span><a href="http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-zapruder-film-zapruder-film.html"><span style="font-size: small;">MORE...</span></a><br />
<br />
For additional related information<a href="http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/whos-telling-truth-clint-hill-or.html"> see THIS...</a></div></div></div></div>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-7318392976613787742011-01-21T12:56:00.000-08:002011-01-21T12:56:46.587-08:00US government official: JFK cover-up, film fabricationBy Jim Fetzer<br />
<br />
<i>Online Journal</i> Guest Writer<br />
Apr 7, 2010<br />
<br />
MADISON, Wisconsin -- Douglas Horne, who served as the Senior Analyst for Military Affairs of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), has now published INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), a five-volume study of the efforts of the board to declassify documents and records held by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other government organizations related to the assassination of JFK.<br />
<br />
As a former government official, historian, and author, he is speaking out to disabuse the public of any lingering belief that THE WARREN REPORT (1964), THE HSCA FINAL REPORT (1979), Gerald Posner’s CASE CLOSED (1963), or Vincent Bugliosi’s RECLAIMING HISTORY (2007) represent the truth about what is known about the assassination of our 35th president, even remotely! Indeed, in relation to a new article, <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Birds-of-a-Feather-Subver-by-Jim-Fetzer-100121-980.html">“Birds of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Law”,</a> Horne has made a forceful declaration to set the record straight:<br />
<br />
<em><span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong>"I know, from my former role as a government official on the staff of the ARRB (from 1995-1998), that there is overwhelming evidence of a government-directed medical cover-up in the death of JFK, and of wholesale destruction of autopsy photographs, autopsy x-rays, early versions of the autopsy report, and biological materials associated with the autopsy. Furthermore, dishonest autopsy photographs were created; skull x-rays were altered; the contents of the autopsy report changed over time as different versions were produced; and the brain photographs in the National Archives cannot be photographs of President Kennedy’s brain -- they are fraudulent, substitute images of someone else’s brain."</strong></span></em><br />
<strong><br />
</strong><br />
Over and beyond the medical evidence, however, Horne -- in Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), has also demonstrated that <strong>the home movie of the assassination known as “the Zapruder film” -- and others that correspond to it, such as the Nix and Muchmore films -- have been massively edited to remove indications of Secret Service complicity in the crime and to add other events to these films in order to sow confusion and conceal evidence of the true causes of death of John F. Kennedy</strong>. <br />
<br />
There are many proofs that the film has been fabricated—including that the driver brought the limo to a halt to make sure he would be killed; that his brains were blown out to the left-rear; and that a motorcycle patrolman accompanying the limo rode forward at the time of the stop to inform Dallas Chief of Police Jessie Curry that the president had been hit. But none of these events appears in the extant version of the film, which has been massively edited. That these events occurred has been established by more than 60 witness reports of the limo stop, where the wound to the back of his head was confirmed by 40 witnesses, including virtually all the physicians at Parkland Hospital, who described cerebellum as well as cerebral tissue extruding from the wound. <strong>The blow-out to the right-front, as seen in the film, therefore, is not authentic.</strong><br />
<strong><br />
</strong><br />
Indeed, in an appendix to Vol. IV, Horne explains that<strong> a copy of the film has now been studied by Hollywood exerts, who found that the blow-out to the back of his head had been painted over in black in an amateurish effort to obfuscate the blow out, which can actually be seen in a few later frames, including 372 and 374</strong>. (Editor's bold Emphasis) Those who have persisted in defense of the authenticity of the film have offered three major arguments -- (1) that the features of the extant film correspond to those of the original processed in Dallas, (2) that there was an unbroken chain of custody, which precluded the film be changed; and (3) that the Dealey Plaza films are not only consistent with themselves but with one another, where the Zapruder could only have been faked if the others had been as well.<br />
<br />
The following extracts from INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), Vol. IV, demonstrate that all three arguments are fallacious: (1) there are five features of the extant film that differ from those of the original and (2) that different films were brought to the NPIC on consecutive days, which vitiates the chain-of-custody argument. The consistency of the films with one another (3) turns out to be an interesting question, since they all seem to have been edited to remove the turn of the presidential limousine from Houston onto Elm. More significantly, there are subtle inconsistencies between the films and, most importantly, the Zapruder film is not even consistent with itself, which proves that it cannot possibly be authentic! Horne’s new studies thus confirm the previous research that has previously been reported in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), “New Proof of JFK Film Fakery” (2007), and “Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid” (2008), where these two articles are on-line. <a href="http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml">MORE...</a>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-7742267815717638472011-01-21T11:52:00.000-08:002011-01-21T12:07:05.998-08:00Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?<b><em>Agent’s reports contradict JFK film, autopsy X-rays and other crucial photographs</em></b><br />
<b><br />
</b>Jim Fetzer <br />
Wednesday, January 12, 2011<br />
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdElI0wW1VdzkT3N7qNVAtE9E8YpnM9Yg-DbA0ypdnNrK-a_p8dIrG1Z6-CMIE9c1eYO4hvzZa5ELJuG8VDUfGzBl7Es_5r4rkEQxOEFYjxYHYw96mpeM_smwXrZzWlv9kz7Hh7DEdsbkD/s1600/Dealey+Plaza+Picture+JFK+Motorcade.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdElI0wW1VdzkT3N7qNVAtE9E8YpnM9Yg-DbA0ypdnNrK-a_p8dIrG1Z6-CMIE9c1eYO4hvzZa5ELJuG8VDUfGzBl7Es_5r4rkEQxOEFYjxYHYw96mpeM_smwXrZzWlv9kz7Hh7DEdsbkD/s320/Dealey+Plaza+Picture+JFK+Motorcade.jpg" width="420" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<em>“In the midst of the mayhem the agents were calm, but ready to react in a millisecond if anything got out of hand.”</em><br />
<br />
—Jerry Blaine, THE KENNEDY DETAIL<br />
<br />
<br />
According to Jerry Blaine, the author of THE KENNEDY DETAIL (2010), his purpose in writing this book was “to set history straight, to leave a book for [his] grandchildren that they could read and know the truth beyond any measure of doubt.” What Blaine has actually done, however, moves us further toward the truth by revealing that the words of Clint Hill, the only agent to respond during the assassination, contradict his actions as shown in the Zapruder film, in which his efforts to protect Jackie Kennedy are among its most indelible features. They also impeach autopsy X-rays and other photographs. We therefore have in Clint Hill’s own words stunning new proof that the extant film has been faked. The book—and presentations to promote it—thus contributes to “setting history straight”, but not in the sense its author intended. <a href="http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/whos-telling-truth-clint-hill-or.html">MORE...</a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<i></i>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-68202416346828802212011-01-19T13:00:00.000-08:002011-01-19T13:10:51.373-08:00FBI Agent Adams Says Oswald Not Guilty<a href="http://oswald-not-guilty.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-will-you-do-when-bootjacks-come.html">Judyth Vary Baker's Site</a> posted the following video. To read her comments click on the link.<br /><br /><object width="550" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Go0EmDeu5DY&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Go0EmDeu5DY&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="550" height="390"></embed></object>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-71762357760525473942010-12-25T08:44:00.000-08:002011-04-12T17:03:56.519-07:00Early Interview of Abraham Zapruder:<strong>Editor's Comment:</strong><br />
<br />
In the video below Zapruder claims he saw JFK slump to the left after the first shot. He says nothing about the famous "throat-clutching" response that Zapruder documented during his filming. Why not? The <em>throat clutching</em> according to the extant Zapruder film<em> </em>happened immediately after the first shot and before JFK ever slumped left. One would think that Zapruder should have mentioned it but he didn't.<br />
<br />
Zapruder then says he heard one or two more shots and saw the right front of JFK's head explode. This of course is totally incompatible with what the Parkland Hospital physicians documented only several minutes later and what witnesses reported on the scene.<br />
<br />
It is clear that at the time of this very early interview, Zapruder was already parroting what would become the official story about a head shot from behind only--that exploded the right side and front of JFK's head.<br />
<br />
I cannot help but wonder if (as other researchers have hypothesized) Zapruder was an intelligence <em>cut-out</em> directed to film the assassination. It strains credulity to think that an amateur photographer who was nothing more than an interested bystander could have continued to film the assassination without interuption when everyone around him was either falling to the ground or running away. An opposing view is that of author Noel Twyman (Bloody Treason), who in his book contends that Zapruder was not involved in the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. I find this extremely difficult to believe.<br />
<br />
It would be good if someone can produce the exact time that the interview below was conducted. I assume it was sometime Friday afternoon November 22, 1963.<br />
<br />
--Dr. J. P. Hubert<br />
<br />
<object height="390" width="550"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TpicOfFajNE&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TpicOfFajNE&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="550" height="390"></embed></object>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-55561396668210330552010-12-19T14:02:00.000-08:002010-12-21T06:43:04.146-08:00Hollywood Actors To Be Part of JFK Assassination Myths<strong>Forrest <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Gump</span> on the Grassy Knoll: </strong><br /><em><strong>Weather Advisories for Tom Hanks and Leonardo DiCaprio</strong></em><br /><em></em><br />by Jim <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Fetzer</span><br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Lewrockwell</span>.com<br />December 17, 2010<br /><br />As a huge fan of actor Tom Hanks, I have admired him in many roles, including Charlie Wilson’s War and Saving Private Ryan. I am also a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio, who became a worldwide phenomenon in Titanic. But I was distressed and dismayed to learn that they had committed to films about the death of JFK – in Tom’s case, one based on Vincent <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Bugliosi</span>’s <em>Reclaiming History</em> (2008), and in Leonardo’s, based on Lamar <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Waldron</span> and Thom <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">Hartmann</span>’s <em>Legacy of Secrecy</em> (2008) – which are indefensible books. According to <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">Bugliosi</span>, the Warren commission got it right: Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed "the lone assassin," where he claims to have refuted alternative "conspiracy theories." According to <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">Waldron</span> and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">Hartmann</span>, JFK was planning to assassinate Fidel, when the mob learned of the plan and took JFK out first, using its insider’s knowledge of the plot against Fidel to silence Bobby and preclude his pursuit of the guilty. The problem is that both theories are false.<br /><br />Not only am I a fan of these actors but I have met Vincent <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">Bugliosi</span>. In my library downstairs, for example, I have a framed photo of Jesse <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">Ventura</span>, Vince and me at dinner in a restaurant in Minneapolis, when he came to present a lecture at the Hamlin University School of Law on 7 April 2003. We had a great time, and I admire many of his books, from <em><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">Helter</span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error">Skelter</span></em> (about the Charles Manson case) and <em>Outrage</em> (why O.J. Simpson was guilty of killing both Ron and Nicole) to <em>The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder</em> (for war crimes and other atrocities). I like most of his books and have greatly admired him in the past. Similarly, I enjoy listening to Thom <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-error">Hartmann</span> over our local progressive radio station, "The Mic" at 92.1 FM in Madison, including his "Brunch with Bernie" Friday segments. I share many beliefs and values with Vince and with Thom about truth, justice and the American way. But on JFK, they are trading in fiction, not fact. <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer2.1.1.html">MORE...</a><br /><br /><strong>Editor's NOTE:</strong><br /><br />What Professor <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">Fetzer</span> reports is not surprising although very disappointing. In the early 1950's a CIA program named <strong><em>Operation Mockingbird</em></strong> was instituted in which a major attempt was made to control American media. Since then, the defense/intelligence community has exerted tremendous influence over the broadcast and print media as well as the Motion Picture Industry. The only major film to present anything near what actually transpired <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-error">vis</span> a <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error">vis</span> the JFK Assassination was Oliver Stone's "JFK." Apparently numerous intelligence community attempts to influence the script were unsuccessful in large part.<br /><br />Those who have taken it upon themselves to protect the conspirators can be counted upon to help produce anything but the truth. For whatever reason, Vincent <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-error">Bugliosi</span> and Gerald <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-error">Pozner</span> have written books which are clearly meant to support the conclusions of the now discredited Warren Commission despite the fact that the more recent HSCA determined that the JFK Assassination was most likely the result of a conspiracy.<br /><br />Bugliosi and Pozner are clearly too intelligent to have been duped on such a massive scale. Logic dictates that they have taken on the role of intelligence directed contract agents whose main purpose is to create confusion through the publishing of disinformation. In the case of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-error">Hartmann</span> and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" class="blsp-spelling-error">Waldron</span>, it may simply be a case of being poorly informed--time will tell.<br /><br />In any case, the presenting of many diverse and false scenario's has the effect of making it appear that the truth can never be known which of course benefits those who defend the conspirators and the agencies and individuals they protect.<br /><br />--Dr. J. P. HubertDr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-59014849952390061172010-12-15T16:54:00.000-08:002010-12-18T09:00:10.932-08:00Mark Lane's Historic Interview of SSA Abraham BoldenVideo Courtesy of Vince Palamara's site <a href="http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html">HERE...</a><br /><br /><object width="550" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/px-7IRJpMZE&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/px-7IRJpMZE&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="550" height="390"></embed></object><br /><br /><strong>Bombshell:</strong><br /><br /><strong>Abraham Bolden reports that several of the agents who were in the JFK follow up car in Dallas had told him that if someone tried to shoot President Kennedy they would let it happen without "lifting a finger."</strong> None of the SS agents in the follow up car or the two in the Kennedy limousine did anything to help Kennedy. In fact SSA Greer the limousine driver came to a virtual stop after the first shots were fired. This constitutes even more proof that the secret service intentionally "stood-down" in Dallas leaving President Kennedy completely unprotected. Worse yet, after the fact, not one agent was in any way reprimanded/sanctioned which is simply ludicrous given that the secret service failed in its only responsibility--to protect the life of the President of the United States. At the very least, Congress in its constitutionally mandated oversight role should have investigated the secret service and its unprecedented failure which would have brought to light the many breaks in protocol that occured.<br /><br />--Dr. J. P. HubertDr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-75499508128348905882010-12-15T07:16:00.000-08:002010-12-15T17:39:05.554-08:00The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Review of "The Kennedy Detail", a Compelling but Dangerous Mix of Fact, Faction, and Fiction<strong>A Book Review of <em>The Kennedy Detail, </em>Published in 2010 </strong><br /><strong><br /></strong>by Vince Palamara<br />Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination (CTKA)<br /><br />Although very well written, along with some nice photographs, as well, <em>The Kennedy Detail</em> is really a thinly veiled attempt to rewrite history (a la Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi, who believe 11/22/63 was the act of a single lone man) and absolve the agents of their collective survivor’s guilt (and to counter the prolific writings of a certain reviewer). In the eyes of those from <em>The Kennedy Detail</em>, the assassination was the act of TWO "lone men": Oswald, who pulled the trigger, and JFK, who set himself up as the target. Simply put: President Kennedy WAS indeed a very nice man, did not interfere with the actions of the Secret Service, did not order the agents off his limousine (in Tampa, in Dallas, or elsewhere), and did not have his staff convey any anti-security sentiments, either. The sheer force and power of what these men all told me, a complete stranger, in correspondence and on the phone, is all the more strong because, not only did they have a vested interest to protect themselves, the vast majority believe that Oswald acted alone and that all official "stories" are correct. <a href="http://www.ctka.net/reviews/kennedydetailreview.html">MORE...</a>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-87266867236749222702010-12-14T08:44:00.000-08:002010-12-14T12:35:19.311-08:00NEW BOOK CLAIMS: LBJ was Mastermind of JFK AssassinationBy: Dr. J. P. Hubert<br /><br />Phillip F. Nelson has written a book published in 2010 entitled <em>LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination</em> which states categorically that LBJ was indeed the mastermind behind the JFK Assassination. As far as I am aware, this is the first major work to make such a claim.<br /><br />Previously, attorney Barr McClellan at one time a partner in the Austin Texas law firm that handled all of Lyndon Johnson’s legal work authored a book; <em>Blood, Money and Power: How LBJ Killed JFK</em> (New York: Hannover House, 2003) in which he argued that LBJ asked Edward A. Clark the head of the firm to arrange the murder of JFK. McClellan claims that Clark was the mastermind while LBJ had no role in either planning or carrying out the plot.<br /><br />Douglas P. Horne in his 5 volume recent work <em>Inside the ARRB,</em> 2009 argues that at the least LBJ was aware of the conspiracy to assassinate JFK, gave his approval (LBJ attended the pre-assassination meeting on November 21, 1963 at the home of Clint Murchison along with J. Edgar Hoover for example) and that he in concert with Hoover was an active and integral participant in the cover-up. As far as I am aware, Horne does not contend that LBJ was the actual mastermind of the plot.<br /><br />Nelson builds on material from multiple other works in an attempt to establish that Lyndon B. Johnson had a long history of planning and carrying-out complicated schemes without being discovered, many of which were illegal. He establishes to a high degree of probability that LBJ was a completely self-centered man, totally lacking in moral conscience who would do virtually anything to achieve his life-long goal of becoming President of the United States including committing murder.<br /><br />Nelson (and McClellan) argue forcefully that Lyndon Johnson was afflicted with an untreated bi-polar major depressive disorder which should have rendered him ineligible for the Presidency had it ever become widely recognized. However, due to his unprecedented ability to manipulate almost everyone he ever met, Johnson was able to position himself as Vice President, virtually a heart-beat away from the Presidency.<br /><br />In perhaps his most startling assertion, Nelson alleges that Johnson began planning the murder of JFK at the Democratic National Convention in 1960 when he essentially blackmailed JFK into placing him on the Democratic ticket. According to Nelson, (who wrote that LBJ was the only man who ever actively sought out the job of Vice President), it was only a matter of time before Johnson made his move to have Kennedy killed, thereby ascending to the position of President of the United States his life-long dream.<br /><br />Nelson's claims are truly extraordinary but certainly not incompatible with the evidence now available. Unlike McClellan who alleged that the JFK Assassination was a Johnson ordered and Clark masterminded Texas affair, Nelson makes a quite convincing case that LBJ managed to co-opt multiple diverse entities—all of whom despised Kennedy—utilizing to his best advantage their various abilities in his plot to assassinate JFK and once in power to utilize many of the same organizations and individuals to cover-up the crime.<br /><br />It has been clearly established that Johnson had numerous close contacts in the FBI (Hoover was a personal friend), the CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff (including General Curtis Le May whose position Johnson supported not only during the Cuban Missile Crisis but with regard to his desire to commence a land war in Vietnam), the Mafia, certain members of the Secret Service and of course local Texas officials all of which would appear to provide him the <em>means</em> and <em>opportunity</em> reaquired to carry out the "crime of the century."<br /><br />It goes without saying that LBJ had the <em>motive</em> given that the US Congress and the Kennedy administration were closing in on his prior illegal activities as a result of their investigation of Bobby Baker. There are many credible reports that Johnson feared not only political oblivion but impending imprisonment.<br /><br />I am currently still in the process of carefully analyzing the many claims that Phillip Nelson has made and attempting to research some of his supporting documentation. Nelson’s hypothesis is extremely interesting to say the least. It may succeed in finally identifying the public face responsible that is, the individual who had ultimate control over events and stood most to personally benefit. I welcome comments from other JFK Assassination researchers and interested readers.Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-52795795826855355142010-12-07T07:08:00.000-08:002010-12-07T10:20:12.819-08:00Douglas P. Horne Summarizes his book "Inside the ARRB"<strong>Editor's NOTE:<br /></strong><br />In response to my post <a href="http://jfkassassinationconspiracyupdate.blogspot.com/2010/12/world-renowned-expert-on-jfk-medical.html">HERE...</a> covering the David W. Mantik MD PhD review of Douglas P. Horne's 5 volume work, Mr. Horne was kind enough to send me by e-mail the following summary of<em> Inside the ARRB: The U.S. Government's Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK</em> (2009). He suggested that it has made a "significant contribution to the understanding of the medical evidence" and I wholeheartedly agree. In fact for serious students and researcher's Horne's book supplies in one place the greatest amount of information related to the JFK medical evidence. We are truly indebted to him for his monumental undertaking and his courage in confronting those who still desire to keep this vital part of American history secret.<br /><br />--Dr. J. P. Hubert<br /><br /><br /><strong>Douglas P. Hornes' Summary of<em> Inside the ARRB</em></strong>:<br /><ul><li>Confirming the groundbreaking work of David Lifton in 1981, the body's chain of custody was indeed broken enroute and it arrived at Bethesda prior to the official motorcade which supposedly transported it from Andrews (the Boyajian document is key here). </li><li>Post-mortem surgery (evidence tampering) was performed on JFK's body at Bethesda Naval hospital, which alone invalidates the results of the official autopsy.</li><li>The autopsy photos of the head in the metal stirrup were taken following post-mortem surgery on the cranium at Bethesda Naval hospital, and therefore show the results of body tampering (i.e., evidence tampering), NOT damage by a bullet or bullets. </li><li>The beveled evidence of exit in photos 17, 18, 44, and 45 are in a region of the skull originally described by the pathologists themselves as POSTERIOR skull (and these photos therefore contain medico-legal evidence of an exit wound in the back of the head).</li><li>Both JFK's brain (what was left of it) and a second, substitute (fraudulent) specimen were examined after the autopsy on his body, and the photos of the fraudulent (substitute) brain were introduced into the official record and misrepresented as "JFK's brain." </li><li>The autopsy report was rewritten during the week following JFK's death. </li><li>The Zapruder film is an altered film, as proven by the inspection of new, HD scans of a dupe negative examined by Hollywood film experts; and its troubled chain of custody the weekend of the assassination is strong evidence that the CIA was involved in its alteration.</li><li>The pathologists (particularly Dr. Humes) lied repeatedly under oath over the years about the nature of the President's wounds and their findings. </li><li>Dr. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., reviewed and approved my extensive presentation of his seminal work (in Chapters 5 and 12) proving that the three extant JFK skull x-rays in the National Archives are forged composite copy films---that is, optically altered versions of the authentic JFK skull x-rays (which are not in the official record and are now lost to history).<br /></li></ul>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-56663710184890016022010-12-06T08:09:00.000-08:002010-12-06T08:20:56.731-08:00Jesse Ventura Exposes the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Nationallyby Mac McKinney<br />lewrockwell.com<br /><a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/jesse-ventura-exposes-jfk-conspiracy.html">HERE...</a><br /> <br />Jesse Ventura has done a great service to the country in this, the second season of his TV series, Conspiracy Theory. In Episode 5 that just played this past Friday, November 19th, he further hammers home the truth nationally that there was indeed a conspiracy to kill Jack Kennedy. He does so by going beyond the House Select Committee on Assassinations report of 1979 that also concluded there was a conspiracy by providing more concrete evidence, the most crucial being at the end of the episode with the death-bed confession of the famous/infamous intelligence officer, author and Watergate Burglar, E. Howard Hunt, who pointblank states to his son, St. Clair Hunt, who video and audio-taped the confession, that he was indeed part of the assassination conspiracy, code-named The Big Event.<br /><br />Hunt was about as insider as you can get regarding the inner workings of the clandestine side of the American government, and he was as lucid as ever when he gave this confession. He knew he was dying and didn't want to keep silent any longer about what he knew. The best anyone can say to refute Hunt's confession so far is that his claims have not been substantiated by another investigation, which of course, is not even being contemplated at this point, but this is a distracting argument because the real point is whether Hunt is believable or not. And for a guy as lethal, deadly serious and matter-of-fact as Hunt, to suggest that he was making this up is ludicrous.<br /><br />Hunt's confession has been online for several years, and I have listened to it several times, hoping against hope that it could get wider play in the media. But It was up to someone of Jesse Ventura's caliber to tie it and the many other loose strands of evidence together to make the most solid case yet nationally that yes indeed, America, there WAS a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, a conspiracy that emanated out of the dark side of the American government.<br /><br />So consider this a public service on Jesse Ventura's part. Here is episode five on YouTube, in four parts:<br /><br />Part 1:<br /><br /><object style="height: 390px; width: 550px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TX48y4n5EYw?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TX48y4n5EYw?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="550" height="390"></object><br /><br />Part 2:<br /><br /><object style="height: 390px; width: 550px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gRIE7G2Bc64?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gRIE7G2Bc64?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="550" height="390"></object><br /><br />Part 3:<br /><br /><object style="height: 390px; width: 550px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6vSHr5ppVSM?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6vSHr5ppVSM?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="550" height="390"></object><br /><br />Part 4:<br /><br /><object style="height: 390px; width: 550px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A1-pLnWgY_E?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A1-pLnWgY_E?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="550" height="390"></object>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-9053052732199151492010-12-03T09:34:00.000-08:002010-12-07T10:28:49.991-08:00World Renowned Expert on JFK Medical Evidence Reviews Book by Douglas P. Horne<strong>Editor's NOTE:<br /></strong><br />Dr. David W. Mantik MD PhD undoubtedly the world's leading expert in the JFK Assassination medical evidence earlier this year wrote an extensive review of Douglas P. Horne's <em>Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U. S. Government's Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical evidence in the Assassination of JFK,</em> 2009.<br /><br />Horne is arguably the world's leading expert in the medical evidence second only to Dr. David W. Mantik. In his book review of Horne's 5 volume work, Mantik in large part finds himself in agreement with Horne on all of the major medical issues. Exceptions include Hornes view of the alleged autopsy photographs of the back of JFK's head which Horne believes were photographically unaltered (although clearly designed to mislead) that is; a true depiction of the back of JKF's head after the Autopsists' rearranged scalp in such a way as to cover the large right occipital full thickness defect there hoping to disguise it. <strong><span style="color:#ff0000;">(Suffice it to say that I have my own reasons for believing that Horne's hypothesis on this issue is unworkable which I will post on this sight as time allows but that I agree with Mantik; th</span><span style="color:#ff0000;">e photograph is not only misleading but cannot possibly be an actual picture of the back of JFK's head at autopsy. My reason is different from Mantik's however specifically; that it would be anatomically impossible to move a credible section of hair bearing loose scalp into proper allignment over the large occipital full thickness defect without it being obvious that it was a non-anatomic re-arrangement). </span></strong><br /><p>Mantik believes that the extant photos of the back of JFK's head are fraudulent, arguing that they were faked utilizing a soft matte insertion process due to the fact that the "blow-out" area in the right posterior occipital area appears only 2D rather than 3D on stereoscopic viewing whereas all other areas on these and other photographs that he examined appear 3D. This explanation seems most probable to me for a variey of reasons including the fact that the hair pictured simply does not look like JFK's hair or the well-known configuration of the back of JFK's head.<strong> A very disturbing issue is that the area of what appears to be wet and combed hair which appears starched and 2D on stereoscopic viewing is apparently a different color than the Auburn hair (clearly 3D) which presumably is the genuine hair of JFK below the inferior line of the apparent matte insertion.</strong></p><p>Mantik also disagrees with Horne regarding the role of White House social photographer Robert Knudsen in taking autopsy photographs primarily because the Bethesda witnesses made no mention of his having been there that night. He also differs with Horne regarding the nature of the infamous "mystery" photo referred to as figure 66 in Volume I of Horne's book often referred to as figure F8. Mantik forcefully argues that the area in question is in fact the large right occipital blow-out noted at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Tx and suggests that it was mistakenly not culled from the extant collection by the conspirators who had attempted to disguise the very obvious full-thickness "hole" in the right occipital area of JFK's head.<br /><br /><strong>All in all however, Mantik and Horne agree on the vast majority of the medical evidence and this is extremely encouraging from the perspective of finally coming to an understanding about what actually happened to JFK's body during and after the assassination. What they share in common is far more important than the minor differences of opinion they have with regard to very specific details involving the medical evidence in the JFK Assassination case.<br /><br /></strong>I wholeheartedly recommend Horne's 5 volume treatise. It is arguably the best reference work available today on the extensive medical coverup which ensued after the murder of President John F. Kennedy. Mantik's extensive review of volume IV of Horne's book is simply outstanding and should be read by all researchers interested in the medical evidence and the cover-up. Dr. Mantik's outstanding book review of Horne's volume IV is a must-read and can be accessed <a href="http://www.assassinationscience.com/HorneReview.pdf">HERE...</a></p><p><strong>--Dr. J. P. Hubert</strong></p>Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832153743933480979.post-76612142838928126812010-12-01T14:52:00.000-08:002010-12-02T09:30:55.613-08:00The Hope of Confronting the UnspeakableBy: James Douglas – Author of <em>JFK & The Unspeakable </em>-<br />Dallas COPA Conference<br />November 2009, from jfkcountercoup <a href="http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12/jfk-at-american-university.html">HERE..</a><br /><br />I want to speak tonight about the hope that comes from our confronting the truth of the assassination of President Kennedy. Concerned friends have asked me over the years if engaging in such a probe into darkness hasn’t made me profoundly depressed. On the contrary, it has given me great hope. As Martin Luther King said, the truth crushed to earth will rise again. Gandhi spoke hopefully of experiments in truth, because they take us into the most powerful force on earth and in existence – truth-force, satyagraha. That is how I think of this work, as an experiment in truth – one that will open us up, both personally and as a country, to a process of nonviolent transformation. I believe this experiment we are doing into the dark truth of Dallas (and of Washington) can be the most hopeful experience of our lives. But as you know, it does require patience and tenacity to confront the unspeakable. We, first of all, need to take the time to recognize the sources in our history for what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963.<br /><br /><strong>The doctrine of “plausible deniability” in an old government document provides us with a source of the assassination of President Kennedy. The document was issued in 1948, one year after the CIA was established</strong>, 15 years before JFK’s murder. <strong>That document, National Security Council directive 10/2, on June 18, 1948, “gave the highest sanction of the [U.S.] government to a broad range of covert operations” – propaganda, sabotage, economic warfare, subversion of all kinds </strong>– that were seen as necessary to “win” the Cold War against the Communists. <strong>The government’s condition for those covert activities by U.S. agencies, coordinated by the CIA, was that they be “so planned and executed that…if uncovered the US government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them.”<br /><br /></strong>In the 1950’s, <strong>under the leadership of CIA Director Allen Dulles, the doctrine of “plausible deniability” became the CIA’s green light to assassinate national leaders, conduct secret military operations, and overthrow governments</strong> that our government thought were on the wrong side in the Cold War. <strong>“Plausible deniability” meant our intelligence agencies, acting as paramilitary groups, had to lie and cover their tracks so effectively that there would be no trace of U.S. government responsibility for criminal activities on an ever-widening scale.<br /><br /></strong>The man who proposed this secret, subversive process in 1948, diplomat George Kennan, said later, in light of its consequences, that it was “the greatest mistake I ever made.” President Harry Truman, under whom the CIA was created, and during whose presidency the plausible deniability doctrine was authorized, had deep regrets. He said in a statement on December 22, 1963:<br /><br /><em>“For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas."<br /><br />“We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.”<br /><br /></em>Truman later remarked: <em>“The CIA was set up by me for the sole purpose of getting all the available information to the president. It was not intended to operate as an international agency engaged in strange activities.”<br /><br /></em><strong>President Truman’s sharp warning about the CIA, and the fact that warning was published one month to the day after JFK’s assassination, should have given this country pause</strong>. However, his statement appeared only in an early edition of The Washington Post, then vanished without comment from public view.<br /><br /><strong>What George Kennan and Harry Truman realized much too late was that, in the name of national security, they had unwittingly allowed an alien force to invade a democracy. As a result, we now had to deal with a government agency authorized to carry out a broad range of criminal activities on an international scale, theoretically accountable to the president but with no genuine accountability to anyone.</strong> Plausible deniability became a rationale for the CIA’s interpretation of what the executive branch’s wishes might be. But for the Agency’s crimes to remain plausibly deniable, the less said the better – to the point where CIA leaders’ creative imaginations simply took over. <strong>It was all for the sake of “winning” the Cold War by any means necessary and without implicating the more visible heads of the government.</strong> One assumption behind Kennan’s proposal unleashing the CIA for its war against Communism was that the Agency’s criminal power could be confined to covert action outside the borders of the United States, with immunity from its lethal power granted to U.S. citizens. That assumption proved to be wrong.<br /><br /><strong>During the Cold War, the hidden growth of the CIA’s autonomous power corresponded to the public growth of what was called a fortress state. What had been a struggling post-war democracy in our country was replaced by the institutions of a national security state.</strong> President Truman had laid the foundations for that silent takeover by his momentous decision to end the Second World War by a demonstration of nuclear weapons on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to stop a Soviet advance to Japan. Truman’s further, post-war decision for U.S. nuclear dominance in the world rather than allowing for international control of nuclear weapons was his second disastrous mistake, in terms of initiating the nuclear arms race in the world and subverting democracy in the U.S.A. <strong>A democracy within a national security state cannot survive. The president’s decision to base our security on nuclear weapons created the contradiction of a democracy ruled by the dictates of the Pentagon. A democratic national security state is a contradiction in terms.<br /><br /></strong>The insecure basis of our security then became weapons that could destroy the planet. <strong>To protect the security of that illusory means of security, which was absolute destructive power, we now needed a ruling elite of national security managers with an authority above that of our elected representatives. So from that point on, our military-industrial managers made the real decisions of state.</strong> President Truman simply ratified their decisions and entrenched their power, as he did with the establishment of the CIA, and as his National Security Council did with its endorsement of plausible deniability.<br /><br /><strong>His successor, President Eisenhower, also failed to challenge in his presidency what he warned against at its end -- the military-industrial complex. He left the critical task of resisting that anti-democratic power in the hands of the next president, John Kennedy</strong>.<br /><br />When President Kennedy then stood up to the Pentagon, the CIA, and the military-industrial complex, he was treated as a traitor. His attempt to save the planet from the weapons of his own state was regarded as treason. <strong>The doctrine of plausible deniability allowed for the assassination of a president seen as a national security risk himself.<br /><br /></strong>The CIA’s “plausible deniability” for crimes of state, as exemplified by JFK’s murder, corresponds in our politics to what the Trappist monk and spiritual writer Thomas Merton called “the Unspeakable.” Merton wrote about the unspeakable in the 1960’s, when an elusive, systemic evil was running rampant through this country and the world. The Vietnam War, the escalating nuclear arms race, and the interlocking murders of John Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy were all signs of the unspeakable.<br /><br />For Merton, the unspeakable was ultimately a void, an emptiness of any meaning, an abyss of lies and deception. He wrote the following description of the unspeakable shortly after the publication of The Warren Report, which he could have been describing: <em>“[The Unspeakable] is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said; the void that gets into the language of public and official declarations at the very moment when they are pronounced, and makes them ring dead with the hollowness of the abyss.”<br /><br /></em>The void of the unspeakable is the dark abyss, the midnight reality of plausible deniability, that we face when we peer into our national security state’s murder of President Kennedy. And that is precisely where hope begins.<br /><br /><strong>Why President Kennedy was murdered can be, I believe, a profound source of hope to us all, when we truly understand his story.<br /><br /></strong>Now how can that possibly be? The why of his murder as a source of hope?<br /><br />Let’s begin with the way Kennedy himself looked at the question.<br /><strong>One summer weekend in 1962 while out sailing with friends, President Kennedy was asked what he thought of Seven Days in May, a best-selling novel that described a military takeover in the United States.</strong> JFK said he would read the book. He did so that night. The next day Kennedy discussed with his friends the possibility of their seeing such a coup in the U.S. These words were spoken by him after the Bay of Pigs and before the Cuban Missile Crisis:<br /><br /><em>“It’s possible. It could happen in this country, but the conditions would have to be just right. If, for example, the country had a young President, and he had a Bay of Pigs, there would be a certain uneasiness. Maybe the military would do a little criticizing behind his back, but this would be written off as the usual military dissatisfaction with civilian control. Then if there were another Bay of Pigs, the reaction of the country would be, ‘Is he too young and inexperienced?’ The military would almost feel that it was their patriotic obligation to stand ready to preserve the integrity of the nation, and only God knows just what segment of democracy they would be defending if they overthrew the elected establishment.”<br /><br /></em>Pausing a moment, he went on, <em>“Then, if there were a third Bay of Pigs, it could happen.”<br /><br /></em>Waiting again until his listeners absorbed his meaning, he concluded with an old Navy phrase, <em>“But it won’t happen on my watch.”<br /><br /></em>Let’s remember that <strong>JFK gave himself three strikes before he would be out by a coup,</strong> although he bravely said it wouldn’t happen on his watch.<br /><br />As we know, and as he knew, the young president John Kennedy did have a Bay of Pigs. The president bitterly disappointed the CIA, the military, and the CIA-trained Cuban exile brigade by deciding to accept defeat at the Bay of Pigs rather than escalate the battle. Kennedy realized after the fact that he had been drawn into a CIA scenario whose authors assumed he would be forced by circumstances to drop his advance restrictions against the use of U.S. combat forces. He had been lied to in such a way that, in order to “win” at the Bay of Pigs, he would be forced to send in U.S. troops. But <strong>JFK surprised the CIA and the military by choosing instead to accept a loss.</strong> <em>“They couldn’t believe,”</em> he said, <em>“that a new president like me wouldn’t panic and try to save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong.”<br /><br /></em>We know how JFK reacted to the CIA’s setting him up. He was furious. When the enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, he said he wanted <em>“to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”<br /><br /></em>He ordered an investigation into the whole affair, under the very watchful eyes of his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy.<br /><br /><strong>He fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, Deputy Director Richard Bissell, Jr., and Deputy Director General Charles Cabell</strong>. That was a huge decision – firing the top of the CIA’s hierarchy, including the legendary leader who had come to personify the agency, Allen Dulles.<br /><br /><strong>The president then took steps <em>“to cut the CIA budget in 1962 and again in 1963, aiming at a 20 per cent reduction by 1966.”</em> John Kennedy was cutting back the CIA’s power in very concrete ways, step by step.<br /><br /></strong>We know how the CIA and the Cuban exile community regarded Kennedy in turn because of his refusal to escalate the battle at the Bay of Pigs. They hated him for it. They did not forget what they thought was unforgivable.<br /><br />In terms of JFK’s own analysis of the threat of an overthrow of his presidency, he saw the Bay of Pigs as the first strike against him. It was the first big stand he took against his national security elite, and therefore the first cause of a possible coup d’etat.<br /><br />However, in terms of our constitution, our genuine security, and world peace, the position Kennedy took in facing down the CIA and the military at the Bay of Pigs, rather than surrendering to their will, was in itself a source of hope. <strong>No previous post-war president had shown such courage. Truman and Eisenhower had, in effect, turned over the power of their office to their national security managers. Kennedy was instead acting like he really was the president of this country – by saying a strong no to the security elite on a critical issue.</strong> If we the people had truly understood what he was doing then on our behalf, we would have thought the president’s stand a deeply hopeful one.<br /><br />In terms of his Seven Days in May analysis of a coming coup, <strong>John Kennedy did have a second “Bay of Pigs.” The president alienated the CIA and the military a second time by his decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis.<br /><br />JFK had to confront the unspeakable in the Missile Crisis in the form of total nuclear war.</strong> At the height of that terrifying conflict, he felt the situation spiraling out of control, especially because of the actions of his generals. For example, with both sides on hair-trigger alert, the U.S. Air Force test-fired missiles from California across the Pacific, deliberately trying to provoke the Soviets in a way that could justify our superior U.S. forces blanketing the USSR with an all-out nuclear attack. As we know from Kennedy’s secretly taped meeting with his Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 19, 1962, <strong>the Chiefs were pushing him relentlessly to launch a pre-emptive strike on Cuba, and ultimately the Soviet Union. In this encounter the Chiefs’ disdain for their young commander-in-chief is summed up by Air Force Chief of Staff General Curtis LeMay when he says:<br /><br /></strong>LeMay: <em>“This [blockade and political action] is almost as bad as the appeasement [of Hitler] at Munich…I think that a blockade, and political talk, would be considered by a lot of our friends and neutrals as being a pretty weak response to this. And I’m sure a lot of our own citizens would feel that way too.<br /><br />In other words, you’re in a pretty bad fix at the present time.”<br /></em>President Kennedy responds: <em>“What did you say?”<br /><br /></em>LeMay:<em> “I say, you’re in a pretty bad fix.”<br /></em><br />President Kennedy: [laughing] <em>“You’re in with me, personally.”<br /><br /></em>As the meeting draws to a close, Kennedy rejects totally the Joint Chiefs’ arguments for a quick, massive attack on Cuba. The president then leaves the room but the tape keeps on recording. Two or three of the generals remain, and one says to LeMay, <em>“You pulled the rug right out from under him.”<br /><br /></em>LeMay: <em>“Jesus Christ. What the hell do you mean?”<br /></em><br />Other General: <em>“…He’s finally getting around to the word ‘escalation.’ If somebody could keep ‘em from doing the goddamn thing piecemeal, that’s our problem…”<br /><br /></em><strong>The White House tapes show Kennedy questioning and resisting the mounting pressure to bomb Cuba coming from both the Joint Chiefs and the Executive Committee of the National Security Council</strong>. At the same time, John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, the two men most responsible for the Cuban Missile Crisis, seemed locked in a hopeless ideological conflict. The U.S. and Soviet leaders had been following Cold War policies that now seemed to be moving inexorably toward a war of extermination.<br /><br />Yet, as we have since learned, Kennedy and Khrushchev had been engaged in a secret correspondence for over a year that gave signs of hope. Even as they moved publicly step by step toward a Cold War climax that would almost take the world over the edge with them, they were at the same time smuggling confidential letters back and forth that recognized each other’s humanity and hoped for a solution. They were public enemies who, in the midst of deepening turmoil, were secretly learning something approaching trust in each other.<br />‘<br />On what seemed the darkest day in the crisis, when a Soviet missile had shot down a U2 spy plane over Cuba, intensifying the already overwhelming pressures on Kennedy to bomb Cuba, the president sent his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, secretly to Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. RFK told Dobrynin, as Dobrynin reported to Khrushchev, that the president <em>“didn’t know how to resolve the situation. The military is putting great pressure on him…Even if he doesn’t want or desire a war, something irreversible could occur against his will. That is why the President is asking for help to solve this problem.”<br /><br /></em>In his memoirs, Khrushchev recalled a further, chilling sentence from Robert Kennedy’s appeal to Dobrynin: <em>“If the situation continues much longer, the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power.”<br /><br /></em>Sergei Khrushchev, Nikita’s son, has described his father’s thoughts when he read Dobrynin’s wired report relaying John Kennedy’s plea:<em> “The president was calling for help: that was how father interpreted Robert Kennedy’s talk with our ambassador.”<br /><br /></em><strong>At a moment when the world was falling into darkness, Kennedy did what from his generals’ standpoint was intolerable and unforgivable. JFK not only rejected his generals’ pressures for war. Even worse, the president then reached out to their enemy, asking for help. That was treason.<br /><br /></strong>When Nikita Khrushchev had received Kennedy’s plea for help in Moscow, he turned to his Foreign Minister, Andrei Gromyko and said, <em>“We have to let Kennedy know that we want to help him.”<br /><br /></em>Khrushchev stunned himself by what he had just said: Did he really want to help his enemy, Kennedy? Yes, he did. He repeated the word to his foreign minister:<br /><br /><em>“Yes, help. We now have a common cause, to save the world from those pushing us toward war.”<br /><br /></em>How do we understand that moment? The two most heavily armed leaders in history, on the verge of total nuclear war, suddenly joined hands against those on both sides pressuring them to attack. Khrushchev ordered the immediate withdrawal of his missiles, in return for Kennedy’s public pledge never to invade Cuba and his secret promise to withdraw U.S. missiles from Turkey – as he would in fact do. <strong>The two Cold War enemies had turned, so that each now had more in common with his opponent than either had with his own generals</strong>. As a result of that turn toward peace, one leader would be assassinated thirteen months later. The other, left without his peacemaking partner, would be overthrown the following year. Yet because of their turn away from nuclear war, today we are still living and struggling for peace on this earth. Hope is alive. We still have a chance.<br /><br />What can we call that transforming moment when Kennedy asked his enemy for help and Khrushchev gave it?<br /><br />From a Buddhist standpoint, it was enlightenment of a cosmic kind. Others might call it a divine miracle. Readers of the Christian Gospels could say that Kennedy and Khrushchev were only doing what Jesus said: “Love your enemies.” That would be “love” as Gandhi understood it, love as the other side of truth, a respect and understanding of our opponents that goes far enough to integrate their truth into our own. <strong>In the last few months of Kennedy’s life, he and Khrushchev were walking that extra mile where each was beginning to see the other’s truth.</strong><br /><br />Neither John Kennedy nor Nikita Khrushchev was a saint. Each was deeply complicit in policies that brought humankind to the brink of nuclear war. Yet, <strong>when they encountered the void, then by turning to each other for help, they turned humanity toward the hope of a peaceful planet.<br /><br />John Kennedy’s next “Bay of Pigs,” his next critical conflict with his national security state, was his American University Address</strong>. Saturday Review editor Norman Cousins summed up the significance of this remarkable speech: <em>“At American University on June 10, 1963, President Kennedy proposed an end to the Cold War.”<br /><br /></em><strong>I believe it is almost impossible to overemphasize the importance of President Kennedy’s American University address. It was a decisive signal to both Nikita Khrushchev, on the one hand, and JFK’s national security advisers, on the other, that he was serious about making peace with the Communists.</strong> After he told the graduating class at American University that the subject of his speech was “the most important topic on earth: world peace,” he asked:<br /><br /><em>“What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek?”<br /></em>He answered, <em>“Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.”<br /><br /></em><strong>Kennedy’s rejection of <em>“a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war”</em> was an act of resistance to the military-industrial complex. The military-industrial complex was totally dependent on <em>“a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.”</em> </strong>That Pax Americana policed by the Pentagon was considered the system’s indispensable, hugely profitable means of containing and defeating Communism. <strong>At his own risk Kennedy was rejecting the foundation of the Cold War system.<br /><br /></strong>In its place, as a foundation for peace, the president put a compassionate description of the suffering of the Russian people. They had been our allies during World War Two and had suffered mightily. Yet even their World War Two devastation would be small compared to the effects of a nuclear war on both their country and ours.<br /><br />In his speech, Kennedy turned around the question that was always asked when it came to prospects for peace – the question, “What about the Russians?” It was assumed the Russians would take advantage of any move we might make toward peace.<br /><br />Kennedy asked instead, “What about us?” He said, “Our attitude [toward peace] is as essential as theirs.” What about our attitude to the nuclear arms race?<br /><br />Within the overarching theology of our country, a theology of total good versus total evil, that was a heretical question, coming especially from the president of the United States.<br /><br /><strong>Kennedy said he wanted to negotiate a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union in Moscow – in their capitol, not ours – as soon as possible. To clear the way for such a treaty, he said he was suspending U.S. atmospheric tests unilaterally.<br /><br /></strong>John Kennedy’s strategy of peace penetrated the Soviet government’s defenses far more effectively than any missile could have done. The Soviet press, which was accustomed to censoring U.S. government statements, published the entire speech all across the country. Soviet radio stations broadcast and rebroadcast the speech to the Soviet people. In response to Kennedy’s turn toward peace, the Soviet government even stopped jamming all Western broadcasts into their country.<br /><br /><strong>Nikita Khrushchev was deeply moved by the American University Address.</strong> He said Kennedy had given<em> “the greatest speech by any American President since Roosevelt.”<br /><br /></em><strong>JFK’s speech was received less favorably in his own country</strong>. The <em>New York Times</em> reported his government’s skepticism: “Generally there was not much optimism in official Washington that the President’s conciliation address at American University would produce agreement on a test ban treaty or anything else.” In contrast to the Soviet media that were electrified by the speech, the U.S. media ignored or downplayed it. <strong>For the first time, Americans had less opportunity to read and hear their president’s words than did the Russian people. A turn-around was occurring in the world on different levels. Whereas nuclear disarmament had suddenly become feasible, Kennedy’s position in his own government had become precarious.<br /><br />President Kennedy’s next critical conflict with his national security state, propelling him toward the coup d’etat he saw as possible, was the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that he signed with Nikita Khrushchev on July 25, 1963, six weeks after the American University Address.</strong> The president had done an end run around the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He negotiated the Test Ban Treaty without consulting them, because they opposed it.<br /><br />Kennedy was fiercely determined but not optimistic that the Test Ban Treaty be ratified by the defense-conscious Senate. In early August, he told his advisers that getting Senate ratification of the agreement would be “almost in the nature of a miracle.” He said if a Senate vote were held right then it would fall far short of the necessary two-thirds.<br /><br />Kennedy initiated a whirlwind public education campaign on the treaty, coordinated by Saturday Review editor Normal Cousins, who directed a committee of activists. By the end of August, the tide of congressional mail had gone from fifteen to one against a test ban to three to two against.<br /><br /><strong>In September public opinion polls showed a turnaround. 80 percent of the American people were now in favor of the Test Ban Treaty. On September 24, 1963, the Senate approved the treaty by a vote of 80 to 19 – 14 more than the required two-thirds. No other single accomplishment in the White House gave Kennedy greater satisfaction.<br /><br /></strong>On September 20, Kennedy spoke to the United Nations. He suggested that its members see the Test Ban Treaty as a beginning and engage together in an experiment in peace:<br /><br />“Two years ago I told this body that the United States had proposed, and was willing to sign, a Limited Test Ban treaty. Today that treaty has been signed. It will not put an end to war. It will not remove basic conflicts. It will not secure freedom for all. But it can be a lever, and Archimedes, in explaining the principles of the lever, was said to have declared to his friends: ‘Give me a place where I can stand – and I shall move the world.’ "<br /><br />“My fellow inhabitant of this planet: Let us take our stand here in this Assembly of nations. And let us see if we, in our own time, can move the world to a just and lasting peace.”<br /><br /><strong>When he said these words, John Kennedy was secretly engaging in another risky experiment in peace</strong>. That same day at the United Nations, Kennedy told UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson that his assistant William Attwood should go ahead “to make discreet contact” with Cuba’s UN Ambassador Carlos Lechuga. Was Fidel Castro interested in a dialogue with John Kennedy? A strongly affirmative answer would come back from Castro, who had been repeatedly urged by Khrushchev to begin trusting Kennedy. <strong>Kennedy and Castro actually began that dialogue on normalizing U.S.-Cuban relations, through the mediation of French journalist Jean Daniel who personally visited both men in the month leading up to the assassination. Daniel was actually eating lunch with Castro in his home on November 22, conveying Kennedy’s hopeful words, when the Cuban premier was phoned with the news of Kennedy’s death. Castro’s somber comment to Daniel was: “Everything is changed. Everything is going to change.”<br /><br /></strong>On October 11, 1963, President Kennedy issued a top-secret order to begin withdrawing the U.S. military from Vietnam.<strong> In National Security Action memorandum 263, he ordered that 1,000 U.S. military personnel be withdrawn from Vietnam by the end of 1963, and that the bulk of U.S. personnel be taken out by the end of 1965.<br /><br /></strong>Kennedy decided on his withdrawal policy, against the arguments of most of his advisers, at a contentious October 2 National Security Council meeting. When Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was leaving the meeting to announce the withdrawal to the White House reporters, “the President called to him, ‘And tell them that means all of the helicopter pilots, too.’”<br /><br />In fact, it would not mean that at all. <strong>After JFK’s assassination, his withdrawal policy was quietly voided. In light of the future consequences of Dallas, it was not only John Kennedy who was murdered on November 22, 1963, but 58,000 other Americans and over three million Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians.<br /><br /></strong>In his reflections on Seven Days in May, John Kennedy had given himself three Bay-of-Pigs-type conflicts with his national security state before a possible coup. What about six?<br /><br />(1) The Bay of Pigs.<br />(2) The Cuban Missile Crisis.<br />(3) The American University Address.<br />(4) The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.<br />(5) The beginning of a back-channel dialogue with Fidel Castro.<br />(6) JFK’s order to withdraw U.S. troops from Vietnam.<br /><br />This, however, is a short list of the increasing conflicts between Kennedy and his national security state.<br /><br /><strong>We can add to the list a seventh Bay of Pigs – the steel crisis, in which he profoundly alienated the military industrial complex before the Cuban Missile Crisis even took place</strong>. The steel crisis was a showdown the president had with U.S. Steel and seven other steel companies over their price-fixing violations of an agreement he had negotiated between U.S. Steel and the United Steelworkers’ union. <strong>In a head-on confrontation with the ruling elite of Big Steel, JFK ordered the Defense Department to switch huge military contracts away from the major steel companies to the smaller, more loyal contractors that had not defied him.</strong> After the big steel companies bitterly backed down from their price raises, JFK and his brother, Robert, were denounced as symbols of “ruthless power” by the Wall Street power brokers at the center of the military industrial complex.<br /><br />By an editorial titled, “Steel: The Ides of April” (the month in which Kennedy faced down the steel executives), Henry Luce’s Fortune magazine called to readers’ minds the soothsayer’s warning in Shakespeare of the assassination of Julius Caesar. Fortune was warning Kennedy that his actions had confirmed the worst fears of corporate America about his presidency, and would have dire consequences.<strong> As interpreted by the most powerful people in the nation, the steel crisis was a logical prelude to Dallas. It was a seventh Bay of Pigs.<br /><br />An eighth Bay of Pigs was Kennedy’s diplomatic opening to the fiery third-world leadership of President Sukarno of Indonesia.</strong> Sukarno was “the most outspoken proponent of Third World neutralism in the Cold War.” He had actually coined the term “Third World.” The CIA wanted Sukarno dead. It wanted what it saw as his pro-communist “global orientation” obliterated. During Eisenhower’s presidency, the CIA repeatedly tried to kill and overthrow Sukarno but failed.<br /><br /><strong>JFK, however, chose to work with Sukarno, hoping to win him over as an ally, which he did. Sukarno came to love Kennedy. The U.S. president resolved what seemed a hopeless conflict between Indonesia and its former colonial master, the Netherlands, averting a war. To the CIA’s dismay, in 1961 Kennedy welcomed Sukarno to the White House. </strong>Most significantly, three days before his assassination, President Kennedy said he was willing to accept Sukarno’s invitation to visit Indonesia the following spring. His visit to Indonesia would have dramatized in a very visible way Kennedy’s support of Third World nationalism, a sea change in U.S. government policy. That decision to visit Sukarno was an eighth Bay of Pigs.<br /><br /><strong>Kennedy’s Indonesian policy was also killed in Dallas, with horrendous consequences. After Lyndon Johnson became president, the CIA finally succeeded in overthrowing Sukarno in a massive purge of suspected Communists that ended up killing 500,000 to one million Indonesians.<br /><br /></strong>Last Sunday I interviewed Sergei Khrushchev about an important late development in the relationship between his father and President Kennedy. In his interview, <strong>Mr. Khrushchev confirmed that his father had decided in November 1963 to accept President Kennedy’s repeated proposal that the U.S. and the Soviet Union fly to the moon together. In Kennedy’s September 20, 1963, speech to the United Nations, he had once again stated his hope for such a joint expedition to the moon.</strong> However, neither American nor Soviet military leaders, jealous of their rocket secrets, were ready to accept his initiative. Nikita Khrushchev, siding with his own rocket experts, felt that he was still forced to decline Kennedy’s proposal.<br /><br />JFK was looking beyond the myopia of the generals and scientists on both sides of the East-West struggle. He knew that merging their missile technologies in a peaceful project would also help defuse the Cold War. It was part of his day-by-day strategy of peace.<br /><br />Sergei Khrushchev said his father talked to him about a week before Kennedy’s death on the president’s idea for a joint lunar mission. <strong>Nikita Khrushchev had broken ranks with his rocket scientists. He now thought he and the Soviet Union should accept Kennedy’s invitation to go to the moon together</strong>, as a further step in peaceful cooperation.<br /><br />In Washington, Kennedy acted as if he already knew about Khrushchev’s hopeful change of heart on that critical issue. <strong>JFK was already telling NASA to begin work on a joint U.S.-Soviet lunar mission. On November 12, 1963, JFK issued his National Security Action Memorandum 271, ordering NASA to implement his “September 20 proposal for broader cooperation between the United States and the USSR in outer space, including cooperation in lunar landing programs.”<br /><br /></strong>That further visionary step to end the Cold War also died with President Kennedy. The U.S. went to the moon alone. U.S. and Soviet rockets continued to be pointed at their opposite countries rather than being joined in a project for a more hopeful future. Sergei Khrushchev said, <em>“I think if Kennedy had lived, we would be living in a completely different world.”<br /><br /></em><strong>In the final weeks of his presidency, President Kennedy took one more risky step toward peace. </strong>It can be seen in relation to a meeting he had the year before with six Quakers who visited him in his office. One thousand members of the Society of Friends had been vigiling for peace and world order outside the White House. President Kennedy agreed to meet with six of their leaders. I have interviewed all three survivors of that meeting with the president 47 years ago. They remain uniformly amazed at the open way in which President Kennedy listened and responded to their radical Quaker critique of his foreign policy. Among their challenges to him was a recommendation that the United States offer its surplus food to the People’s Republic of China. China was considered an enemy nation. Yet it was also one whose people were beset by a famine.<br /><br />Kennedy said to the Quakers, <em>“Do you mean you would feed your enemy when he has his hands on your throat?”<br /></em><br />The Quakers said they meant exactly that. They reminded him it was what Jesus had said should be done. Kennedy said he knew that, and knew that it was the right thing to do, but he couldn’t overcome the China lobby in Washington to accomplish it.<br /><br />Nevertheless, a year and a half later in the fall of 1963, against overwhelming opposition, Kennedy decided to sell wheat to the Russians, who had a severe grain shortage. His outraged critics said in effect to him what he had said to the Quakers: Would you feed an enemy who has his hands on your throat?<br /><br />Vice President Lyndon Johnson said he thought Kennedy’s decision to sell wheat to Russia would turn out to be the worst political mistake he ever made. Today JFK’s controversial decision “to feed the enemy” has been forgotten. <strong>In 1963, the wheat sale was seen as a threat to our security – feeding the enemy to kill us. Yet JFK went ahead with it, as one more initiative for peace.<br /><br /></strong>The violent reaction to his decision was represented <strong>on Friday morning, November 22, 1963, by a threatening, full-page advertisement addressed to him in the Dallas Morning News. The ad was bordered in black, like a funeral notice</strong>.<br /><br />Among the charges of disloyalty to the nation that the ad made against the president was the question: “Why have you approved the sale of wheat and corn to our enemies when you know the Communist soldiers ‘travel on their stomach’ just as ours do?” <strong>JFK read the ad before the flight from Fort Worth to Dallas, pointed it out to Jacqueline Kennedy, and talked about the possibility of his being assassinated that day.<br /><br /></strong>“But, Jackie,” he said, <em>“if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it, so why worry about it?”<br /><br /></em><strong>President Kennedy’s courageous turn from war to a strategy of peace provided many more than three Bay-of-Pigs-type causes for his assassination</strong>. Because he turned toward peace with our enemies, the Communists, he was continually at odds with his own national security state. Peacemaking was at the top of his agenda as president. That was not the kind of leadership the CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the military industrial complex wanted in the White House. <strong>Given the Cold War dogmas that gripped those dominant powers, and given Kennedy’s turn toward peace, his assassination followed as a matter of course.<br /><br /></strong>That is how he seemed to regard the situation – that it would soon lead to his own death. JFK was not afraid of death. As a biographer observed, “Kennedy talked a great deal about death, and about the assassination of Lincoln.” His conscious model for struggling truthfully through conflict, and being ready to die as a consequence, was Abraham Lincoln. On the day when Kennedy and Khrushchev resolved the missile crisis, JFK told his brother, Robert, referring to the assassination of Lincoln, <em>“This is the night I should go to the theater.”</em> Robert replied, <em>“If you go, I want to go with you.”<br /></em><br />Kennedy prepared himself for the same end Lincoln met during his night at the theater. Late at night on the June 5, 1961, plane flight back to Washington from his Vienna meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, a weary President Kennedy wrote down on a slip of paper, as he was about to fall asleep, a favorite saying of his from Abraham Lincoln – really a prayer. Presidential secretary Evelyn Lincoln discovered the slip of paper on the floor. On it she read the words:<em> “I know there is a God – and I see a storm coming. If he has a place for me, I believe that I am ready.”<br /><br /></em>Kennedy loved that prayer. He cited it repeatedly. More important, he made the prayer his own. In his conflicts with Khrushchev, then more profoundly with the CIA and the military, he had seen a storm coming. If God had a place for him, he believed that he was ready.<br /><br />For at least a decade, JFK’s favorite poem had been Rendezvous, a celebration of death. Rendezvous was by Alan Seeger, an American poet killed in World War One. The poem was Seeger’s affirmation of his own anticipated death.<br /><br /><strong>The refrain of Rendezvous, “I have a rendezvous with Death,” articulated John Kennedy’s deep sense of his own mortality.</strong> Kennedy had experienced a continuous rendezvous with death in anticipation of his actual death: from the deaths of his PT boat crew members, from drifting alone in the dark waters of the Pacific Ocean, from the early deaths of his brother Joe and sister Kathleen, and from the recurring near-death experiences of his almost constant illnesses.<br /><br /><strong>He recited Rendezvous to his wife, Jacqueline, in 1953 on their first night home in Hyannis after their honeymoon. She memorized the poem, and recited it back to him over the years. In the fall of 1963, Jackie taught the words of the poem to their five-year-old daughter, Caroline.</strong><br /><br />I have thought many times about what then took place in the White House Rose Garden one beautiful fall day.<br /><br />On the morning of October 5, 1963, President Kennedy met with his National Security Council in the Rose Garden. Caroline suddenly appeared at her father’s side. She said she wanted to tell him something. He tried to divert her attention while the meeting continued. Caroline persisted. The president smiled and turned his full attention to his daughter. He told her to go ahead. While the members of the National Security Council sat and watched, Caroline looked into her father’s eyes and said:<br /><br />I have a rendezvous with Death<br />At some disputed barricade,<br />When Spring comes back with rustling shade<br />And apple-blossoms fill the air –<br />I have a rendezvous with Death<br />When Spring brings back blue days and fair.<br /><br />It may be he shall take my hand<br />And lead me into his dark land<br />And close my eyes and quench my breath –<br />It may be I shall pass him still.<br />I have a rendezvous with Death<br />On some scarred slope of battered hill,<br />When Spring comes round again this year<br />And the first meadow-flowers appear.<br /><br />God knows ‘twere better to be deep<br />Pillowed in silk and scented down,<br />Where love throbs out in blissful sleep,<br />Pulse nigh to pulse, and breath to breath,<br />Where hushed awakenings are dear….<br />But I’ve a rendezvous with Death<br />At midnight in some flaming town,<br />When Spring trips north again this year,<br />And I to my pledged word am true,<br />I shall not fail that rendezvous.<br /><br />After Caroline said the poem’s final word, “rendezvous,” Kennedy’s national security advisers sat in stunned silence. One of them said later the bond between father and daughter was so deep “it was as if there was ‘an inner music’ he was trying to teach her.”<br /><br />JFK had heard his own acceptance of death from the lips of his daughter. While surrounded by a National Security Council that opposed his breakthrough to peace, the president once again deepened his pledge not to fail that rendezvous. If God had a place for him, he believed that he was ready.<br /><br />So how can the why of his murder give us hope?<br /><br />Where do we find hope when a peacemaking president is assassinated by his own national security state?<br /><br />The why of the event that brings us together tonight encircles the earth. <strong>Because John Kennedy chose peace on earth at the height of the Cold War, he was executed. But because he turned toward peace, in spite of the consequences to himself, humanity is still alive and struggling.</strong> That is hopeful, especially if we understand what he went through and what he has given to us as his vision.<br /><br /><strong>At a certain point in his presidency, John Kennedy turned a corner and didn’t look back. I believe that decisive turn toward his final purpose in life, resulting in his death, happened in the darkness of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Although Kennedy was already in conflict with his national security managers, the missile crisis was the breaking point. At that most critical moment for us all, he turned from any remaining control his security managers had over him toward a deeper ethic, a deeper vision in which the fate of the earth became his priority.</strong> Without losing sight of our own best hopes in this country, he began to home in, with his new partner, Nikita Khrushchev, on the hope of peace for everyone on this earth – Russians, Americans, Cubans, Vietnamese, Indonesians, everyone – no exceptions. <strong>He made that commitment to life at the cost of his own. What a transforming story that is.<br /><br /></strong>And what a propaganda campaign has been waged to keep us Americans from understanding that story, from telling it, and from re-telling it to our children and grandchildren.<br /><br />Because that’s a story whose telling can transform a nation. But <strong>when a nation is under the continuing domination of an idol, namely war, it is a story that will be covered up. When the story can liberate us from our idolatry of war, then the worshippers of the idol are going to do everything they can to keep the story from being told.</strong> From the standpoint of a belief that war is the ultimate power, that’s too dangerous a story. It’s a subversive story. It shows a different kind of security than always being ready to go to war. It’s unbelievable – or we’re supposed to think it is -- that a president was murdered by our own government agencies because he was seeking a more stable peace than relying on nuclear weapons. It’s unspeakable. For the sake of a nation that must always be preparing for war, that story must not be told. If it were, we might learn that peace is possible without making war. We might even learn there is a force more powerful than war. How unthinkable! But how necessary if life on earth is to continue.<br /><br /><strong>That is why it is so hopeful for us to confront the unspeakable and to tell the transforming story of a man of courage, President John F. Kennedy. It is a story ultimately not of death but of life – all our lives. In</strong> the end, it is not so much a story of one man as it is a story of peacemaking when the chips are down. That story is our story, a story of hope.<br /><br />I believe it is a providential fact that the anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination always falls around Thanksgiving, and periodically on that very day. This year the anniversary of his death, two days from now, will begin Thanksgiving week.<br /><br />Thanksgiving is a beautiful time of year, with autumn leaves falling to create new life. Creation is alive, as the season turns. The earth is alive. It is not a radioactive wasteland. We can give special thanks for that. The fact that we are still living – that the human family is still alive with a fighting chance for survival, and for much more than that – is reason for gratitude to a peacemaking president, and to the unlikely alliance he forged with his enemy.<br /><br />So let us give thanks this Thanksgiving for John F. Kennedy, and for his partner in peacemaking, Nikita Khrushchev.<br /><br />Their story is our story, a story of the courage to turn toward the truth. Remember what Gandhi said that turned theology on its head. He said truth is God. That is the truth: Truth is God. We can discover the truth and live it out. There is nothing more powerful than the truth. The truth will set us free.<br /><br />__________________________________<br />1. Peter Grose, Gentleman Spy: The Life of Allen Dulles (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1994), p. 293.<br />2. Cited by Grose, ibid.<br />3. Ibid.<br />4. Cited by Raymond Marcus, “Truman’s Warning,” in E. Martin Schotz, <em>History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy </em>(Brookline, Mass.: Kurtz, Ulmer & DeLucia, 1996), pp. 237-38.<br />5. Letter from Harry S. Truman to William B. Arthur, June 10, 1964. <em>Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman</em>, edited by Robert H. Ferrell (New York: Harper & Row, 1980), p. 408.<br />6. Pioneer assassination critic Raymond Marcus has written of the lack of response to Truman’s remarkable December 22, 1963, article: “According to my information, it was not carried in later editions that day, not commented on editorially, nor picked up by any other major newspaper, or mentioned on any national radio or TV broadcast.” Raymond Marcus, Addendum B (published by the author, 1995), p. 75.<br />7. Thomas Merton, <em>Raids on the Unspeakable</em> (New York: New Directions, 1966), p. 4.<br />8. Paul B. Fay, Jr., <em>The Pleasure of His Company</em> (New York: Dell, 1966), pp. 162-63.<br />9. Kenneth P. O’Donnell and David F. Powers, <em>“Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye”</em> (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970), p. 274.<br />10. Tom Wicker, John W. Finney, Max Frankel, E. W. Kenworthy, “C.I.A.: Maker of Policy, or Tool?” <em>New York Times</em> (April 25, 1966), p. 20.<br />11. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., <em>A Thousand Days</em> (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965), p. 428.<br />12. Sheldon M Stern, <em>Averting “The Final Failure”</em> (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2003), pp. 126, 129.<br />13. Sergei N. Khrushchev, <em>Nikita Khrushchev and the Creation of a Superpower</em> (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University, 2000), pp. 618-19.<br />14. <em>Khrushchev Remembers</em>, ed. Edward Crankshaw (Boston: Little, Brown, 1970), p. 498.<br />15. S. Khrushchev, <em>Nikita Khrushchev,</em> p. 622.<br />16. Ibid., p. 630.<br />17. Norman Cousins, <em>The Improbable Triumvirate</em> (New York: W. W. Norton, 1972), p. 9.<br />18. Public Papers of the Presidents: John F. Kennedy, 1963, p. 460.<br />19. Schlesinger, Thousand Days, p. 904.<br />20. Max Frankel, “Harriman to Lead Test-Ban Mission to Soviet [Union] in July,” <em>New York Times</em> (June 12, 1963), p. 1.<br />21. Cousins, <em>Improbable Triumvirate</em>, p. 128.<br />22. Jean Daniel, “When Castro Heard the News,” <em>New Republic</em> (December 7, 1963), p. 7.<br />23. O’Donnell and Powers, p. 17.<br />24. James W. Douglass, <em>JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters </em>(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008), p. 324.<br />25. O’Donnell and Powers, p. 25.<br />26. Ralph G. Martin, <em>A Hero for our Time: An Intimate Story of the Kennedy Years</em> (New York: Ballantine Books, 1983), p. 500.<br />27. Robert F. Kennedy, <em>Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis</em> (New York: Signet, 1969), p. 110.<br />28. Evelyn Lincoln, <em>My Twelve Years with John F. Kennedy</em> (New York: Bantam Books, 1966), p. 230.<br />29. Richard D. Mahoney interview of Samuel E. Belk III. Richard D. Mahoney,<em> Sons & Brothers: The Days of Jack and Bobby Kennedy </em>(New York: Arcade, 1999), p. 281.Dr. J. P. Huberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06310093961506119843noreply@blogger.com0