Karl Kinaski

William King Harvey aka Oliver Hardy

24 posts in this topic

Quote Trauma room one, by Charles A. Crenshaw M.D. p. 132

(Time 24.11.1963. Place, Trauma room two, where Crenshaw and others were trying to save Oswalds live.)

»I looked up, an took a deep breath. When I did, I spotted a large man across the room, whom I didn’t recognized. HE RESEMLED OLIVER HARDY IN A SCRUB SUIT WITH NO MASK. MOST ARLARMING THERE WAS A PISTOL HANGING FROM HIS BACK POCKET AND IF IT HAD FALLEN TO THE FLOOR IT COULD HAVE DISCHARGED AND KILLED SOMEONE.

I never knew how he got into the operating room and who gave him the scrub suit.(...) (Oswald) was fighting for his live, while a pistol packed intruder looked on. I didn’t know what to think, except that we had to get a cap and mask to the son of a bitch before he contaminated the entire room whit bacteria. (…) ...I wanted to throw out his ass of the operating room, but I was afraid that he would shoot me...I handed him the cap and the mask. He put it on without comment.«

Close quote

I know only one CIA-man, who had do to with the false defector project including Oswald, wearing his pistols in his back pockets

a3c945.png all the time, even in the Withe House, and resembling Oliver Hardy:

this was the famous William King Harvey.

2hxotio.png

Now the strange incident followed, where Crenshaw(in an office near the operating room) got a call from a man, who claimed to be Lyndon Johnson (around noon CST). A nurse tapped Crenshaw on the shoulder, and asked him if he would take this call.)

(BTW: It would not to be too hard to find out, if this was the real Johnson or an imposter, by looking at the White House Telephone logs. Was there such a call? Or was Johnson in a conference, around 13.15 EST, on November 24.11.1963, when this strange phone call occurred?)

Quote, TRO, Crenshaw:

»This is Dr. Crenshaw, may I help you?«

»This is President Lyndon B. Johnson. Dr. Crenshaw, how is the accused assassin?«

»Mr. President, he’s holding his own at the moment.«

»Would you mind talking a message to the operating surgeon?«

»Dr. Shires is very busy right now, but I will convey your message.«

»Dr. Crenshaw, I want a dead bed confession from the accuse assassin. There is a man in the operating room, who will take the statement. I will expect full cooperation in this matter.«

»Yes, Sir«, I replied, and the telephone went dead.

Close Quote

Back in trauma room two, Crenshaw told Shires:

Quote TRO:

»President Johnson would like for us to allow the man over there to get a statement from our patient.«

Shires glanced at »Oliver Hardy« (William King Harvey, supervising the death of one of his »babies«?), shook his head in disbelieve and returned his attention to the operation.

(…)

Only moments later, 12.37 p.m, ( CST ) Oswalds heart began to fail.

(…)

Dr. Shires put his hand under Oswald's diaphragm to detect hart activity(...) he shook his head and told Dr. Perry, that Oswalds rhythmic cardiac activity had stopped. I walked over to our visitor with the gun and remarked: »Ther wont be any deathbed confession today.« (…) Oliver Hardy dissappeard, and I never saw him again.

Close quote

Again: is it plausible, that the silent intruder with the gun, resembling Oliver Hardy, was this man 2hxotio.png

Kennedy-hater William King Harvey?

Edited by Karl Kinaski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi karl very interesting and a possible...as far as if the call from lbj is in record it seems to me that in the past that has been checked and it was not found..but something niggling about him using a phone being in a limo.around that time...i will check further..if anything i will post...as far as the call coming into parkland that was verified by the switchboard operator here is some information i did find you may be interested in....b :rolleyes:

Note: The author of the following letter told Fair Play that "while what I wrote the AMA's executive CEO seems personal, it addresses issues that still smolder. It is not private."

* * *

Letter to the AMA

by Gary L. Aguilar, M.D.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 2, 1999

E. Ratcliffe Anderson, MD

Chief Executive Officer

American Medical Association

Chicago, Illinois

Dear Dr. Anderson,

I read with great amusement that deposed JAMA editor George Lundberg, MD complained that your firing him was purely political, and represented no less than a dire threat to the sanctity of independent scientific journalism. While his is a pretty wild charge, his experience in these matters is something that cannot be denied. In fact in the techniques of abusing scientific journalism to further personal and political ends, I believe it could be argued Lundberg has firmly established his own estimable credentials. I write to congratulate you, and to share with you an underreported story that exemplifies one of the ways the former editor earned those particular credentials.

In 1992 JAMA published a series of since all but forgotten articles on medical aspects of the JFK assassination that were written by in-house JAMA writer Dennis Breo. Lundberg, whose personal interest and connections had prompted the stories, apparently closely supervised Breo. The articles purported to endorse the Warren Commission by confirming the original findings of JFK's autopsy. This feat was accomplished, amazingly, by asking JFK's original pathologists - James Humes, MD, J. Thornton Boswell, MD and Pierre Finck, MD - if their original conclusions were right. When they said they were, JAMA broadcast their self-confirmations as the "indisputable proof" (Lundberg's understated description, though one, I must admit, I've never seen in the scientific literature before) that JFK's wounds were consistent with Oswald's sole guilt.

As a physician who has seen the still-restricted JFK autopsy materials by permission of the Kennedy family, and who has written and lectured on the subject of the JFK murder, I was disappointed, though fascinated, by what JAMA wrote. Why? For many reasons, including the fact that nowhere in Breo's lengthy articles did Breo/Lundberg find space to explore key background material central to even a rudimentary understanding of their lead article about JFK's autopsy: the scathing critique of JFK's autopsy by the forensic consultants to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The HSCA, which reexamined JFK's death in 1978 and determined a conspiracy was likely, devoted considerable attention to JFK's autopsy. Summarizing the myriad failings and errors in JFK's autopsy, the chairman of the HSCA's panel of forensic consultants, New York coroner Michael Baden, MD - a legitimate peer-reviewer on this subject by anyone's standards - wrote, "Where bungled autopsies are concerned, President Kennedy's is the exemplar."

Though Lundberg had trained under Baden, he was oblivious to the fact that JFK's autopsy was no better than second-rate. He maintained instead an unjustified enthusiasm for the irrefutable findings of JFK's pathologists. He traveled to New York to pose behind an AMA-emblazoned dais to spread the great news at a flashy AMA news conference. (JFK's pathologists, prudently?, declined Lundberg's invitation to attend; or, at least, that's how Lundberg explained their absence.) He appeared on numerous television talk shows. He even, ironically, crowed about what a great contribution Breo's articles were to the "peer-reviewed" literature on the JFK assassination. But they hadn't been peer-reviewed. In fact no one with the least understanding of the case, and certainly no one approaching Baden's caliber, had ever seen Breo's articles before JAMA published them. And Lundberg was clever, too. He held his news conference on May 19, 1992, 8 days before the publication date, and as much as 3 weeks before legitimate JFK authorities would have a chance to examine the articles to give informed comment to any press inquiries. To readers with any background in the case, Lundberg's failure to employ true peer review became immediately apparent in the first article. But it was not the first article that caused the AMA so much grief.

In the second of his three articles, Breo/Lundberg sought to refute the conspiracy claims of then-AMA member, and a treating Dallas physician-witness, Charles Crenshaw, MD, author of the best-selling book JFK - Conspiracy of Silence. To refute Crenshaw's claim that JFK's wounds were inconsistent with someone firing from Oswald's position, Breo proffered some Dallas physician-witnesses. Though helpful to Breo/Lundberg, those witnesses had lousy memories. For when the same men testified to the Warren Commission in 1964, their statements, rather than refuting Crenshaw, tended to corroborate him! But that is a side issue, albeit fascinating in its own right. (Testimonies available by request.) Oblivious to his sources' credibility problems, Breo triumphantly declared that Crenshaw couldn't have known about JFK's wounds because he wasn't even in JFK's trauma room. Concluding his attack on Crenshaw with a note of righteous indignation, Breo wrote, "This special report is our attempt to confront the defamers of the truth."

On May 20th and 27th, 1992 Lawrence Altman, MD wrote in the New York Times that JAMA's research on JFK 'wasn't very thorough,' and, among other problems, he pointed out what most Warren critics already knew: Crenshaw was present in JFK's trauma room. His presence had been sworn to before the Warren Commission by at least one of the very Dallas physicians (Charles Baxter, MD) that JAMA had sourced as proof of his absence! And besides Baxter's sworn statement to Crenshaw's presence in 1964, there were the sworn statements of 4 other witnesses in Warren Commission volume 6 - on pages 32, 40, 60, 80, and 131, as well as other, contemporaneous news accounts.

[Let me hasten to add that I am in no way crediting every assertion of fact in Crenshaw's book, but only arguing that criticizing an author on unchecked, and false, grounds is bad form in a "scientific" journal. Nor is it better form to refuse to set the scientific record strait when error is identified, as happened here. Additionally, as the noted authority, Arthur Plotnik, has observed: "One hopes Σ no editor would sink so low, even to attack the most universally despised public figure. Editors are morally bound Σ to take every precaution imaginable in verifying the facts to assure that truth is being served when any member of society is being publicly kicked in the pants." Whereas Crenshaw admitted there were errors in his book in the New York Times, which he attributed to his co-authors, Lundberg refused to correct his "co-author's" obvious libel against Crenshaw in JAMA. Thus in his unapologetic 'attempt to confront the defamers of the truth,' Lundberg, ironically, ceded the moral high ground to Crenshaw!]

JAMA's (then potential) libel was brought to Lundberg's and the AMA's attention not only by the New York Times, but also by the Columbia Journalism Review, the peer-reviewed journalism journal, by Crenshaw himself in a letter to the editor Lundberg refused to publish, and by a group of then-AMA members who submitted a letter to the AMA protesting Lundberg's substandard, one-sided coverage of the JFK topic. I personally wrote the AMA's president Lonnie Bristow, MD to warn of the possible legal and financial consequences to the AMA membership of Lundberg's actions. There was then still time to do the right thing and, less importantly, avoid a costly and embarrassing legal outcome. But all efforts were to no avail. The AMA foolishly circled its wagons around Lundberg, and Crenshaw's lawyers licked their lips.

The AMA ultimately paid Crenshaw over $200,000.00 to settle out of court. It probably also spent another small fortune in direct and indirect defense costs, what with traveling to Texas for court appointments and so on. A loyal (if naïve) AMA member then myself, I foolishly believed that the AMA would - if not before Crenshaw's successful litigation, then after it - do to Lundberg what only you did recently: the honorable thing. For not only had Lundberg knowingly withheld the truth from JAMA readers, he did so knowing he was putting AMA dues-payers at risk for his folly. (If JAMA were indeed independent of the AMA, as Lundberg and the AMA leadership then argued, why was the AMA forced to pay the Crenshaw settlement? And how could you, from outside JAMA, have recently fired Lundberg?)

Besides the financial costs the AMA bore, the legal depositions also inflicted additional collateral damage to Lundberg's credibility. Dubiously, Lundberg claimed under oath that it was not his idea, but the AMA's, to have him host a New York news conference to introduce the JFK articles. AMA executives swore, quite reasonably, that they knew nothing about the articles until Lundberg mentioned them, and proposed the AMA sponsor him at a news conference. Someone was not telling the whole truth. Common sense suggests it was Lundberg. (I have in my personal possession, and have read, the depositions.)

Lundberg was also forced to admit under oath that the "peer reviewers" who had approved Breo's adventurous pieces were Lundberg himself, Lundberg's AMA underling Richard Glass, MD (the new co-editor and "peer review" authority, right?), and AMA attorney Betty Jane Anderson. Under oath they acknowledged their all but total unfamiliarity with the complexities of the JFK medical/autopsy data. Thus on the JFK topic, they fell short of meeting the criterion Lundberg requires for using the expression "peer-reviewers": "acknowledged experts inside or outside the editorial office." (I believe JAMA may have published this definition, for Lundberg faxed me this definition, apparently from a text of some sort, himself. Copy of his fax to me by request.)

So to confer undeserved authority on poorly researched articles, Lundberg claimed they had been "peer-reviewed." And for what purpose? His published comments, and court documents, prove his agenda was to salvage the Oliver Stone-sullied reputations of JFK's military pathologists who, as luck would have it, just happened to be the former military pathologist-turned JAMA editor's personal friends and acquaintances! Indeed, Lundberg invoked the "non truths" in Oliver Stone's film JFK in his hand-written note of invitation to his friend, "Jim" - James H. Humes, MD, JFK's chief pathologist. And in a debate on the JFK topic in Chicago in 1993, Lundberg explained that he sought to interview JFK's pathologists because he was outraged at how they were depicted in Stone's film JFK: as cowards bending to the will of superiors intent on eliciting certain conclusions from the autopsy of the century. (See Copy of Lundberg's hand-written letter to "Jim," a.k.a. James Humes, MD, JFK's chief autopsy pathologist - enclosed. See also Lundberg's published comments in JAMA. Transcript of Lundberg's comments at the Chicago debate available by request.)

But when word got out that JAMA's famous interviewees happened to be Lundberg's personal friends, and when they no-showed at Lundberg's news conference, and then stonewalled every question put to them in colleague letters JAMA's editors selected and published (including mine, 10/7/92 JAMA issue), it gave cynics reason to snicker that perhaps the AMA had signed on, witting or no, to continue the assassination cover up! (See Professor Wayne Smith's article in the Columbia Journalism Review, Sept/Oct., 1993, p. 49, as well as my published letter, CJR, Nov./Dec., 1993, p.6.) Little has emerged since then to prove the cynics wrong. More, in fact, suggests they might be right, at least as regards Humes, Boswell and Finck.

The timid pathologists, so effusively extolled by Breo/Lundberg as capable, courageous and forthright, quickly exhibited a quite different quality - that of the frightened cowards in Oliver Stone's dark portrait. Despite their bold declarations in JAMA that they had nothing to hide, when the civilian leadership of the US government's Assassinations Records Review Board invited them to appear voluntarily to answer questions (including, they might have feared, about their prior contradictory statements), they refused. (In the published letters they stonewalled in JAMA, you'll find mention of several irrefutable inconsistencies between the pathologists' prior sworn statements and their claims in JAMA.)

But having cut its teeth by forcing seasoned stonewallers - FBI and CIA agents - to comply with the will of the people, the JFK Review Board made quick work of Humes, Boswell and Finck. They slapped them with subpoenas and put them under oath. Though a full discussion of their fascinating testimony is beyond the scope of this letter, they did tell the Board a few things worth mentioning: They claimed, as they had for 34 years, that JFK's fatal bullet entered his skull at a low location in occipital bone, just near the external occipital protuberance. If indeed it had entered that low, according to all the authorities who have ever examined this case, Oswald is "irrefutably" excluded as a possible assassin! While they named the same low location in JAMA, Lundberg was apparently too distracted bashing Oliver Stone and Charles Crenshaw, and bucking-up the Warren Commission and his pathologist friends, to devote a single word to, or perhaps even notice, this glaring scientific discrepancy. (It remains unresolved even today.) The pathologists, who had previously signed a Justice Department-prepared declaration that there were no missing autopsy photographs, admitted under oath what they had told others: autopsy photographs are missing. 5 other, credible witnesses, including both autopsy photographers, independently confirmed that autopsy images are missing. But I digress. The point is that there were important stories, such as these, that should have been in JAMA. But because of Lundberg's agenda, they weren't.

Nevertheless, in the end, was Lundberg's effort worth it? Did the men who Lundberg brandished as heroic sources of 'irrefutable scientific proof' compensate for the editor's failures regarding Crenshaw? They might have, if they had explained the serious discrepancies in their prior statements, if they had explained why the most important autopsy of their careers had been discredited by the legitimate peer-reviewers of the HSCA, if they had had the courage to meet the press at Lundberg's ballyhooed New York news conference, if they had not stonewalled colleague letters in JAMA, and, finally, if they had not been men who embarrassed all physicians by trying to stonewall delegates of the people. But, alas, on all accounts they failed. Lundberg's failure, however, was greater. He failed to protect JAMA readers, and the scientific record, from the self-serving, inconsistent statements of JFK's discredited pathologists. He also failed to protect the AMA from unnecessary costs and embarrassment resulting from his unsound editorial decision-making on Crenshaw.

Since you may not have a good source on Lundberg/Crenshaw affair, [please see the] article from your local Chicago Reader (copies available by request). Though hardly the august pulpit Lundberg had for so long at JAMA, the author of the Reader article, Michael Miner, has done a far better job of clarifying some of the labyrinthine aspects of Lundberg/Crenshaw affair than JAMA did clarifying the medical mysteries of JFK's death. If anything, I think he was too kind to Lundberg - far kinder, and fairer, than Lundberg was to the responsible Warren critics of the HSCA, or Crenshaw. It's a true and important story, though one you'd never find in JAMA, which, until recently, was apparently more interested in getting quick headline coverage of the important fact that 8 years ago a majority of college students didn't think oral sex was sex. I am encouraged to see that, whereas the AMA apparently had no problem with Lundberg's colossal and costly goofs regarding JFK, under your direction, he got a pink slip for aiding and abetting a randy man who has disgraced America with his obsession with pink slips and red thongs.

I hope you enjoy Miner's well-written article, as well as the published follow-up letters David Mantik, MD, Ph.D. (physics) and I wrote. Please feel free to call upon me anytime.

Sincerely,

Gary L. Aguilar, MD

Associate Director, Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, San Francisco

Head, Division of Ophthalmology, St. Francis Memorial Hospital, San Francisco

Associate Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology, University of California, San Francisco

Assistant Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology, Stanford University Medical Center

Member, California Medical Association

Former Delegate, California Medical Association

PS. When JAMA's JFK articles first appeared I looked up David Mantik, who, like me, had authored a letter that was published, and stonewalled, in the 10/7/92 JAMA issue. We were both then longstanding, loyal AMA members. After having regularly paid dues to the AMA for over 10 years, we believed that the AMA would answer the only letter we had ever written "our" organization - a letter of protest about the Lundberg/Breo JFK articles, and one that had 10 co-signers besides ourselves, including Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, the coroner of Pittsburgh PA and one of the HSCA's forensic consultants. Inasmuch as Lundberg had brandished the AMA shield during his sales pitch in New York, we believed that the AMA, and we as dues payers, ought to have something to say about what he was selling.

But when the AMA stonewalled all of us to stick by Lundberg's editorial abuses and libel, it altered my view of the AMA as an organization interested in the legitimate, ethical concerns of its members. Mantik and I (and others) have since found other uses for our AMA dues in the aftermath of this episode. (In fairness, nearly a year later, and after several additional inquiries, we finally did get a letter back. It was one that managed, clumsily, to dodge virtually all the substantive issues we raised - available by request.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

karl here is the second letter re jama b

FROM: Gary L. Aguilar, 73653,2623

TO: Anthony Marsh (MA), 72127,2301

DATE: 11/14/94 12:29 AM

Re: Drummond Rennie

Next letter:

Raymond Scalettar, MD

Chairman, Board of Trustees, American Medical Association

730 24th Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20037

20, May, 1993

Dear Dr Scalettar,

As individuals with an interest in the assassination of President John

Fitzgerald Kennedy, we are concerned about what appears to be extremely

one-sided coverage given the subject in JAMA. We are especially distressed

by the public pronouncements made on this topic by JAMA's editor, George D.

Lundberg, MD, which have been advanced as though they were conclusive and

definitive. They are particularly perplexing in view of his recent

admission that he is no authority on the matter. In a debate on the

medical evidence in this case in which Lundberg participated on April 3,

1993, in Chicago, he volunteered, "I'm really not much of an expert in this

thing at all. Its never been all that interesting to me until the last

year or so. My role in this whole thing is that of a journalist...". Most

of us are members of the American Medical Association who laud JAMA's

strict medical-scientific standards, and we are bewildered by what seems to

be a shameless abrogation of those principles in this case. Before taking

our concerns to the public, which seems to be our only recourse, we want to

state our case to you.

In three separate issues spanning 10 months, JAMA has devoted approximately

40 pages to coverage of the medical aspects of JFK's death. Physicians

with views differing from Lundberg's have been allowed only 3 pages to

state their views , which consisted exclusively of letters to the editor.

Even those "dissenting" letters that JAMA chose to publish went virtually

ignored by the physicians to whom they were directed, which is a

contravention of the canons of scientific discourse. Such response as was

provided consisted largely of an article written by Robert Artwohl, MD,

which is seriously flawed both logically and factually. (See Appendix A)

It misrepresents, only to condemn, the views of critics. This type of

response seems mean-spirited and inappropriate for a scientific journal.

Moreover, since the questions were largely directed to Humes, Boswell and

Finck, it is inexplicable that JAMA would rest content with a response from

a third party, who has neither the authority nor knowledge to answer for

the pathologists.

No one should be enthusiastic about the way JAMA gathered its "irrefutable"

autopsy evidence. The "revelations" of former military pathologists Humes,

Boswell and Finck were made exclusively to another former military

pathologist, and personal friend, Lundberg, or to his surrogate, Dennis

Breo. Very little "new" information was presented by the pathologists.

Astonishingly, no supporting documentation or corroboration to their claims

was provided. Nor were their many previous claims made under oath which

contradicted their assertions in JAMA even acknowledged. This is a serious

omission reflecting inadequate scholarship or purposeful negligence.

Moreover the autopsists have behaved "unscientifically" by refusing to

answer questions before the press, by refusing to answer physician letters

selected by JAMA's own editors , and now by insisting that they will answer

no further questions. Yet these interviews and articles have nevertheless

been referred to by Lundberg as "open JAMA presentations"!

For an admitted non-expert, Lundberg has behaved in a peculiar way,

especially for a scientific journalist. Inexplicably abandoning his own

published policy "... that the information (about an article) not be

released to the public...until the article appears in print..." . Lundberg

called a press conference on May 19,1992, to announce that the forthcoming

May 27, 1992 issue of JAMA would contain definitive evidence concerning

Kennedy's autopsy findings. Those among us with knowledge of the case,

however, could not read the issue in question for up to two weeks after

this news conference. The press, meanwhile, had advance access to the

articles, as the New York Times coverage for May 20, 1992 makes

unmistakably clear. We were therefore unable to assess the enthusiasm

displayed by Lundberg's assertion in JAMA, "I completely believe that this

information, as personally given by Jim (Humes) and 'J' (Boswell), is

scientifically sound and, in my judgment, provides irrefutable evidence

that President Kennedy was killed by only two bullets that struck him from

above and behind and that caused fatal high-velocity wounds." We were

taken aback by seeing the expression "irrefutable evidence" in a scientific

medical journal uttered by someone not known to be competent to judge the

evidence.

What "irrefutable evidence" did the autopsy pathologists provide? Without

citing any documentation or reference, they claimed that Kennedy's

all-important fatal wound was located "to the right and slightly above the

external occipital protuberance" in occipital bone. (V267:2798) This claim

was challenged in 1968 by the Clark Panel, in 1978 by the House Select

Committee on Assassination's panel of forensic pathologists (Appendix :rolleyes:,

and even by two of Lundberg's own debate team members in the Chicago

debate, John Lattimer, MD, and Robert Artwohl, MD. The "single-assassin"

loyalists have all endorsed controversial radiographic and photographic

data that show the wound to be at least 10 cm higher in parietal bone. A

10 cm "error" in the localization of a fatal head wound--if in fact it was

an error--would undermine the confidence anyone would have in his source,

and should have restrained the encomiums of Lundberg, a nationally

prominent medical-scientific editor, in particular. Humes' contradictory

statements on this wound's location are well known to everyone in the JFK

medical-research community, but not, apparently, to Lundberg: Before the

Warren Commission, Humes described the entrance of the skull wound as to

the right and just above the EOP. (Appendix B) Before the HSCA he (and

Boswell) initially stated it was to the right and just below the EOP.

(Appendix B) But later he capitulated to the HSCA's panel of pathologists

and agreed to a 10 cm higher location at their insistence. Now in JAMA

Humes claims that the wound is once again to the right and just above the

EOP! Humes ignored a question about this in a letter to JAMA.. If the

autopsists erred so egregiously on the location of the fatal skull wound,

however, as current Warren Commission loyalists insist, what "complete

belief" can anyone have on their proof of bullet directionality, which was

based on far subtler determinations of beveling from skull fragments, whose

precise origins and proper orientations have always been in doubt?

Humes' memory, alas, has had other lapses. In JAMA, Humes insists his

findings "proved" a shot from above and behind. But to the HSCA's

forensic pathologists, he admitted that the anatomic findings would not

support a shot from above and behind, but only from behind. Humes, again,

ignored a question about this in another letter to JAMA. Humes also

refused to answer a question on how he could have measured Kennedy's brain

weight at 1500 gms, the upper limit of normal for an undamaged, whole

brain, when, as he claimed in JAMA, "2/3's of the right cerebrum had been

blown away". In JAMA, Humes said, "The only high-ranking officer (at the

autopsy) was Admiral Burkley...". FBI agents James Sibert and Francis

O'Neill, however, listed all persons known to have been present. Their

list includes Brigadier-General McHugh, Admiral Galloway, Major General

Wehle, Capt. Stover, Capt. Osborne, and Lt. Cdr. Cross. (See Appendix B)

These are points of great controversy that bear on the reliability of the

autopsy pathologists as well as Lundberg's proclaimed confidence in them.

None of these questions were satisfactorily addressed in JAMA.

Humes, Boswell and Finck's refusal to answer JAMA-selected physician

letters, let alone questions from the free press, raises serious doubts

about their credibility. The crucial question for us as physicians and

scientists who want to protect the reputation of the AMA and its official

journal is this: Did Lundberg's personal friendship with Humes and Boswell

combine with his ignorance of the Kennedy case to cause him to suspend the

normal and rigorous peer-review scrutiny he, singularly, has long

championed?

How else is one to understand JAMA's publishing false statements about

fellow AMA member, Charles Crenshaw,MD? Without endorsing every statement

in Conspiracy of Silence, we critics believe that JAMA's and Lundberg's

comments about its author, Crenshaw, have injured the AMA, its journal and

its editor. Lundberg's smug assertion that Crenshaw's book was "a sad

fabrication" was imprudent given JAMA's own errors. Crenshaw made no

claim to peer-review scientific reliability. Lundberg did. We critics

are constrained to believe that no peer-review scrutiny was done to

reconfirm the hearsay reported in JAMA that Crenshaw was not in Kennedy's

trauma room at Parkland. And we believe that none reconfirmed JAMA's

denial that Crenshaw had taken a call from President Johnson while caring

for Oswald. If we are in error, then let Lundberg share his data with

us, because we are unaware of reliable information that supports JAMA's

position on Crenshaw. (Neither of Breo's lengthy articles is helpful in

this regard: not a single supporting reference is given.) Indeed, why has

no retraction or correction ever been published? Did Breo ever attempt to

interview Crenshaw? Lundberg resolutely refused to comment on Crenshaw at

the debate in Chicago, fueling speculation that Crenshaw has instituted

legal proceedings. Any such legal proceedings that we, as AMA members, may

be funding might have been easily avoided had JAMA's normal peer-review

process been functioning or had a simple correction been published by JAMA.

Should the AMA membership be burdened with legal costs incurred by the

improper actions of individuals who act in opposition to published JAMA

policies--even when they happen to include its editor?

We believe that no unbiased observer of the debate in Chicago on April 3,

1993, could conclude that Lundberg's side "won". If anything, the opinion

most widely circulating was that Lundberg's side was embarrassed. We can

make available to the Board copies of videos of the debate at our expense

so you can judge for yourselves. Furthermore, we stand ready to

're-debate' Lundberg at any mutually agreeable time and place, and we

promise to appear at our own expense. That Lundberg would have presented

his debate team on CNBC the week after the debate without inviting an

opposing side, moreover, seems grossly unfair. Did Lundberg even suggest

to his viewers that there was any other side?

We are offended that our dissent has been cynically misrepresented by

Lundberg and Artwohl both on the pages of JAMA and in public. Artwohl

suggested in JAMA, for example, that, "...many physicians are still

sympathetic to a key proconspiracy tenet regarding the Kennedy

assassination: that the autopsy physicians conspired with the military, the

CIA, the FBI and the Secret Service, and other agencies of government to

disguise and suppress medical evidence that would show President Kennedy

was publicly executed in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, by multiple

gunmen." . We do not believe Artwohl can name a single physician who

holds this opinion. We have never seen a better example of the "straw man"

fallacy in print and we emphatically reject Artwohl's self-serving

distortion of our views. In fact, most of us think it quite likely that

simple and understandable errors on the parts of the autopsists may have

led to mistaken conclusions. Not one of us believes in the grand collusion

implied by Artwohl.

Lundberg has written, "The most likely explanations for the motivations of

the myriad conspiracy theorists are excessive suspiciousness, desire for

personal recognition and public visibility, and monetary profit."

Lundberg leaves no room for honest scientific differences of opinion. He

ridicules the vast majority of Americans who believe that there was a

conspiracy in Kennedy's death, and he disregards the central conclusion of

the 1979 House Select Committee on Assassinations that, in fact, there was

a conspiracy! Should not the American Medical Association membership be

concerned that Lundberg has often appeared behind a dais bearing the "AMA"

logo while speaking to the press on a subject he admits to knowing poorly?

Few who see Lundberg behind that dais will realize that he is not speaking

for the AMA or for its members-- unless, unbeknownst to us, he has been

directed by you, the Board of Trustees, to speak for the entire AMA.

Lundberg most decidedly does not represent our views on this subject.

Accepting his self-description as "no expert", we view his pontifications

on the "plain truth" of the Kennedy autopsy as scientifically embarrassing,

professionally irresponsible, and obviously unhelpful in pursuing the

truth. We fear JAMA's poor analysis of Kennedy's death and Lundberg's

behavior will only encourage speculation that there was a conspiracy and

that the AMA and its journal have joined to aid the cover-up.

Rather than emphasizing the motivations of those who do or do not believe

that there was a conspiracy in John Kennedy's death, we firmly believe that

additional scientific work needs to be done. As Lundberg correctly notes,

"When historians look back at the autopsy they will look to JAMA to find

out what happened at the autopsy and these ... pages will stand out as the

definitive history of what happened." Unfortunately, JAMA's "definitive

history" is anything but, and as responsible scientists we must demand

more.

We strongly urge the Board of Trustees to formally direct Lundberg solicit

and publish well-researched and well-reasoned articles to resolve the

disputes that JAMA's previous articles have raised and left unanswered.

(Appendix C) We further request that the peer review be balanced and

public to preclude JAMA's relying only upon only those reviewers who share

Lundberg's conclusions. We also request that the board direct Lundberg to

allow the debate team that opposed his in Chicago be given an opportunity

to make a presentation on CNBC to balance his one-sided exposition.

We respectfully request a formal written response to our letter which

includes a statement that Lundberg does not speak for the American Medical

Association, its Board of Trustees, or its membership on the matter of the

assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Very truly yours,

Gary L Aguilar, MD Anthony White, MD

Cyril H Wecht, MD, JD Duane Stephens, MD

David W Mantik, MD, PhD (Physics) Paul Langer, MD

Patricia L. James, MD Wayne Smith, PhD

Randolph Robertson, MD Douglas DeSalles, MD

James H Fetzer, PhD Roger Bruce Feinman,

Esq.

Anthony B Iton, MD, JD

1.JAMA: 5-27-92, JAMA10-7-92, and JAMA3-24/31-93.

2.JAMA. 1992; 268:1681-1686.

3. Artwohl, RR. JFK's Assassination--Conspiracy, Forensic Science, and

Common Sense. JAMA. 1993; 269:1540-1543.

4. Humes, JJ, Boswell JT. Letter "In reply". JAMA. 1992; 268:1685.

5. Lundberg GD. Closing the case in JAMA on the John F Kennedy Autopsy.

JAMA. 1992; 268: 1736-1738.

6. Lundberg GD, Glass RM, Joyce LE. Policy of AMA journals regarding

release of information to the public. JAMA. 1991; 265:400.

7. New York Times, 5-20-92, P. A-1.

8. Lundberg GD. quoted in: Breo DL. JFK's death--the plain truth from the

MDs who did the autopsy. JAMA. 1992; 267:2803.

9.IBID, p2798.

10. Lattimer FK. Observations based on a review of the autopsy

photographs, X-Rays, and related materials of the late John F Kennedy.

Resident and Staff Physician. May, 1972; p33-64.

11 Ref.# 3. p.1540-1541.

12. Warren Commission-Exhibits and Hearings. Volume2:351 See Appendix B.

13. House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Washington, DC; US

Gevernment printing Office; 1979; Vol 7:246-see Appendix B.

14. HSCA. US Government Printing Office; 1979; 1:323-332, and V7:115. See

Appendix A.

15. Ref #4. p1685.

16. Breo DL. JFK's death--the plain truth from the MD's who did the

autopsy. JAMA. 1992; 267: 2794.

17. HSCA. V7:263.

18. James PL. Letter to the editor. JAMA. 1992; 268:1682.

19. Mantik DW. Letter to the editor. JAMA. 1992; 268:1683.

20. Breo DL. JFK's death--the plain truth from the MDs who did the

autopsy. JAMA. 1992: 267: 2798.

21.IBID.

22. New York Times, May 20, 1992.

23. Breo DL. JFK's death--the plain truth from the MDs who did the

autopsy. JAMA. 1992; 267:2803. Lundberg's states, "I am extremely pleased

that, finally, we are able to have published in the peer-reviewed

literature the actual findings (emphasis added) of what took place at the

autopsy table on November 22, 1963. I completely believe that this

information, as personally given by Jim (Humes) and 'J' (Boswell), is

scientifically sound (emphasis added) and, in my judgement, provides

irrefutable evidence (emphasis added) that President Kennedy was killed by

only two bullets that struck him from above and behind and that caused

fatal high-velocity wounds."

24. Breo DL. JFK's death, part II--Dallas MDs recall their memories.

JAMA. 1992; 267:2804.

25. IBID. p. 2805.

26. Artwohl RR. JFK's assassination--conspiracy, forensic science and

common sense. JAMA. 1993; 269:1540-1543.

27. Lundberg GD. Closing the case in JAMA on the John F Kennedy autopsy.

JAMA. 1992; 268:1738.

WHAT FOLLOWS WAS PASSED OUT AT THE DEBATE IN CHICAGO APRIL, ‘93

THERE ARE SOME USEFUL QUESTIONS IN IT, I THINK.

QUESTIONS FOR GEORGE LUNDBERG, MD

1) Can you honestly and scientifically characterize JAMA's coverage of

JFK's death as an "open presentation" (JAMA. 1992; 268:1738) when: (1) No

one other than you, a former military pathologist yourself, or your

emissary, Dennis Breo, were given the opportunity to ask any questions of

the three military autopsists, (2) Humes, Boswell and Finck have refused

to answer any specific questions put to them in letters by other physicians

in your own Journal in the "Letters to the Editor" section on 10-7-92, (3)

Humes, Boswell and Finck have refused to appear publicly with you at news

conferences to answer any "open" questioning from the press, and (4)

Through you Humes, Boswell and Finck categorically state they will answer

no further questions to anyone even to clarify previously contradictory

testimony?

2) Can you fairly insist (Lundberg in JAMA V268:1738)that the motivations

of the myriad conspiracy theorists are paranoia, need of personal

recognition, public visibility and profit in view of the well documented

military-intelligence deceits of the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Gulf of

Tonkin incident , the falsified casualty figures and battle reports from

the Vietnam war, as well as the lies regarding the Cambodian incursion, the

lies of the Watergate coverup, the Iran-Contra scandal, the Vincennes

incident, the Iraq-gate deception and many others? In JFK's death are we

readers to ignore your admonition that "It is the reader's responsibility,

no matter whether an investigator, a physicion, a medical reporter, or any

member of the public, to read all with a skeptical eye"(Lundberg, JAMA

V262:945)? In view of the above numerous examples of military misconduct

and deceit, it would seem that suspicion of any military claims is

justified--even those of military physicians.

(3) On Larry King Live you stated, "I've studied the Ramsy Clark Panel

Report fully personally. They (sic) supported Humes and Boswell and

provided additional forensic evidence that supported Humes and Boswell...".

Are you unaware that the Clark Panel did not support Humes and Boswell but

determined that the autopsists "missed" the location of the fatal skull

wound by 4-5 inches--that the wound they saw in photos and confirmed in

X-rays was 4-5 inches higher than claimed by Humes and Boswell in JAMA and

to the Warren Commission? If even the Clark Panel determined the

autopsists to be wildly inaccurate in the simple matter of determing a

skull wound, how can anyone rely on their other claims including the bone

beveling that determined bullet directionality? (After all, determination

of the bone beveling requires a far subtler observation than the gross

localization of the head wound.)

(4) If, as you claim, "These first hand accounts of the autopsy and the

scientific forencic evidence are indisputable." (JAMA. '92; 268:1738) can

you possibly be aware that the X-rays and photos don't support the claims

of Humes and Boswell? If Humes and Boswell are right about the location of

the skull wound it implies that the photos and X-rays are forged as claimed

by the technicians who took them. Is that JAMA's intent?

(5) Humes and Boswell claimed that the skull entrance wound was to the

right and just above the EOP to the Warren Commission and to you. To the

HSCA they claimed it was to the right and just below the EOP and labelled a

skull specimen to show the location. In a second interview Humes caved in

and decided that the HSCA's pathologists were right and that he, Boswell

and Finck were wrong and that the wound was 4 inches higher in the area of

the cowlick! You state: "I completely believe that this information, as

personally given by Jim (Humes) and "J" (Boswell) is scientifically sound

and, in my judgement, provides irrefutable evidence that president Kennedy

was killed by only two bullets that struck him from above and

behind...".(JAMA. '92; 267:2803) Why should anyone believe what Humes,

Boswell and Finck say when, not only do they change their claims, but the

photos and X-rays "prove" their JAMA claims wrong?

(6) If JAMA's policy is to "prefer that information not be released to the

public...until the article appears in print in (the) journal" (JAMA. '91;

265:400), why did you appear publicly and announce the upcoming JFK

interviews on 5-19-92 (before anyone would have had the opportunity to

study the data) and not wait until 5-27-92, the publication date of the

issue in question?

(7) You have stated: "...Rigorous peer reveiw prevents the publication of

poor science by applying the most stringent standards when evaluating the

validity of research..." (JAMA. '87; 258:87).You also claimed: "I am

extremely pleased that, finally, we are able to have published in the peer

reviewed literature the actual findings of what took place at the autopsy

table on 11-23-63...."(JAMA '92; 267:2803) Can we infer from your

statement that outside, "peer review" experts were consulted to corroborate

the information provided by the autopsy pathologists? If so, how could

these consultants have failed to point out the previously contradictory

testimonies of Humes, Boswell and Finck? How could JAMA have failed to

mention it? How can you categorically state that the information is

"scientifically sound"? If the autopsy pathologists were wrong about the

location of the wound, something measured in inches, can you rely upon them

to accurately determine "beveling" a feature measured in mm?

As I think about it, some other thoughts should come to mind. The first

one, however, would be to contact the people “debating” Rennie and ask them

if they’d like any of this.

MOST IMPORTANT: LUNDBERG DESCRIBED JAMA’S ARTICLES ON JFK, THOSE BY BREO,

AS “PEER-REVIEWED”. PEER-REVIEWED MEANS, BY THE AMA’S “MANUAL OF STYLE”

THAT THE ARTICLES WERE PEER REVIEWED BY AN “ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERT”. I WROTE

DENNY MYSELF AND ASKED HIM AND HE TOLD ME THAT BREO’S ARTICLES WERE, IN

FACT, “PEER-REVIEWED”, BUT NOT IN THE ‘USUAL’ MANNER. HE DID NOT EXPLAIN OR

ELABORATE WHAT THAT MEANT, BUT I’M UNAWARE OF ANOTHER STANDARD FOR PEER

REVIEW.

THE PEER REVIEWERS, AS KIZZIA’S LETTER WHICH FOLLOWS SHOWS, WERE:

1) LUNDBERG HIMSELF

2) AMA-EMPLOYEE, RICHARD GLASS, MD

3) AMA-ATTORNEY MARY JANE ANDERSON (?-EN)

NOT ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUALS WOULD, BY ANY STANDARD, BE CONSIDERED AN

‘ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERT’.

KIZZIA’S COPA ABSTRACT

Disturbing Revelations Uncovered in the Suit brought by Charles

Crenshaw,MD against the AMA/JAMA, The Dallas Morning News, David Belin,

George D. Lundberg, MD, et al.

by

D. Bradley Kizzia, J.D.

COPA - 1994

Recent information uncovered during the lawsuit brought by Charles

Crenshaw, MD, author of Conspiracy of Silence, against The American Medical

Association (AMA), The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA),

The Dallas Morning News, JAMA editor, George D. Lundberg, MD, JAMA staff

writer, Dennis Breo and David Belin, reveals the surprising depths to which

some Warren Commission loyalists were willing to descend to quell

opposition to the ‘official’ 'truth' of the Warren Commission. Among the

troubling revelations it has emerged that:

1) While Dennis Breo’s AMA/JAMA articles were described as "objective", and

"peer reviewed" by JAMA editor, Lundberg, they were neither. Lundberg acted

as instigator, supervisor and consultant in the preparation of Breo's

interview articles. As he is a personal friend of controversial

interviewees, James, H. Humes, MD and J. Thornton Boswell, MD, he could

hardly be considered objective. As he has admitted that he is not

knowledgeable on the JFK subject, Lundberg's interpretations are not

authoritative. Moreover, Lundberg, a much published authority on the

subject of scientific "peer review" , directed that Breo's articles be

'peer reviewed' by himself, AMA attorney Betty Jane Anderson, and JAMA

employee, Richard Glass, MD. Not one of these individuals was even

moderately knowledgeable on the subject of JFK's death; nor for that matter

was author Breo. Lundberg has thus mocked the very standards of peer review

scientific journalism he himself has labored to establish and defend -

authoritative factual content and objective, knowledgeable prepublication

review and certification.

2) Lundberg coordinated and planned the splashy AMA-sponsored New York news

conference that announced the publication of Dennis Breo’s seriously

factually flawed and defamatory AMA/JAMA articles. He sent Breo to New York

on 5/18/92 to prepare for the 5/20/92 news conference/media blitz. He later

misleadingly claimed in sworn depositions that he was merely invited by the

AMA to give a news conference, when in fact, the news conference was

instigated by him and driven by him.

3) Lundberg sought to impugn Crenshaw's book describing it as "a sad

fabrication based on unsubstantiated allegations" for Crenshaw's

descriptions of JFK's wounds which suggested a shot from the front.

Parkland physician witnesses were presented in JAMA to refute Crenshaw's

conspiracy-supporting wound descriptions. JAMA failed to acknowledge,

however, that the very witnesses Breo used to disprove Crenshaw's

assertions, Drs. Perry, Baxter, McClelland and Jenkins gave eerily similar

wound descriptions to those of Crenshaw in 1963 and 1964 - when,

presumably, their recollections were fresher and more reliable, and, when

they were not being pressured by the AMA/JAMA to give the 'correct' wound

descriptions.

4) The AMA/JAMA falsely suggested that Crenshaw's observations were

worthless as he was not even in JFK's trauma room. That Crenshaw was

present was sworn to by two of JAMA's own interviewees, Drs. Baxter and

McClelland, before the Warren Commission, and is also confirmed by the

Warren testimonies of three other witnesses (6H32, 40, 60, 80 & 131).

AMA/JAMA interviewee Robert McClelland, MD even told Breo that Crenshaw was

in JFK's trauma room, yet JAMA printed the false slander anyhow, and

apparently without further pursuing the easily found truth. Had a

legitimate "peer reviewer" been used by JAMA this error, and myriad others,

would have never appeared on its pages.

The AMA/JAMA's libelous error against AMA-member, Crenshaw, was critically

noted on the pages of the New York Times on 5/20/92 and again on 5/27/92,

and, it has been learned, these issues were immediately available, and

seen, in the offices of AMA/JAMA. No correction or retraction was printed.

Discovery during the suit has also uncovered the fact that Breo and

Lundberg even researched and confirmed that the New York Times’ criticisms

were valid on the slanderous errors about Crenshaw and still printed no

retraction or correction. AMA/JAMA even reprinted and distributed the false

slanders well after the truth was well known to Breo and Lundberg.

Crenshaw sent JAMA an article to correct the scientific record and defend

his name. JAMA refused to publish it, but suggested he write a letter to

the editor of no longer than 500 words. Crenshaw wrote the letter, and JAMA

also refused to publish it. It is now 2 1/2 years since these slanderous

errors appeared and JAMA has not printed a correction, even if only for the

factual, scientific record. In depositions neither Breo nor Lundberg could

identify a single other article published in JAMA where any other physician

was attacked and treated in a manner similar to that perpetrated against

Crenshaw in Breo's articles.

5) The Dallas Morning News and AMA/JAMA derided Crenshaw's claim that he'd

picked up a call from LBJ while caring for the mortally wounded Oswald. The

New York Times pointed out, however, that Charles R. Baxter, MD, the

JAMA-cited physician who denied Crenshaw's claim, was not even in the

operating room when the call he disputed came in. Moreover, The New York

Times also noted that another Parkland physician who was there, Philip

Williams, MD, did remember such a call and had mentioned it to others for

years. Moreover the former chief Parkland hospital operator claimed in a

letter to the Dallas Morning News that she clearly recalled LBJ's call.

“The News” refused to publish her letter and no retraction or correction of

this error was ever made by AMA/JAMA.

For some journalists loyal to the Warren Commission it seems that to

achieve the goal of convicting Oswald of JFK's murder in the eyes of the

public, no slander, deception or misrepresentation is too much - even for

the medical-scientific literature. While it is easy to condemn the writer,

certainly the editor bears far greater responsibility. As Arthur Plotnik

has observed, "The best editors become troubleshooters not to hold on to

their jobs, however, but because they are decent human beings who don't

want to hurt people by publishing false and damaging material...".

(emphasis in original and added) "One hopes...that no editor would sink so

low, even to attack the most universally despised public figure. Editors

are morally bound...to take every precaution imaginable in verifying facts

to assure that truth is being served when any member of society is being

publicly kicked in the pants." (emphasis added) It would appear that by

Plotnik's reckoning, the editors of both JAMA and The Dallas Morning News

have sunk quite low. It is also clear that they had little interest giving

the truth to their readers when that truth was embarrassing or

inconvenient. How ironic it is that the last sentence of Breo's JAMA

article reads, "This special report is our attempt to confront the defamers

of the truth."

--------------------------------------------------

refs:

"Peer review" is the prepublication scrutiny of submitted manuscripts to

a scientific journal by persons who are acknowledged expert(s) in the

relevant subject area. Thus only reviewers with expertise in the subject of

JFK's death would have been legitimate "peer reviewers" for Breo's

articles.

New York Times, 5/27/92.

Plotnik A. The Elements of Editing--A Modern Guide for Editors and

Journalists. 1982, New York, Macmillan. p50-51.

IBID, p. 54.

Breo, D. JAMA. Vol.267:2807.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ecuse me karl the info about the car comes from mcadams..i am only the messenger B) and also the info about the lbj tapes comes to us from posner's case closed;;but it's there and also what gary has to say about the call.... B)B):rolleyes: b...

1. The White House phone logs do not show any call from LBJ to Parkland Hospital that day. See: Case Closed, paperback, p. 396.

2. Lyndon Johnson would not have been able to make a phone call at the time Crenshaw describes. The operation on Oswald began at 11:44 Central Time. At 11:55 Central Time, Manchester (The Death of a President) notes that the Kennedys and the Johnsons met in the East Room of the White House and then proceeded to the ceremonies moving Kennedy's body from the White House to the Capitol. But Crenshaw explicitly said the phone call came a little under an hour into the operation (p. 188). As Gary Mack explains:

It has always been known that there was a call from Washington, but apparently not from LBJ as Crenshaw's book claims. My own research, conducted at the request of KXAS-TV, the NBC affiliate in Dallas, found that LBJ was in his limo at the very moment Crenshaw's book indicates the call came in. There is no record of any such radiotelephone call which, according to the procedures in place, would have to have been routed to Dallas through the White House switchboard where all calls were logged. Nor is there an account from any of the people in the car that LBJ said "Excuse me, I have to call the hospital." And there would certainly be no need to keep such an event, if it happened, secret. (Post on newsgroup alt.assassination.jfk on 10/9/98.) mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm

Edited by Bernice Moore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

karl....according to info king was in italy in nov.63...fwiw...b

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKharvey.htm

Edited by Bernice Moore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karl....according to info king was in italy in nov.63...fwiw...b

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKharvey.htm

Thx for the info, Bernice.

Harvey was CIA Chief of Station in Rome at that time. His predecessor was Karamessines (Boss of Georg Joannides who was deeply involved in the handling of the patsy Oswald). Karamessines left Rome in the fall of 1962 pronto after the killing of Italian Oilman Enrico Mattei(who once helped the CIA to install the Shah in 1953), who was about to make his own oil contracts with Iran, with the placet of the Kennedy administration, but against the will of the "Seven sisters".

But I can imagine, that the conspirators put Harvey on an emergency flight to Dallas, after the Dallas Police caught Oswald, one of the "kids" of his "false defector program".

There are three hits, that make me believe, the trauma room two intruder could have been Harvey:

-He knew Oswald from the beginning. Oswald was 0one of his babies.

-The way the intruder was carrying his gun...back pocket, visible...(source: E.H.Hunt in an Y-Tube Interview)

-Harvey looked like Oliver Hardy...

Your posts prove: there WAS a call from Washington, it was NOT Johnson, but the caller claimed to be the president. And: the caller knew, there was a man in trauma room two, who was supervising Oswalds last minutes, authorizing that man (Harvey?) to record a death bed confession, or some other statement. The keyword, I think, is control, control of Oswalds behavior, until he took his terminal breath...

KK

Edited by Karl Kinaski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks karl who ?? perhaps hoover,,,??and your welcome.take care...b

Edited by Bernice Moore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JFK and the Unspeakable on line...

When the president's body i s brought to Parkland Hospital, D allas, ...... Major Nghia remained over them in the turret with his submachine gun. ...

www.scribd.com/doc/22651293/JFK-and-the-Unspeakable

-

Edited by Bernice Moore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KARL YOU MAY BE INTERESTED THIS IS THE INTERVIEW BY GARY NULL PACIFICA RADIO OF DR.CRENSHAW POSTED FOR ALL IN 1992 BY JOHN DINARDO ON THE ALTS..THE DAY OR THEREABOUTS THE JAAMA REPORT WAS FIRST ISSUED SCROLL WAY DOWN FOR HIS THERE ARE OTHERS AS WELL AS HARRIS LIVINGSTONE WHO ALSO GIVES HIS COMMENTS ON THE JAAMA REPORT....B..SORRY FOR THE CAPITALS...

PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

GARY NULL:

There is criticism on the part of the media to opening up the

John F. Kennedy assassination to a new investigation. However,

there are individuals who are willing to challenge this stance.

They feel that there are more than enough reasons to open up

the Warren Commission findings and to take another look;

even to convene another impartial group of researchers and

investigators who have subpoena power; even a special prosecutor,

if necessary, to delve into this issue without the FBI and the

CIA being the ones who are primarily responsible for giving the

information, as some doubt has been raised concerning their

objectivity in the original Warren Commission hearings and

research-gathering.

Our first guest on today's program is Harold Weisberg, the

House Subcommitee on Assassinations investigator, the author

of a book on Lee Harvey Oswald and the post-mortem, the whitewash

and the frame-up. He has also written a book on the assassination

of Martin Luther King. Welcome to our program, Mr. Weisberg.

I would like you to give us your professional assessment of the

House Select Committee on Assassinations -- since you were a

primary investigator there -- on their findings, on the Warren

Commission, and on ....

HAROLD WEISBERG:

I had no connection with the House Committee. I was the source

for most of the stories that appeared that were critical of them.

It was a synthetic duplication of the Warren Commission. It began

with the intent (now, I'm not talking about each individual

member. I'm talking about the staff who did it; especially

Blakey, the general counsel and chief-of-staff) .... It began

with the intent of putting down all the critics. Each hearing

-- each public hearing -- began with what he called "the

narration", and he picked out the critics whose work he was

going to address, and then the hearing was dedicated to debunking

them and proving them wrong. And I'm happy to say that there's

only one critic he managed to avoid; and that's me. He wasn't

going to pick a fight with me.

All of their [the Committee's] work was faulted in varying

degrees of ways, but they NEVER investigated the crime itself.

In that, they did exactly what the FBI did, and exactly what

the Warren Commission did. They did NOT -- any one of them --

investigate the crime itself.

Now, I think you should know that, unlike the other books,

there are no theories in my book. I'm a former investigative

reporter, a Senate investigator, an intelligence analyst; and

that's not my bag. And I don't think that that's what the people

of the country need for the democratic system to work. They're

factual. Now, I'm going to quote, accurately from memory, a

record I got through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Perhaps it would help your audience to understand more about

where I'm coming from to say that I filed about a dozen Freedom

of Information Act lawsuits against the Government. Most of them

are on the Kennedy assassination. And most of the records I got

were from the FBI. In all, I have about a third of a million

pages of records. These are the same ones that Oliver Stone has

been promoting for himself in his movie by saying that they're

suppressed.

Now, from the Department of Justice and from the FBI I got a

record of a memorandum. Nicholas Katzenabach -- who was then

the Deputy Attorney-General of the United States and acting

Attorney-General as of the time in question, because Bobby

Kennedy was not there because of the crime and the tragedy.

He [Katzenbach] wrote Lyndon Johnson, through his [Johnson's]

channel, Bill Moyers, recommending to Lyndon Johnson that they

had to convince the country that Oswald was alone, that Oswald

was the assassin, that he had no confederates who were still

at-large, and that the evidence was such that he would be

convicted in trial. The typed copy is dated early Monday morning

the first working day after the assassination, November 25, 1963.

I also happen to have gotten Katzenbach's handwritten copy, which

he wrote when he had no typist available on Sunday. And from the

FBI I got a record which said that Katzenbach had discussed it

with [FBI Director] Hoover on Sunday, as soon as Oswald was killed.

So as soon as the Government knew that there would be no trial of

Lee Harvey Oswald, they closed the books, the crime was solved, and

that was it. So you see, when the crime itself was never

investigated, there are no leads for other people to follow. And I

address this so that your audience can understand that those

people, who develop theories and advance them as solutions, do it

without a factual basis. I don't know of any theory that is

factually supportable by the known evidence. And now I'm talking

about the official investigative reports of the FBI and things

like that which do establish some fact.

GARY NULL:

Okay, we thank you very much, Mr. Weisberg, for sharing your

views and for giving us this insight on this important piece of

critical information. I appreciate your being on with us today.

Let's go now to another guest who is standing by, who has a

different point of view, and who has additional information.

I would like to invite Jim Marrs [author of CROSSFIRE] onto our

program again. Welcome to our program, Jim.

I'd like to pick up where we left off yesterday. For those of you

who were not here yesterday and who didn't hear the program, we did

a careful assessment, going step-by-step through the events that

led up to the actual shooting, showing that the American Public

has never been made aware of the fact that earlier in the day, in

Fort Worth, there was also a motorcade for President Kennedy, but

that motorcade was substantially different. It was VERY very

heavily guarded, on proper protocol, by the Secret Service. And the

police were maintained, meaning that sharpshooters were stationed on

rooftops, no window was allowed to be opened, there was adequate

protection. But all of that was suspended at Dealey Plaza and for

the trip through Dallas. WHY? WHO was responsible? Who caused

the rescinding of these orders? Those are questions that have to

be thoroughly analyzed.

I would like just a brief summary of some of the points from

yesterday -- an overview of some of the discrepancies between

what we have been led to believe and what actually occurred.

Then I would like to go into the area that our previous guest,

Mr. Harold Weisberg has suggested -- that there is NO evidence

to support any of the assassination theories. I would like you to

give us YOUR information, your belief, and whatever documentation

you have that could, in any way, directly or indirectly, tie in

any of a number of proposed agendas such as the renegade CIA

agents, the knowledge that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover could

have known or may have known in advance that the assassination

was imminent, certain right-wing extremists, certain members of

the military, and also members of Organized Crime, and some

anti-Castro Cubans.

Now, all of these have been alleged -- depending upon the theorist

-- to have participated. But you have some unique insights and

and I would like you to share with us some of those insights at

this time.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Transcribed by John DiNardo

Article 15651 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part II, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:44:11 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep8.174411.10959@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the murder of President Kennedy

Lines: 145

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

JIM MARRS [author of CROSSFIRE]:

Well, first just let me say that the one thing I think that

everyone including Mr. Weisberg, including Gerald Ford, including

David Bigeley(?), including everybody who is connected with this

thing at this point .... I think the one thing that we can all

agree on is that there is substantial controversy over the death

of President Kennedy and over the subsequent investigation and

the medical evidence. Now, in this particular case, that

confusion, that controversy, that obfuscation, if you will, is

the basis of what can legitimately be called "the cover-up".

There should not have been a cover-up. There should not have been

this confusion. This was a case .... this was the President of

the United States, for God's sake. There was an autopsy at

Bethesda Naval Hospital. There was treatment at a reputable

hospital: Parkland, in Dallas. And there should not be this

confusion. There should be some very clear-cut answers based on

scientific, medical, forensic evidence to say: "Here's what

happened. He was shot three times from the rear." Or: "He was

shot once from the front and once from the rear." It should be

very clear, but it's NOT. It is TOTALLY muddled. It is TOTALLY in

confusion. And THAT is the nature of this cover-up. Not that

there has never been any information, but that there has been so

much information, and so much CONTRADICTORY information that it

has thrown the whole thing into confusion and controvery, so that

we can't seem to get to the bottom of this. I think that is very

self-evident.

Now, who has the power to do that? And who CAN do that? And who

could have saved us from all of this? The Federal Government!

The Government who supposedly had him autopsied. The Government

who supposedly is in charge of the investigation. It should have

been clear-cut, but it's not. And, to me, that shows, in an

overview, that the Government has been responsible for all this

confusion, rather than clearing it up and actually presenting us

with factual information as to what happened. So this is what is

causing all of the problems, because the Government is STILL

saying: "Well, there's nothing there. It's all cut and dried."

And yet, it's not.

You can look at the evidence for yourself. For instance, in the

medical evidence, I could go down the whole list of doctors in

Dallas who said that he had a large gaping hole in the right rear

portion of his head. Even Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent

who jumped up on the back of the car in a vain effort to save his

life; in his Warren Commission testimony he says, quite bluntly,

quite to the point: "The right rear portion of his head was

missing." End-quote. Okay? How much clearer do you want to be?

And every doctor in Dallas backed him up. Doctor Jones says that

there was a large defect in the back side of his head. Dr. Perry

said: "I noted a large evulsive wound in the right

parieto-occipital area." I could go on and on and on. They all

said the same thing: that there was a gaping hole in the right

rear portion of his head. But today, we have an autopsy

photograph that has come out of the Government that purports to

show the back of President Kennedy's head, and there's no large

gaping hole there. All there is is a small hole that the House

Committee told us was an entrance wound. And yet, the autopsy

doctor, Dr. Humes, in his testimony to the House Committee said:

"Well, I don't know what that was, but that wasn't any wound of

entrance. And I know that for sure." Okay? So what's going on

here? I mean, the confusion points the finger at what REALLY is

going on, and at who is generating all this. And it's the Federal

Government!

GARY NULL:

Alright, so let's take a look here. You're suggesting that the

Government, or various members of different areas of the

Government have participated in a systematic cover-up.

JIM MARRS:

Absolutely! For instance, the Warren Commission tells us -- and

the people who defend the Warren Commission to this very day tell

us -- that one of the shots (it started off that it was the first

shot. Now they're backing up by saying: Well, maybe it was the

second one or the third one) .... but one of the shots, they say,

went through Kennedy's neck and did not hit anything. It went on

to strike Governor Connally, causing all of his wounds --

which has become known as "the single bullet theory"; this idea

that one bullet went through both men. This is the foundation of

the "single assassin theory". Okay? If you don't have one bullet

going through two men, then you've got more bullets, which means

more shooters, which means a conspiracy involving more than one

gunman. So to keep from having to admit that, they came up with

the "single bullet theory" which says that one bullet went

through Kennedy's neck and struck Connally.

Now, the problem is that the bullet did not go through his neck.

The Warren Commission plainly states that it hit him in the

middle of the back -- the third thoracic vertebrae, between the

shoulder blades. Doctor Humes places it there in the

Siebert-O'Neill FBI Report of the autopsy. His jacket and his

shirt, in the National Archives, show a bullet hole in the middle

of the back. Well, if there's a bullet hole in the middle of the

back, and you try to track that to the throat wound -- which is

what they do -- now you've got an upward trajectory, which

destroys the idea that this bullet somehow cursed downward and

struck Governor Connally. Plus, you've got Governor Connally's

wrist X-ray, which shows that there are still more pieces of

bullet in his wrist today than are missing off of the bullet that

the Government still claims caused the wound. So it's very

obvious that they're simply lying about what went on.

We now have the January 27th minutes of the Warren Commission, in

which their Chief Counsel admits that since we have a picture of

where the bullet entered the back, that it's below the place

where it came out the front. So how could it go and turn around,

etc.? They knew it, and so they chose to lie to us and simply

claim that the bullet went through his neck. And the supporters

of the Warren Commission are still telling us the same thing,

although this is totally opposite to what the medical evidence

shows us.

So it's a huge thing. You have to look at the totality of this

case. Any one particular issue can be picked apart or explained

away or rationalized as coincidence or happenstance, but if you

look at the total picture, you can begin to get an understanding

of what really went on.

GARY NULL:

Alright, Jim Marrs, I want you to hold on, because we're going to

present some new information. By the way, Jim Marrs is an award-

winning reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and he was a

reporter at the time of the assassination for the Denton Record-

Chronicle. He teaches at the University of Texas at Arlington.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,

please assist in disseminating it by posting it to other

networks, and by posting hardcopies in public places,

both on and off campus. As evidence accrues concerning the

mass media's thirty year cover-up of the coup d'etat

against the People of the United States, the necessity of

citizen reportage becomes ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 15678 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part III, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:54:18 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep9.155418.16387@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 157

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

Now, just today -- just less than an hour ago -- the American

Medical Association gave it's official position on the Kennedy

assassination, and a Doctor George Lundberg, the editor of the

Journal of the American Medical Association and Editor-in-Chief

of Scientific Publications of JAMA, read their position paper,

and I'll just quote something from it. Later in the show we're

going to come back to this, because we have a part of the press

conference recorded by WBAI. It says:

"The recent Crenshaw book"

(and we had Dr. Crenshaw on the show)

"is a sad fabrication based upon unsubstantiated allegations. The best

explanation for the motivations of myriad conspiracy theorists are

paranoia, the desire for personal recognition, public visibility and profit.

Anyhow, it says that this is all nonsense. There was no

conspiracy; that the Warren Commission was right. And THAT was

the press conference. We'll get more on the press conference, but

I just want you to know that finally JAMA (and I don't know why

JAMA would be sticking it's nose into something that it knows

nothing about, to begin with) came out and felt the need to hold

a press conference to say that the Warren Commission was right.

Everyone (they say) in the field writing books, doing broadcasts,

or offering information to the public, must be doing it for profit,

recognition or some other [personal] motive.

JIM MARRS:

I've got news for them. Talk to anybody who has known me and

they'll tell you that I've been making the same criticisms since

the early `70s, and I certainly never made any money. In fact,

people ....

GARY NULL:

Jim, let me ask you something. Have you ever been found guilty, in

an extended trial, of restraint of trade, monopolistic practices,

and, if so, was that conviction upheld all the way clear up to

all the different appeals courts, and now the conviction is

final?

JIM MARRS:

Not me.

GARY NULL:

Well that has happened to the American Medical Association. So,

when the AMA has the audacity to come onto a press conference --

with the muddled background that they have for having been caught

engaging in the restraint of trade and in monopolistic practices

-- claiming that others have ulterior motives, I think it's

absolutely absurd.

JIM MARRS:

Anybody who knows anything knows that the AMA is a FIRM supporter

of the status quo, and that it has been highly political for

years. And I would ascribe political motives to almost anything

that they do. The point that I want to make here is -- if my

understanding is correct -- if they are simply quoting from the

two autopsy doctors who worked on President Kennedy, well then,

this is just an affirmation [of that autopsy]. Of course, those

doctors are going to say the same things they said in 1963 and

1964, and it's going to support the Warren Commission's

contention. But this is a diversion. This is a red herring. This

is not the issue. The issue is that what the autopsy doctors saw

was not the same as what the doctors saw [at Parkland Hospital]

in Dallas. And there is a very DEEP discrepancy between the

wounds as viewed in Dallas .... I just quoted you all these

people who said that there was a large hole in the back of his

head. This was not seen at the autopsy -- or not reported. So

we've got some real discrepancies here, and this particular

little news conference and their pronouncements are simply

skirting the issue.

GARY NULL:

Okay, Jim, I want you to hold on because we're going to introduce

some new evidence and a new individual to our conference here.

He is Harrison Edward Livingstone, the author of HIGH TREASON II.

Welcome to our program, Mr. Livingstone.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

Thanks for inviting me.

GARY NULL:

I would like to go straight to some of the most important issues,

and if you would, please give us the research that you have

uncovered on these. First, I would like to have you review, from

your perspective, the eyewitness descriptions of Kennedy's real

wounds.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

Well, as you know, I've been able to interview almost every

living medical witness. I did not talk to Doctor Clark, although

he gave me certain answers through his secretary, twelve years

ago. I have talked to Doctor Humes, but I can't say that anything

was productive there, even after as much as an hour of talk.

But, other than that, my book presents the most complete history

of what these doctors are saying today, and put in perspective of

what they said and wrote in 1963. No other book or writer or

researcher has achiveved this.

GARY NULL:

We're not here to promote your book, as such. We're here for you

to please share your information with us. So if you could, please

go right to the information. Would you talk about the evidence of

forgery and retouching of the autopsy photographs and X-rays?

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

[initial words were drowned out by Gary Null's voice]

.... doctors and the two autopsies. And the point being that they

are trying to head off at the pass the research that I have just

published, and for no other reason; also [they're targeting] Doctor

Crenshaw's book and his statements. They made a number of totally

false statements at this press conference. For instance, that

Crenshaw (they quoted other doctors, and this is an example of how

they cooked their article by the American Medical Association) ....

that Crenshaw was not present at the autopsy -- when if you go and

read in Volume Six of the Warren Commission books, he is mentioned

by almost every doctor as having been there. And he was certainly

in a position to observe the wounds and to see what was going on.

And it doesn't take anybody more than an idiot to know that a

bullet is either an entry hole through the skin of the neck, or

it's an exit, because, if it's coming out, it's going to make

quite a tear. And anybody, basically, would see the difference.

I was pretty stunned, as you probably know, because I was at this

press conference today. You ask: Why is JAMA [the Journal of the

American Medical Association] doing this at this time, and I'm

just telling you there is only one reason why they're doing it.

It's because the whole cover-up perpetrated by the Government in

this case is directly threatened by the research that I have done

and by my making it possible for Crenshaw and the other doctors

to come forward.

GARY NULL:

Alright. Would you give us some link between Richard Nixon's men

and John Kennedy's killers that ties the assassination directly

to Watergate? And could you please give us the facts?

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,

please assist in disseminating it by posting it to other networks,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty

year cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the

People of the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage

becomes ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 2723 of alt.conspiracy.jfk:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part IV, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:12:09 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep11.121209.3771@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 152

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

Before I get to that, you had asked me a question on this medical

evidence. Do you recall?

GARY NULL:

Yes. I asked you for the evidence of forgery and retouching in

the autopsy photographs and X-rays.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

This is my special area of research. I discovered that the X-rays

were fake in that they show the entire face missing on the right

side. And again, this is what JAMA tried to head off at the press

conference today. They tried to ridicule criticism of the medical

evidence without facing these facts. And I asked them at the

press conference: "Didn't you notice that the face is missing --

that the President's face is missing in the X-rays, but it's NOT

missing in the photographs?" And, of course, at that point, the

press conference became tumultuous, and the whole thing began to

be overturned. The photographs, of course, show extensive

retouching and evidence of forgery. And this was directly how the

Chief Justice of the United States was tricked -- with this faked

evidence. The doctors, most recently (quite a few that JAMA did

not interview, and they don't dare interview, and if they did,

like other researchers, they're not going to report it) ....

because those doctors insist, to this day, that that throat wound

WAS an entry hole. And the many people who were at the autopsy

.... and Doctor Fink, the forensic pathologist who was at the

autopsy, who was not interviewed by JAMA, and whom they claimed

declined, and I've talked to him. But he testified that the hole

in the back was an entry hole that did not penetrate into the

chest. So what JAMA did -- and as Jim Marrs just said: They're a

political action committee that doesn't dare let this evidence

link up because .... they've kept it compartmentalized. I asked

them: "What about Doctor Humes's stating at the end of his

testimony to Arlen Specter that the bullet that hit John Connally

could not possibly have been the same bullet that went through

John Kennedy because of the fragments that were found in Connally?"

They said: "We did not discuss John Connally in this article.

It's not relevant." So that's an example of compartmentalizing

the evidence by a political action committee which has sought

to control the medical community in this country.

GARY NULL:

Okay. Let's try to go back to the photographs. And please, if

you would, try to keep .... we have limited time and we want the

opportunity for you to give us as much information as you can.

Let's go specifically to the fraud that you are asserting, and

on the retouching of the photographs that no one else in the media

has picked up on.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

Right. This is the key to the case, right now. The Chief Justice,

Earl Warren (and he mentions in his memoirs that he was shown

autopsy photographs) [said] that he was tricked by phony

photographs and X-rays which apparently show a shot that came from

behind. They claim that there is an entry hole in the area of the

cowlick, although the autopsists, Doctors Humes and Boswell, told

the committee of doctors at the House of Representatives that

they denied .... He said: I defy you to see this hole here where

you say it is; that this is not a hole. It's something else. And

it was four inches -- as the Clark Panel found in 1968 -- from

where that entry hole was placed in the autopsy report by Doctor

Humes and Doctor Boswell. It was four inches above it. Then,

showing the face missing in the X-rays and not showing Earl

Warren the photographs that showed the President's face intact

made him think that his face was blown away. And that's what we

see in the Zapruder film. And I believe that that's animated.

GARY NULL:

Okay, let's go to some specific references. I'm looking now at a

photograph of John Kennedy. It's called "the stare of death"

photograph. And I'd like for you to talk about the reference

black triangle that appears on the right upper forehead of

Kennedy in this photograph.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

Yes, if you have a clear print of that in the negative, in the

negative there is no light whatsoever that comes through that

triangle. It's much clearer in a clear print. In my book, we were

able to do the best possible reproductions, but, of course,

they're screened and it's not that clear. But in a comparable

right profile photograph, which we publish there, you can see

what has been covered up. And they're from two DIFFERENT sets of

photographs. One, with the reference black triangle is known as

"the Fox set of photographs" which came into the possession of

Mark Crouch, who was a friend of the Secret Service man, James K.

Fox, who took the rolls of film from Bethesda Naval Hospital over

to be developed in the Navy labs. The other set of photographs,

which were in the possession of Robert Groden, show that there is

a major laceration extending into the forehead of the President.

This was NOT seen in Dallas, but two of the autopsy doctors did

describe this laceration to me. They brought it up. I did not

bring it up. And they told me about the laceration going a half

an inch into the forehead above the right eye. That's where that

reference black triangle is. What the reasons were for covering

it up in some of those photographs are not clear to me. I can't

answer that question. All I know is that they conflict with each

other -- these two different pictures, as do many of the

photographs conflict with each other.

GARY NULL:

Also, it's very clear that the whole right side of the head is

blackened out, and only the ear is visible. That is CLEARLY

retouching.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

That's it. And the whole back of the head, extending around

behind to the right ear was missing. And a major part of my

research was to try to resolve the puzzles of the medical

evidence. Exactly what did the wounds look like? I was able to

determine -- by having the doctors and the witnesses at the

autopsy and in Dallas draw on mannequin heads -- exactly where

the bone defect was and how much scalp was missing. And they are

identical. The wound was not altered, but there was a large hole

that went all the way around to the side of the head. The autopsy

report is accurate in that respect, but the problem was that

there was sort of a flap of scalp that was badly macerated and it

did have an egg-shaped-sized hole through it. But it could not

possibly cover up all of the missing bone that was underneath

there. And this caused a lot of confusion among engineers and

accountants and other people with that mindset who do this

research, because they can't semantically separate out the

issues, for instance, between alteration and tampering, or

between laceration and incision. A lot of the confusion in the

case (in the medical evidence) is semantic, so I was able to

determine that the body was not altered. It may have been

tampered with, but even that doesn't appear to have been

necessary when all they really had to do was to fake the

photographs and flash them at Earl Warren who put them aside

immediately because of their gore.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 15763 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part V, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:56:49 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep14.165649.23560@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 160

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

Alright, now there are two other very VERY important issues here.

And they are that the photographs of John Kennedy's body, where

he is on his face, lying on his stomach here, it shows ....

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

Lying on his back. There's no picture of him lying on his

stomach.

GARY NULL:

Oh, okay. Yeah, it's been turned around there. I have a picture

of his back, and the first bullet hole ....

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

He's lifted up from the table -- yes.

GARY NULL:

Okay. The first bullet hole is about four inches, it looks like,

below the ....

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

Well the larger hole is not the hole. It's about two inches below

that. You'll see a small red thing, closer to the roller, and

that, the men all state, was a hole. And they also indicate that

that deep depression down toward the bottom of the roller is a

bullet hole.

GARY NULL:

Yeah, well there are two bullet holes in his back. How can a man

have two bullet holes in his back, and then ....

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that there were

gunmen all around that car. In Senator Dodd's report -- that was

appended to the House Committee report when he was in the House

of Representatives -- stated that there were at least three

gunmen firing, and two of them had to have been from behind,

because of the closeness of the shots. There ARE six shots on

that Dallas [motorcycle] police tape recording.

GARY NULL:

Yeah, but you see, the Warren Commission does not state that.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

No! They say that three shots were fired and two struck the

President.

GARY NULL:

Also, you have the entire back of the head shown very clearly,

and you do not see the ....

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

No. Part of that is not clear at all. You see the area that's out

of focus there. The background is in focus and the foreground --

where the cowlick [is] closest to the lens of the camera -- is in

focus. But the area all along the hairline from behind the ear

down to the center of the neck (in the hair) is out of focus. And

that's where they smudged all that over when they made their

composite photograph.

GARY NULL:

Alright, what I'd like to do is this. Let's just summarize here

for a moment. What we have are some CLEARLY retouched

photographs. We have more bullet holes in the President's body

than the Warren Commission, or any of the so-called "official"

investigations, have recognized. How in the world does a man end

up with this many proveable bullet holes, and yet, still have

one man doing all the shooting? Some of these bullet holes are

clearly exit wounds. Some are entrance wounds. And yet, the

Warren Commission has, for whatever reason, only presented that

these were rear entrance wounds. The autopsy photographs HAVE

been altered. The X-rays HAVE been altered. It is not possible to

end up with an X-ray .... Let's say if you took a normal anterior

/posterior skull X-ray, and then you took the Kennedy anterior/

posterior skull X-ray -- the Kennedy lateral skull X-ray --

there's an amount of facial bone that's missing. If this were

presented in any regular forensic trial today, it would be

LAUGHABLE. The evidence would be thrown out as inadmissible and

faulty.

We're going to take a brief break. I'd like both Jim Marrs

[author of CROSSFIRE] and also, our guest on the phone right now

-- who just returned from the press conference -- Harrison Edward

Livingstone, who needless to say, was part of the reason that the

AMA called this hasty press conference (and the press conference

itself you'll hear a little later on. We tape recorded some of

it) .... we're going to get to some information that I think the

people in this audience have always wondered about. Are you aware

that not ONCE were we ever given the real reason as to why the

Watergate Break-In occurred? What was in the safe they were

looking for? Why did CIA people go into that safe? Why did Nixon

authorize it? That brought down the whole Nixon Administration

-- about sixty-seven of his top cronies. Why? We were never

asked that! The media never probed it further than what was

given to them.

Well, you're going to hear something when we come back, about the

link between Richard Nixon's men and John Kennedy's killers that

ties the assassination directly to Watergate.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[JD: There was an incident which remains vivid in my memory, and

it has never been explored by anyone, though it might provide

a fuller picture of the possible link between the Watergate

Break-In and the assassination of President Kennedy.

Those of you who are old enough will recall the numerous

Presidential press conferences of Richard Nixon during which

he was interrogatively flayed and driven to the brink of

impeachment by a concerted onslaught from the press corps,

members of which have since been alleged to be journalistic

prostitutes for the CIA (e.g. Walter Cronkite and, I think,

Dan Rather, notorious among many). In one of those press

conferences (I think it may have been the "I'm not a crook!"

press conference) a reporter asked Nixon [i'm paraphrasing]:

You said something about the John Kennedy assassination as

an example or an analogy ....

And then, Nixon cut him off and exclaimed, with distress:

"No, no, no! I didn't mean to imply that I know any more

about that assassination than anyone else does."

Nixon's tenseness at this moment was striking.

Since then, I have been suspicious that Nixon might have

knowledge, if not some involvement in the assassination.

What ought to be examined is a tape of that press

conference so that perhaps a scientific voice analysis

can be done to indicate, albeit not to prove, that Nixon

was lying about his lack of knowledge of any unreported

evidence surrounding the assassination of John Kennedy.

If enough people wish to collaborate on such a project,

we may be able to finance the purchase of the tape and the

voice analysis with small cost to everyone involved.

Please send me e-mail if you are interested.

John DiNardo

jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com or jad@att!ckuxb

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 15807 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part VI, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 15:53:10 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep16.155310.24072@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 123

I made the following transcript from a tape recording of a

broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

GARY NULL:

We're also going to talk about proof of fraud and disinformation

campaigns WITHIN the assassination research community, and how a

United States Senator and two former Presidents personally

covered up facts in the case. And we're also going to talk about

proof that bullets WERE removed from the President's body at

Bethesda Naval Hospital before the autopsy began. That's just

some of what we're going to talk about today. New information;

very powerful information. And, contrary to what my first guest

suggested (and I respect that each guest can have their own point

of view, and everyone has the right to have a point of view, even

if it differs with other people on the show) he suggested that

there was no hard data. This is as good data as can be produced.

Now I'm going to ask our guest, Jim Marrs, you're going to have

about ten minutes, and Harrison Edward Livingstone, you're going

to have about ten minutes. You can take a break, because you're

talking on the commercial-free Pacifica Radio station in

New York, WBAI, 99.5 FM, a 50,000 watt station. I've been here

for fifteen years. We work for free -- those of us on the air,

and we ask, three times a year, for pledges from the station's

listners to help support our efforts.

[JD: My apologies for missing the subsequent discourse.

I'm trying to obtain a tape of it. If and when I do,

I'll promptly transcribe it for you. However, I have taped

numerous hours of information covering the succeeding

episodes in the series. So the following transcript resumes

the discussion with the next day's broadcast in the series.]

GARY NULL:

Alright, David, if you could, please, would you go through this

evidence in some detail? You're making a lot of statements and a

a lot of allegations. We'd like you now to substantiate the

differences between the official version.

DAVID LIFTON:

Okay. With regard to the casket, for example, the witness who

opened the casket .... the persons who saw the casket come in the

back door of Bethesda Naval Hospital, and who actually unloaded

it are Dennis David, the chief-of-the-day at Bethesda Naval

Hospital and a man named Don Rabbatisch [sp] who was actually one

of the casket toters, so to speak -- who took it out of the black

hearse in which it arrived.

The account of Dennis David is that he is at the back of the

hospital. He is in charge of part of the security function. He is

told that the President's body is going to arrive there. They go

down. The black hearse pulls in. He assembles some of his men.

Don Rabbatisch is one of them. They bring the casket inside.

A black hearse pulls up. There's a group of plainclothesmen and

two men in O.R. smocks. They get out of the ambulance. The

shipping casket (and that's what it was: a shipping casket) is

removed from the black hearse. It is brought onto the loading

dock and it is brought to the door of the morgue. In the door of

the morgue is Paul O'Connor. He's the medical technician listed

in the FBI reports, and who is also listed in the official Navy

records, and in the House Select Committee records. He opens the

casket which is a shipping casket, according to O'Connor. Inside

the shipping casket is a body bag. He unzips the body bag, puts

the President's body, along with others in the morgue, on the

table. He said that when the wrapping was removed from the head

area, there was a gasp in the room, and he said: "and I looked

down and said, `My God, there's no brain!'" And you could see

this. It was apparent. The FBI, at that time, writes notes. They

write a report that weekend. In their report, which was not

published with the Warren Commission documents, but is at the

National Archives, they write that when the body was removed from

the casket in which it was transported, it was (quote) "apparent

that there had been surgery to the head area; namely in the top

of the skull." And that's the official record. That's the

evidence.

Now, the Warren Commission did not know about most of this

evidence that I am talking about here. They did not perform this

kind of analysis. They did not establish what, in law, is called

a "chain of possession" on the body. So the Navy commander who

performed the autopsy simply comes before the Commission, raises

his right hand and testifies as to the condition of the body.

And they accept that autopsy report which states that President

Kennedy was shot twice from behind, based on wounds you see on

the body which were NOT on the body in Dallas, if you compare

Dallas versus Bethesda -- Dallas being where the President was

shot, Bethesda being where the autopsy was performed six hours

later. Based on the Bethesda wound pattern, President Kennedy IS,

or appears to be, in fact, shot twice from behind. Based on the

Dallas wound pattern, he was NOT.

Now ordinarily, you would trust the autopsy over the accounts of

the doctors at Dallas, because the autopsy is better evidence.

It's, in fact, the "best evidence". It's based on the body of the

President. But the irony is that, in this case, there is a

subterfuge, and, in fact, the body was altered. That's what my

book was all about: persuading the reader that there is evidence

that the body was altered, and that this is the reason why the

evidence looks the way it does. I might just add that if you

start with this evidence in 1992, the same evidence that they had

in 1963, unless this autopsy is overturned, you're going to come

to the same conclusion: that Oswald shot the President. This

autopsy is the legal foundation for that whole house of cards.

It cannot collapse unless the autopsy is overturned in a

definitive fashion.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 15839 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part VII, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 16:16:26 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep18.161626.13759@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 132

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

What would have been the sequence of events to have allowed the

brain to have been removed, since there is no evidence that it

was removed in Dallas during the procedures that were performed

on the body at that time?

DAVID LIFTON:

If I understand you correctly, you're asking me when was the body

stolen. Is that what you're saying?

GARY NULL:

Yes. When was it stolen, and why would they have removed the

brain, and where did the brain next appear?

DAVID LIFTON:

The only time that the body could have been taken out of the casket

(and this is covered in the conclusion of my book), and the only

time (I don't want to say that the casket is unguarded because

there are always Secret Service agents around, and you cannot have

this go forward without the connivance of some Secret Service agents),

but the only time that the Kennedys aren't all over that casket is

when they come back to Air Force One after the shooting. That is,

after the President is pronounced dead at Parkland Hospital,

a coffin is obtained -- a large viewing casket which everybody sees

on national TV. They go out to Love Field with the President's body

in the casket. They go aboard the aircraft and they learn that

there is going to be a delay. "Why," they ask. "Why can't they

take-off immediately for Washington?" "Well," they're told,

"Lyndon Johnson is aboard this aircraft. He didn't go back to

Washington on the other plane. He's on this plane."

And he appears and says: "I spoke to Bobby Kennedy, and Bobby

Kennedy said, `Delay the flight. I must be sworn in first in the

state of Texas.'" This is all denied that night by Bobby Kennedy

who tells his sister-in-law Jacqueline Kennedy that he said no such

thing to Lyndon Johnson; that he (Johnson) called Bobby Kennedy,

who was Attorney-General in Washington, and said: I'm being told

that I should be sworn in. Do you have any objections; that it

wasn't the other way around.

Anyway, the result of this is that the flight is delayed by about

a half-hour, and basically, the Kennedys (Mrs. Kennedy and the

Kennedy aides) are told or requested to come to the front of the

plane to witness the swearing in. It is in connection with this

activity of "delay the flight and let's go to the front of the

plane for the swearing in" .... that's the only time that the

Kennedy party is not all over that casket. That's the time, I

believe, (and it's a process of elimination, I will concede. I

don't have a direct witness; otherwise I'd have solved the Kennedy

assassination) .... but it's during that period that the body

must have been taken out of the casket and put into some other

casket and brought somewhere. I personally believe, at the time I

wrote BEST EVIDENCE, that the body was flown to Washington, D.C.,

and that the alterations occurred on the East Coast after the

plane landed at Andrews Air Force Base at six o'clock. And I

cited, as evidence, helicopter activity on the starboard side;

that is, the side facing away from public view -- and from radio

transmissions indicating that they were going to go with the body

to Walter Reed Army Hospital where (quote) "an autopsy was to be

conducted under guard." And all that's on the radio. And I

spelled it out in my book.

Now, it's an unsolved mystery as to where this body was taken.

But wherever it happened, that's where the brain would be removed

and the wounds altered. It would be done very quickly. It was

done VERY sloppily, I might add. And that's why, when the body

arrived without a brain, it was immediately noted that there had

been surgery to the head area. That's what the FBI wrote down.

We're not dealing with some kind of perfect fraud here. We're

dealing with a very imperfect crime with footprints all over the

place; footprints which are ignored by the Warren Commission

because they saw the crime -- or you might say they saw these

events through very Establishment eyes. They never questioned any

of this stuff that's brought up in my book.

GARY NULL:

When did the brain next appear?

DAVID LIFTON:

A brain is infused, in the autopsy room, by another technician:

James Jenkins. Now let me explain this. It's kind of interesting.

There were three technicians in the room: a guy named Ranicki, a

fellow named Paul O'Connor and a fellow named Jenkins. Paul

O'Connor gives me the account (and it's a thing that he will

never forget. It just came out of his mouth when I interviewed

him in 1979), that the cranium is empty. There's no brain, etc.

And on the chart where the body organ weights are listed (a chart

which is perfectly authentic. It has little pink spots on it.

That's Kennedy's blood. It's in the National Archives today)

there is no weight given for the brain, but there is a weight for

many of the other body organs.

That night, at some point -- and I don't know when -- a brain is

brought into the room. That brain is given to James Jenkins,

another technician. James infuses that brain with formaldehyde.

And that brain becomes the evidence brain. It is weighed ten days

later, or something. It's weight is recorded in a supplementary

brain report. When I confronted O'Connor, on camera, with the fact

that there is this brain, he said: "Well I don't know where they

got it from. It certainly couldn't have been the President's!"

In other words, it did not arrive in the body. Now, that's the way

an autopsy is supposed to happen. The body is supposed to have the

body parts inside it. You know, we're not dealing with United

Parcel Service where you send something and say: "See attached."

The brain is supposed to come in the cranium. Now, a brain is

definitely brought into the room. I do not know how it got into

the room. I can just tell you that James Jenkins infused a brain

that night, whereas Paul O'Connor said that the cranium was empty.

And by the way, O'Connor's account is corroborated by the X-ray

technician who said that the hole was so large and the thing was

so empty that he could have put his hands inside the hole.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 2820 of alt.conspiracy.jfk:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part VIII, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 12:50:12 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep22.125012.13133@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 140

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

Alright. We're going to be speaking with Paul O'Connor in just a

few moments. We have him on the show, as well, because we wanted

indidividuals who could corroborate your information.

But right now, we're going to ask you to remain on hold. We're in

the midst of a WBAI fund-raising [period] ....

.... My show is on the air five days a week bringing programs to

you that will give you insights. Like right now we're doing a

whole series on Government agendas and hidden agendas, and the

conspiracies. We're targetting, right now, the [John] Kennedy

Assassination, just because that assassination is something that

everyone would agree had a major national impact. The trouble is,

what we were told is the OFFICIAL position doesn't blend with what

other researchers and first-hand observers are suggesting were the

actual cases. And then, we have to ask: Why would someone cover-up

this information? Why? Why would the media not report it? Why

would the Government not investigate it? Why would the Warren

Commission not explore it? So we're looking at that.

Right now, on our program (and I want to thank our guests for

being patient and for standing by) is David Lifton, the author of

BEST EVIDENCE. He is suggesting that there were two caskets, one

body; and that the body arrived without a brain; and that the

brain that we were told was President Kennedy's brain may have,

indeed, been someone else's; that there was a gaping hole large

enough to put a fist through when it arrived in Washington; and

that therefore, there had been alterations.

Now, let us see what other corroboration we could have for this.

We have, on the conference phone right now, Dr. Charles Crenshaw.

Dr. Crenshaw, who graduated from the Parkland Memorial Hospital in

Dallas, Texas, who specializes in general surgery, is presently

the chairman and director of the Department of Surgery at Saint

Peters-Smith Hospital, in the Fort Worth area. He is a professor

of clinical surgery at the University of Texas, Southwestern

Health Center's Science Center in Dallas. Welcome to our program,

Dr. Crenshaw.

DR. CRENSHAW:

Thank you.

GARY NULL:

By the way, Dr. Crenshaw is also the author of a very important

work on the Kennedy Assassination called, JFK: THE CONSPIRACY OF

SILENCE, which right now, I believe, is number one on the New York

Times bestseller list. Isn't it?

DR. CRENSHAW:

Yes, it is.

GARY NULL:

And, by the way, THREE other books on the top-ten bestseller list

are also about this assassination, so CLEARLY there is interest.

Would you be good enough to explain to us the inconsistencies

between your EYEWITNESS account and the official report upheld by

the Warren Commission?

DR. CRENSHAW:

That day, on November the 22nd, 1963, all of the surgeons at

Parkland believed that our President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was

shot at least once from the front. We saw two wounds there. Both

of them were from the front. The head wound was tangential in

nature, coming in over the right side, above his ear, and leaving

a large exit area, a vulsed[?] area in the right-rear part of the

head. There was loss of part of the parietal, temporal and most

of the occipital lobe of the right cerebral hemisphere, with

exposure of the cerebellum. It was about two-and-a-half to two-

and-three-fourths inches in diameter. It was more or less

circular. And in the photos from the National Archives -- which

are so damaging -- this wound had completely vanished. There was

no wound seen in the exhibits that are marked "B" and "E" in the

book. This wound, that ALL of the physicians at Parkland

described, was completely gone. The second wound was in the

anterior part of the neck. It was about three to six millimeters

in size and with an arc the size of your little finger. It was

clearly demarcated as round and relatively clean-cut. Then the

tracheal tube that had been put down was ineffective. And then

Dr. Perry performed a tracheostomy through the entrance wound.

The incision was sharp with smooth edges, and about an inch to

and inch-and-a-half long. It was no longer than the flange on the

tracheostomy tube, which was one-and-three-fourths inches. Not

only that, after the nurses had removed this tracheostomy tube

before we placed him in the coffin, it was brought back again.

The edges were still smooth and very sharp. And in the autopsy

photographs that I first saw in looking for the head wound, this

wound was widely gaping, it was irregular, and it was now about

two-point-five to three inches long. So there was CLEARLY a

change between these wounds, that I saw at Parkland, and the

wounds that we saw on the autopsy pictures that were given from

the National Archives.

GARY NULL:

Why didn't you or others at the scene later complain or even make

an issue or an affidavit showing that this was an alteration?

DR. CRENSHAW:

We never saw the photos. The first time I saw these was in early

1991. The Parkland physicians were never given this opportunity.

They were only told about the additional wounds (which I doubt

whether there was another wound in the back of the head, because

I looked there) and were never told or shown any other evidence.

We were told only about the autopsy. And we, like most people,

felt that they would have had the best forensic minds in our

country to examine our President. However, obviously, [from] what

has been discussed and what we now know, [that assumption] was wrong.

And so, we had no other knowledge other than the description by the

Secret Service.

GARY NULL:

So if you had the description by the Secret Service, by an

extension of this logic, the Secret Service or someone would have

had to participate in this cover-up, or this obstruction of

information. Would that be a reasonable assumption?

DR. CRENSHAW:

I think that's a very reasonable assumption.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 15923 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part IX, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 13:24:03 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep24.132403.3774@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 171

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

Alright. Do you believe that the shots came just from the Book

Depository, or from the Grassy Knoll, or from where?

DR. CHARLES CRENSHAW:

I cannot say that, but he WAS shot twice from the front. And I

assume, also, that he was shot from the back. So there could not

have been just one shooter; that is, Oswald. We spent all of the

next week from the 22nd to the 29th [of Nov. `63], trying to figure

out (as we had been told the official version: that it was Oswald)

how in the world the President could have been shot from the

front when Oswald was supposedly the lone shooter. And on

December the 5th of that year, it was the same way with the

Secret Service. They reenacted the assassination, and it was

their ability there, trying to show how he was shot from the

front, yet being shot from the School Book Depository. It was a

question in everyone's mind.

GARY NULL:

We know that there was one bullet that missed the bodies of both

Kennedy and Connally completely, because it ricocheted off of the

cement. There is absolute evidence of that. The ricochet struck

one of the people standing right on the curb. That meant that

there had to have been four bullets shot, at minimum. We know

then of three. There is an estimate of six. There were acoustical

recordings showing six shots. So even if we assume that there

were four, the Warren Commission claims that there were not four.

DR. CRENSHAW:

Yes.

GARY NULL:

Now, how in the world is it possible for one shooter, from the

Book Depository, firing at a moving target, to get off four

rounds in what would have to have been under approximately

four-point-eight seconds. And even extending it to six seconds,

it's not humanly possible. No one has ever been able to duplicate

that.

DR. CRENSHAW:

No. And I don't think they ever will be. And one other thing.

I also took care of, post-operatively, Governor Connally. And

Connally and Mrs. Connally (Nellie) have always stated that he

was not hit by the same bullet that the President was hit by. He

stated that post-operatively, and he has also stated it recently.

GARY NULL:

Alright. The Secret Service's refusal, against [Parkland]

Hospital policy and Texas law, to allow an autopsy to be

performed on JFK, and the swift removal of the President's body

from the hospital to Air Force One and back to Washington, D.C. ....

Give us your insights on that, please.

DR. CRENSHAW:

Well, you know, this is the reason. I was a junior resident,

staying there preparing the President's body along while the

nurses were preparing him. But I would stay there because this is

just a law, and we MUST have a chain of evidence if we were going

to prosecute whoever had shot the President.

Then, all of a sudden, there was such a hubbub with the Secret

Service. They would not have the autopsy performed there, even

though our forensic pathologist, Dr. Earl Rose, had told them, in

no uncertain terms, that this had to be. So they asked the

administrator to get a justice of the peace. A very young,

uneducated justice of the peace came there. And he even talked

with the district attorney and the chief of police, and he was

told that he should at least have an autopsy or a bullet.

However, he chose to go along with the Secret Service and sign

the death certificate. Also, in so doing, he checked the inquest

that was performed. That was merely his walking at the head of

the room, looking in. And also, he checked that an autopsy was

performed. And I can assure you, there was no autopsy performed

there. Then, at Mrs. Kennedy's request and [that of] the Secret

Service, the coffin was brought in, and it is the one that is

described. It was the large bronze coffin. And there, we put a

rubberized sheet there, and a clear plastic mattress cover over

that to keep the blood from getting into the satin. He had,

initially, towels around the head, but he had bled through that,

and Mr. O'Neill, of the O'Neill Funeral Home, put several

rubberized sacks (we had no good plastic then), and then we

placed him in the coffin. After, again, I looked at the head

wound and placed a sheet over the President, with his clothes at

the bottom. And there was no body bag at Parkland. He had just a

sheet over there. And the coffin was the bronze one that all the

pictures were made [taken of] at Andrews Air Force Base.

GARY NULL:

Isn't it rather unusual that a Dr. Boswell would state that he is

now removing head bandages? What is the significance of that

statement?

DR. CRENSHAW:

I do not know. Boswell is also the one who has said, of course,

that the tracheostomy was almost three inches long. And it was not

that [length] when it left Parkland. But he did have those rubberized

sacks over his head. This is the only thing that I could have

thought: that maybe they thought it was a body bag. But there was

NO body bag.

GARY NULL:

Okay. I'm going to go now to Paul O'Connor.

Mr. O'Connor, are you on the line?

PAUL O'CONNOR:

Yes sir.

GARY NULL:

And Dr. Michio Kaku, are you on the line?

MICHIO KAKU:

I'm on the line.

GARY NULL:

Okay. We're going to come to both of you in just a second, but I

want to follow this train of thought:

Lyndon Johnson's direct order to YOU, Dr. Crenshaw, to obtain a

deathbed confession from Lee Harvey Oswald during an emergency

surgery to save his life ....

DR. CRENSHAW:

Yes, this was on that Sunday. Obviously, we did not watch the TV.

And the head administrator of Parkland called for a free

operating team to come to the emergency room. We went there.

We were told that Oswald was coming in. At least we were

prepared. So immediately, in seven-and-a-half minutes, we got

Oswald up to the operating room, and operated on him on the cart.

We didn't even place him on an operating table.

After all of the attending staff .... some even at home had seen

this [the shooting on TV] .... they immediately came. And Dr. Perry

initially started the operation. I was an assistant there. So

when all of the attending staff arrived, I scrubbed out, was

standing there, and looked at this funny looking gentleman over

there on the left side. But, of course, Parkland was so wild

then. People were in every corner there. This man looked like the

comedian, Oliver Hardy, in a small scrub suit. He did have a

badge out of his front pocket, and a very large gun out of the

back pocket. And I thought: Well gee, it's just something weird

again at Parkland. The nurse tapped me on the shoulder then and

asked me if I would take the phone call. I went to the operating

room supervisor's office, picked up the phone, and there, a voice

like thunder said: "This is the President, Lyndon B. Johnson.

How is the accused assassin doing?" And I said: "Well, he's

critical. He's lost a lot of blood, but he is holding his own."

He said: "Would you take a message to the chief operating surgeon?"

And I said, obviously: "Yes sir." He said: "There is

a man in the room, and I want him to take a deathbed confession

as soon as possible."

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 15989 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part X, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:03:47 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep28.120347.8405@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 140

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

DR. CHARLES CRENSHAW:

So I went back, I tapped Dr. Shires[?] on his shoulder and he

looked at me because everything was bedlam there. And I said:

"I've just been talking to the President of the United States,

and that man over there is to take a deathbed confession." And we

both just kind of looked and knew that, had Oswald survived, he

wouldn't have been able to talk for two or three days anyway.

Consequently, because of the ravages of hemorrhagic shock,

Oswald's heart started failing and ultimately fibrillating. We

tried all of the resuscitative measures -- chemical injections

and starting with the shocks -- but to no avail. So I then went

over and tapped this guy on the shoulder and said: "There'll be

no deathbed confession today." So Oliver Hardy melted away again.

I don't know who he was. I don't know how he got there. The only

interesting part is that I know that the President of the United

States knew that he was in the room.

GARY NULL:

Give us again the astonishing differences between the Dallas

medical team's account of the JFK wounds and the findings of the

official Bethesda autopsy team.

DR. CRENSHAW:

The most striking, of course, is the head wound which is right at

the back of the head at this occipit. It was in the right-rear

portion, in the occipital area. It was about the size of a

baseball. In the official pictures of the autopsy, this wound had

vanished. It was completely gone. And then the neck wound which

had the tracheostomy performed there, which was an inch to an

inch-and-a-half -- smooth, sharp edges, EVEN when the

tracheostomy tube was removed. This is now gaping, irregular and

was three inches in length [in the Bethesda autopsy].

GARY NULL:

The Parkland Hospital's nervousness about residents treating the

President, which resulted in the Warren Commission's failure to

obtain crucial statements from the attending medical staff ....

Would you give us some background on this please?

DR. CRENSHAW:

Well, basically, there were thirty visits -- twenty-four of them by

the Secret Service and six by the FBI -- in which they talked to

different physicians and nurses there. And it's interesting that

not ONE of these conversations was given to the Warren Commission.

GARY NULL:

Not one of thirty?

DR.CRENSHAW:

Not one!

GARY NULL:

What does that tell you? What does that imply?

DR. CRENSHAW:

It would imply that they didn't want to hear any contradictory

remarks.

GARY NULL:

Alright. What is your feeling about Robert Kennedy's involvement

in any possible cover-up?

DR. CRENSHAW:

I've always felt that maybe he wanted to become president so that

he could reopen this investigation. Three days before HIS

assassination, in a small community college, he announced to

everyone that only the power of the Presidency could unravel the

mystery of his brother's death. And he was, of course, assassinated

then. But immediately, Mrs. Lincoln, John Fitzgerald Kennedy's

secretary, called Senator Ted Kennedy and told him of artifacts

that the Kennedy Family had in their possession. And he told her

not to worry; that everything was taken care of. So the implication

has been that the attorney-general or Senator Kennedy, at that

time, did have important information that he had sequestered

there, so that, if it were at all possible, he could

reopen this investigation.

GARY NULL:

And lastly, Jacqueline Kennedy's immediate reactions and behavior

following the shooting?

DR. CRENSHAW:

I thought Mrs. Kennedy was very regal. She was standing there

initially. We asked her to sit outside the room. And then, of

course, after his death we did not officially pronounce him dead

because of her request for a priest and the last rites. The

priest arrived, and she walked into the room after him. We had

pulled the sheet up. It was a little short. She stopped at the

foot and kissed his great toe, and then went forward and stood

there holding his right hand, listening to the last rites.

Immediately after that, she took her wedding ring off and placed

it on the President's little finger. It would not go past the

knuckle, and so when she came in, after they had had the harangue

about the autopsy, and before we placed him in the coffin, one of

our orderlies there -- I believe it was Aubrey Wright -- helped

her get the ring on his small finger.

I had read many accounts of how their marriage was just that, in

name only. But being in trauma surgery now for thirty years, I

have seen grievances and unhappiness and definite examples of

removing the facade of what one felt. And I still will always

believe that there was no greater example of genuine and intense

love for the President than that exhibited by Mrs. Kennedy.

GARY NULL:

I want to thank you very much, Dr. Crenshaw, for sharing

your insights with us in this special report on cover-ups.

DR. CHARLES CRENSHAW:

Thank you.

GARY NULL:

Now let's shift gears. I want to go over to two other panelists

standing by: Dr. Michio Kaku, Professor of Theoretical Physics

here at CUNY, the City University of New York. Would you give us

your comments about the physics of the exhibit 399, the single

magic bullet?

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 2881 of alt.conspiracy.jfk:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa,alt.activism

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part XI, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:01:26 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep30.170126.4338@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 137

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

MICHIO KAKU:

I think it's very important when we look at the ballistics tests

that show, for example, frame 313 of the Zapruder film which

clearly shows the President's head going to the rear, which

indicates that a bullet came from the front. Now in the Warren

Commission Report, the FBI, of course, had access to the Zapruder

film and also to the ballistics -- and what they did was they

REVERSED two frames of the Zapruder film to make it look like the

Now, there was one bullet -- the famous "magic bullet" -- that

zig-zagged and essentially reversed direction about seven times,

going through two bodies and winding up on a stretcher with only

two percent of its mass disturbed. However, if you take a look at

the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and simply perform ballistics

analysis on this, shooting bullets through, for example, animal

carcasses, you can show very clearly that when it goes through

cartilage and goes through tissue, you get much more than two

percent deformation of the bullet. So, in two very egregious

examples, we have major deficiencies within the Warren

Commission Report.

GARY NULL:

Alright. Approximately what percentage of that bullet should

have been missing?

MICHIO KAKU:

Tests show that you could easily get twenty to thirty percent

deformation of that bullet. Now I should also mention that NOVA,

the science program on PBS, did a reenactment wherein they got a

watermelon, and they shot bullets through the watermelon, and the

watermelon actually recoiled in the direction of the bullet,

which violates common sense. The conclusion would be, therefore,

that it is possible to violate common sense and have the head

lurch in the wrong direction. However, the tests done on this

watermelon were of a disembodied head, in the sense that there was

no neck and there was no body. You could even blow on a

watermelon with your breath and have the watermelon move.

In other words, this is an extremely minor effect. It only takes

place when you have a watermelon suspended without being attached

to another body. However, tests done on animals by, for example,

deer hunters and bear hunters have not shown this recoil effect

where the head lurches in the direction of the bullet. So I think

that NOVA was grasping for straws, trying to get a relatively

minor effect to explain a major discrepancy within the ballistics

[data] of the Warren Commission Report. And the very fact that

the FBI was forced to deliberately tamper with the Zapruder film

indicates that the FBI itself was aware of the fact that the body

was going in the wrong direction.

GARY NULL:

That would therefore give us the impression that the FBI

participated in the cover-up of the assassination of President

Kennedy.

MICHIO KAKU:

That's right. In 1975, the Freedom of Information Act revealed

some of the minutes of the Warren Commission Report, which stated

that they were aware of the fact that Oswald was, in fact,

Agent S179 of the FBI, and that he was an informant of the FBI

who got something like two or three hundred dollars a month for

his work, and that this information would be EXTREMELY important.

But, basically, they failed to follow it up because they couldn't

put FBI agents under oath and have them lie under oath. And so,

this report was essentially unverifiable. But three different

sources, including the Attorney-General of the State of Texas,

stated to the Warren Commission that their understanding was that

Oswald was, indeed, Agent S179 of the FBI. And the conclusion of

the Warren Commission Report was that this evidence was so HOT --

it was SO damaging that it would have to be kept classified for

fifty years. Fortunately, the Freedom of Information Act revealed

this document in 1975.

Also, by the way, in 1978 the House Select Committee [on Assassinations]

interviewed the CIA paymaster -- a Mr. Wilcott, James Wilcott --

and he testified under oath that he was, in fact, the paymaster

of the CIA in charge of covert operations against the Soviet Union,

and that one of his contract employees was, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald.

So, in other words, Oswald was a bit player and he apparently had

a role to play with the FBI and also the CIA. And both agencies,

of course, had a vested interest in keeping this information out of

the Warren Commission Report.

GARY NULL:

I think it's interesting at this point that CIA Director Gates is

now suggesting that the file on Oswald, which he is turning over,

will show that Oswald had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination.

Of course, anyone who would accept for a moment that the CIA is going

to give any information about anything that has not been altered

is extraordinarily naive.

MICHIO KAKU:

Right. In fact, in 1973 the CIA destroyed most of the Oswald

file. We know that it was in two large file cabinets -- in fact,

two large file cabinets with four drawers apiece. He had a 201

file, which means that he had a very long history with the CIA,

and in 1973 the CIA destroyed that entire file. So, in other

words, what is going to come out now is basically a fraction of

what was, once upon a time, in the files of the CIA. Now the CIA

has been questioned about this and they said that this was

"routine cleaning" [housekeeping]. So in the "routine cleaning"

of the files, they destroyed potentially damaging information.

We will never know what was in these files. So whatever Gates

might reveal, at some point, will only be a shadow of what was

actually in there.

GARY NULL:

And CERTAINLY nothing that would implicate the CIA.

Also, is it not the case that the primary person pushing this

"single bullet", this "magic bullet" theory is Pennsylvania's

Republican Senator Arlen Specter, who also was the Anita Hill basher?

[JD: Sorry, but my tape ran out at this point, and

the person who was taping the broadcast for me did not

immediately flip over the tape. I'm trying to obtain

copies of the missing segments of the broadcasts, so that

I can incorporate those transcripts into future installments

of this series.]

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more urgent.

John DiNardo

Article 2927 of alt.conspiracy.jfk:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part XII, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:58:20 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Oct6.145820.996@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 174

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

JOHN DAVIS:

Now, first of all, I have to explain myself why I think there was

a conspiracy, because the available evidence indicates that

Kennedy was struck twice by bullets from the front and twice by

bullets coming from the rear, and Governor Connally was struck by

a bullet coming from the rear that was not the same bullet that

hit the President. Therefore, this adds up to anywhere from two

to four shooters. Hence, a conspiracy. But evidence that it was a

conspiracy goes far beyond an accounting of bullet holes.

Let's consider first the motive for an organized crime conspiracy.

We have to realize that, for the first time in United States

history, the executive branch of the Federal Government declared

war on organized crime. This had never happened before. For the

Kennedy brothers, it was all-out war against the Mob.

"I'd like to be remembered as the guy who broke the Mafia", Bobby

Kennedy told an associate in 1961, shortly after he took office

as attorney-general. In his book, THE ENEMY WITHIN, Robert

Kennedy had written: "If we do not attack organized criminals

with weapons and techniques as effective as their own, they will

destroy us." Now, to back up this admonition, one of the first

things that Robert Kennedy did, in his assault against organized

crime, was the so-called kidnap/deportation of Carlos Marcello

on April 4th, 1961. Now this was an unprecedented and arguably

illegal act. Kennedy had Marcello snatched off the streets,

herded to an awaiting Federal jet, flown to Guatemala, and dumped

in a Guatemala City airport. Marcello had complained that he

couldn't call his wife, pack any clothes, or cash a check.

The action put the Mob on notice that Kennedy was serious.

Upon returning to the U.S. illegally, Marcello swore vengeance

against the Kennedys on at least three reported occasions. We

have witnesses for three occasions in which Marcello swore

vengeance against the Kennedys.

[JD: I could not understand a few of Davis's words because

his voice was overdriving the input of the phone.]

JOHN DAVIS:

Immediately after this episode, Robert Kennedy went after (quote)

"friends and associates" of Marcello, Santos Trafficante, [name is

unintelligible due to aircraft radio interference], and the

mob-led Teamsters' [union] boss, Jimmy Hoffa. Soon, FBI

electronic listening devices began picking up complaints from

mobsters all over the country about what Kennedy was doing to

them. I'll mention just two of them. They were reported by the

House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979. [Name is

unintelligible], a mobster working for the Bruno Family in

Philadelphia, was recorded by a bug saying this: "See what

Kennedy done? With Kennedy, I should take a knife and stab and

kill the f*cker. I mean it. This is true. Honest to God. I hope I

get a week's notice. I'll kill. I'll kill, right in the White

House. Somebody has got to get rid of this guy."

Nicolino Carlente[sp], a Genovese Family caporegine[? - probably

means something like "royal head"], two months later was recorded

by an FBI bug saying this: "I'd like to hit Kennedy. I'd gladly

go to the penitentiary for the rest of my life. Believe me."

Well, by the fall of 1962, the Mafia had become desperate. In the

summer of `62, Jimmy Hoffa, who of course was totally controlled

by the Mafia, confided a plan to assassinate both Kennedy brothers

to Louisiana Teamsters official, Edwin Parton[sp]. Parton's

testimony on this issue was later confirmed by a Louisiana judge.

Two months later, a businessman from Las Vegas was present

at a farm house in Louisiana when he heard Carlos Marcello

threaten to kill President Kennedy; not only threaten, but to

outline a plan to kill him in order to neutralize his crusading

brother Bobby. Two weeks after this, Marcello's Florida friend

and associate, Santos Trafficante -- who was very much involved

also in the anti-Castro Cuban movement -- was talking to a Cuban

exile leader, Jose` Alaman[sp] about how Robert Kennedy was

persecuting Jimmy Hoffa. "Mark my word", Trafficante told Alaman,

"This man Kennedy is in trouble and will get what is coming to

him." At this, Alaman took issue with Trafficante and

Trafficante replied, "No, Jose`, you don't understand me. Kennedy

is not going to make it to the election. He is going to be hit."

Alaman, incidentally, who doubled as an FBI informant, related

this conversation to the FBI and it was eventually related to

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. So Hoover, by this time -- by the

fall of 1962 -- must have known that some plot was in the wind.

Skipping a few months, we come to the spring of 1963, and an

allegation by an FBI informant in New Orleans that seemed to

indicate that a plot, a Mafia plot to assassinate Kennedy was in

the wind. Eugene Della Colle[sp], who was a bar man in a Marcello

controlled bar in New Orleans, told the FBI that in April, 1963,

Carlos Marcello's brother Tony had come into the bar one morning

to service the slot machines, and said (quote): "There is a price

on the President's head and other members of the Kennedy Family.

Somebody will kill Kennedy when he comes south."

So, in conclusion, Mafia boss Carlos Marcello and his allies in

the Mob and in the Teamsters Union had powerful motives to kill

Kennedy. We have witnesses who have testified to their planning

an assassination attack on the President; associates who

apparently had foreknowledge of such an attack, such as Santos

Trafficante and the one I just mentioned -- Tony Marcello.

So the motive was there.

Now, if you want to get into a discussion of means, we can do

that. If you want to get into a discussion of how a cover-up was

put in place, we can go into that.

GARY NULL:

Sir, we're going to get into all those things, but unfortunately,

we have a terrible, almost inaudible connection on your line.

We're going to ask you to hang up so that our engineer can call

you back. But I want Jones Harris to stay on. I just want John

Davis to hang up because we're going to call you back. I'm sorry

for the poor technical quality.

Let's switch over to Jones Harris. Welcome to our program Mr.

Harris.

JONES HARRIS:

Hi, Gary. Nice to meet you at long last. I've looked forward to

this. Now, I'd just like to make a few comments.

I'm nowhere near as informed on the Organized Crime level as John

Davis, who has written an excellent book, that I do recommend to

people to read, called MAFIA KINGFISH. My point is this. I went

to Dallas at the end of `63 and then spent a lot of `64 there.

I interviewed a great many people: police, lawyers who knew

police, and so forth. It was made very clear to me that Jack Ruby

was a member of Organized Crime, that he had been so for a long

time; that he held a very important position for anybody to hold

in any major American city. And that is, he was one of the chief

suborners of all Dallas police who would do the bidding of Organized

Crime. He was the payoff man, which meant that he had a LOT of

important information and a lot of important knowledge. Anybody

who knows the case knows the ease with which he circulated throughout

those days, including getting in [into the Dallas courthouse] in

order to kill Oswald. I don't think there's any doubt that Jack Ruby

worked directly under a man named Joe Civella[sp], who was the

Organized Crime boss in Dallas, who directly, himself, worked under

the far more important figure, Carlos Marcello.

I'd like to tell your audience, Gary, that the idea of a conspiracy

does not begin with a lot of researchers and people like myself,

some of whom wrote books, some of whom didn't. It begins within

the Warren Commission itself. I think there are not many people who

understood that one of the top members of the Commission, Senator

Richard Russell [of Georgia] REFUSED TO SIGN the Warren Commission

[Report] at the end when it was finished. He had felt all along

that it was a conspiracy. He had called Marina Oswald, from whom

eighty percent of the stuff against Lee Oswald came .... he had

called her a xxxx and said that she had lied specifically to the

Commission on six different occasions. He then had to sit down

with Warren and Johnson, and he finally submitted to signing the

thing, though he changed the preamble a little bit. He then told me,

and told any number of interviewers and close friends for the rest

of his days, that he was UTTERLY convinced that this thing was a

conspiracy: the killing of Kennedy.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 2947 of alt.conspiracy.jfk:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part XIII, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:08:17 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Oct7.200817.23480@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 188

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

JONES HARRIS:

When I was fortunate enough again to interview John McCloy some

years before he died, and sat with him and his wife in his home

in Connecticut, and we talked things over, he said to me as I was

leaving: "Mr. Harris, we realized afterwards that there were many

things that were never told to us." Now this was important,

coming from John McCloy because John McCloy had been priveleged

to deal in intelligence matters for the United States from 1917

on. I thought that that was an important admission. I believe

that Organized Crime played a very important role in the Kennedy

assassination, Gary, but I do not think that is the total story.

And one of the reasons I think it's not the total story is the

very thing that John Davis mentioned. I do not believe that

Trafficante would have said to a non-Mob person that "Kennedy was

going to be hit" if Organized Crime themselves were sending in

the killers. I do not believe that he would then have made that

comment to a non-Organized Crime person. I do believe that what

Organized crime did was ..... this crime could have taken place

in Miami. It could have taken place in Dallas. It was a moveable

feat. It could have taken place in Chicago. But wherever it was

going to take place, Organized Crime's contacts with those police

figures who were corrupt were going to be very important to

making the thing come out the right way. And there is no question

that in the Dallas area, that man was Jack Ruby.

GARY NULL:

Alright. We're going to pause and reflect on all of this, put

this into perspective, and recapitulate some of the things that

John Davis has suggested.

John, are you back on the line?

JOHN DAVIS:

Yes, I am.

GARY NULL:

I'd also like to introduce Gaeton Fonzi. Welcome to our program,

Mr. Fonzi.

GAETON FONZI:

Thank you.

GARY NULL:

We're going to come to you in just a moment because you are a

highly respected investigator and journalist. You were an

investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

And we're going to get your perspective.

Again, it is not our intention to suggest that one group, one

individual alone [is guilty], but rather, we're looking at all of

the pieces and saying: What evidence do we have that was not and

has not been made the primary focus of either the Warren

Commission or the general news media presentation in taking it to

a level that, up to this point, simply has not existed. And also,

we're going to deal with some of the inconsistencies that have

occurred and some of the theories that have gone on. So we're

going to come to these issues in just a moment.

Now, because this is a non-commercial public access station, WBAI,

and as a part of the overall Pacifica Network throughout the

United States, several times a year we have to take a couple of

weeks and just raise some funds so that the station can continue,

so that we can keep ourselves commercial-free.

.......

For twenty-seven years, as an award-winnning investigative

journalist who has broken more stories -- over two hundred and

seventy-three major stories in the areas of medicine, the

environment, consumer health issues, I have always had to start

off with the problem of not just convincing the American Public

that there is something wrong with something that they were

believing in and trusting in, but I also had to go up against the

very forces who have enormous economic power and who have control

over the media. For instance, just two days ago, the New York

Times, in an editorial, started to talk about the fact that there

was a challenge against the theory that the HIV virus is the

single cause of AIDS. Where was the New York Times eight years

ago when this information was readily available? And where was

Time Magazine twenty-five years ago talking about vitamins?

NOW they say that vitamins help to prevent diseases like cancer.

Yes, vitamins do. But the evidence has been there all along. And

it hasn't been hidden. The evidence has been there that the HIV

virus is not the single cause of AIDS. It could not POSSIBLY be

the single cause of AIDS. There's no science to prove that, by

itself, it causes anything. And yet, why is it that no one has

written about it? Today's Amsterdam News writes about it.

The problem is that you have three things to contend with.

First, is convincing someone that something they thought was true

is not. Secondly, trying to deal with the idea that if you're

going to challenge the Status Quo -- as we're challenging the

Status Quo on the Kennedy Assassination -- that means you're

challenging something that people believe in almost as much as

they believe in themselves, or their parents, or their whole

life. And that is: orthodoxy; that is: authority. So it takes a

great deal of effort for the person to even be open to an idea

that challenges the prevailing view. And then, thirdly, is to see

whether or not they believe you enough to even look at the

evidence you have, and then try it. Why do you think, for

instance, just now we changed the Basic Four Food Group, which

was a SCAM. It was a fraud. It was unscientific. It was an

economic ploy. And it killed people by the hundreds of thousands

and millions because they were saturating their bodies and their

arteries with cholesterol and fats. And it causes heart disease

and cancer. Well now we know that. Alright? That's known.

BUT, we knew that all along. Certain people knew it. Just like

my guests today .... they have information that they've had for a

long time. Mr. Harris has had information for a long time. He had

information in 1978 that nobody wanted to pay attention to.

"Nobody", meaning mainstream media, and mainstream belief

systems. But it didn't matter. He has continued. We have a forum.

It's a small forum, but we have a forum for it.

......

AMY GOODMAN:

For a contribution of fifty dollars, you support Gary Null

here every weekday, and you support WBAI, a commercial-free radio

station that would dare to put Gary Null on the air as much as we

do. We don't have corporate sponsors. We don't have drug companies

who say: "We don't want our dogma, our ideology challenged."

Of course, they wouldn't say that on the air, but they would say

it to management. But we are corporate-free. We are commercial-free.

And that's what makes us important. That's what enables us to

bring you Gary Null. If that is a philosophy that is important to

you, (212) 279-3400 is the number to call and support WBAI.

GARY NULL:

Right now, we're in the midst of a special twenty-five-part

investigation on conspiracies, cover-ups and hidden agendas.

We're looking at life in a way that we've never been told existed.

On the conference phone we now have Jones Harris, we have Gaeton

Fonzi, and we also have John Davis. I'd like to come back to you

at this time, Mr. Harris. If you would please continue talking

about what we now know about the Warren Commission and the

information that it chose to accept and review, and that which it

chose to EXCLUDE, including individuals whose testimony or

evidence it chose not to use, and that information that it chose

to use, which now in retrospect, anyone can see should not have

been included.

JONES HARRIS:

Gary, if I may, let me answer your question in a slightly broader

way than you're suggesting because the limits of your question

would better go to Mr. Fonzi or to John Davis.

But let me say this to the public that is interested in this.

Not only did the Warren Commission go well out of its way not to

explore the Organized Crime end of this thing. Sad to say, he's a

man whom I knew well -- and I know that he's dying at this moment

-- but I have to say that Jim Garrison is also a man who did

everything he could (and I worked for him down there) to shield

the Organized Crime community. I'll give you one example of that,

if this might be of interest to you.

The first day I went down to work for him (and I like him very

much. A very personable fellow), he said: "Jones, what's the

first thing you'd like to do?" And I raised the name of Carlos

Marcello. And this great big six-foot-seven giant looked down at

me and he said: "Well Jones, of course, Carlos used to be in

Organized Crime, but he's just a businessman now." And there was

a pause, and then Garrison said to me: "Jones, you and I can have

lunch with Carlos whenever you want."

Now this was one of the first things that I found worrying when I

started to work down there.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 11001 of alt.censorship:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part XIV(corrected), PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:54:34 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Oct12.125434.10654@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 149

CORRECTED:

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

JONES HARRIS:

So, my point here is this: that the decision not to look very firmly

at Organized Crime starts almost from the beginning. It starts with

the Dallas Police. It starts with the Bureau [the FBI]. It starts

with the Warren Commission. It continues to Garrison, and I must

say that even though the Blakey Committee finally did come through

and say: "Yes, it looks as though there might have been involvement",

considering all the time that they spent, I found that their

information was awful awful thin.

GARY NULL:

Alright. Let's explore that in some depth now, and let's go over

to Mr. Fonzi. Please hold on, Mr. Harris. Mr. Fonzi, thank you very

much for being with us. Let's explore a few things. Now you were an

investigator with the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Did

you find that there was any attempt by either the FBI or the CIA or

other leading law enforcement agencies or the attorney-general's

office, after [Robert] Kennedy, to downplay or to disengage the

interest of an investigation of Organized Crime in this?

GAETON FONZI:

Well that was not actually one of my areas of investigation. There

was, on the part of all the agencies, I believe, not a total spirit

of cooperation. And, of course, when it came to the CIA, that was

even more so.

Let me go back to something that John Davis said earlier on, as far

as there being no concrete evidence of CIA involvement. There was

no concrete evidence of anyone's involvement. There was no concrete

evidence of Organized Crime's involvement. There was no concrete

evidence of anti-Castro Cuban involvement or pro-Castro Cuban

involvement. There was no concrete evidence of any type of

involvement. There was, I believe, no concrete evidence of Lee

Harvey Oswald's involvement in the assassination.

GARY NULL:

Are you suggesting that Kennedy shot himself?

GAETON FONZI:

What I'm suggesting is that after all these years, there has not

been an adequate investigation. There was not an adequate

investigation on the part of the Warren Commission, and there

wasn't one on the part of the House Select Committee on

Assassinations.

GARY NULL:

But why? There had to have been a reason.

GAETON FONZI:

Well, certainly from my own experience with the House Select

Committee, I know the reason was strictly political. When Bob

Blakey, the second chief counsel after the original chief counsel

Richard Sprague was fired for wanting to conduct a murder

investigation, a unique approach to the Kennedy Assassination, the

new chief cousel Bob Blakey came in and told his staff this at the

first meeting: "We have two priorities. Our first priority is to

get a report done in time. Our second priority is to get a report

done within our financial restrictions." And with those priorities

we set out to do exactly that, limiting, of course, many many areas

of investigation.

Let me just go on for a minute in terms of some of the specifics

that both John Davis and Jones Harris were talking about. I agree

that Organized Crime probably had a part in the assassination

because of Ruby's links to Organized Crime. But I think, in trying

to determine any kind of strategic planning here, you've got to

account for Oswald and Oswald's movements. You've got to account

for Oswald's control. And when Senator Richard Schweiker, who headed

the Senate Select Subcommittee on the [John] Kennedy Assassination

under the [senator Frank] Church Select Committee on Intelligence

..... when he first got into investigating the Kennedy Assassination,

his immediate conclusion, after digging into it, was that "Oswald

had", as Schweiker put it, "the fingerprints of Intelligence all

over his activities." So I think that, unless you crank in the

control of Oswald, any theory about the Kennedy Assassination just

isn't complete.

GARY NULL:

Alright. Can you take us into an understanding of Alpha 66

and Antonio Visiana?

GAETON FONZI:

Yes, because that goes into .... when you talk about means and

motivation, I think you can find the means and motivation, not only

on the part of Organized Crime, but on the part of the anti-Castro

Cubans or on the part of the intelligence agencies, and in almost

any direction you look. But what I feel is the strongest is the

overall picture of the intelligence agencies' connections to the

anti-Castro Cubans, and their motivation. And that goes back to the

period following the Bay of Pigs. Kennedy was given a lot of blame

for the failure of the Bay of Pigs [invasion], but it wasn't his

fault. The Bay of Pigs was planned -- including the air strikes --

by the [Central Intelligence] Agency before Kennedy became

president. And he was not even told about the air strikes.

Subsequently, as a result of that failure, Kennedy was very angry,

both at Castro and at the Intelligence Agency. And he sent his

brother Bobby to actually begin taking over the Agency, and set up

a secret war against Castro that was based out of this Florida area

here. And over the course of the years this became the largest CIA

operation outside of Langley [Virginia, CIA Headquarters]. It was

called the Jam Wave Station and it conducted a very very effective

operation against Castro almost on a daily and nightly basis.

These training camps, or these guerilla camps, were set up by the

Agency. They were controlled by Agency personnel using anti-Castro

Cubans as the operatives. And their spirit and motivation became

blended with the anti-Castro Cubans' goals.

Come the Cuban Missile Crisis when Kennedy realized that, as a

result of this very effective war against Castro, Castro permitted

the Russian missiles to be brought into Cuba. Kennedy realized that

he had brought the world to the brink of a nuclear disaster. So he

made arrangements with [soviet Premier] Kruschev to stop the secret

war and to close down these guerilla bases in return for the

withdrawal of the missiles.

When he did that, the guerilla bases continued operating against

-- in defiance -- of the President's orders. As a result of that,

Kennedy was forced to use other agencies -- the Navy, the Coast

Guard and other military agencies -- to close down these camps.

And in the process, he arrested some of these anti-Castro Cubans

whom the Government had been supporting. This was reason enough for

the anti-Castro Cubans and their Intelligence [Agency] partners to

consider Kennedy a traitor. And as a matter of fact, during the

height of delicate negotiations with Kruschev, it was Alpha 66, one

of the most militant anti-Castro groups, that tried to sink Russian

ships in Havana Harbor, again defying Kennedy's orders.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 2990 of alt.conspiracy.jfk:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part XV, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:23:31 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Oct12.212331.1686@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 161

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GAETON FONZI:

When I was working for Senator Schweiker, on the Senate Select

Committee on Intelligence, I developed a witness in Miami named

Antonio Visiana. He was a former accountant in Cuba who had founded

Alpha 66. As I said, it was Alpha 66 that was one of the anti-Castro

Cuban groups that actually tried to blow up the Russian ships in

Havana Harbor, and blow apart Kennedy's deal with Kruschev. Visiana

told me that he was recruited in Havana in 1961 by an American named

Maurice Bishop. Bishop was the secret behind-the-scenes strategic

director of everything that he did with Alpha 66.

He worked with Bishop from 1961 until 1973, and during that period

of time, he worked with him on three attempts to assassinate Fidel

Castro. These were operations planned by Bishop who was obviously

an intelligence operative. He met with Bishop several times a year

and whenever it became necessary to plan strategy.

In September of 1963, he made arrangements to meet with Bishop in

the lobby of an office building in Dallas. That was nothing new

because he had met Bishop a number of times in Dallas. When Visiana

arrived, Bishop was talking to a young man. When President Kennedy

was assassinated, Visiana immediately recognized Lee Harvey Oswald

as that young man. I thought that this was tremendously important;

perhaps the single most significant piece of new evidence since the

Warren Commission investigation, because Bishop was obviously CIA.

And the CIA had repeatedly denied any connection or contact with

Oswald. After we got Visiana to develop a sketch of Bishop, it was

Senator Schweiker who identified Bishop as being David Atlee Phillips,

a CIA officer who had risen to one of the highest ranks in the

Agency as the Chief of the Western Hemisphere Division. And we

discovered that Phillips was an undercover agent in Havana during

the period in which Visiana said that he had met Bishop. In 1963,

Phillips was Chief of Covert Operations in Mexico City, and he was

subsequently responsible for all the disinformation that the CIA

had fed the Warren Commission about Oswald's visits there.

This was one of the areas -- the link between David Atlee Phillips

and Maurice Bishop -- that I feel the House Select Committee didn't

want to go into because it would have opened too many doors, too

many important doors. And every one of those doors was marked "CIA".

GARY NULL:

Alright. Now, if that is the case, then let's summarize here.

What we have is a group of individuals with intelligence community

associations: CIA. We also have a few people who were ex-FBI,

including one who would play a very important role, and who was

also very familiar with Alpha 66. Then we had Guy Bannister.

Now I don't believe that it was possible for Guy Bannister and

David Ferrie ..... who both were known to Alpha 66 and the people

[thereunto] associated, and who also were familiar with what had

gone on with some attempted assassinations of Kennedy (with CIA

involvement). I believe that that had to have been a sub-contract to

the Mob. And when you look at what Johnny Roselli was testifying

about in secret, and then he was killed just a short time after

that, then you start to bring in Sam Giancana and Santos Trafficante,

the Mob boss of Tampa. And you start showing the connection -- that

it wasn't just possibly the Mob, and it wasn't just the intelligence

community. It was a marriage of the two.

Still, if you look at the precision of the assassination -- and we

have new information about that assassination that we're going to

be revealing for the first time anywhere, in another week or so --

it could not have been done unless people were very very SKILLED in

hits.

[JD: The tape ran out here. I'll try to obtain a copy of the

missing remainder of the broadcast, but for now, let's resume

with the next day's broadcast. Here again, I missed some of

the beginning.]

GARY NULL:

..... ended up being there when it arrived in Bethdesda. And also,

(a very important piece of evidence) the fact that there were three

separate caskets that entered that hospital .....

DAVID LIFTON:

I said two.

GARY NULL:

Two. Well, also there was a circumstance of the same one being

seen twice: the bronze casket.

DAVID LIFTON:

Separate entries of two caskets. That's correct, according to

the evidence.

GARY NULL:

But the public was led to believe that there was only one casket:

the casket that the President's body was put in in Dallas, arriving

at Bethdesda Naval Hospital hours later, a routine autopsy being

performed. And that was the end of the story. That's what the

Warren Commission was told. That's what we have been led to

believe.

In point of fact, another casket, which actually contained the body

of the President, arrived. Give us the circumstances surrounding

the arrival of that casket. What witnesses were there to acknowledge

that another casket had arrived -- that it was not the bronze

casket -- that the President's body was not the way that it was

when it left Dallas?

DAVID LIFTON:

Now, these are two separate issues you're addressing here. One is

the condition of the body, and the other is the issue of multiple

caskets. So which would you like me to address first?

GARY NULL:

Begin with the different caskets.

DAVID LIFTON:

Okay. What I was able to show in BEST EVIDENCE (and I obtained

reports which had not been examined. In fact, they're not even in

the National Archives, as far as the Warren Commission investigation

goes) is the report of the military casket team. In that casket

team report (and I interviewed the men who were on the casket team)

..... Let's make sure we understand what the casket team is. These

are the pall bearers, the honor guard that met Air Force One when

it arrived on the night of November 22nd at Andrews Air Force Base.

This is a multi-service casket team consisting of Navy, Air Force,

Army and Coast Guard, and headed by a man named Lieutenant Samuel

Byrd who subsequently died of wounds incurred in Vietnam.

These men described to me (in telephone interviews and, in one

case, in an in-person interview in the year 1967. And it's hard

to believe that it was so long ago: twenty-five years ago) what

occurred at the front of Bethesda Naval Hospital when the Navy

ambulance pulled up. That ambulance pulled up and they tried to

follow that ambulance from seven o'clock when it arrived at the

front of Bethesda until eight o'clock when they finally brought the

coffin in. There is an hour, sort of a missing time in there. Now

we can quibble over whether it's forty-five minutes, thirty-five

minutes. But there's a serious incident in there where they attempt

to follow the Navy ambulance, lose the ambulance, and are told by

their superiors that they have followed the decoy. There is a decoy

ambulance. NONE of this made it into the Warren Commission Report.

It's ALL on my telephone interview tapes. And the written report

says that they brought the big casket, which we all saw off-loaded

on TV, and the one that is supposed to contain the body .... they

brought that in at eight o'clock. That is their official written

report dated December (oh, I don't know) fifth or tenth, 1963.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 16516 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part XVI, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:04:32 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Oct16.160432.29973@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 145

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

DAVID LIFTON:

Now, contrary to that evidence, I actually located the witnesses

who were at the back of the hospital, and who participated in

off-loading the vehicle and the casket in which the body actually

was in. And that was a black hearse which arrived at about ten

minutes `til seven, Eastern Time. That black hearse had two men in

O.R. smocks and a group of civilians. A shipping casket was brought

out of that hearse. Dennis David, who is in Chapter 25 of my book,

described the scene of his men off-loading that casket. Furthermore,

I have documentary evidence, which is in my book (it's actually at

the Gerald Ford Library now), that the arrival occurred at 6:50,

apparently. This is the shipping casket. It was brought into the

hospital. That shipping casket was opened by Paul O'Connor who was

the medical technician at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Inside that

shipping casket, according to O'Connor, the President's body was in

a body bag. He unzipped the body bag. That statement was accepted

and published by the House Select Committee: the fact that he

opened the President's body bag; that the body was in a body bag.

That's the information that the body did not arrive in the same

casket that it left Dallas in, even though, of course, the big

casket arrives at the front of the hospital.

Now, it so happens that the big casket enters twice: once at eight

o'clock, as I've just described in the casket scene. However, it

also enters at 7:14. That casket entry is documented in FBI

documents provided by FBI agents Seibert and O'Neill. So we have

three casket entries: the one in the shipping casket at 6:50 when,

apparently, the body arrived. Then there's this covert entry of the

big casket while the casket team is chasing around looking for it.

And that's apparently when the body was put back into the big

casket so that they could have an official casket opening at 8:00.

This hocus-pocus is documented. I think any historian has to accept

the fact that there are three documented entries. One can argue and

say that it's all a matter of a mix-up of the paperwork. I think

that that is highly unlikely in view of the other part of my case

which involves actual alterations to the body. That's a separate

issue. But on the area of the chain-of-possession, I want to tell

you that when this material was run on San Francisco TV station

KRON-TV, in a documentary in which I was a consultant, narrated by

Sylvia Chase and produced by Stanhope Gould, Stanhope said to the

San Francisco papers (and I was very pleased with this), he says:

"David Lifton has courtroom evidence that the body did not make an

uninterrupted journey from Dallas to Bethesda. Something happened.

He interviewed these witnesses personally, on camera. He sat with

them for hours in restaurants. They are credible."

And unless one believes in some crazy theory of Maxwell's demons,

and that reality went haywire that night, as it is supposed to have

gone haywire in Dealey Plaza that afternoon, with all kinds of

non-physical things occurring; you know, the head going the wrong way

on the Zapruder Film, or witnesses not understanding where the shots

came from ..... This is another episode at Bethesda that night.

And I say that what we are witnessing is, in fact, an interruption in

the chain-of-possession. A disguise was in force. The decoy ambulance

business smells. And something happened that night. Now, in my book

I try to explain what that something is. But focusing just on the

microscopic here, something happened. There are three documented

entries of two caskets.

GARY NULL:

Okay. Now let's go! What do you think happened, and how is it

significant to the conspiracy concept?

DAVID LIFTON:

Okay. In what I am now going to say, I'm not addressing the autopsy

X-rays and photographs. I am addressing the descriptions of the

body as recorded in the official documentation in the Bethesda

autopsy report and testimony. Okay? Because the autopsy photos and

X-rays are another issue -- and an important one -- and a separate

issue. But to avoid confusion (on a radio program we do not have

visual aids), what I'm going to say to you is that the legal record

(and one of the accomplishments of my book was to demonstrate

that the Bethesda medical record, based on the descriptions of the

head wound, for example, is different from the Dallas medical

record), the Dallas record described a 35 square centimeter hole

(wound) in the back right-rear of the President's head, with a flap

of scalp connected with that hole at the back -- a wound at the

right-rear of the head. Okay? I documented that in my book.

I showed that news accounts, starting with the press conference

conducted within an hour of the time of death, when the two doctors

Clark and Perry conducted a press conference at Parkland Hospital,

with news interviews over the weekend, with testimony before the

Warren Commission, with their medical reports -- it all points to

the fact that the doctors in Dallas saw a hole at the right-rear of

the head. Connected with that hole was a flap of scalp. They all

thought that a bullet had exited from the right-rear of the head.

When I say, "they all thought", let's say with one minor exception.

But that's what their diagnosis was. And the brain was inside the

head. It was not gone, or anything of that sort. There was severe

damage. There was some brain tissue blown out. But it was not as if

the President was in Dallas, Texas with an empty cranium.

Now, that is the Dallas evidence. I refer anybody listening to this

to Chapter 13 of my book ["BEST EVIDENCE"]. At the Bethesda end of

the line, I personally think that the finest evidence there is is a

blood-stained diagram -- today at the National Archives. That blood-

stained diagram, executed by Commander Boswell, one of it's autopsy

surgeons, shows measurements ten-by-seventeen for the hole in the

top of the President's head. Ten-by-seventeen is 170 square centimeters.

That's FIVE times larger than the thirty-five square centimeters hole

at Parkland. To use inches, at Parkland it was thought to be two

and three-quarter inches across. At Bethesda it's seven or eight

inches on the diagonal. In the official autopsy description, it was

listed as thirteen centimeters across, which is still a mighty big hole.

It was not what was seen in Dallas.

Furthermore, specifically stated in the Bethesda report is that

the scalp is entirely gone over that hole. There is no flap. It is

just GONE. Now that huge crater in the top right-hand side of the

head is described in the Bethesda autopsy report, and it conflicts

with Dallas. Furthermore, two agents present -- FBI agents Seibert

and O'Neill, again who are also connected with the coffin business;

that is, in providing us with valuable information about that 7:14

entry -- two FBI agents report that when the body was removed from

the casket in which it had been transported, and placed on the

autopsy table, it was apparent that there had been surgery of the

head area; namely, in the top of the skull. NO such surgery was

performed in Dallas. If the FBI statement is true (and that's a

very critical question; it ought to be investigated by a special

prosecutor) ..... if the FBI statement is true, then something

happened to the body between Dallas and Bethesda.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass-media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 16630 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part XVII, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 12:18:27 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Oct20.121827.20733@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 141

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

DAVID LIFTON:

Now that is the evidence that something happened between Dallas and

Bethdesda. And the consequence of that medical alteration -- if it

occurred -- is that the Dallas doctors thought that something exited

from the rear of the head. The Bethesda doctors thought that

something entered from the rear and blew out the top. Did the

doctors recognize [believe] it? Was this a perfect medical forgery?

Absolutely not. They didn't recognize it because the FBI documents

that I've obtained under the Freedom of Information Act indicate

that the FBI wrote down what the doctors said. So if I'm correct,

my interpretation not only goes to what happened on the body, but

what happened in the room. In other words, to paraphrase the old

question from Watergate: What did the doctors know, and when did

they know it? Well, according to the FBI, the doctors IMMEDIATELY,

and I stress, immmediately recognized that there had been surgery

of the head area; namely in the top of the skull. That's what I

think the record shows in this case.

This is not some kind of a perfect crime! It's a very sloppy crime.

I think that a special prosecutor ought to question these doctors

who are still alive -- and they MUST be questioned before they pass

on. I think that we would get some stunning new information about

this case because I personally interviewed one of the FBI agents,

and I know that he's going to stand behind his statement, contrary

to a foolish affidavit, excerpted in some weird fashion and

published by professor Blakey in a report in which they tried to

make it appear that the FBI agents said that this was not true.

So that's what happened in the area of the head. I believe that the

configuration of the wounds was changed. Now, in the area of the

neck we have a similar problem. We have a tracheotomy, supposedly,

according to the sworn testimony of Doctor Malcolm Perry in Dallas,

done through the neck wound. That tracheotomy, Doctor Perry told me

in 1966, was two to three centimeters. And according to everybody

there, it had neat edges -- neat edges as made with a knife. I

would be more than willing to testify before any investigation that

Perry told me that it was two to three centimeters, in 1966, and to

offer my telephone interview tapes as evidence. In 1966, I

interviewed all the doctors on this issue of the length of the

tracheotomy incision. At the Dallas end of the line it was two to

three centimeters; four, some of them said. There's one or two

stragglers who say it was a little bit bigger. But Perry made the

incision. He told me it was two to three centimeters. In the

autopsy report, that thing is listed as six-and-a-half centimeters

with widely gaping edges. And under oath, Humes said it was seven

to eight centimeters. And it has, according to the autopsy report,

widely gaping irregular edges. So that is the issue: that something

happened to the throat wound between Dallas and Bethesda.

Now, if it was an entry wound, as the Dallas doctors originally

alleged and believed, if a bullet or fragment entered at the front

of the throat and lodged, as most of them believed, at the top of

the right lung, isn't it interesting that when the body was opened

at Bethesda, where the Dallas doctors thought there was a bullet,

the Bethesda doctors found a bloody bruise with a pyramid-shaped

scar. That's circumstantial evidence, of course, but I think it's

probative. So that's the situation. I believe that there was

bullet extraction from the area of the throat too. All of this put

together raises again this question of probability. Can all these

doctors ..... can this pattern be an accident? Can we simply be

looking at mistaken medical observations, mistaken FBI reports,

mistaken observations of those who know what kind of casket was used?

I think not! I think this is the kind of stuff that the can opener

of a special prosecutor could pry wide open.

GARY NULL:

Okay. That's a good presentation. Now we're going to summarize

here for a moment. What you're suggesting is that there is hard

evidence, good documentation that the casket and the state of the

President's body that left Dallas is not the same casket and state

of the President's body that arrived in Bethesda.

DAVID LIFTON:

Right. There's not only a break in the chain-of-possession, but

there is alteration of the evidence.

GARY NULL:

Alright. So they altered evidence. Now if this were put on trial,

that would be a major issue.

DAVID LIFTON:

That would be a major allegation. I can also guide you a little bit,

if you wish, into the way that the rebuttal would work so the

reader can understand the nature of this problem.

GARY NULL:

Okay. I'm going to ask you to hold onto that thought because

there's a lot more information. Now we're going to go, in just a

few moments, over to our other guest, Doctor Cyril Wecht, on this

issue. There is also the Leibeler Memorandum which I want to talk

about. And I want to talk about some new information and the

emergence of a new hypothesis. I want to talk about the Seibert

and O'Neill Report. And I want to look at the X-rays and the

photographs, and the allegations of Doctor John Ebersole, and some

of the comments from the House Select Committee in 1978.

Alright? We'll be doing that in a few moments.

I do want to mention to our audience that three times a year, here

on WBAI, non-commercial, public, free-access radio, part of the

Pacifica Network, that we must take a break to do some fund-raising

so that we can continue paying our bills. We're going to come back

to our guests in about ten minutes and continue on with this

information, presenting more documentation that the American Public

has not been made privy to, but which it must in order to make

reasonable judgments about the conclusions drawn by the Warren

Commission; about the role that the media has played in the

official position, and what this means.

Yesterday, you heard us talk about the fact that various members of

Organized Crime were implicated in this, and certain middle-level

members, by name, of the CIA; certain members of the FBI, by name,

such as Guy Banister; the pro and anti-Castro movements involving

Oswald, and the fact that, up to this point, we cannot find

evidence that Oswald was implicated in the assassination. It's so

easy to have a single gunman, a single person, and end it there.

But we CANNOT end it there if the evidence doesn't indicate that it

should be ended there. And it does not. And so we're looking hard,

and we're looking where mainstream media either has chosen not to

look, or has looked and chosen not to accept the evidence.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass-media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 16698 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part XVIII, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1992 13:20:33 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Oct22.132033.16754@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 147

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

We're allowing you to make the decision, rather than making it for

you. We'll be back with this special investigative report.

Eighteen more [one-hour] parts to this series to come. Bit by bit,

we're laying the information out. It's too much to lay out all at

once. It would be too confusing. .....

......

In our series on hidden agendas, conspiracies and cover-ups, we are

examing one type of cover-up, and that involves the assassination of

President John F. Kennedy. Later on in this series we'll be dealing

with other issues, other forms of cover-up.

Most Americans, for a long period of time, believed the Warren

Commission, which said that two bullets fired by one man, who had

no connection to anyone, killed the President. There was never a

detailed effort to try to understand the inconsistencies, the

missing or altered evidence, nor the media's compliance with this

particular single view. We are now looking at new information and

trying to see whether or not the American Public has been given all

the information by the media to allow it to make an intelligent

decision about what really was involved.

My guest on today's program is Jerry Policoff from WXIX-TV in

Cincinnati, Ohio, a researcher since 1966 whose articles on the

assassination of John F. Kennedy appeared in GALLERY MAGAZINE. He

has also written for ROLLING STONE, NEW TIMES, THE REALIST and

other publications, and in the op-ed pages of the New York Times

and the Washington Post. Most recently he wrote a very fine article

in the VILLAGE VOICE, co-authored with Robert Hennelly.

My other guest is Jim Marrs, author of CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT

KILLED KENNEDY. He is also a reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

He was a reporter for the Denton Record-Chronicle at the time of the

assassination of John Kennedy. He teaches at the University of Texas

at Arlington, on the assassination of President Kennedy.

Welcome to our program, Jerry Policoff.

JERRY POLICOFF:

Hi. How are you?

GARY NULL:

and welcome to our program, Jim Marrs.

JIM MARRS:

It's good to be with you.

GARY NULL:

Jim, we're going to begin with you, and I'm going to be giving

information, through you, which the American Public simply has not

been made generally aware of, so we can throw new light on this

entire issue. I'm going to run through some issues with you. I'd

like for you to address them. First and foremost, let's try to

understand all the different things that occurred in Dealey Plaza

that most people had not even considered -- not even the Warren

Commission. We've been led to believe that it was just part of a

regular motorcade -- that this man just HAPPENED to have known the

[details of the] motorcade, planted himself there in very short

order, and was able to get off what is simply the fastest, most

accurate shooting in the HISTORY of marksmanship -- and that that's

how it went down. Nothing outside of that occurred that should

throw any suspicion upon this. And, by and large, most of the media

in America, for all these years, has accepted that.

Quickly, let's go through it and decide what happened on November

22nd of 1963 in Dealey Plaza -- the motorcade, the crowd, the

suspicious men, the "babuska lady", the Texas School Book

Depository, the districting[?] seizure, the man in the doorway, the

Oswald encounter, the triple underpass, the smoke from the grassy

knoll, the third wounded man, the Zapruder film, the black-dog man,

the badge man, the grassy knoll witnesses ..... Let's go through

all of this so that the American People can know that, all along,

this information was available, that people were coming forward,

and that this was excluded from being properly investigated or

reported on.

JIM MARRS:

Right. And I think you've pretty well touched on it here. If you

look at any one single issue in this whole case, then there is

always doubt, there is always the possibility of a coincidence, or

maybe of just a mistake, or whatever. But you have to look at this

evidence in its totality. All of this evidence -- everything we

could talk about -- still comes back to one thing. And that is the

"single bullet theory". The "single bullet theory" says that one of

the bullets struck both Kennedy and Connally, causing seven wounds

to these two men, including shattering Connally's fifth rib and

shattering his wrist bone. Now if the one bullet did not hit both

men, then there has to be more than one shooter, in which case

we've got a crossfire; we've got a conspiracy. And that elevates this

thing to a whole new ball game. So I'd like to address that first.

They knew how long the assassination took because of the Zapruder

Film. The FBI diligently checked his camera and found out that it

ran at eighteen frames per second. So they know that all of the

shooting happened within 5.6 seconds. Alright. Now, within 5.6

seconds it is physically impossible for one man with a bolt-action

rifle to fire more than three rounds. Hence, they had to say that

there were only three shots fired. Alright. Two of those shots are

accounted for, which leaves only ONE bullet to account for the

seven wounds to Kennedy and Connally. So how did they go about this?

They simply told us -- and they are STILL TELLING US (people within

the Warren Commission: [President] Gerald Ford, David Dillon[?])

are STILL telling us that the bullet went through Kennedy's neck,

did not hit anything, and then went on to hit Connally. In fact,

the Warren Commission Report itself, "Number One: Findings," said:

"President Kennedy was first struck by a bullet which entered at

the back of his neck and exited through the lower front portion of

his neck." Now the problem is that this is a small, but critical LIE!

And I say it's a lie because I'll prove it to you in just a minute.

The President was struck in the back. Okay? And they were unable

to probe the wound. However, even if they had probed it,

they claimed that it went upward and exited out his neck. Now --

there's no question about this. The autopsy face-sheet shows it.

It's marked "verified" by his personal physician. The autopsy

doctors were quoted in the Seibert-O'Neill Report as saying that

the wound was in the back -- the middle of the back. everybody says

that. The shirt and jacket, which are still available, plainly show

a bullet in the middle of the back. The death certificate says:

"a wound in the posterior back at the level of the third thoracic

vertebrae." And even Glenn Bennett, one of the Secret Service agents,

in his report from hand-written notes on the day of the assassination,

said that he saw the shot hit the President about four inches down

from the right shoulder.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass-media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 16734 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part XIX, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1992 22:04:05 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Oct23.220405.14474@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 150

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

JIM MARRS:

Okay. No problem. He was hit in the back. But the Warren

Commission and everybody up to today has lied to us and said that

he was hit in the neck. Why? Because he was hit in the back, and

it came out his throat. That's an upward trajectory, and it could

not possibly turn in mid-air and come down to strike Connally.

So it destroys the "single bullet theory" which is the whole

foundation of the "lone assassin theory".

Now, the "smoking gun". The "smoking gun" is the minutes of the

January 27th, 1964 meeting of the Warren Commission. And we have

the Chief Counsel, J. Lee Rankin addressing the Warren Commission

([ex-CIA Director] Allen Dulles, [future President] Gerald Ford).

And he says (quote):

"It seems quite apparent now, since we have a picture of where

the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the

shoulder blade, to the right of the backbone, which is below the

place where the picture shows the bullet came out the neckband of

the shirt, in front. So that how it could turn and ......"

And he trails off, because he realizes he has just talked his way

right out of the "single bullet theory". So they all just decided to

turn their eyes. They're not going to look at the facts, and they're

going to lie to us and say that the bullet went [entered] through

the neck. And THAT is the crux of this whole case. It was a lie

from start to finish. It was a lie perpetrated at the highest levels

of the Federal Government. And those people who knew better --

who knew where the bullet went, and then lied to us -- are technically

and legally, under the law, guilty of being accessories-after-the-fact,

which, under the law, means that they are just as guilty as whoever

pulled the trigger.

And that's what elevates this crime from the murder of President Kennedy

to a coup d'etat in the United States.

[JD: a crime of "high treason" against the people of the United States]

GARY NULL:

Alright. Let's take a look at the other evidence. Then I want to

come back to your assertion here, because if there was a coup d'etat,

I want to go through the cast of characters and people who have

been alleged, up to this point, to be suspects; such as: Organized

Crime, pro and anti-Castro Cubans, the CIA and other intelligence

agencies, the FBI, some of the oil cartel men, some of the right-wing

reactionaries, some of the military hierarchy. I want to look at

each one of these, because you could not have a coup d'etat without

having the participation of at least four of those groups. It would

not work. And anyone planning a military operation of this magnitude

would have known that.

JIM MARRS:

That's true.

GARY NULL:

You do not plan a coup d'etat if you know that the military could

come in and stop you. The FBI would stop you. The Justice Department

would stop you. So, Organized Crime, by itself, could not possibly

do it -- which is what's laughable about many of these assertions

that Organized Crime could do this. First of all, it is my theory

that these members of Organized Crime have never been very smart --

that almost everything that they have ever done we have a very

detailed history of, because they've talked about every crime

they've ever committed on audio tapes that are in the hands of the

different courts. From John Gotti on down, every one of these

people talk. They're braggarts.

Secondly, they couldn't have covered-up because they've never been

able to cover anything up. In time, every one of their secrets has

come forward. And, from that time until now, if Organized Crime was

involved, we would have heard about it on FBI wiretaps or other

taps that have occurred. So they may have had some participation.

But to assume that they were responsible BY THEMSELVES? It goes

beyond any feasibility.

This was a military-style operation. But the military would NOT

have committed this had they known that the security agencies

would have challenged them.

JIM MARRS:

Exactly!

GARY NULL:

So you can't have one group [committing a coup d'etat], knowing that

there is a balance of power within our Government. Any one of those

balances that is left uncontrolled would be the one that would

uncover it or, in effect, take back the power. So you have to have,

in effect, complicity by all the major groups. And I think it's

laughable that Blakey, of the House Select Committee on

Assassinations, would have assumed that the Mob did it by itself,

as if they had the skill to do it. Their hits have been effective,

but not skillful. And these [assassins] were EXTREMELY skilled. And

their cover-up was meticulous. The Mob, by itself, could not have

covered up, and have stolen information out of the National Archives,

and done the things that have been done. So I want you to give us

your view of that. But let's go back and look at other

inconsistencies and obfuscations at Dealey Plaza.

JIM MARRS:

Okay. First, let me make a quick point. I agree with everything

that you've said, except that I would like to point out to your

audience that I don't believe -- and I don't think you believe,

either -- that everbody within Government and everybody within the

intelligence services knew what was going to happen and

participated actively in the assassination of President Kennedy.

It doesn't work that way. They are all highly compartmentalized.

Very often, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

And the way to control that is from the absolute top. So we've got

two men who were in absolute, undeniable, total control of the

investigation into the death of President Kennedy. And it just

happens to be the two men who benefitted most from the assassination,

and who hated Kennedy the most. And that was Lyndon Johnson, his

successor, and J. Edgar Hoover, Johnson's buddy and neighbor, who

was in control of the FBI.

[JD: Many years ago, I read a report that the day before President

Kennedy was assassinated, he was quoted as remarking:

"That's Lyndon Johnson, and he's in a lot of trouble."

Can anyone cite a published source of any quote like this?]

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass-media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

The episodes of this series can be retrieved via anonymous ftp from the sites:

ftp.css.itd.umich.edu and red.css.itd.umich.edu

Log in with name "anonymous" or "ftp" and supply your email address as the

password. The files are kept in the directory /poli/essays.d/conspiracy.d

(Instructions for ftp retrieval are dependent upon what sort of system

the user is on. On a UNIX machine, one would do, at the command prompt:

ftp ftp.css.itd.umich.edu This may be different on IBMs and Vax systems.)

Article 3172 of alt.conspiracy.jfk:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part 20, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1992 17:51:05 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Oct27.175105.20550@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 156

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

JIM MARRS:

And in the case of the FBI, if you can control the distribution of

the information and what information is released, then you control

the whole investigation. In other words, there were honest FBI

people who were going out, after the assassination, and doing

honest investigative work, and filing honest reports. But these

reports were thrown in with other reports of dubious authenticity;

reports which can be demonstrated to be phony -- false. And then,

from the very top, J. Edgar Hoover and his top echelon was able to

reach into this smorgasbord of evidence and pull out, selectively,

whatever case they wanted to present to the public.

GARY NULL:

There is one other character whom you didn't mention, though I'm

sure you're aware of, and that is: JFK had replaced Allen Dulles

as the head of the CIA, and Allen Dulles ends up being one of the

key people on the Warren Commission.

JIM MARRS:

Exactly. Isn't that like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse?

GARY NULL:

And there was no man in the history of the intelligence community,

before or since, who's ever been as connected to everything within

the intelligence apparatus -- and very much a hands-on person --

as Allen Dulles.

JIM MARRS:

That's true. And let me point out that during the Warren Commission

hearings, the allegation came up, just as it's still alive today,

that Lee Harvey Oswald was a U.S. intelligence agent. His wife and

his mother have both publicly stated that this was so. So they asked

Allen Dulles while they were meeting with the Warren Commission --

they said: If he had been an agent with the CIA, and you were still

the head of the CIA, would you admit it? And he said, "No."

They said: You would lie about it? He said: Yes, I would.

And so, that's kind of where we are. I would point out that this

current committee in Congress that's debating whether or not to

open up the files on the Kennedy Assassination ..... the very first

item that they have listed that they would shield -- that they would

keep files hidden on -- is to protect the identity of a U.S. agent.

Well, that's kind of a catch-22. If Oswald was indeed a U.S. agent,

then by the parameters set by the new Congressional committee, they

can't release any information about it. Isn't that something?

GARY NULL:

Okay. Well, in any case, we all know that anything the CIA is

going to release is going to be COMPLETELY on their side. Any

damaging files, they will have destroyed or not turned over.

JIM MARRS:

You know, let's not forget, by the way, that [President] Gerald Ford,

when he was on the committee, was virtually an informant for

J. Edgar Hoover.

GARY NULL:

I was not aware of that. Let's quickly go through the other

inconsistencies and disinformation from Dealey Plaza.

JIM MARRS:

Well, of course, there's just a plethora of information there.

Beginning with the fact that the majority of people said that the

shots came, not from the School Book Depository, but from down near

the triple underpass, from behind the picket fence on the Grassy

Knoll. There are even eyewitnesses such as Malcolm Summers and Jean

Hill and Sam Holland and the railroad people who actually said they

saw the flash of light, saw the figure under the trees, and saw

smoke drift out from under the trees. And there's a point there too.

For years, apologists for the Government have claimed: Well, there

couldn't have been smoke because even if there had been somebody

there with a high-power rifle, modern rifles do not smoke.

Well, being the owner of several bolt-action rifles myself, I can

assure you that if you have one that's freshly oiled, you'll get a

nice white puff of smoke. And sure enough, in a film made by a

newsman named Dave Wegman, we have a frame showing Kennedy's car,

with the stricken President, just beginning to enter the triple

underpass. And hanging in the air, coming right off the Grassy Knoll,

is an obvious white puff of smoke. So these people were all telling

the truth, and it's the Government that's lied all these years.

We've got Beverly Oliver who was taking film from the south side of

Elm Street, and she had her film taken by men who identified

themselves as FBI agents. And there's a point there. In the hours

following the assassination, and for several weeks, and in fact,

all the way up into the summer of 1964 when the Warren Commission

was already writing their report saying that Oswald was the lone

assassin, the FBI was in Dallas, actively, in the newspaper and on

the radio, asking people to turn in their films, their photographs,

any pictures they had taken in Dealey Plaza; and, of course,

ostensibly to investigate, to help solve the crime. The fact is

that very few of those people ever got their pictures or their

films back. And so, all these years I've had people saying:

Well look, if there's a big conspiracy, where's the evidence?

Well heck! They TOOK the evidence up. They just took it away.

So there was an ongoing, concerted effort to take up evidence and

to hide anything that would point to the reality of what went on.

And the witnesses, the majority of whom said that shots came from

the Grassy Knoll, were discredited, were laughed at, and were ignored.

GARY NULL:

Alright. Let's go through a few of the particulars here:

the lack of Secret Service agents protecting the roofs, and the

speed of the motorcade. Those are two primary issues that have not

been properly addressed.

JIM MARRS:

Okay. Number one: the security for the motorcade. A lot of people

don't understand, Gary, that that motorcade that Kennedy was in in

Dallas, where he met his death, that was the SECOND motorcade of

that day. Earlier in the morning, Kennedy rode in a motorcade from

downtown Fort Worth out to Carswell Air Force Base where he boarded

Air Force One for the short hop over to Dallas. Now, having been a

police reporter there in Fort Worth starting way back in the

mid-60s, I came into contact with a lot of police and sheriff's

people and everybody else who participated in that motorcade. And

they said that security was especially tight, and that they had

orders to keep people off of the overpasses and off of bridges that

would overlook the motorcade route -- that they had armed men

stationed on rooftops, looking for anything out of the ordinary.

Most importantly, they had orders that there were to be no open

windows facing the mototcade route. And, in fact, they had orders

to go into buildings and close windows if they saw a window go up

along the motorcade route.

NONE of this was done in Dallas. NONE OF IT !

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass-media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

The episodes of this series can be retrieved via anonymous ftp from the sites:

ftp.css.itd.umich.edu and red.css.itd.umich.edu

Log in with name "anonymous" or "ftp" and supply your email address as the

password. The files are kept in the directory /poli/essays.d/conspiracy.d

(Instructions for ftp retrieval are dependent upon what sort of system

the user is on. On a UNIX machine, one would do, at the command prompt:

ftp ftp.css.itd.umich.edu This may be different on IBMs and Vax systems.)

Article 17313 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsk!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!Turing.ORG!jad

From: jad@Turing.ORG (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part 21, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1992Nov12.125856.14188@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU

Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 12:58:56 GMT

Lines: 151

The following transcript was made from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

JIM MARRS [author of CROSSFIRE]:

In fact, they used motorcycle officers, who were to flank Kennedy's

car, who were given orders by the Secret Service not to proceed

past the rear bumper. That left him hanging out there, unprotected.

Dallas police Captain Fritz had requested of the Secret Service

that he be allowed to ride a car or two back from the President

with some of his sharpshooters and to watch the windows and watch

for problems on the rooftops. He was told: No, you can ride at

the rear of the motorcade. So, in disgust, he just went on to the

trademart.

None of the normal precautions were taken that day. And, in fact,

there were direct violations of Secret Service regulations, the

most blatant of which was that the men who were actually in charge

of protecting the President -- in direct violation of Secret

Service regulations -- were out drinking until four and five in

the morning over in Fort Worth. And they were not just drinking

beer. They were drinking Everclear. This was a direct violation,

punishable by dismissal from the Secret Service, and yet, all of

this was hushed up and covered up.

The next big security breach was that Secret Service regulations

stated that you would not make a turn greater than ninety degrees.

And if you had to make a ninety degree turn, you'd station

security people at the intersection. Well, the one hundred and

twenty degree turn in front of the Texas School Book Depository

was a direct violation. And no security people were stationed

there. Only one policeman, Joe Smith, was stationed there. And

what was his experience? He said that he heard shots down near

the triple underpass by the little concrete monument, ran down

there, and could still smell gunpowder hanging in the bushes.

So you could see that there was something really wrong going on

with the motorcade.

GARY NULL:

So Secret Service elements would have to have been involved.

Isn't it also true that the right-flanking motorcycle cop leaves

the motorcade when everyone turns onto Elm Street, and that cop

continues straight down Houston Street?

JIM MARRS:

Well, that is true, but I think I have an explanation for that.

In one of Mary Moorman's five Polaroid snapshots, we see a

picture of this motorcycle officer, by himself, rushing down Elm

Street. I think what happened there was kind of a normal police

motorcade procedure, like in a funeral or something. One runs up

ahead, checks the intersection and holds traffic while everybody

goes through -- and then he races ahead -- leap-frogs up ahead.

I think that this motorcycle officer simply roared up Houston

Street a little ways to make sure that everything was secured and

that nobody was coming through there; and then he turned around,

rode back and rejoined his companions further down in the plaza.

I don't necessarily see anything suspicious in that one particular

incident.

GARY NULL:

Jim, what you're telling us is very new and very important for

this audience. And that is that there were extraordinarily tight

and professional safety precautions earlier that same day in

Fort Worth, and all of that was undone. All of that was dismissed

in Dallas. That is completely atypical, and that is something

that the media should have picked up on. That story ALONE would

have been enough, if I were the city editor, for me to send out a

reporter -- to say: Hold on a second. Dallas and Fort Worth are

side-by-side. They're only about thirty miles apart. You have, in

one case, tight, complete, total security. And in another case

you have no security ?

JIM MARRS:

That's true. Well let me tell you something -- then and now.

First off ..... Well, I don't want to use any names, but a good

friend of mine, a peer, who was a news reporter at that time, and

who knew Dallas quite familiarly .....and that was part of the

problem: all the news media poured into Dallas, but they didn't

really know Dallas. They didn't know how to get around. They

didn't know how to talk to the people. But this fellow did. And

he was beginning to kind of investigate on his own because he

smelled a rat. Okay? And he became convinced that his phone was

tapped, and that people were following him around. He had a wife

and a family, and he just told me, quite frankly, that it scared

him, and he backed off. Now that was back at the time [soon after

the assassination]. Today, just two years ago, a senior editor

for one of the Dallas-Fort Worth major dailies told me -- he said:

"Jim, I know you're right, but I can't print the truth because

it could mean my life." Okay? And the guy was dead-serious.

Now I, for one, do not believe for a minute that some hit-team is

going to come to Dallas-Fort Worth and kill some newspaper editor

just because of some story he runs in the newspaper. The point is,

this fellow does. This fellow really believes it. So we've got

absolute fear still being used as a very, very powerful weapon down

here to keep people who should know otherwise ..... to keep them

silent.

JERRY POLICOFF:

Can I interject something here? You know, when you're talking about

security in Dallas, of all of the places where there should have

been a greater measure of security than anywhere else, it should

have been Dallas where [liberal Democrat who ran against Eisenhower

in `56] Adlai Stevenson had been attacked and spat on by a crowd.

Lyndon Johnson had been [too]. There were legitimate reasons to be

concerned about the safety of the President in Dallas, of all places.

GARY NULL:

Alright. We're going to take a break here to summarize everything.

Then I want to go into the means, the motives and the opportunities

to assassinate the President, and try to give as much new

information as possible, and at that time, also bring in what the

media has done or not done. I even want to get to the information

that was NOT reviewed, or not given credibility by the investigators.

In particular, when one good investigator was doing a good job,

he was fired, and a person who supported the "single gunman theory"

was brought in to take his place. So, at every level, damage control

was maintained. The only way that could have been done is for people

who were in a position to control it from the very first day knew

that no matter how long it took -- no matter who came into the picture,

no one in the major media, or in any Governmental agency was going

to uncover anything that would be that damaging.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass-media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

If we seriously listen to this "God within us" ["conscience",

if you will], we usually find ourselves being urged to take the

more difficult path, the path of more effort rather than less.

.... Each and every one of us, more or less frequently, will hold

back from this work. .... Like every one of our ancestors before

us, we are all lazy. So original sin does exist; it is our laziness.

M. Scott Peck

THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From jad@ckuxb.att.com Tue Dec 15 16:12:03 1992

Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2)

id AA11168; Tue, 15 Dec 92 16:12:01 -0500

Message-Id: <9212152112.AA11168@css.itd.umich.edu>

From: jad@ckuxb.att.com

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:57 EST

To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Status: O

X-Status:

Article 17406 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

From: jad@Turing.ORG (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part 22, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1992Nov16.161704.18600@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU

Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:17:04 GMT

Lines: 156

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

My guests today are Jerry Policoff and Jim Marrs. We're going to

come back to them in just a few moments. Jerry and Jim, we're

going to take a ten-minute break because this week, and I believe

next week, WBAI, this non-commercial station which is part of the

Pacifica Radio Network, is in the midst of its fund-raising, and

we use this opportunity three times a year to raise funds so that

this station can continue.

.....

Right now, we're doing our special report on the assassination of

President John F. Kennedy. It will continue until we've laid out

all of the evidence that we have; each day another new piece of it.

Now, let's go back to our main program.

We're talking about the John Kennedy Assassination. On our

conference phone right now -- and I appreciate their patience for

standing by -- is Dr. Cyril Wecht, and also talking to us on

another conference phone is David Lifton. Dr. Wecht, you've been

listening patiently, and I thank you very much for your patience.

Would you be kind enough to share with us your concern about the

Warren Commission's findings and what you feel is the weak link in

that evidence, and what you would propose we should be paying some

attention to?

CYRIL WECHT:

Yes. Mr. Null, I'll just be able to make a brief statement because

the time has run out for me at my end. I'm sorry. I would have

enjoyed talking to you more. My concerns about the Warren Commission

Report have been a matter of record. They're now going back

some twenty-seven years. I believe I'm the only non-Government-

affiliated forensic pathologist to have testified three times under

oath in this matter before Federal District Court Judge Charles

Hallock[sp] Jr. in Washington, D.C. in 1969, as a prelude to the

Clay Shaw Trial in New Orleans, and before the Rockefeller

Commission in 1975 .....

..... [side A of tape ended]

.... CIA clearance. Any staff member who was reviewing CIA

documents, before he could leave, had to submit notes to the CIA

for review. And basically, the course of the investigation changed.

And all of a sudden the main suspect was Organized Crime. To put a

historical context on this, only slightly before the House

Assassinations Committee began its work, the [sen. Frank] Church

Committee had ended its work. And, although they didn't review

whether or not there was a conspiracy, they did review the work

of the FBI and the CIA in terms of their initial investigations of

the assassination. And the result was a blistering indictment of

their investigations; in fact, their non-investigations. The Church

Committee made it very clear that J. Edgar Hoover had decided,

immediately after the assassination, that Lee Harvey Oswald was

the assassin. As the main investigative arm of the Warren

Commission, that certiainly put handcuffs on the Warren Commission.

The CIA was guilty of obfuscation at every turn, in terms of

whether Oswald was a CIA agent, had ever worked for the CIA, his

connections or his activities in Mexico City; in fact, whether

that even was Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexio City, which is doubtful;

his connections with Guy Bannister and various anti-Castro groups

in New Orleans. All of that was TOTALLY obfuscated by the CIA.

So, with that in its historical context, you have to really look

at the FBI and the CIA as clearly, at least, suspects when you're

investigating the Assassination. That was never done by [Chief

Counsel] Blakey! Members of the staff [of the House Select

Committee on Assassinations] who weren't cleared by the CIA were

fired. Frankly, even at one point it was discovered that the

autopsy photos and X-rays, which were in the files of the House

Committee ..... somebody had broken into the room in which the

autopsy photos and X-rays were kept, and had hurriedly made an

examination of them, ripping some file folders in the process.

A fingerprint examination revealed that the person who had broken

in was the CIA liaison between the Committee and the CIA. That

person was fired, but it didn't seem to have, in any way, raised

any questions with Blakey in terms of the role of the CIA.

GARY NULL:

Isn't that a federal offense: breaking and entering, and

tampering with information?

CYRIL WECHT:

I would certainly think so.

GARY NULL:

To my knowledge, no one from the CIA has EVER actually been put on

trial for ANY crimes. Have they?

CYRIL WECHT:

No. Never.

GARY NULL:

So what we have is an agency that was repeatedly spying on its own

citizens, interfering in special investigations -- and yet no one

was calling the CIA to account. And, as a result, to this day, the

CIA is still being able to do virtually anything that it wants.

CYRIL WECHT:

Yes. And, as a matter of fact, one of the Committee staffers told

me that, back at the time that the Committee was investigating,

one of the staffers basically put some hard questions to Blakey,

in terms of his acceptance of anything that the CIA told him.

He said, and this is a quote: "You don't think they would lie to

me, do you? I've been working with these people for twenty years."

That really puts into perspective where Blakey was coming from.

GARY NULL:

Alright. Le's go to a few other issues here. Let's take a look at

the NBC documentary on Jim Garrison.

CYRIL WECHT:

Okay. I have to preface this by saying that I really think that

there were a lot of things wrong with the Garrison Investigation,

but it's really clear, from the outset, that the Government was

VERY concerned about what was going on in New Orleans and about

what was going to come out. We know that one of the things that

the House Committee found, but didn't publish -- thanks to

Mr. Blakey -- was that the CIA infiltrated eleven of its agents

into Garrison's investigation. We know that the Justice Department

was spoon-feeding information to Clay Shaw's lawyers.

>From the beginning, the media, rather than taking an arms-length

view and holding back to see what Garrison had .... the media was,

almost from the beginning, almost prosecutorial in terms of the

way they went after Garrison. NBC ran a one-hour documentary

during prime-time. It was produced by Walter Sheridan, who had

never been a journalist all of his life. He had been a private

investigator. He had worked for the Kennedy family. We don't

really know what his agenda was here, but he certainly was not a

reporter. He was accused of bribing witnesses. The documentary,

from beginning to end, was an incredible indictment of Garrison.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass-media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

If you would like to hear Gary Null's program, broadcast by satellite

from WBAI to a radio station in your locale, you can help to make it

happen by calling 1(800) USA-1963.

From jad@ckuxb.att.com Tue Dec 15 16:00:12 1992

Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2)

id AA10926; Tue, 15 Dec 92 16:00:09 -0500

Message-Id: <9212152100.AA10926@css.itd.umich.edu>

From: jad@ckuxb.att.com

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:56 EST

To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Status: O

X-Status:

Article 17461 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!att-out!pacbell.com!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!Turing.ORG!jad

From: jad@Turing.ORG (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part 23, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1992Nov17.223139.4440@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU

Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:31:39 GMT

Lines: 143

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

CYRIL WECHT:

Just to put in context what they did, Garrison went to the F.C.C.

to request equal time, and never before or since has the F.C.C.

made a judgment like the one they made in this case. They ruled

that the NBC documentary was so dishonest and so flawed that they

ordered NBC to give Garrison a half-hour of prime time to respond

to it. I think that says something in terms of where that NBC

documentary was coming from.

GARY NULL:

And Garrison did respond to it?

CYRIL WECHT:

He did respond to it in prime time. Yes.

GARY NULL:

We must state here that Walter Sheridan, since he's not here to

defend himself .... any allegations of any misdeeds or misconduct

are just that: allegations. Since he was never proved to have done

any of those things, we must keep that in this perspective.

Now let's go to the idea of the NBC documentary on the JFK

assassination and the FBI.

CYRIL WECHT:

Okay. When the Warren Commission Report was issued, NBC ran a

one-hour documentary in prime time, just prior to the release of

the Warren Report, that basically was a summary of what the Warren

Commission was going to find. An internal FBI document, that was

generated a week prior to that documentary, reviewed in chapter

and verse what the NBC documentary was going to show, and also it

included in it assurances from unnamed sources at NBC that nothing

in the documentary would criticize the work of the FBI or the

findings of the initial FBI report that had preceded the findings

of the Warren Commission. Clearly, the FBI had an open pipeline

into NBC and it knew exactly what NBC was doing. And clearly,

there was a pipeline back that was assuring the FBI that there

wouldn't be any agenda that the FBI would have a problem with.

GARY NULL:

Alright. The Washington Post and editor Ben Bradlee?

CYRIL WECHT:

Okay. Ben Bradlee .... I have a letter from the then-book-review

editor of the Washington Post in which he informed me that Ben

Bradlee had ordered him not to review any books about the Kennedy

Assassination. A rather interesting incident took place after the

demise of the House Assassinations Committee. One of the things

that the House Assassinations Committee had investigated was a

report that Lee Harvey Oswald had ben seen in the company of a

gentleman by the name of Maurice Bishop, who was said by sources

to be a high-ranking official in the Central Intelligence Agency.

The members of the staff of the House Assassinations Committee

became convinced that Maurice Bishop was David Atlee Phillips, who

had also been a major high-ranking official of the Central

Intelligence Agency. He had been in Mexico City. He later resigned

from the Agency to form a support group for the CIA when the CIA

was coming under a great deal of criticism. David [shouldn't it be

Anthony?] Summers[sp] wrote extensively about the Phillips/Maurice

Bishop connection in his book, CONSPIRACY. And he managed to get

an audience with Ben Bradlee. He suggested to Ben Bradlee that

this was an area that was ripe for investigation.

Bradlee subsequently assigned a reporter to the story. The reporter

was in touch with Summers. He was also in touch with Gaeton Fonzi

who had been an investigator for the House Committee [on

Assassinations]. Prior to that, he had been an investigator for

the [sen. Frank] Church Committee [on Assassinations], and he was

the investigator who had originally come up with the Maurice Bishop

story. The reporter told both Summers and Gaeton Fonzi that when

Bradlee assigned him to the story, he told him to discredit the

story. Those were his marching orders. Far from discrediting the

story, as this reporter got into it, he developed more information

that tended to support the conclusion that Phillips and Maurice

Bishop were the same person. That is basically the gist of the

story that he submitted. The story was killed!

And that's really in line with what the Washington Post has done

from the beginning. The Washington Post, The New York Times,

TIME Inc. have been obsessed with discrediting the stories of

conspiracy, and with shoring up the official Government findings.

GARY NULL:

Then you would have to ask: Why? Is it a matter of coincidence?

Is it a matter of editorial opinion that may be completely

innocent of any complicity or malfeasance, or is there some

connection from the New York Times, NBC, CBS, The Washington Post,

TIME Magazine that would have connections to any of the major

people who are under criticism now for having participated; such

as some of the major CIA officers, some of the high-ranking people

from within the military/industrial complex, right-wing extemists,

etc. Are there any connections?

CYRIL WECHT:

That's where I get into difficulty. I mean, I don't really like to

speculate about why I think it's dangerous. I think you can only

point to what was done. Questions have to be raised. I mean, you'd

have to ask why the media has done what it has done; why these

things seem to come from the upper levels of the newspapers,

networks, magazines involved.

GARY NULL:

Because remember, it's the same Washington Post that allowed [bob]

Woodward and [Carl] Bernstein to expose Watergate, which brought

down Nixon in the White House and a lot of Ivy League people.

JIM MARRS:

Gary, could I jump in and make a comment?

GARY NULL:

Yes. Jim Marrs, jump in, please.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass-media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

If we seriously listen to this "God within us" ["conscience",

if you will], we usually find ourselves being urged to take the

more difficult path, the path of more effort rather than less.

.... Each and every one of us, more or less frequently, will hold

back from this work. .... Like every one of our ancestors before

us, we are all lazy. So original sin does exist; it is our laziness.

M. Scott Peck

THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From jad@ckuxb.att.com Tue Dec 15 16:00:15 1992

Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2)

id AA10931; Tue, 15 Dec 92 16:00:13 -0500

Message-Id: <9212152100.AA10931@css.itd.umich.edu>

From: jad@ckuxb.att.com

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:56 EST

To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Status: O

X-Status:

Article 17664 of alt.conspiracy:

Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsk!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!caen!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!Turing.ORG!jad

From: jad@Turing.ORG (John DiNardo)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Subject: Part 24, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Keywords: researchers'revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1992Nov30.205913.8043@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

Date: 30 Nov 92 20:59:13 GMT

Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host

Lines: 156

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

JIM MARRS:

You're right. And it seems pretty incomprehensible that the same

media outlets that would basically cause the destruction of Nixon

would try to cover up about Kennedy, but I think there is some

rationale there. First off, to explain why they do this, you go

back to the time of the assassination -- and I think Jerry Policoff

would agree with me on this. This was a whole entirely different

time and place: this country. Okay? A lot of people within the

media actively, voluntarily participated and did things for the

intelligence community out of the noblest of purposes. They felt

like they were being patriotic. If they went to Russia, say, and

did a story and they came back, and the CIA domestic contact

services officer would come to them and say: "Well, what did you

see?" They would tell them what they saw. They weren't spies. They

weren't working for the Government. They weren't on the payroll.

They were simply doing what they thought was patriotic.

Now, at the time of the Kennedy Assassination and for maybe ten

years past then, until about the time of the Garrison

investigation, they were still clinging to this idea. They felt

like they were doing something good. Now, I think a lot of them

can probably look back and realize that they were being used by

these people within the intelligence community, not only to get

information, but also to give information. It just goes right up

the ladder. We've got people today who are successful columnists,

and they're successful columnists because they always seem to have

a little bit of insight into issues and into Governmental matters.

Well they do because they get this from their sources within the

CIA and within other Government agencies. They know that if they

say anything that angers those sources, those sources will close

themselves off to them. And then, pretty soon they won't be able

to have anything to put in their columns, and pretty soon their

columns will be dropped by the newspapers around the country.

So it's a very self-serving thing. It's a self-preservation-type

thing.

And then you keep going until you get to what I think is probably

the major downfall and the major problem within the media today,

which is just sheer, common laziness. The Kennedy Assassination is

a complex subject. It has many labyrinths that you can get lost

into. And it takes a lot of time and a lot of effort. And most

media people and most editors are simply not willing to devote the

time and the effort that it would take to pick their way through

this mine field and find out what's right and what's not right.

JERRY POLICOFF:

I would agree with that. And I would also add that I think they

were embarrassed by their early coverage. It's very difficult to

look at the work that the media did in the aftermath of the

assassination, which, by the way, was something that, in that day,

was very natural. They were spoon-fed the Oswald legend. They were

spoon-fed the evidence. Everything was accepted uncritically and

passed on to the American Public. In the years since, I think the

media is very embarrassed to look back at the coverage that they

afforded this issue back in 1963, and they are basically too

embarrassed to repudiate it.

GARY NULL:

Jerry, let me ask you about a very important character in all this.

And that is L. Fletcher Prouty. And that, I believe also, Jim, was

the character that Donald Sutherland played in the movie, JFK:

the insider who knew all about what was going on, and who explained

it to Jim Garrison in the movie.

JIM MARRS:

Yeah. That's correct. I believe that primarily the Mr. X character

in the movie, JFK was based on Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty.

GARY NULL:

Okay. I'd like each of your interpretations of what Prouty has

said and what he knows. At least you can tell our audience.

JERRY POLICOFF:

Well, Fletcher Prouty is certainly somebody who needs to be taken

seriously. I believe he was the liaison officer between the

Pentagon and the CIA. He was certainly in a position to know a

great deal about the inner workings of the intelligence community

during the 1950s and `60s. He has reported on the breakdown of

security. I'm not an expert on this, but I believe that security

was passed on to military intelligence that day in Dallas.

Am I right, Jim?

JIM MARRS:

Well, the Fourth Army Intelligence normally had agents who would

join in and, on that particular occasion, they were told to stand

down, and not to come to Dallas and not to participate in the

security. And this is probably very significant because one of the

things that Colonel Prouty has said -- and the more I look at it,

the more I think he's exactly right -- that the key to a successful

coup is not necessarily finding competent hit-men. I mean, anybody

with a lot of money can go find a competent hit-man. The key is in

withdrawing or reducing the normal security. And it seems obvious

that that's what happened in Dallas that day.

GARY NULL:

Alright. Jim, go on a little further with Prouty. What else does

he know?

JIM MARRS:

Well, as Jerry pointed out, he was the Deputy Director of Special

Operations, and as such, he was a liaison between the CIA and the

military. In other words, if the CIA was mounting some sort of

operation and they needed support -- if they needed trucks, or if

they needed an airplane, or if they needed air transport, or if

they needed weaponry or something like that, they would go to the

military and say: "This is what we need." And Prouty was the

focal point officer who would do this.

Now here's what was unique about his position. Since he was

military, and not CIA, he was never required to sign the secrecy

oath that all people who work for the CIA have to sign. And the

secrecy oath -- the bottom line of it is that: If I reveal anything

that I learn while working for the CIA, you can suspend my civil

liberties, convict me in a court of law, and put me away for ever

and ever. This is the basis of why so many people within the CIA

cannot and will not talk and tell about what they know. But Prouty

never signed that because he was a military man, and as such, he

has been free to talk. And talk he has. All the way back to the

publication of his book, THE SECRET TEAM, he has been saying

that there is a power group -- a clique, if you will -- of people

within the United States Government who operate this Government

for their own purposes. I think that the Iran-Contra [operation]

has proved this to be absolutely true, right on up `til today.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass-media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

If we seriously listen to this "God within us" ["conscience",

if you will], we usually find ourselves being urged to take the

more difficult path, the path of more effort rather than less.

.... Each and every one of us, more or less frequently, will hold

back from this work. .... Like every one of our ancestors before

us, we are all lazy. So original sin does exist; it is our laziness.

M. Scott Peck

THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From jad@ckuxb.att.com Tue Dec 15 16:00:06 1992

Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2)

id AA10921; Tue, 15 Dec 92 16:00:05 -0500

Message-Id: <9212152100.AA10921@css.itd.umich.edu>

From: jad@ckuxb.att.com

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:56 EST

To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Status: O

X-Status:

Article 17738 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,alt.ind

ividualism

Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsk!att!linac!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!gatech!concert!uvaarpa!murdoch!Turing.ORG!jad

From: jad@Turing.ORG (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part 25, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1992Dec2.173503.13186@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU

Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host

Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1992 17:35:03 GMT

Lines: 150

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

JIM MARRS:

Which makes it all the more interesting that the day AFTER the

assassination, in a memo from [FBI Director] J. Edgar Hoover, we

are given a complete assessment of the reaction to the assassination

by the anti-Castro Cuban community, and it says at the bottom that

this information was furnished orally by Mr. George Bush of the CIA.

Well now, Bush has never responded to this, but some of his people

have said: "Well, that was a different George Bush; that there is

another George Bush and he's not the one who is now our president."

However, since then, the other George Bush has been located and

interviewed, and he says: "I was just a low-level analyst up in the

northeast and I never had any contact with the anti-Castro Cubans,

so it certainly was not me."

[JD: The CIA has a strict policy of concealing the names of all

of its agents, even if it means committing perjury to do so.

So, how did Bush's people find out that there is another

George Bush who worked for the CIA? They found out because

CIA officials violated their own laws by searching their own

personnel files to luckily come up with another George Bush

to pin the rap on in order to protect the real criminal who knew

of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy and who, therefore,

is an accessory to murder and high treason: George Herbert

Walker Bush, of course.]

So, that brings us back to George Herbert Walker Bush. And I might

mention that I have personally spoken with a pilot who flew arms

and ammunition for the Bay of Pigs invaders, and he says that one

of the oil companies that was being used as a front to move arms

and materiel for the Bay of Pigs invaders was Zapata Oil Company

out of Midland, Texas, which was George Herbert Walker Bush.

So, I think we see that George Herbert Walker Bush's connections

with the Central Intelligence Agency go back far beyond what he

has publicly admitted.

[JD: I have corresponded with someone who told me that another

company which participated in the Bay of Pigs Invasion was

United Fruit Company which donated two of its banana boats to

support the invasion. This person said that he witnessed the

repair of the bullet-riddled deck of one of the boats.]

JERRY POLICOFF:

We also know that he generated dozens of memos, while he was the

head of the Central Intelligence Agency, dealing with the

assassination. And yet, he made a statement after the release of

the movie, "JFK" that he was so satisfied with the findings of the

Warren Commission that when he became Director of the CIA, he was

never even curious and never looked at a single file.

JIM MARRS:

That's right. So, read his lips. He's telling us another lie.

GARY NULL:

Are either of you gentlemen familiar with the Council on Foreign

Relations and the Trilateral Commission?

JIM MARRS:

Yes. I'm very familiar with them.

GARY NULL:

Are you familiar with all the different people from the networks,

the media and the major corporations [who are members]?

JIM MARRS:

Yes. They comprise a very, very substantial number of people on

the Trilateral Commission, which is, by the way, just kind of an

off-growth or a revised edition of the old Council on Foreign

Relations, which was more-or-less a secret group, and hence, was

coming under more and more scrutiny. So, in order to get away from

that, they founded the Trilateral Commission, for which they set

up an office, they issue reports, and they're a little more above-

ground.

GARY NULL:

That is a [David] Rockefeller group, right?

JIM MARRS:

Right. And George Bush was, and perhaps still is, a member of the

Trilateral Commission.

GARY NULL:

There have consistently been allegations that this group is the

group that has as its agenda this "One World Order". Even though

that's no longer a secret -- and I think that the President and

the media around him have used that to their advantage to talk

about this "One World Order" -- WHOSE order is it? Whose world?

By what design and what ideals are they planning it? And who are

THEY? Then you start seeing that the "they", at every level, are

the people who, coincidentally, happen to belong to this Trilateral

Commission and this Council on Foreign Relations.

In any case, I'm going to thank you very much, Jerry Policoff for

an outstanding series of investigative reports. I think that, in

some ways, the history of your own writing (because I read every

one of your articles in GALLERY Magazine) ..... You should have

had that published in a major magazine. But I'm sure that they

would have rejected it, just as, for over two years, my first

articles on the politics of cancer were rejected. And too, my

subsequent "Medical Genocide" series, which to this day, I've

never had to retract a single line. And there wasn't any person in

that series who ever even threatened a lawsuit or a challenge that

my information was inaccurate. And I REALLY rip up some major

individuals and corporations for corruption and crimes of which I

call "medical genocide". In forty-three articles over sixteen

years, the only publications that would accept them, ironically,

were OMNI and PENTHOUSE, not the best vehicle for mainstream

America, but the only one that was available. So, I think that

tells us that when you have something that seems to be too hot or

too politically explosive, we don't have a forum for it to be

taken seriously. And, of course, the easiest way for someone to

dismiss something is to say:

Did it appear on the major networks?

No.

Did it appear in TIME Magazine or in the New York Times?

No.

Then how can we take it seriously?

JIM MARRS:

Exactly! That is part of the control of the media.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

help to disseminate it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass-media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

The episodes of this series can be retrieved via anonymous ftp from the sites:

ftp.css.itd.umich.edu and red.css.itd.umich.edu

Log in with name "anonymous" or "ftp" and supply your email address as the

password. The files are kept in the directory /poli/Essays/Conspiracy

(Instructions for ftp retrieval are dependent upon what sort of system

the user is on. On a UNIX machine, one would do, at the command prompt:

ftp ftp.css.itd.umich.edu This may be different on IBMs and Vax systems.)

Archivist: Paul Southworth, pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

From jad@ckuxb.att.com Tue Dec 15 16:00:03 1992

Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2)

id AA10916; Tue, 15 Dec 92 16:00:02 -0500

Message-Id: <9212152100.AA10916@css.itd.umich.edu>

From: jad@ckuxb.att.com

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:55 EST

To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Status: O

X-Status:

Article 17829 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsk!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!Turing.ORG!jad

From: jad@Turing.ORG (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part 26, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1992Dec4.232418.2064@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU

Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host

Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 23:24:18 GMT

Lines: 120

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

JIM MARRS:

By the way, I want to extend my compliments to Jerry Policoff.

Jerry, I have read your articles for years and years and years,

and I have used them very extensively in my research. My

compliments to you, sir.

JERRY POLICOFF:

Thank you.

GARY NULL:

Gentlemen, you're going to find out something brand new about the

Kennedy Assassination. Next week, and on that show -- because you've

both made substantial contributions of new information recently --

I will have you conferenced in to listen to the new information.

And it's going to shake people up when they hear this information,

never before discussed or written about. No one has found out

about it. That is coming up. And I think it will put a cap on this

whole thing. Whether anything is ever done about it -- who knows.

It's an amazing thing. You write a story. You research. You think

it's really revolutionary. It will give new insights which should

conduct new investigations. And then it comes, and the media

doesn't do a thing. And it all goes by the bye. But we're going to

do it in any case.

By the way, I was just handed a note by our producer who has been

working non-stop. I mean, he's putting in like 100-hour weeks on

this [investigation]. He is Kevin McCrary, and he says that

L. Fletcher Prouty is going to appear on our program later this

week. So, he'll be able to tell us, in his own words, what he

knows and what new information he knows, and new information which

he has not revealed before.

And I'm going to ask you, Jim Marrs if you'll make yourself

available tomorrow, because we did not get to part two, which was

the means, the motives and the opportunities .....

JIM MARRS:

Okay. Can I make one quick comment about the Garrison thing.

At the time that the Garrison investigation and trial of Clay Shaw was

going on, I was watching it very, very closely as a newsman. I was

trying to be objective and I was trying to really look at it and see

what was happening. And, of course, he said: "I've got a conspiracy

by the tail. I've got individuals here. I'm filing charges on them.

I'm taking them before a grand jury." In other words, he was taking

them through the normal processes of law. Well, the national media

elements within there, and even the Attorney General of the United

States, were saying: "This guy is a nut. He's a fantacist. There's

nothing there. He hasn't got a case." And, quite frankly, I didn't

know who to believe. Today, you've got twenty years of hindsight,

and you look back and you can see that MOST of what Jim Garrison

..... and I'm like Jerry Policoff. I do not want to just blanketly

defend Garrison, because there were a lot of problems with his

prosecution in New Orleans, not all of which was his own doing.

But, you look back after twenty years of hindsight and we find

that most of what he was telling us: Guy Bannister, David Ferrie,

the connection to Oswald, the anti-Castro Cubans and the plotting

that was going on in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 -- all of

that has held up. It's historical fact. Even the House Select

Committee on Assassinations was forced to conclude that most of

that was substantiated. So now we KNOW who was telling the truth

and who was lying.

GARY NULL:

Well, in point of fact, the judge and the jury said that when Clay

Shaw won his case and Garrison was, in effect, put into the closet

forever after that, and told to shut up, and the media did a

hatchet-job on him, he didn't know that eleven members of his own

staff were CIA plants.

JIM MARRS:

That's right.

GARY NULL:

He didn't know that Clay Shaw's counsel had every note, everything

that they [Garrison] needed. And also, Clay Shaw lied. The man

perjured himself. And he did so with the help of his CIA contacts,

because later it did come out that Clay Shaw did, in FACT, work

for the CIA. That is a matter of historical FACT. And the jury

said that they would have convicted him had they known that. So...

JIM MARRS:

That's right. Also, he lied when he said that the did not know

David Ferrie and had had no contact with him, because there is now,

circulating among the research community, photographs of Clay Shaw

and David Ferrie together at a party in New Orleans.

GARY NULL:

Yes. So, clearly, Garrison was right. The media was wrong. The

Government participated in the massive cover-up at that level, and

one very courageous prosecuting attorney was, unfortunately,

disgraced at the time. And the American Public should know that.

The man whom he brought to trial was a xxxx and was complicitous

in much of the plot, and the Government knew it AT the time.

And so, we have to be aware of this.

I want to thank you very much, Jerry Policoff and Jim Marrs, for

being with us. This has been a continuation of our series,

Hidden Agendas: Conspiracies, Cover-ups and Lies.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass-media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

From jad@ckuxb.att.com Tue Dec 15 16:00:00 1992

Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2)

id AA10908; Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:59:59 -0500

Message-Id: <9212152059.AA10908@css.itd.umich.edu>

From: jad@ckuxb.att.com

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:55 EST

To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Status: O

X-Status:

Article 17974 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.headlines,misc.activism.progressive,alt.individualis

m

Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsk!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!destroyer!gumby!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich

From: jad@Turing.ORG (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part 27, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1992Dec8.212508.3461@mont.cs.missouri.edu>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Sender: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu

Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu

Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1992 21:25:08 GMT

Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

Lines: 145

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

JIM MARRS:

.... intelligence organizations certainly did participate, and, as

a result, the organization was forced to protect itself by helping

to cover-up the crime. But, of course, it goes a little deeper

than that because most of the people within those organizations

felt that what happened, tragic though it was, was probably

necessary for the good of the country because Kennedy was going

in the face of much of their own beliefs and their own philosophies.

JIM MARRS:

Now, in the case of the FBI, there is no evidence to point to

the [possible] fact that the FBI orchestrated or initiated the

assassination. But there is all kinds of evidence to point to the

fact that the FBI knew what was happening. Particularly, I refer

to the FBI memo or alert -- the teletype alert that went out on

the night before the assassination, warning that a radical group

was going to assassinate Kennedy in Dallas. Those messages were

subsequently picked up, and if it hadn't been for one clerk who

had made a copy of them, we wouldn't have even a copy today, and

they could effectively deny that it ever happened. But it did go

out. So, the FBI, and particularly [FBI Director J. Edgar] Hoover,

I believe, was in knowledge of what was going to happen. And they

simply sat back, allowed nature to take its course, and then

definitely participated in activities after-the-fact which tended,

not just to protect their own reputation, but to actually

incriminate Oswald as the lone assassin, and create this whole story

that we have today that is the official Government explanation.

And the way they did that was in several ways.

First off, there was an ongoing, demonstrable series of events

which include destruction of evidence, suppression of evidence,

alteration of evidence, fabrication of evidence and intimidation

of witnesses. Throughout your series you've heard more and more

about how documents were cooked, that people were intimidated into

silence, and that people's testimony was changed.

I'll cite you one good example: Edna and Wayne Hartman. This is a

Dallas couple. They still live in Dallas today. They heard shots.

They were nearby Dealey Plaza. When they heard the shots, they ran

into Dealey Plaza. They saw a policeman and some plainclothesmen

gathered on the south side of Elm Street. They ran down there and

said: "What's going on?" They said: "Here is where some bullets

hit in the grass." They looked, and they said that there was a

long bullet furrow in the grass where a bullet had turned up the

sod. In the FBI report, made that day, it states all of this, and

it goes on to say that they told the FBI that the bullet furrow

lined up with the Texas School Book Depository. Okay? Oswald, in

the Depository, missed a shot. Furrow in the ground. That all

makes sense. The problem is that that is NOT what they [the Hartmans]

told them. When I was preparing my book, CROSSFIRE, instead of

just taking the Government's documents at face value, which seems

to be the way to do it today (at least that's what the major news

organizations are doing), I called the Hartmans. And they were

absolutely SHOCKED and amazed when I read them this FBI report

which, keep in mind, was part of the fundamental, raw investigative

material that the Warren Commission used to reach their conclusions.

Because THEY [the Hartmans] said: "That's not what we told them at

all. We told them that the bullet furrow lined up with the GRASSY

KNOLL on the north side of Elm Street." So here we have a clear

example of FBI documents that were being cooked, back in 1963 and

`64, to slant away from the truth of the assassination.

And lastly, Gary, I'll just make this one point. When you interfere

with a lawful investigation of felony crimes, such as murder, that

makes you an accessory-after-the-fact. And under the law, an

accessory-after-the-fact is just as guilty of the crime as the

person who pulled the trigger. So, in this case, the

evidence is very clear. And I can say, with great impunity, that

the FBI was GUILTY of being an accessory-after-the-fact and,

therefore, is guilty of the crime of participating in the murder

of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

GARY NULL:

Okay, let's go on to include in this ..... [tape interruption]

..... [FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover] used the FBI to break the

law, in the case of Martin Luther King, with illegal wiretaps to

learn about his sex life so they could use it against him. This

was a man who was in Dallas. Let's be very clear on this. The

American Public is not aware of this. He was in Dallas on the day

of the assassination. Let's also ask the following ... and give me

very clear information on this, if you can:

"Division Five of the FBI: Nomenclature of the Assassination Cable"

JIM MARRS:

Well that's "the Torbit Document." Right?

GARY NULL:

Yes. "Division Five of the FBI."

JIM MARRS:

It talks about Division Five. There was a Division Five. It was

counter-intelligence. But I think what you're getting at is the

allegations. And I'll have to stress, Gary, that at this point --

I have dug into this at considerable length -- and while I have

found tantalizing evidence that perhaps this is so, I cannot

categorically state, at this point, that this has been proven.

But the allegations are that within Division Five of the FBI was

the capability of assassination -- that they had hit-men on their

payroll, operating out of their Mexico City office, which, by the

way, has always intrigued me because the FBI is supposed to be a

domestic law enforcement and intelligence organization. It is not

supposed to be operating outside of the United States. And yet,

ever since before World War Two, the largest FBI office in the

world is in Mexico City. So we definitely have some things going

on there. And the allegation is that they had these hit-men who

operated out of Mexico City. This has come forth in several cases,

particularly here in Texas, such as the Buddy Floyd murder case,

where the allegation was that these hit-men out of the FBI's

Mexico City office were being brought into this country to perform

assassinations for wealthy and powerful people who were very close

to J. Edgar Hoover.

GARY NULL:

Okay. Those are allegations, not proven facts. We want to make

that clear for the sake of objectivity. But we do want to state

that it is a fact that Division Five did exist.

JIM MARRS:

That's true. And it was headed by William Sullivan who -- in 1977,

when he was about to be called before the House Select Committee

on Assassinations -- walked out in his back yark and was shot in

the head by the son of a New Hampshire State patrolman.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

help to disseminate it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass-media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

From jad@ckuxb.att.com Tue Dec 15 15:59:54 1992

Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2)

id AA10903; Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:59:48 -0500

Message-Id: <9212152059.AA10903@css.itd.umich.edu>

From: jad@ckuxb.att.com

Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:54 EST

To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Status: O

X-Status:

Article 18245 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,misc.activism.progressive

Path: cbnewsl!cbnewsk!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ukma!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich

From: jad@Turing.ORG (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part 28, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1992Dec14.191408.8449@mont.cs.missouri.edu>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Sender: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu

Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu

Organization: The Turing Project, Public Access Internet Host

Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:14:08 GMT

Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

Lines: 139

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

JIM MARRS:

And the local sheriff said that he knew both the son of the

patrolman and Sullivan, so he felt like he was too close to the

case. So he turned over the investigation of this particular

incident to the local game warden. I've seen a copy of the report,

and it's simply checked where it says:

"Victim: Animal or Human."

They checked "Human". And that was about the extent of the

investigation.

GARY NULL:

Now, keep in mind that Sullivan was one of the former top heads

of the FBI. In fact, outside of Hoover, he was probably the second

most powerful member of the FBI.

JIM MARRS:

That's true. And he has stated some things that are very

eye-opening. One of the reasons why he left the FBI is because he

said that Hoover was concentrating more on inflated statistics and

figures about the American Communist Party than he did on

Organized Crime.

GARY NULL:

By the way, let's also remember this. It's up to the Public to

decide whether they feel that this is coincidence or not:

William Sullivan, Louis Nichols, Alan H. Belmont, James Caddigan,

J.N. English, and Donald Kaylor[sp] ALL understood what was going

on, or had information concerning the Kennedy Assassination.

ALL died under mysterious circumstances in 1977.

JIM MARRS:

That's true. All within a period of a few months, and all BEFORE

they could be [were about to be] brought to testify before the

House Select Committee on Assassinations.

GARY NULL:

And I think it stretches credulity to assume that all of these men

from one organization -- all of whom were going to testify --

would all die accidentally in the ways that they did: one man being

shot in his backyard in a suburban home; and the man who shot him

said he thought that [sullivan] was a deer. I mean, come on.

Give us a break. Now the New York Times CERTAINLY would accept

that logic and rationale, and we understand how the New York Times

would accept that. And Dan Rather may accept that a man in his

backyard looks like a deer. We don't!

[JD: I've heard of a book (it might be "BETRAYAL") that states

that Walter Cronkite and perhaps Dan Rather (I'm not sure) are

among the people whom the CIA employs as journalistic "assets."

Can anyone cite and quote such published accusations and their

sources?]

And we're offended by this kind of explanation that has gone on,

and has NEVER been explored by the mass media in any major way.

It's just been ACCEPTED that way.

Now, let's go to the case of Richard Case Nagle and the registered

letter to J. Edgar Hoover about the assassination.

JIM MARRS:

Yes. Richard Case Nagle may be the real Rosetta stone to

understanding the assassination or, if not to understanding the

assassination, certainly to understanding the role of Lee Harvey

Oswald in this whole thing. Basically, Nagle was a decorated

Korean War veteran who late became an agent for the Central

Intelligence Agency, and eventually claimed to have ended up being

a double-agent working for the Soviet KGB. He said that in mid-1963,

his KGB superiors contacted him and said that they had become

aware of a plot to kill President Kennedy, and that they wanted

him to work his way in there, find out what was going on, and put

a stop to it because it could reflect very adversely on Russia and

could make it look like the Communists were behind the thing.

And they didn't want to run that kind of risk.

So, he was sent to New Orleans where he made contact with a man

whom he claimed he had known from U.S. intelligence over in Japan.

And that was Lee Harvey Oswald! They met in Jackson Square.

And, of course, here's Nagle posing as a KGB agent, so he can't

very well just say: "Hey, I'm really one of you," because he knows

that Oswald is a guy whom he had know in Japan, but he hadn't known

him that well. And besides, who knows what had gone on in the

intervening years? So I'm sure he was probably still trying to

maintain his cover. But he basically told Oswald that Oswald was

in a very dangerous situation, and that he thought that Oswald

thought he had penetrated a pro-Castro plot to kill the President.

But, in reality, he was mixed up with anti-Castro Cubans who were

posing as pro-Castro Cubans, and who were involving him in this

plot to kill the President. He said that he got a very negative

reaction from Oswald; kind of like: Oh, yeah? That's interesting;

and a don't-call-me-I'll-call-you type of attitude.

Now, what's interesting here is that this gets into the whole

issue of: Was the Oswald in New Orleans and the Oswald in Dallas

-- was this the real Lee Harvey Oswald? And it gets into a bizarre

series of situations. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest

that the Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of `63 and in Dallas

later that fall was NOT the same Oswald who entered the Marines.

And if that's the CASE -- assuming that that may be true -- this

explains the whole situation with Nagle and Oswald.

Nagle is very circuitously trying to warn Oswald, believing that

this is the same guy he knew in Japan, and that he would recognize

him and realize that he was getting the information from U.S.

intelligence. And yet, if it was NOT the same Oswald -- and there

is MUCH evidence to suggest that this is so -- then Oswald in New

Orleans didn't recognize Nagle, didn't know who he was, and only

perhaps knew him as a KGB officer, and therefore, would be very

hesitant to believe him or to act on his information.

So that's the Nagle story, and I think it pretty well pinpoints

the role of Oswald. Oswald, as his mother and his wife had both

publicly stated, was a U.S. Government agent. He was posing as a

pro-Castroite and as a pro-Communist to infiltrate groups that he

felt were pro-Communist groups. In this instance, I think he had

been picked up by one of the more violent anti-Castro groups who

played him along and helped set him up as the "patsy"

in the assassination.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

help to disseminate it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass-media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

From jad@ckuxb.att.com Ukn Jan 18 12:20:58 1993

Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2)

id AA19603; Mon, 18 Jan 93 12:20:55 -0500

Message-Id: <9301181720.AA19603@css.itd.umich.edu>

To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 12:16:00 EST

From: jad@ckuxb.att.com

Status: RO

X-Status:

Article 19250 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,misc.act

ivism.progressive

Subject: Part 29, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1993Jan16.001536.7765@mont.cs.missouri.edu>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Sender: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu

Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu

Organization: UVA. FREE Public Access UNIX!

Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

Lines: 144

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

Alright, we're going to recapitulate here for a moment, and then I

want to go on with some of the other scenarios involved in all this.

I want to take a look at renegade CIA cliques. I also want to

examine right-wing extremists and Organized Crime. I want to take

a very careful look at Sam Giancana and Johnny Roselli and some

of the other people involved.

JIM MARRS:

Don't forget the Military.

GARY NULL:

We're going to come to the Military, and also some of the people

who have never really been brought out yet; and that is, I want to

see the Howard Hughes challenge -- the challenge that Howard

Hughes may have had a role in this. We're going to look at that.

We're also going to look at some couriers and some communications

experts and some possible hit-men. So, all of this is going to

be laid out, hopefully, during the remainder of the program --

time permitting.

JIM MARRS:

Gary, before we end this program today, let's not forget to discuss

what I think is the most important thing, which is the common

connecting point, the nexus between all of these groups. And there

IS a connecting point. And it is intriguing. And I think it points

the way toward the solution of who was behind the assassination.

GARY NULL:

We will get to that in just a minute. Just to summarize, we are

talking about J. Edgar Hoover. We have ruled out, at this point,

and I feel that history and all the evidence completely rules out

that the Soviets were involved. Premier Nikita Kruschev, KGB

Chairman Yuri Andropov, KGB American expert-turned-defector Yuri

Nosinkov[sp], Marina Pruskovka[sp] Oswald, Oswald's control agent

Albert Osborne, and even the Latin leftist guerillas coordinated

by "the second Oswald", code-named Alec Heidel[sp] a trained KGB

assassin. These people simply did not directly participate.

There's no evidence. We've ruled them out.

We have certainly ruled in J. Edgar Hoover as knowing about it.

That's clear. ... certain other FBI agents knowing about it, and

the FBI being FORCED, upon the mandate of Hoover, to participate in

the cover-up, based upon the Warren Commission stating that it was

the FBI that was to provide all the information to the Warren

Commission through all the interviews. We have repeated references

to them altering evidence, destroying evidence, tampering with

evidence, intimidating witnesses, threatening witnesses .....

And that is not a matter of speculation. That is a matter of fact,

and is demonstrable by [the terms of] law. So, clearly, they

are one of the lead characters.

In a moment, we're going to go on with our special investigation.

I'm Gary Null. Kevin McCreary is the co-producer on this.

....... [passages lost due to tape ending]

..... stories in the media are simply spurious and speculative,

and they've even gone so far as to try to denigrate anyone who

would come up with an idea other than Oswald acting alone. Thus far,

however, there's absolutely NO evidence -- no hard evidence -- that

Oswald was involved in the assassination WHATSOEVER. So let's take

a look now ..... Why don't we go to the Military?

JIM MARRS:

Well, I think this may be one of the key factors because if you'll

stop and think about it in its broadest scope, you'll understand

that there was absolutely no way that there could be any kind of

large-scale assassination conspiracy that did not, in some way,

take into account the Military, because the Military is the armed

force in this country. I mean, as we saw in the Los Angeles riots,

when the local authorities can't handle the situation, the Military

moves in. And they would have done this in 1963 if there had been

some large-scale coup that did not include them. You have to, at

least, neutralize the Military, if not have them actively on your

side -- which was done.

Now -- we're getting to the nub of it now, Gary, because people who

have studied this assassination in great detail say: "Well, was it

the FBI? Was it the CIA? Was it the Mafia? Was it the anti-Castro

Cubans? Was it the Military?" And this particular line of

questioning has kept us confused for a good number of years because

the truthful answer is: "YES! It was ALL of them!" Now, you say:

"Oh, my God! Now you're talking about a huge, massive conspiracy.

And nobody could have kept quiet about that."

No. That's not what I'm talking about. But I'm talking about

"Operation Mongoose." There was a connection, a nexus point, back

in the early `60s -- in `61, `62. And it was "Operation Mongoose:

The Secret War Against Castro." Most of this is now historical

record. The Senate Intelligence Committee, under [sen. Frank] Church

[D.-Idaho] and those -- Sen. Gary Hart [D.-Colorado], developed this

information back in the early `70s. It was all in the newspapers.

It has all been established. The plot: "The Secret War Against

Castro", was headed out of the JIMWAVE[sp] Station (which is a CIA

acronym) on the campus of the University of Miami. It involved

anti-Castro Cubans, CIA agents, military officers, Mafia people ...

And THERE we have the common ground, the commonality, the nexus

point at which they were all operating together.

And what were they doing? They were mixed up in plots to overthrow

Cuba, and they were mixed up in plots specifically to assassinate

[Cuban Premier] Fidel Castro. That's historical fact. Why is it

such a big leap in understanding to realize that these same people,

who were trained and who were gearing up to kill Castro, suddenly

were just directed to Dallas? Because the common thought at that

time was that the problem really was in the White House and not in

Cuba; that we COULD attack Cuba, we could knock over Fidel Castro

IF we had a president and an administration that was willing

to do that.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,

please help to disseminate it by posting it to computer

bulletin boards, and by posting hardcopies in public places,

both on and off campus. As evidence accrues concerning the

corporate mass media's thirty year cover-up of the corporate

CIA's coup d'etat against the People of the United States,

the need for citizen reportage becomes ever more striking.

John DiNardo

The episodes of this and other series can be retrieved

via anonymous ftp from the site:

red.css.itd.umich.edu

Log in with name "anonymous" or "ftp" and supply your e-mail address as

the password. The files are kept in the directory /poli/Essays/Conspiracy

Instructions for ftp retrieval are dependent upon what sort of system the

user is on. On a UNIX machine, at the command prompt, type the following:

ftp red.css.itd.umich.edu This may be different on IBMs and Vax systems.

Archivist: Paul Southworth, pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

From jad@ckuxb.att.com Ukn Jan 21 13:36:39 1993

Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2)

id AA14161; Thu, 21 Jan 93 13:36:37 -0500

Message-Id: <9301211836.AA14161@css.itd.umich.edu>

To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 13:32:41 EST

From: jad@ckuxb.att.com

Status: RO

X-Status:

Article 19484 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,misc.act

ivism.progressive

Subject: Part 30, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1993Jan20.223054.12083@mont.cs.missouri.edu>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Sender: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu

Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu

Organization: UVA. FREE Public Access UNIX!

Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

Lines: 181

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

JIM MARRS [author of CROSSFIRE]:

Now, here's another key point. A few years ago, I was in Alpa 66

Headquarters in Miami. This is one of the oldest and most violent

of the anti-Castro organizations. And I was talking to some of

those people and they were reminiscing about those days. And

something came up about Johnny Roselli, the very TOP-ranking Mafia

guy, and he was. He was a very high-ranking man in the Organized

Crime field. He was kind of the Henry Kissinger of Organized Crime

in that he would travel between the crime families and help make

deals and help make peace between the crime families. This is a TOP-

ranking position. And these people in Alpha 66 said that they were

amazed, in recent years, to learn that Johnny Roselli was this

Mafia chieftain, because back at the time of "Operation Mongoose,"

they only knew him as "Colonel Roselli." And Colonel Roselli had

full military credentials, flew in military aircraft piloted by

military personnel, and was an integral part, and a leader of this

secret war to kill Castro and to change governments in Cuba.

So, here now .... and of course the fact that the CIA and the Mafia

were working together in these assassination plots has been well

established. It too is absolute historical fact. So what we have

here is ... we have a situation just prior to the assassination of

President Kennedy, where the Mafia, the CIA, the anti-Castro Cubans

and the MILITARY are all actively working together on a variety of

schemes which include assassination. And I think THAT may be the

key to this whole thing.

GARY NULL:

Okay. Let's take it a little deeper now. That's some of the basic

scenarios. I still want to go into some of the people in specifics.

When it comes to the Military, let's look at that time, at Kennedy

and Viet Nam, and the military-industrial complex at that time.

JIM MARRS:

Exactly. Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his farewell address, warned us

against the acquisition of power, whether overtly or covertly, by

what he called the "military-industrial complex." And the military-

industrial complex is MUCH broader, much more powerful than anyone

I think, even myself, could imagine because, basically, the

military-industrial complex equates to the Status Quo. And never

underestimate the power of the Status Quo. I like to think of

myself as an educated, thoughtful, broad-minded intellectual-type

person. And yet, I'll be the first to admit that there are certain

things that I become very set in my ways about. I like my hamburger

built a certain way, and that's the way I get it. We all are like

that. We all settle into our comfortable lives and comfortable

routines that we are familiar and comfortable with. Okay?

This is the status quo, and it's tough to get out of there.

In 1941, we went onto a full-scale war economy, and we are just now

making the first beginning steps to try to get off of that. And

it's very painful. It's causing a lot of problems. Down here in my

home state of Texas we're really being hurt by the fact that some

of these military bases are being closed, some of the big defense

industries are laying people off. It's a painful process, but it's

gone on all through history. Once you create a giant military force,

that force just doesn't want to go away. And it doesn't go away by

itself. It takes time. It takes effort. Sometimes it's very painful.

And I think that's what Eisenhower was talking about. And we've

been under this military-industrial complex ever since.

The intelligence agencies -- the CIA, the DIA, the NSA -- some of

these twenty-two intelligence agencies, that we have operating in

this country to this very day, are simply the security arm of this

military-industrial complex. And the military-industrial complex,

needless to say, is not going to look kindly on anyone who would

try to dismantle it. And yet, if we go back and look at the record,

we find that essentially, this is exactly what John F. Kennedy was

trying to do.

After the Bay of Pigs [invasion] and after the Cuban Missile Crisis,

he signed off on National Security Action Memoranda 55, 56 and 57.

And basically, the bottom line of these memoranda was to bring

control over the CIA back under the Military. He said that the

Joint Chiefs-of-Staff would be held responsible for any military or

even quasi-military activities that took place in the World that

was initiated by the United States. So this was an attempt to bring

the CIA back under the control of the Military.

In National Security Action Memorandum 263, we see that he approved

the recommendations of the [secretary of Defense Robert] McNamara

Report which stated that we could have all United States military

personnel out of Southeast Asia by the end of 1965, and, in fact,

he ordered the withdrawal of one thousand military advisors by the

end of 1963. These were his beginning steps to disengage from Viet

Nam. John Newman, an eighteen-year veteran of military intelligence,

has written a book titled JFK IN VIET NAM. And in there, based on

actual National Security Council minutes, actual orders that are on

file, he showed, beyond any question, that Kennedy was not just

THINKING about pulling us out of Viet Nam, but he had actually

ORDERED that event, and that we had begun to move in that direction.

Of course, after he was killed, his successor, Lyndon Johnson,

signed National Security Memorandum 273, which quietly and subtly

said that there would be no troop decrease from the time of the

Diem Government, which was November the first. That was a subtle

way of blocking Kennedy's pull-out order. And no meaningful drop in

U.S. presence took place in Viet Nam.

And then, of course, in `64, while the Warren Commission was

putting the finishing touches on their report that said Oswald ws

the lone nut assassin, we had the phony Gulf of Tonkin Incident,

and Johnson managed to push through a panicked Congress the Gulf of

Tonkin Resolution -- which abrogates the Constitution of the United

States, which says that only Congress shall have the power to

declare war -- and gave those war-making powers to Johnson himself.

And off we went into a ten-year war that was very much desired by

the U.S. Military and by their attendant groups, their security

agencies, the intelligence groups, and also by the defense

industries and the bankers who supported them. And it's wide! It's

pervasive! It reaches into every state in this Union.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

As the elaborately concocted smokescreen fades away from the

faces of the gang of murderers who perpetrated this, THE

highest crime of treason in the history of the United States,

we stand flabbergasted and enraged to realize the enormity of

the traitors' crimes. They have scattered the brains of the

People's President onto the streets of an American city.

They have, just as cold-bloodedly, murdered (what is it?)

two hundred or so people, from CIA agent Oswald to Sam Holland

to columnist Dorothy Kilgallen to Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

They have perpetrated a ten-year holocaust comprising the

slaughter of over fifty-eight thousand sons of America, the

wounding and maiming (both physically and psychologically)

of maybe a quarter of a million more of us who served in that

beautiful country transformed into one great hellish inferno;

the absolute genocide (and there's no more accurate word for

it than "genocide") of two million valiant peasants, who

staunchly sacrificed everything, including themselves, to free

their country from the clutches of a brutal invader.

There are Vietnamese babies born every day now with arms growing

out of their chests. Those people are suffering the myriad horrors

of nature's processes gone wild -- all because Dow Chemical

Company wanted to save the few bucks needed to purge dioxin

from the tons and tons of Agent Orange defoliant with which

the genocidal profiteers drenched the Vietnamese countryside.

So they soaked the American taxpayer for Agent Orange enriched

with dioxin -- about the most toxic chemical known to all life

-- and they soaked American boys and Vietnamese people with tons

of death from the skies; not instant death, like the 1,000-

pound bombs that rained down daily, but slow, torturous,

agonized death -- death, or a lifetime of suffering for Viet

Nam's future mothers and their babies, who would live out

their short lives with deformed bodies and incurable cancers;

and these horrors will be revisited upon all succeeding

generations, to the horizons of time.

A brilliant WBAI political scholar and humanitarian named Leo

Cawley was representative of the multitudes of American victims of

that war. Leo was a combat Marine who suffered for twenty years

until his death from Dow Chemical's lucrative defoliant/depopulant.

But even as he withered away, Leo condemned Bush's Persian Gulf

War with passion and compassion. We could all give at least a

bit of our time and energy to organizing against tomorrow's

holocausts for the sake of tomorrow's victims, and in memory

of yesterday's victims.

The evil men of the military-industrial complex and their CIA

will never be brought to trial. But that's okay. We're working

toward a higher form of justice than even the rectification of

the U.S. Government's farcical facade of a justice system could

possibly imply. We're striving, not to throw these genocidists

into jail cells, but rather, to defeat their system of evil before

they can launch more such genocidal adventures like the ones in

Korea, Viet Nam, Angola, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait and Iraq.

John DiNardo

From jad@ckuxb.att.com Ukn Jan 27 10:27:16 1993

Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2)

id AA20727; Wed, 27 Jan 93 10:27:13 -0500

Message-Id: <9301271527.AA20727@css.itd.umich.edu>

To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 10:13:44 EST

From: jad@ckuxb.att.com

Status: RO

X-Status:

Article 19745 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,misc.act

ivism.progressive

Subject: Part 31, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1993Jan26.225929.7810@mont.cs.missouri.edu>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Sender: news@mont.cs.missouri.edu

Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu

Organization: UVA. FREE Public Access UNIX!

Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

Lines: 150

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

JIM MARRS:

Probably, a healthy percentage of the population of this country

derives their direct income, in one way or another, from this

military-industrial state, either working directly for the

Government, or through military pensions, or through active military

[duty], or through the defense contractors or, even from small

companies that produce shoelaces for combat boots, pins for hand

grenades, etcetera. I'm not sure we're even yet in a position to

really, truthfully evaluate the impact of the military-industrial

complex on this country.

But now, was there any tie-in to the assassination by the Military?

Absolutely! James Powell, a military intelligence agent, made the

mistake of going into the Texas School Book Depository before it

was sealed off by police. And once it was, he had to show his

credentials before he could get out. So he became part of the

permanent record. And you may well ask: What was an Army intelligence

agent doing in the School Book Depository at the time of the Kennedy

Assassination? You might also ask why he was outside taking

photographs of the Texas School Book Depository Building at the

time of the assassination when most people were not even aware of

what had gone on, or who was involved, or even of the fact that the

School Book Depository would be identified as the place where the

sniper had fired from. .....

[brief discontinuity due to tape ending]

..... [photos] taken six and eight minutes after the assassination

took place. And they show that there's still somebody up there

moving boxes on the sixth floor. The other key thing that I would

point to was found in the Dallas Police files. We have Lieutenant

Rebell of the Dallas Police. He went back to police headquarters

from the Book Depository and typed up a list of Book Depository

employees. And this was done within, probably, thirty minutes after

the assassination -- even before they had Oswald arrested. And

HEADING the list of School Book Depository employees was Harvey Lee

Oswald. And it gave his address as 605 Elsbeth. Okay? Now, the

problem is, of course, as we know, it was Lee Harvey Oswald. And

his address that he gave in his application for employment to the

Book Depository was the West Fifth address of the Paine house out

in Irving, where his wife was staying. Okay? Nowhere on his records

at the Book Depository was this Elsbeth address. In fact, Oswald

HAD lived at 60`2' Elsbeth in the late fall of `62 and early `63,

but he did not put that down on any of his material at the Book

Depository. So where did the Dallas Police Intelligence Chief Rebell

get this "Harvey Lee Oswald" and where did he get "60`5' Elsbeth"?

Well, he told the Warren Commission that he rode back from Dealey

Plaza to the police station with a military intelligence agent.

Recently, he told a news reporter down here in Texas that not only

was this a military intelligence agent, he was an O.N.I. agent,

Office of Naval Intelligence. And, of course, it's been well-

accepted that if Oswald played some role in intelligence, he

probably started off in the Office of Naval Intelligence, since he

was a Marine, and the Marines are under the Navy Department. Okay?

Now, in 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations contacted

a Colonel Jones of Fourth Army Intelligence. And he said that on

the day of the assassination he got word from some of his people

in Dallas that they had arrested a fellow and that his name was

Alex J. Heidel. He told Congress that he checked with Fourth Army

Military Intelligence files and found that Alex J. Heidel cross-

referenced to Lee Harvey Oswald, and it gave his address as "60`5'

Elsbeth. So the SAME mistaken address that turned up on Lieutenant

Rebell's Dallas Police Intelligence sheet of School Book Depository

employees turns up in Fourth Army Intelligence files. And Rebell

says he rode back to Dallas Police Headquarters with an O.N.I agent.

Now -- what does that tell us? That tells us that it was the

MILITARY in Dallas, on November the 22nd, that was tipping off the

Dallas Police that the suspect they were after was Lee Harvey Oswald.

GARY NULL:

That's DYNAMITE material! By God, if that ..... I don't think that

people know HOW important this information is! This clearly focuses

-- telescopes in on specific areas and people that we should be

paying attention to.

JIM MARRS:

Right. And it goes far beyond simply renegades within the CIA, or

a dissident FBI agent over here, or some Mob hit-men. Now, I don't

think there's any question. It is obvious. There's evidence that

there are Mafia people mixed up in the assassination. I think that

if you want to go get hired killers, that's the place where you

would start. I don't think there's any question about that. I don't

think there's any question that there is a CIA involvement in all

of this.

But the thing is -- somewhere it had to come together. Somewhere

there had to be a connecting point. And I believe that the Military,

and particularly the groups and the individuals in and around

"Operation Mongoose" probably were this connecting point.

GARY NULL:

Alright. Let's take a look at a few other people here.

Give us your opinions of what, if any, role the following people

had, or of what knowledge they may have had concerning the

assassination: The fired Bay of Pigs architect, General Charles

Cabell.

JIM MARRS:

Alright. I don't think it was just a coincidence that the day of

the assassination, Cabell, who had been fired by Kennedy as the

Deputy Director of the CIA, had simply moved back into the Pentagon,

resumed his duties there and his rank there, and, in fact, was kind

of in hot water because he had publicly branded his commander-in-

chief, the President of the United States John F. Kennedy, a traitor.

Okay? If he truly believed that -- and he had to believe that, or

he wouldn't have said that publicly about his superior -- then you

can see that he would have no trouble in justifying the

death sentence for "a traitor".

And I don't think it was a coincidence that his brother, Earl Cabell

was Mayor of Dallas that day. As such, he was one of the prominent

and important politicians who helped guide things and make decisions

that were taken in respect to Kennedy's visit there.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,

please help to disseminate it by posting it to computer

bulletin boards, and by posting hardcopies in public places,

both on and off campus. As evidence accrues concerning the

corporate mass media's thirty year cover-up of the corporate

CIA's coup d'etat against the People of the United States,

the need for citizen reportage becomes ever more striking.

John DiNardo

The episodes of this and other series can be retrieved

via anonymous ftp from the site:

red.css.itd.umich.edu

Log in with name "anonymous" or "ftp" and supply your e-mail address as

the password. The files are kept in the directory /poli/Essays/Conspiracy

Instructions for ftp retrieval are dependent upon what sort of system the

user is on. On a UNIX machine, at the command prompt, type the following:

ftp red.css.itd.umich.edu This may be different on IBMs and Vax systems.

Archivist: Paul Southworth, pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

From jad@ckuxb.att.com Ukn Feb 3 08:16:54 1993

Received: from att-out.att.com by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2)

id AA08899; Wed, 3 Feb 93 08:16:51 -0500

Message-Id: <9302031316.AA08899@css.itd.umich.edu>

To: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 08:13:15 EST

From: jad@ckuxb.att.com

Status: RO

X-Status:

Article 20003 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Subject: Part 32, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1993Feb2.131716.7687@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU

Organization: University of Virginia, FREE Public Access UNIX!

Lines: 152

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

Alright. A key piece of evidence. A CRUCIAL piece of evidence that

the media has overlooked. I'd like for you to fill in a blank here.

Absolutely essential:

We know that the route of President Kennedy's caravan was rerouted.

The motorcade was rerouted. Who did that?

JIM MARRS [author of CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY]:

Well, it's a murky question, and you get into all kinds of problems

there. First off, the zig-zag up Houston and down Elm Street ....

I'm going to have to admit that Chief Terry[sp], the Dallas Police

Chief, told the Warren Commission -- they asked him about that

route and he told them that that was the normal flow of traffic.

And that is true. And that's why we're going to have a hard time

with this thing about the route because it was the normal flow of

traffic, and you can always argue that: Well, they followed the

normal flow of traffic.

The problem, of course, is that this was not a normal situation.

This was a President of the United States who was visiting. They

had Main Street blocked off already for the motorcade through

downtown. And if I had been in charge of security .... and, in fact,

several of the Dallas police officers brought this point up to the

Warren Commission. They said that they didn't understand why the

motorcade didn't simply go straight down Main Street, which was

already blocked off, and then turn and go right up onto Stimmons

Expressway, which would have left no need to make a hundred and

twenty degree turn.

GARY NULL:

You wouldn't have slowed down because Main Street is a straight

street, and as a straight street, the motorcade would not have had

to slow down. Now, having to turn on procession's path and then

back onto Elm Street, you have two turns which necessitate going

very slow.

JIM MARRS:

Exactly. And one of them -- the turn from Houston onto Elm is about

a one hundred and twenty degree turn, which is a VIOLATION of

Secret Service regulations. Now, the only other thing that I'd

point out is that on November the 19th, when the Secret Service

chiefs came to Dallas and they rode the motorcade route, if you

read their description very closely in the Warren Commission

[Report], you find that they came up Houston Street to about Main,

and they said: Here is where the motorcade goes on to the Trade

Mart. And they turned east on Main, and they never did drive that

hundred and twenty degree turn onto Elm Street. So there was

apparently some negligence there on really determining the exact

path of the motorcade and realizing that they had a security

problem there.

Now, who engineered that negligence is still kind of up-in-the-air.

But it seems clear to me that since the Secret Service and other

Federal officials ..... In fact, there was a man from the

Agriculture Department, believe it or not, who came down and

apparently was an integral, important part of the planning of this

motorcade route. And, of course, you have to go back and understand

that the old Agriculture Department head, Orville Freeman, had been

a very close political friend of Lyndon Johnson. And so, there

seems to have been some mechanization that took place in this

planning, but we have not been able to nail that down. And again,

we're back to the point where someone will say: "Well, that was the

natural flow of traffic. So, I think that's going to remain a murky

area in this investigation.

GARY NULL:

Alright. We do have ....

[interruption due to tape ending]

..... the mayor, Earl Cabell. And Earl Cabell had (we don't know

that it's the case) .... He had the power to reroute the motorcade.

That is something that .....

JIM MARRS:

He definitely called Police Chief Terry away from his duties at

the time that they transferred Oswald, and he was shot by Ruby. And

Terry said: "I wasn't there because I got a call from Mayor Cabell.

GARY NULL:

I wasn't aware of that.

JIM MARRS:

Well, there's another possibly important point because if the Police

Chief himself had been there, he might have said something or done

something that would have beefed up the security around Oswald and

prevented Ruby from getting to him.

GARY NULL:

And, of course, the American Public should be aware that Kennedy

had fired Allen Dulles as head of the CIA, and had vowed to "smash

the CIA into a thousand pieces and cast it to the winds." And, of

course, Dulles would be on the Warren Commission. Now, to appoint a

man who had been fired seems rather absurd as far as objectivity is

concerned. But, again, nothing about this has been objective or

makes sense.

Now, lastly, I want to go to some of the right-wing extremist

organizations, and also to what some have suspected were some of the

very powerful Texas industrialists who also were in the munitions

business -- the armaments business. And later, as we would find out,

we would be spending nearly ONE BILLION DOLLARS A DAY fighting in

Viet Nam.

JIM MARRS:

Yeah. And let's not forget the oilmen. The oilmen were not

providing munitions, but they were providing the life blood of the

military machine, which is oil. And so, they very much wanted

Viet Nam -- to keep the price of oil up.

[JD: The most famous oilman in the World was a CIA agent in Miami

who was involved with the anti-Castro Cubans who have been

linked to the murder of President Kennedy. That famous oilman

had a great deal to gain by the murder of the President because

his Zapata Oil Company stood to make a fortune off of the

slaughter in Viet Nam of over fifty-eight thousand American boys.

That famous oilman is George Herbert Walker Bush, of course.

Why don't we look at the financial records and find out how much

money George Herbert Walker Bush actually made in that ten-year,

blood-for-profits adventure??]

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,

please help to disseminate it by posting it to computer

bulletin boards, and by posting hardcopies in public places,

both on and off campus. As evidence accrues concerning the

corporate mass media's thirty year cover-up of the corporate

CIA's coup d'etat against the People of the United States,

the need for citizen reportage becomes ever more striking.

John DiNardo

The episodes of this and other series can be retrieved

via anonymous ftp from the site:

red.css.itd.umich.edu

Log in with name "anonymous" or "ftp" and supply your e-mail address as

the password. The files are kept in the directory /poli/Essays/Conspiracy

Instructions for ftp retrieval are dependent upon what sort of system the

user is on. On a UNIX machine, at the command prompt, type the following:

ftp red.css.itd.umich.edu This may be different on IBMs and Vax systems.

Archivist: Paul Southworth, pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Article 20160 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

From: jad@hopper.ACS.Virginia.EDU (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part 33, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1993Feb5.133221.1860@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU

Organization: UVA. FREE Public Access UNIX!

Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1993 13:32:21 GMT

Lines: 157

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

And the oilmen were favored friends of Lyndon Johnson.

JIM MARRS:

That's true. They hated Kennedy because Kennedy had already made

one attempt to, and was still talking about doing away with the

27-and-a-half percent oil depletion allowance, which is the bedrock

of oil money. What it is, basically, is the argument that oil is a

finite resource. There's only so much of it under ground. And every

time you pump it out, you're depleting your basic product, I guess

you could say. And, as a result, they have a 27-and-a-half percent

(at that time) oil depletion allowance, which basically meant that

they did not have to pay taxes on 27-and-a-half percent of the money

they made off of oil. How would YOU like to be able to pass on

almost 28 percent of your income, and not have to pay taxes on it?

That would help you out considerably. Wouldn't it?

[JD: On this point, it's also important to know that in Kennedy's

first year as President, one of the three major steel companies

-- I think it was Bethlehem Steel -- pulled the commonly used

trick of being the first company, in collusion with all the others,

to hike the price of steel and thus, to establish an excuse for

all the other steel companies to hike their prices.

Well, John F. Kennedy forced the steel companies, by some means,

to roll back their prices. That was an extraordinary achievement

on behalf of the American consumer which has probably never been

done before or since by any of the corporate-owned Presidents of

the United States.

That deed alone focused upon John Kennedy the hatred of the

barons of big business.]

GARY NULL:

Do you have any knowledge of Howard Hughes as "Mr. X", and the

suspicions surrounding his involvement in the assassination?

Howard Hughes, according to information I've got, was considered to

be "Mr. X" by operatives from the CIA, by some anti-Castro Cubans,

and by some of the right-wing paramilitarists.

JIM MARRS:

As an intermediary. Well, let me say that in 1963 I was still a

little unclear on how powerful Hughes actually was, and on how much

he was actually running his empire. There is good evidence to

believe that he had already begun to be controlled and to be

operated. He was a recluse. Nobody saw him. And there is good reason

to believe that he may not have been in total control of his empire.

BUT, Robert Mayhue was. Robert Mayhue, at that time, was basically

running Howard Hughes's empire. And Robert Mayhue had ties to both

Organized Crime and to the CIA. And I may point out .... Again, I

think that this is incredibly important: Robert Mayhue was also

tied into "Operation Mongoose".

GARY NULL:

Now, is Robert Mayhue alive today?

JIM MARRS:

Yes, he is.

GARY NULL:

What is he doing today?

JIM MARRS:

I have no idea what he's doing. He appears on programs now and then.

GARY NULL:

Was he ever challenged on these ties?

JIM MARRS:

Oh, heavens. No, there's never been any hard-nosed investigation of

all this because the Government has always maintained that it was

just Oswald.

GARY NULL:

Alright. So, we only have this as supposition, and we have to

acknowledge that it is merely supposition ....

JIM MARRS:

Well, I would say this. I would say that if there is any one person

still alive today who probably knew and knows how all of this was

pulled together, I think Robert Mayhue would be a good candidate.

GARY NULL:

Alright. But, again, we do not know that for a fact. We merely have

to, in fairness and objectivity .....

[tape ending]

Did he have any connection to Organized Crime, and what was his

knowledge of the Kennedy Assassination. We must, in fairness and

objectivity, keep it as purely something that is a projected

supposition without concrete evidence.

JIM MARRS:

Oh, there's no concrete evidence that he participated in the

conspiracy to kill Kennedy. I'll be the first to admit that.

BUT, he himself .... and there has been tons written about him.

He definitely was connected into the ..... In fact, he was the

intermediary who put the Mafia people in touch with the CIA for

their assassination plots. That's been documented. That's been

stated. Okay? That's been nailed down by the Government.

He also, of course, was in charge of the Howard Hughes empire, which

is well documented as being a front for the Central Intelligence

Agency. So, he was right in the thick of all of that. And, as I've

said, he was also part of "Operation Mongoose". That has been

publicly stated. So, I think he's the guy who could give us some

answers, if he would talk, and talk truthfully, and talk

extensively, something that, apparently, he has not done to date.

GARY NULL:

Now, let's take one more look here and try to put this into a

context. We have certain members of Organized Crime who certainly

could have played a role in providing the actual assassins.

JIM MARRS:

Well, of course, about Organized Crime, there's really not any

doubt about all of that. The FBI was operating as it should, and was

keeping tabs on Organized Crime chieftains. Had them wire-tapped.

Had them followed. Had informants, inside their organizations,

reporting back. And each and every one of them, at some point,

threatened the life of President Kennedy. I think, obviously, the

ones who are most important to us would be Sam Giancana, the Mob

boss of Chicago, who apparently helped pull votes for Kennedy in

the 1960 election, and then who also was dating and going to bed

with Judith [Campbell] Exner at the same time that she was slipping

into the White House and having an affair with John Kennedy.

So that puts him in pretty close contact.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,

please help to disseminate it by posting it to computer

bulletin boards, and by posting hardcopies in public places,

both on and off campus. As evidence accrues concerning the

corporate mass media's thirty year cover-up of the corporate

CIA's coup d'etat against the People of the United States,

the need for citizen reportage becomes ever more striking.

John DiNardo

The episodes of this and other series can be retrieved

via anonymous ftp from the site:

red.css.itd.umich.edu

Log in with name "anonymous" or "ftp" and supply your e-mail address as

the password. The files are kept in the directory /poli/Essays/Conspiracy

Instructions for ftp retrieval are dependent upon what sort of system the

user is on. On a UNIX machine, at the command prompt, type the following:

ftp red.css.itd.umich.edu This may be different on IBMs and Vax systems.

Archivist: Paul Southworth, pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Article 20544 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa,alt.

censorship

Subject: Part 34, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1993Feb15.215718.24395@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU

Organization: UVA. FREE Public Access UNIX!

Lines: 101

The following transcript is from a tape-recorded broadcast

by NO-commercials, NO-corporate-influences, listener-funded,

beacon-of-truth Pacifica Radio Network station for the People:

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

JIM MARRS [author of CROSSFIRE: THE PLOT THAT KILLED KENNEDY]:

Giancana, who was under HEAVY, intense prosecution and investigation

by both the FBI and the Justice Department, undoubtedly felt like

he was the victim of a turnaround -- a double-cross, if you will.

Of course, his son and his nephew, I believe it was, in fact, have

written a book called "DOUBLE-CROSS". And I think they aggrandize

Giancana's role in national affairs a bit. But nevertheless, they

made the argument that he felt like he had helped to put Kennedy in

office, and he felt that Kennedy had double-crossed him by

prosecuting him and sending the FBI after him.

Of course, one of his compatriots at that time was the New Orleans

crime boss, Carlos Marcello. John Davis has produced a very good

book that pretty well shows that there was some connection with

Carlos Marcello into the assassination. Davis tries to make the

argument that Marcello was the architect of the assassination.

He may have been very instrumental in it, but even Carlos Marcello,

powerful as he may be, did not have the power to cover-up the facts

afterwards. And he did not have the power to misguide, misdirect

and blunt the investigation by the FBI, and to alter the wounds on

the President's body between Parkland Hospital and Bethesda Naval

Hospital, and to do all of the things that are KNOWN to have been

done. This goes beyond Organized Crime, although Carlos Marcello

may have played an important role.

The other [compatriot of Giancana], of course, was Santos

Trafficante, the Mob chieftain in Miami, who was closely connected

to the anti-Castro Cubans, who, in fact, had been jailed on the

Isle of Pines by [Cuban Premier] Fidel Castro back at the time of

his takeover, and who was in contact with JACK RUBY.

So, you've got all of these people and they're all tied together.

And the common point, I would think, between all of these was the

point to where they begin to work closely with the United States

Government, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency and the

Military, and the war against Castro, and in the assassination plot

against Castro.

GARY NULL:

Okay. That's a good summary for this stage of our program. We still

have more to go. There's still a LOT more evidence that we're going

to be laying out. We're going to talk about a killing on Wall

Street. We're going to talk about Kennedy and the oilmen. We're

going to talk about a Miami prophet. We're going to talk about a

bullet for the general. We're going to talk about the connections

with Lyndon Baines Johnson.

So much more to come.

And then in Dallas: the black car chase, the strange saga of Roger

Craig, the role of hit-men down there, and the shooting of J.D.

Tippett. All these things are still to come, plus the "mystery man"

whom many of us feel was the actual hit-man against Oswald in the

balcony of the theater -- how that came about, who this person was,

and why he didn't manage to get to kill Oswald who was where he was

supposed to be in that theater, even though he never went to movies,

and was specifically located by the police.

Plus, brand new information that has NEVER before been revealed,

in ANY form, in this country -- coming up.

We are having some outside experts -- physicists and ballistics

people and others -- examining documentation at this very moment.

We'll hopefully have that for you very shortly.

I want to thank you very much, Jim Marrs, for sharing some

outstanding insights with us today.

JIM MARRS:

Thank you. Good to be with you.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,

please help to disseminate it by posting it to computer

bulletin boards, and by posting hardcopies in public places,

both on and off campus. As evidence accrues concerning the

corporate mass media's thirty year cover-up of the corporate

CIA's coup d'etat against the People of the United States,

the need for citizen reportage becomes ever more striking.

John DiNardo

The episodes of this and other series can be retrieved

via anonymous ftp from the site:

red.css.itd.umich.edu

Log in with name "anonymous" or "ftp" and supply your e-mail address as

the password. The files are kept in the directory /poli/Essays/Conspiracy

Instructions for ftp retrieval are dependent upon what sort of system the

user is on. On a UNIX machine, at the command prompt, type the following:

ftp red.css.itd.umich.edu This may be different on IBMs and Vax systems.

Archivist: Paul Southworth, pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Article 20571 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Subject: Part 35, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1993Feb17.210252.10583@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU

Organization: UVA. FREE Public Access UNIX!

Lines: 128

The following transcript is of a tape-recorded broadcast

by NO-commercials, NO-corporate-influences, listener-funded,

beacon-of-truth Pacifica Radio Network station of the People:

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

I've spent a great deal of time down in Dallas. In the last year

alone, I've made eight trips, doing measurements -- DETAILED

measurements -- going over analyses. There is an individual

(I don't know if you know him, Jones Harris), Robert Morningstar,

who has done a great deal of analyzing of the Zapruder Film.

We found additional distortions -- editing in that film. We

have also found more tracers. We have found the actual tracers.

We put it through an infra-red scanner, and we can actually

SHOW ..... No one has ever done this before. It was Robert

Morningstar who came up with this, and we have independently

corroborated it. We've done blow-ups of the Zapruder Film showing

the actual tracer [of the] bullets. And you cannot see it with

the naked eye. But every bullet that is fired has a different

marking, a marking of the heat that is created when the bullet

spins out of the barrel of the gun, a marking of the heat when the

sun reflects off of the bullet, a marking of the heat when the

bullet goes through the atmosphere. And in this case, it was very

humid on that day in Dallas. (I have gone back to subsequently

check all the weather reports.) You have four separate markings

of a tracer.

Well, we know that these markings, though not shown to the naked

eye, are on the film and would still be a permanent imprint.

And based upon the idea that there were multiple gunmen -- not one

-- the only way to determine this is if there were multiple shots

that could be proved to have been fired. Up to this point,

there were none [proven to be fired].

Using an infra-red technology, we have isolated and actually

identified the exact trajectory of all of the bullets: eight --

EIGHT bullets. Now, what is interesting is that we actually have

this, blown up. It is irrefutable. Any physicist will show you

that these are exact. Also, when you time-base them for the sounds

[compare the points in time of the appearances of the tracers

with the points in time of the sounds of the shots] .... We can't

pinpoint the exact [origin of a] sound because the sound is deceptive.

Where you think the direction that a sound is coming from frequently

is not, depending upon the acoustics. Well, we've been able to match

the acoustics with the sound, and then match the trajectory.

We even found .... I shouldn't say "I found". It was actually

Robert who found .... We actually found and were able to demonstrate

that the Zapruder Film was cut in two places to make the car seem

as if it lurched forward, when, in fact, it came TO A STOP! And we

can prove that because, in the film, the flags [mounted on the car]

go flaccid and yet, the car jerks forward. And the building right

across from the car -- which should have been in perfect alignment

-- in the very next FRAME (You're talking about less than one

thirty-second of a second) the building JUMPED FORTY FEET AHEAD!

So, suddenly, if you look, the building that is across from the

President's limousine -- in one frame is in front of it [the

limousine]; in the next frame there's a forty foot difference.

Now, no one has ever done this work before. This is important new

work to prove that the Zapruder Film WAS definitely, unequivocally,

ABSOLUTELY [altered]. And NO ONE has caught it! NO ONE, except

Robert Morningstar.

So then we went into great detail. We then took this -- Robert and

I working together -- we blew up these ..... I went down there and

got very sophisticated measurements. And we found that there HAD

to have been someone on the opposite side of the green, because

two bullets came right across and you can see the TRACER come right

across that sign. Now isn't it interesting: They've added a whole

segment to that sign!

Then, we can show that two bullets missed the car entirely.

We do not believe that missing the car by such a wide margin was an

accident. We believe that those were marker shots, because guess

what we see in one of the tree branches. We see a "shooter's bag".

In one shot [frame] you see it there. It looks like a tiny dot.

You won't notice it! The naked eye will not notice it. But blow it

up, as we did, freeze-frame it, and then you will see that it's

hanging in a limb in one shot [frame], and then the tracer shot

comes across and [the "shooter's bag"] it's blown away. That's what

a marksman uses to line up the target, so that when the target comes

right to that spot, you shoot and you're able to hit your target.

We also were able to blow up and enhance a photo showing,

absolutely, a rifle with a telescopic sight that did NOT fire --

that was in the bushes down near the underpass. And we feel that

that was either the kill shot, through the throat, because when it

passed ..... It was funny because you watch it twenty times; you

don't see a thing. You have experts watch it; they don't see a

thing. You slow it down; they don't see a thing. And THEN, we put

it in freeze-frame, and we say: "Have you ever seen a branch of a

tree move?" And suddenly they all say: "There it is!" And they all

point and say: "Yes, you're right!" But then, it's not a branch,

but it's a telescopic sight. And it's a man with a hat. And we can

actually match the scope to the type of scope used in that time.

The scope follows President Kennedy clear around until he's out of

sight, meaning that he was going to put another shot into him if he

saw that the shot they fired the first time wasn't a kill shot.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,

please help to disseminate it by posting it to computer

bulletin boards, and by posting hardcopies in public places,

both on and off campus. As evidence accrues concerning the

corporate mass media's thirty year cover-up of the corporate

CIA's coup d'etat against the People of the United States,

the need for citizen reportage becomes ever more striking.

John DiNardo

The episodes of this and other series can be retrieved

via anonymous ftp from the site:

red.css.itd.umich.edu

Log in with name "anonymous" or "ftp" and supply your e-mail address as

the password. The files are kept in the directory /poli/Essays/Conspiracy

Instructions for ftp retrieval are dependent upon what sort of system the

user is on. On a UNIX machine, at the command prompt, type the following:

ftp red.css.itd.umich.edu This may be different on IBMs and Vax systems.

Archivist: Paul Southworth, pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

From uucp Mon Mar 15 13:12 EST 1993

>From jad Mon Mar 15 12:41 EST 1993 remote from ckuxb.att.com

From: jad@ckuxb.att.com

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 93 12:41 EST

To: jad@hopper.acs.virginia.edu

Received: from ckuxb.att.com by hopper.acs.virginia.edu.ACS.Virginia.EDU; Mon, 15 Mar 1993 13:12 EST

Content-Type: text

Content-Length: 7697

Status: OR

Article 20571 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

From: jad@hopper.ACS.Virginia.EDU (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part 35, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1993Feb17.210252.10583@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU

Organization: UVA. FREE Public Access UNIX!

Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 21:02:52 GMT

Lines: 128

The following transcript is of a tape-recorded broadcast

by NO-commercials, NO-corporate-influences, listener-funded,

beacon-of-truth Pacifica Radio Network station of the People:

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

I've spent a great deal of time down in Dallas. In the last year

alone, I've made eight trips, doing measurements -- DETAILED

measurements -- going over analyses. There is an individual

(I don't know if you know him, Jones Harris), Robert Morningstar,

who has done a great deal of analyzing of the Zapruder Film.

We found additional distortions -- editing in that film. We

have also found more tracers. We have found the actual tracers.

We put it through an infra-red scanner, and we can actually

SHOW ..... No one has ever done this before. It was Robert

Morningstar who came up with this, and we have independently

corroborated it. We've done blow-ups of the Zapruder Film showing

the actual tracer [of the] bullets. And you cannot see it with

the naked eye. But every bullet that is fired has a different

marking, a marking of the heat that is created when the bullet

spins out of the barrel of the gun, a marking of the heat when the

sun reflects off of the bullet, a marking of the heat when the

bullet goes through the atmosphere. And in this case, it was very

humid on that day in Dallas. (I have gone back to subsequently

check all the weather reports.) You have four separate markings

of a tracer.

Well, we know that these markings, though not shown to the naked

eye, are on the film and would still be a permanent imprint.

And based upon the idea that there were multiple gunmen -- not one

-- the only way to determine this is if there were multiple shots

that could be proved to have been fired. Up to this point,

there were none [proven to be fired].

Using an infra-red technology, we have isolated and actually

identified the exact trajectory of all of the bullets: eight --

EIGHT bullets. Now, what is interesting is that we actually have

this, blown up. It is irrefutable. Any physicist will show you

that these are exact. Also, when you time-base them for the sounds

[compare the points in time of the appearances of the tracers

with the points in time of the sounds of the shots] .... We can't

pinpoint the exact [origin of a] sound because the sound is deceptive.

Where you think the direction that a sound is coming from frequently

is not, depending upon the acoustics. Well, we've been able to match

the acoustics with the sound, and then match the trajectory.

We even found .... I shouldn't say "I found". It was actually

Robert who found .... We actually found and were able to demonstrate

that the Zapruder Film was cut in two places to make the car seem

as if it lurched forward, when, in fact, it came TO A STOP! And we

can prove that because, in the film, the flags [mounted on the car]

go flaccid and yet, the car jerks forward. And the building right

across from the car -- which should have been in perfect alignment

-- in the very next FRAME (You're talking about less than one

thirty-second of a second) the building JUMPED FORTY FEET AHEAD!

So, suddenly, if you look, the building that is across from the

President's limousine -- in one frame is in front of it [the

limousine]; in the next frame there's a forty foot difference.

Now, no one has ever done this work before. This is important new

work to prove that the Zapruder Film WAS definitely, unequivocally,

ABSOLUTELY [altered]. And NO ONE has caught it! NO ONE, except

Robert Morningstar.

So then we went into great detail. We then took this -- Robert and

I working together -- we blew up these ..... I went down there and

got very sophisticated measurements. And we found that there HAD

to have been someone on the opposite side of the green, because

two bullets came right across and you can see the TRACER come right

across that sign. Now isn't it interesting: They've added a whole

segment to that sign!

Then, we can show that two bullets missed the car entirely.

We do not believe that missing the car by such a wide margin was an

accident. We believe that those were marker shots, because guess

what we see in one of the tree branches. We see a "shooter's bag".

In one shot [frame] you see it there. It looks like a tiny dot.

You won't notice it! The naked eye will not notice it. But blow it

up, as we did, freeze-frame it, and then you will see that it's

hanging in a limb in one shot [frame], and then the tracer shot

comes across and [the "shooter's bag"] it's blown away. That's what

a marksman uses to line up the target, so that when the target comes

right to that spot, you shoot and you're able to hit your target.

We also were able to blow up and enhance a photo showing,

absolutely, a rifle with a telescopic sight that did NOT fire --

that was in the bushes down near the underpass. And we feel that

that was either the kill shot, through the throat, because when it

passed ..... It was funny because you watch it twenty times; you

don't see a thing. You have experts watch it; they don't see a

thing. You slow it down; they don't see a thing. And THEN, we put

it in freeze-frame, and we say: "Have you ever seen a branch of a

tree move?" And suddenly they all say: "There it is!" And they all

point and say: "Yes, you're right!" But then, it's not a branch,

but it's a telescopic sight. And it's a man with a hat. And we can

actually match the scope to the type of scope used in that time.

The scope follows President Kennedy clear around until he's out of

sight, meaning that he was going to put another shot into him if he

saw that the shot they fired the first time wasn't a kill shot.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,

please help to disseminate it by posting it to computer

bulletin boards, and by posting hardcopies in public places,

both on and off campus. As evidence accrues concerning the

corporate mass media's thirty year cover-up of the corporate

CIA's coup d'etat against the People of the United States,

the need for citizen reportage becomes ever more striking.

John DiNardo

The episodes of this and other series can be retrieved

via anonymous ftp from the site:

red.css.itd.umich.edu

Log in with name "anonymous" or "ftp" and supply your e-mail address as

the password. The files are kept in the directory /poli/Essays/Conspiracy

Instructions for ftp retrieval are dependent upon what sort of system the

user is on. On a UNIX machine, at the command prompt, type the following:

ftp red.css.itd.umich.edu This may be different on IBMs and Vax systems.

Archivist: Paul Southworth, pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Article 20777 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

From: jad@hopper.ACS.Virginia.EDU (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part 36, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1993Feb23.215738.25766@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy

Keywords: PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU

Organization: UVA. FREE Public Access UNIX!

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 21:57:38 GMT

Lines: 142

The following transcript is of a tape-recorded broadcast

by NO-commercials, NO-corporate-influences, listener-funded,

beacon-of-truth Pacifica Radio Network station of the People:

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

This program is a continuation of our ongoing series titled:

"Hidden Agendas: Conspiracies, Cover-Ups and Lies"

at the highest levels of our Government, in regard to deceptions

foisted upon the American People regarding essential information

about the roles of Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald in the John F.

Kennedy Assassination. We have been led to believe that the Warren

Commission Report was the first and last word on this case.

Many individuals are challenging that. We have invited those

individuals to share with us insights, documentation and other

information, much of it being revealed here, for the first time,

to the American People.

Please excuse the poor broadcast quality today because I am not in

the studio. I'm not in New York. I'm about five thousand miles away

from New York, continuing to do investigations on this. I'm tracking

certain ballistic and forensic information, and I'm interviewing

people who, hitherto, have not been heard by the American People so

that I can bring you new information.

On our conference line right now are two individuals who have some

unique insights: Jack Schweick[sp], who has written on Oswald,

especially about the Atsugi [Naval Air] Base in Japan. He was in

intelligence before being in the Marines. He has sued the CIA for

files. And we'll learn about the alleged fourty-four drawers of

files on Oswald and also [on] all the people on that base, and

what Lee Harvey Oswald was doing there.

Also, we have Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty. Now Colonel Prouty is a

unique individual in this scheme of things. In the movie, JFK, it

was Donald Sutherland who portrayed the role of L. Fletcher Prouty

or some facsimile of his role. L. Fletcher Prouty was Chief of

Special Operations of the Joint Chiefs-of-Staff, and he established

worldwide offices. He was a senior Air Force officer, Officer of

Special Operations in the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the

office headed by General G.B. Erskine with Edward Lansdale, CIA-to-

United States Air Force on staff. He was also the chief of Team B,

which was Special Operations, Headquarters U.S. Air Force.

And that's very important in military terms. Special Operations was

the official function responsible for the military support of the

clandestine operations of the CIA.

Let's begin with L. Fletcher Prouty.

Welcome to our program, Mr. Prouty.

L. FLETCHER PROUTY:

Good morning, Gary. Nice to be with you.

GARY NULL:

First off -- is it correct that there was some facsimile between

you and the character portrayed by Donald Sutherland in Oliver

Stone's film, JFK?

L. FLETCHER PROUTY:

Yes. Oliver Stone met with me in 1990 and asked me to be an advisor

to the film because he had read material that I had written, and he

had written a part into his film that he called "Mr. X". At the

time, I didn't know that. And I read the script when it first came

out in November 1990, and I found the "Mr. X" there and I recognized

myself and words I had written and things I had said. So, at a

speech at the National Press Club, in January 1992, Oliver Stone

turned to the audience and said: "Everybody asked me, `Is there a

real `Mr. X''." Well, I was on the podium with him, and he turned

and pointed to me and said: "There's my `Mr. X'." And so, the secret

broke. And that's the story of it. It was pretty simple. He just

worked it into the film so that he would have an authoritative

voice for certain parts of the film, as you saw represented by

Donald Sutherland.

GARY NULL:

Alright. Let's go to the actual events, or at least those events

that you have some insight on so that we can get a handle on this.

We have already -- in the first eighteen parts of this special

investigation (twenty-five hours of broadcasting on this) -- laid out

various aspects of this puzzle. We have seen the role of Organized

Crime -- at least those individuals who, on FBI tapes, have made

statemtents, either true or false (at least they've made the actual

statements), that there was going to be a hit on the President,

either in Miami or later in Dallas. We also had extensive insights

about the CIA being "out of control", and about, even at that time,

special renegade elements within the CIA who were very much opposed

to President Kennedy's mishandling of the Bay of Pigs Invasion, and

about the fact that, at a time when he could very easily have given

the support which would have caused the destruction of Castro's tiny

Air Force and ended what people in the military/industrial complex,

the Armed Forces, the general public, the Texas conservative element,

viewed as a substantial threat, he backed off. They found this

incomprehensible.

And, as a result, some feel that elements of that [the CIA] were

responsible for the assassination. But it couldn't have been done

without having members of the Secret Service, the FBI and the

Military participate because it was going to be, not only the

assassination itself, but they were fully aware that you don't go

out and kill the President of the United States unless you can

protect yourself. You have to know that you can protect yourself if

there is a special commission, if there is a special investigation.

So, bringing in people from different segments [of the Government]

at different levels would have been a job that only military

logistics experts could have pulled off. Organized Crime has never

been able to maintain. They don't have the intellectual dexterity,

they have too much braggadocio and they're too unreliable. But they

are capable of killing, and they do. And they are capable of being

used, in effect, as a front for various aspects [of Government

crime], as they had been in their anti-Castro efforts after the fall

of Cuba's Battista Government, which supported their corruption.

Since Castro didn't support them, they were losing many millions of

dollars. So they were conducting regular activities, we now know,

with the aid of the CIA and with the knowledge of the FBI.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,

please help to disseminate it by posting it to computer

bulletin boards, and by posting hardcopies in public places,

both on and off campus. As evidence accrues concerning the

corporate mass media's thirty year cover-up of the corporate

CIA's coup d'etat against the People of the United States,

the need for citizen reportage becomes ever more striking.

John DiNardo

The episodes of this and other series can be retrieved

via anonymous ftp from the site:

red.css.itd.umich.edu

Log in with name "anonymous" or "ftp" and supply your e-mail address as

the password. The files are kept in the directory /poli/Essays/Conspiracy

Instructions for ftp retrieval are dependent upon what sort of system the

user is on. On a UNIX machine, at the command prompt, type the following:

ftp red.css.itd.umich.edu This may be different on IBMs and Vax systems.

Archivist: Paul Southworth, pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Article 20864 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

From: jad@hopper.ACS.Virginia.EDU (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part 37, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1993Feb26.233930.1942@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy

Keywords: researchers'revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU

Organization: UVA. FREE Public Access UNIX!

Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 23:39:30 GMT

Lines: 142

The following transcript is of a tape-recorded broadcast

by NO-commercials, NO-corporate-influences, listener-funded,

beacon-of-truth Pacifica Radio Network station of the People:

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

So, how do you start to link all these disparate people together?

What roles did they actually play? What roles do you surmise they

played?

L. FLETCHER PROUTY:

Well, take one of the most crucial roles. Certainly, everybody

wants to know who killed the President. How was he killed? What was

the technique that was used. And really, the answer has been before

us in the Press for years, and I guess most people didn't notice it

or didn't see it in the proper context.

President Lyndon Baines Johnson himself, when ex-President, just

before he died, had an interview with an old friend of his -- a

writer for the ATLANTIC MONTHLY Magazine. And, although I don't

have it laying here in front of me at the moment, I'll tell you

three things that Lyndon Johnson said during that interview that,

coming from the President, the man who was most involved -- at

least next to Kennedy -- in that whole affair. Johnson said these

things. He said, first of all: "I never believed that Oswald did

that by himself. Furthermore," he said, "I knew that there was a

conspiracy to kill Kennedy." I mean, he knew as he went along.

I'm not sure that he meant that he knew ahead of time. But, in

either case, those are his words. He said: "I have always felt

that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy."

But third -- and here he really said what answers your question.

He said: "WE", meaning the United States Government -- "We maintain

a Murder Incorported," and he added the words, "in the Caribbean"

because that was pertinent to the questions that were going on.

But this "Murder Incorporated" is Worldwide. And now the United

States Government maintains a "Murder Incorporated" capability, as

we see, from time to time, when assassinations or other tragic

terrorist movements [covert operations] take place. The people who

do that are professionals. And they work for certain elements of

the United States Government.

Now, President Johnson said that, and that was printed in the July

1973 issue of the ATLANTIC MONTHLY Magazine. Since that has been

put into the Press, then we can explore it a little more. Those

professionals whom the [Central Intelligence] Agency calls

"mechanics" are brought into Dallas. A small team. They do the job.

They kill the President. They leave. They're gone. That's the

murder!

The BIG crime after that is the cover story that we see every day.

For instance, this recent release by the American Medical

Association is ABSOLUTE COVER STORY! Who IS IT that's forcing that

ENORMOUS organization, that powerful organization, the American

Medical Association, just last week or the week before, to release

more cover story articles about the killing of the President that

are NOT true? Why are they being made to do this? Where is the

"power" that makes them do that? Therein is the explanation of

the assassination of the President!

GARY NULL:

Alright. Let's go through this. Who had the power to kill the

President and get away with it. Organized Crime could not have done

it and gotten away with it. Anti-Castroites could not have done it

and gotten away with it. And radically right-wing, conservative

politicians could not have done it and gotten away with it.

So who actually did it, and then who do you think ..... Separate

the cast of characters whom you feel did it, and then the cast of

characters who participated in the cover-up because whoever did it

had to have enough power to get the FBI to participate [in the

cover-up] because we know ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY -- it is a

matter of LAW and it is a matter of sworn testimony that the FBI

participated systematically in covering up, destroying, hiding

information that was absolutely essential to the investigation.

They participated in a crime at ALL levels, including the very

highest level with J. Edgar Hoover. Now, you do not get J. Edgar

Hoover and the FBI to consistently commit crimes, to break the laws

which they're supposed to be there to defend unless you're very

powerful. WHO, then, is more powerful than the FBI? And who is

more intimidating than J. Edgar Hoover who could get that done?

L. FLETCHER PROUTY:

This is one of the questions that Oliver Stone ran into as he was

developing the script and the concept of this movie, because there

aren't many of us in this country, in this World who accept the fact

that there are power centers. Winson Churchill called this power

center, during World War II, when he was talking with intimate

friends (This is written. This is clearly available to researchers)

.... He called it a "high cabal". Winston Churchill is talking

about a higher cabal than Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt

and Josef Stalin. He is talking about a power center, a "power

elite" that is ABOVE governments.

Buckminster Fuller, a man who had enormous experience with

governments .... he spent more time as a consultant to the Kremlin

than any other non-Russian. He spent hours and hours and days as a

consultant to Congress in our country. Buckminster Fuller was a man

of great experience. He wrote a book that we should ALL know called

"CRITICAL PATH". In that book, he speaks over and over and over again

about the "power elite". I've written a book about [titled]

"THE SECRET TEAM".

[some words lost when Prouty's phone line is cut off for

a few seconds]

.... because I myself have worked with people, in their own homes,

like [Eisenhower's Secretary of State] John Foster Dulles and

[Director of Central Intelligence] Allen Dulles. I have seen John

Foster Dulles pick up a special telephone. He didn't dial. He didn't

say anything except: "I want" so-and-so. And you could tell by the

name that it was a Soviet name -- a man in Russia. They talked for

a little while. He said "Thank you," hung up the phone and we went

right ahead with business. He had settled something.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,

please help to disseminate it by posting it to computer

bulletin boards, and by posting hardcopies in public places,

both on and off campus. As evidence accrues concerning the

corporate mass media's thirty year cover-up of the corporate

CIA's coup d'etat against the People of the United States,

the need for citizen reportage becomes ever more striking.

John DiNardo

The episodes of this and other series can be retrieved

via anonymous ftp from the site:

red.css.itd.umich.edu

Log in with name "anonymous" or "ftp" and supply your e-mail address

as the password. The files are kept in the directory

/pub/Politics/Essays/Conspiracy

Instructions for ftp retrieval are dependent upon what sort of system the

user is on. On a UNIX machine, at the command prompt, type the following:

ftp red.css.itd.umich.edu This may be different on IBMs and Vax systems.

Archivist: Paul Southworth, pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Article 4396 of alt.conspiracy.jfk:

Path: cbnewsl!att-out!oucsboss!sun!malgudi.oar.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!gatech!concert!uvaarpa!murdoch!hopper!jad

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Subject: Part 38, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Message-ID: <1993Mar10.180611.4222@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy

Organization: ITC/UVA Community Access UNIX/Internet Project

Lines: 140

The following transcript is of a tape-recorded broadcast

by NO-commercials, NO-corporate-influences, listener-funded,

beacon-of-truth Pacifica Radio Network station for the People:

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

COLONEL L. FLETCHER PROUTY:

There are people above our Government structure. And when those

power groups are threatened by a regime such as that which the

Kennedys were establishing in Washington (their own power center),

one of them has to give. And the Kennedys lost that one. So, we

have to accept that a "power elite" DOES exist. It's existing today.

And it keeps the cover story alive. That's bigger than the crime

itself because the cover story is covering the way our Government,

the way our lives are run today. Look around and see.

GARY NULL:

So, in other words, it's your feeling, based upon insider

information .... because you were an insider's insider. You were

Chief of Special Operations to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I mean,

you don't get any closer to the heart of the intelligence community

than that. Certainly, not at the Armed Forces level. And you were

also a senior Air Force officer in the Office of Special Operations

at the Office of the Secretary of Defense. And you were the liaison

with the Central Intelligence Agency in clandestine operations

[between the CIA and the U.S. Air Force]. So we have to trust that

your insights are unique.

So, you're telling us, very literally, that beyond the three

branches of our United States Government there is a "power" cabal

made up of individuals who represent industry, government and

business (within that, the world of high finance) who can make a

phone call and kill a story, make a phone call and take out a

contract, can put into motion any kind of effort that they deem

essential for THEIR economic or personal well-being, and that they

are beyond the law because they control all offices. They control

the Attorney-General of the United States, who is a political

appointee. And that's been relatively simple. Virtually all of the

Attorney-Generals, with the exception of two in the last thirty

years, have been extraordinarily reprehensible people. The "power"

cabal controls the Federal Bureau of Investigation, because we had

a very peculiar man running the FBI who had his own set of values.

They can control politicians. They control the Mass Media, which is

relatively simple because most, not all, of the Media are owned by

major corporations.

So, what you're saying is that these people [of the "power' cabal]

are simply a law unto themselves, and they stay out of the

spotlight, they don't seek publicity, but they do seek power.

And they maintain power through economic power. And they see to it

that they win, no matter what happens, on any level.

Is that what you're telling us?

L. FLETCHER PROUTY:

Gary, you're telling the story pretty straight. Let me add

something. It may sound kind of small and precise. But it's exactly

the kind of example that just draws a line under what you've said.

I happened to be in New Zealand, on the way back from the South

Pole, when I heard about President Kennedy being killed. And I just

heard that as a momentary flash over the radio. And, since I was

transient there, I didn't have the radio to keep listening. I went

out on the street and I looked for a newspaper. Before long, the

local paper in Christ Church, New Zealand printed The Star as an

extra. And on the front page of The Star, there was a large picture

of Kennedy, of course. And on the other side of the page, across

from that, there was a picture of the building, the Texas School

Book Depository that we've all heard about now, where the killer

was supposed to have been firing from. And, as I looked at that

picture, I saw that many windows were open. Now this was a picture

taken in real time. In other words, it was taken at the time that

the murder happened, or very close to that. And the picture was

flashed, by radio, around the World. And I turned to a congressman

who was with me, and I said: "Look, there's something wrong in

Dallas. The protective organization that we have in the Military

and the Secret Service, would NEVER have permitted overlooking

windows to be open when the President goes by."

Well, you see, there is an organization within the Military that is

trained for what we call the protection of the President. And one

of their jobs is to close windows in overlooking buildings, and so

on and so forth. But I found out, when I got back to the United

States, that the organization that should have been in Dallas

protecting the President had SOMEHOW been called by somebody who

knew the system, who knew the code words. And the commandant, the

commanding officer of that organization, had been told: "You're not

needed in Dallas. We're going to have another unit in Dallas." And

this is routine. There are many units. So he didn't go to Dallas.

But then he found out that NOBODY ELSE was there. Dallas was OPEN!

The Secret Service was not there at Dealey Plaza where the President

was killed. There were FALSE Secret Service people there. There

were FALSE military officers there. There were FALSE policemen

there. We have PHOTOGRAPHS of them. There are these photographs of

"the tramps" that a lot of people have seen, showing the policeman

in front of them and the policeman in back of them, leading them to

the sheriff's office. If you look carefully, the two policemen in

the photographs have different uniforms on. They are ACTORS!

The "tramps" are actors! And, if you've been in the business of

protecting the President, you KNOW that things like that

don't happen.

Now, there are only a FEW people who would KNOW -- who would have

the authority to tell those units that have been specially trained

to protect the President -- to tell them NOT to do their jobs!

It's like a fireman. You don't tell a fireman NOT to go when the

bells ring and the fire is across the street. He's trained to do it.

But suppose somebody said: "Don't go. There's going to be another

fire truck." That requires "power" from the top. That defines what

you were just talking about, Gary, and what I was talking about.

That defines the "power elite" who can come from the top and

nullify things. There's where the power is.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,

please help to disseminate it by posting it to computer

bulletin boards, and by posting hardcopies in public places,

both on and off campus. As evidence accrues concerning the

corporate mass media's thirty year cover-up of the corporate

CIA's coup d'etat against the People of the United States,

the need for citizen reportage becomes ever more striking.

John DiNardo

The episodes of this and other series can be retrieved

via anonymous ftp from the site:

red.css.itd.umich.edu

Log in with name "anonymous" or "ftp" and supply your e-mail address

as the password. The files are kept in the directory

/pub/Politics/Essays/Conspiracy

Instructions for ftp retrieval are dependent upon what sort of system the

user is on. On a UNIX machine, at the command prompt, type the following:

ftp red.css.itd.umich.edu This may be different on IBMs and Vax systems.

Archivist: Paul Southworth, pauls@css.itd.umich.edu

Article 20 of biz.clarinet.sample:

Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!rutgers!shelby!lll-winken!looking!clarinews

From: clarinews@clarinet.com

Newsgroups: clari.news.movies,biz.clarinet.sample

Subject: Kennedy statue must be removed for cleaning

Keywords: police, legal, art, movies

Message-ID: <2Rkennedy-statue_163@clarinet.com>

Date: 7 Aug 90 18:02:55 GMT

Followup-To: biz.clarinet.sample

Lines: 32

Approved: clarinews@clarinet.com

Xref: ns-mx biz.clarinet.sample:20

Location: new england states, massachusetts

ACategory: regional

Slugword: ma-kennedy-statue

Priority: regular

Format: regular

X-Supersedes: <1Rkennedy-statue_163@clarinet.com>

ANPA: Wc: 391; Id: u1507; Sel: bu--u; Adate: 8-7-2ped; Ver: insert

Codes: ynlprxb., yea.rma., yev.rxb.

Note: (ny) (editors: note language in 10thgraf) (2grafinsert after5thgraf xxx

statue.'' pickup6thgraf: No estimate -- adds name of foundry, time for cleaning)

BOSTON (UPI) -- A newly dedicated statue of President John F.

Kennedy in front of the Statehouse on Beacon Hill will be returned to

its foundry to clean graffiti from the memorial, officials said Tuesday.

A man apparently obsessed with the late actress Marilyn Monroe

claimed responsibility for spray-painting white splotches of paint and

the word ``murderer'' on the 8-foot bronze statue over the weekend.

Workers using a mild acid were able to hose the paint off the base

of the memorial, but did not attempt to treat the statue itself.

``They are going to move it,'' said Greg Arnold, superintendent of

state office buildings. ``They're going to take it back to the foundry

and try to put additional protection on it.''

Arnold said the cleansers used on the base of the memorial were not

suitable for the statue. ``It's a stone wash, and you can't do that to

the bronze and the patina of the statue.''

Noel Danforth, a spokeswoman for the legislative commission that

oversees the memorial, said the statue would be sent to the Tallix

Foundry in Beacon, N.Y.

``It's about a three to four week process, depending on how much

work they have to do on it and if they have to repatinate it,'' Danforth

said.

No estimate for the amount of damage to the statue was immediately

available. The statue was to be removed Wednesday, Arnold said.

The defacement took place on the 28th anniversary of Monroe's

suicide. The blond sexpot has been linked romantically to Kennedy in

published reports in recent years.

``The caller stated ... `Why don't you take a wild look at the JFK

statue in front of the Statehouse. The m----------r murdered Marilyn Monroe,

now it's his turn,'' said Capt. Paul Mahoney, commander of the Capitol

Police, which oversees state government buildings and grounds.

The statue, which depicts a striding Kennedy, was dedicated May 29

on what would have been Kennedy's 73rd birthday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KARL YOU MAY BE INTERESTED THIS IS THE INTERVIEW BY GARY NULL PACIFICA RADIO OF DR.CRENSHAW POSTED FOR ALL IN 1992 BY JOHN DINARDO ON THE ALTS..THE DAY OR THEREABOUTS THE JAAMA REPORT WAS FIRST ISSUED SCROLL WAY DOWN FOR HIS THERE ARE OTHERS AS WELL AS HARRIS LIVINGSTONE WHO ALSO GIVES HIS COMMENTS ON THE JAAMA REPORT....B..SORRY FOR THE CAPITALS...

PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

GARY NULL:

There is criticism on the part of the media to opening up the

John F. Kennedy assassination to a new investigation. However,

there are individuals who are willing to challenge this stance.

They feel that there are more than enough reasons to open up

the Warren Commission findings and to take another look;

even to convene another impartial group of researchers and

investigators who have subpoena power; even a special prosecutor,

if necessary, to delve into this issue without the FBI and the

CIA being the ones who are primarily responsible for giving the

information, as some doubt has been raised concerning their

objectivity in the original Warren Commission hearings and

research-gathering.

Our first guest on today's program is Harold Weisberg, the

House Subcommitee on Assassinations investigator, the author

of a book on Lee Harvey Oswald and the post-mortem, the whitewash

and the frame-up. He has also written a book on the assassination

of Martin Luther King. Welcome to our program, Mr. Weisberg.

I would like you to give us your professional assessment of the

House Select Committee on Assassinations -- since you were a

primary investigator there -- on their findings, on the Warren

Commission, and on ....

HAROLD WEISBERG:

I had no connection with the House Committee. I was the source

for most of the stories that appeared that were critical of them.

It was a synthetic duplication of the Warren Commission. It began

with the intent (now, I'm not talking about each individual

member. I'm talking about the staff who did it; especially

Blakey, the general counsel and chief-of-staff) .... It began

with the intent of putting down all the critics. Each hearing

-- each public hearing -- began with what he called "the

narration", and he picked out the critics whose work he was

going to address, and then the hearing was dedicated to debunking

them and proving them wrong. And I'm happy to say that there's

only one critic he managed to avoid; and that's me. He wasn't

going to pick a fight with me.

All of their [the Committee's] work was faulted in varying

degrees of ways, but they NEVER investigated the crime itself.

In that, they did exactly what the FBI did, and exactly what

the Warren Commission did. They did NOT -- any one of them --

investigate the crime itself.

Now, I think you should know that, unlike the other books,

there are no theories in my book. I'm a former investigative

reporter, a Senate investigator, an intelligence analyst; and

that's not my bag. And I don't think that that's what the people

of the country need for the democratic system to work. They're

factual. Now, I'm going to quote, accurately from memory, a

record I got through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

Perhaps it would help your audience to understand more about

where I'm coming from to say that I filed about a dozen Freedom

of Information Act lawsuits against the Government. Most of them

are on the Kennedy assassination. And most of the records I got

were from the FBI. In all, I have about a third of a million

pages of records. These are the same ones that Oliver Stone has

been promoting for himself in his movie by saying that they're

suppressed.

Now, from the Department of Justice and from the FBI I got a

record of a memorandum. Nicholas Katzenabach -- who was then

the Deputy Attorney-General of the United States and acting

Attorney-General as of the time in question, because Bobby

Kennedy was not there because of the crime and the tragedy.

He [Katzenbach] wrote Lyndon Johnson, through his [Johnson's]

channel, Bill Moyers, recommending to Lyndon Johnson that they

had to convince the country that Oswald was alone, that Oswald

was the assassin, that he had no confederates who were still

at-large, and that the evidence was such that he would be

convicted in trial. The typed copy is dated early Monday morning

the first working day after the assassination, November 25, 1963.

I also happen to have gotten Katzenbach's handwritten copy, which

he wrote when he had no typist available on Sunday. And from the

FBI I got a record which said that Katzenbach had discussed it

with [FBI Director] Hoover on Sunday, as soon as Oswald was killed.

So as soon as the Government knew that there would be no trial of

Lee Harvey Oswald, they closed the books, the crime was solved, and

that was it. So you see, when the crime itself was never

investigated, there are no leads for other people to follow. And I

address this so that your audience can understand that those

people, who develop theories and advance them as solutions, do it

without a factual basis. I don't know of any theory that is

factually supportable by the known evidence. And now I'm talking

about the official investigative reports of the FBI and things

like that which do establish some fact.

GARY NULL:

Okay, we thank you very much, Mr. Weisberg, for sharing your

views and for giving us this insight on this important piece of

critical information. I appreciate your being on with us today.

Let's go now to another guest who is standing by, who has a

different point of view, and who has additional information.

I would like to invite Jim Marrs [author of CROSSFIRE] onto our

program again. Welcome to our program, Jim.

I'd like to pick up where we left off yesterday. For those of you

who were not here yesterday and who didn't hear the program, we did

a careful assessment, going step-by-step through the events that

led up to the actual shooting, showing that the American Public

has never been made aware of the fact that earlier in the day, in

Fort Worth, there was also a motorcade for President Kennedy, but

that motorcade was substantially different. It was VERY very

heavily guarded, on proper protocol, by the Secret Service. And the

police were maintained, meaning that sharpshooters were stationed on

rooftops, no window was allowed to be opened, there was adequate

protection. But all of that was suspended at Dealey Plaza and for

the trip through Dallas. WHY? WHO was responsible? Who caused

the rescinding of these orders? Those are questions that have to

be thoroughly analyzed.

I would like just a brief summary of some of the points from

yesterday -- an overview of some of the discrepancies between

what we have been led to believe and what actually occurred.

Then I would like to go into the area that our previous guest,

Mr. Harold Weisberg has suggested -- that there is NO evidence

to support any of the assassination theories. I would like you to

give us YOUR information, your belief, and whatever documentation

you have that could, in any way, directly or indirectly, tie in

any of a number of proposed agendas such as the renegade CIA

agents, the knowledge that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover could

have known or may have known in advance that the assassination

was imminent, certain right-wing extremists, certain members of

the military, and also members of Organized Crime, and some

anti-Castro Cubans.

Now, all of these have been alleged -- depending upon the theorist

-- to have participated. But you have some unique insights and

and I would like you to share with us some of those insights at

this time.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Transcribed by John DiNardo

Article 15651 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part II, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:44:11 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep8.174411.10959@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the murder of President Kennedy

Lines: 145

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

JIM MARRS [author of CROSSFIRE]:

Well, first just let me say that the one thing I think that

everyone including Mr. Weisberg, including Gerald Ford, including

David Bigeley(?), including everybody who is connected with this

thing at this point .... I think the one thing that we can all

agree on is that there is substantial controversy over the death

of President Kennedy and over the subsequent investigation and

the medical evidence. Now, in this particular case, that

confusion, that controversy, that obfuscation, if you will, is

the basis of what can legitimately be called "the cover-up".

There should not have been a cover-up. There should not have been

this confusion. This was a case .... this was the President of

the United States, for God's sake. There was an autopsy at

Bethesda Naval Hospital. There was treatment at a reputable

hospital: Parkland, in Dallas. And there should not be this

confusion. There should be some very clear-cut answers based on

scientific, medical, forensic evidence to say: "Here's what

happened. He was shot three times from the rear." Or: "He was

shot once from the front and once from the rear." It should be

very clear, but it's NOT. It is TOTALLY muddled. It is TOTALLY in

confusion. And THAT is the nature of this cover-up. Not that

there has never been any information, but that there has been so

much information, and so much CONTRADICTORY information that it

has thrown the whole thing into confusion and controvery, so that

we can't seem to get to the bottom of this. I think that is very

self-evident.

Now, who has the power to do that? And who CAN do that? And who

could have saved us from all of this? The Federal Government!

The Government who supposedly had him autopsied. The Government

who supposedly is in charge of the investigation. It should have

been clear-cut, but it's not. And, to me, that shows, in an

overview, that the Government has been responsible for all this

confusion, rather than clearing it up and actually presenting us

with factual information as to what happened. So this is what is

causing all of the problems, because the Government is STILL

saying: "Well, there's nothing there. It's all cut and dried."

And yet, it's not.

You can look at the evidence for yourself. For instance, in the

medical evidence, I could go down the whole list of doctors in

Dallas who said that he had a large gaping hole in the right rear

portion of his head. Even Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent

who jumped up on the back of the car in a vain effort to save his

life; in his Warren Commission testimony he says, quite bluntly,

quite to the point: "The right rear portion of his head was

missing." End-quote. Okay? How much clearer do you want to be?

And every doctor in Dallas backed him up. Doctor Jones says that

there was a large defect in the back side of his head. Dr. Perry

said: "I noted a large evulsive wound in the right

parieto-occipital area." I could go on and on and on. They all

said the same thing: that there was a gaping hole in the right

rear portion of his head. But today, we have an autopsy

photograph that has come out of the Government that purports to

show the back of President Kennedy's head, and there's no large

gaping hole there. All there is is a small hole that the House

Committee told us was an entrance wound. And yet, the autopsy

doctor, Dr. Humes, in his testimony to the House Committee said:

"Well, I don't know what that was, but that wasn't any wound of

entrance. And I know that for sure." Okay? So what's going on

here? I mean, the confusion points the finger at what REALLY is

going on, and at who is generating all this. And it's the Federal

Government!

GARY NULL:

Alright, so let's take a look here. You're suggesting that the

Government, or various members of different areas of the

Government have participated in a systematic cover-up.

JIM MARRS:

Absolutely! For instance, the Warren Commission tells us -- and

the people who defend the Warren Commission to this very day tell

us -- that one of the shots (it started off that it was the first

shot. Now they're backing up by saying: Well, maybe it was the

second one or the third one) .... but one of the shots, they say,

went through Kennedy's neck and did not hit anything. It went on

to strike Governor Connally, causing all of his wounds --

which has become known as "the single bullet theory"; this idea

that one bullet went through both men. This is the foundation of

the "single assassin theory". Okay? If you don't have one bullet

going through two men, then you've got more bullets, which means

more shooters, which means a conspiracy involving more than one

gunman. So to keep from having to admit that, they came up with

the "single bullet theory" which says that one bullet went

through Kennedy's neck and struck Connally.

Now, the problem is that the bullet did not go through his neck.

The Warren Commission plainly states that it hit him in the

middle of the back -- the third thoracic vertebrae, between the

shoulder blades. Doctor Humes places it there in the

Siebert-O'Neill FBI Report of the autopsy. His jacket and his

shirt, in the National Archives, show a bullet hole in the middle

of the back. Well, if there's a bullet hole in the middle of the

back, and you try to track that to the throat wound -- which is

what they do -- now you've got an upward trajectory, which

destroys the idea that this bullet somehow cursed downward and

struck Governor Connally. Plus, you've got Governor Connally's

wrist X-ray, which shows that there are still more pieces of

bullet in his wrist today than are missing off of the bullet that

the Government still claims caused the wound. So it's very

obvious that they're simply lying about what went on.

We now have the January 27th minutes of the Warren Commission, in

which their Chief Counsel admits that since we have a picture of

where the bullet entered the back, that it's below the place

where it came out the front. So how could it go and turn around,

etc.? They knew it, and so they chose to lie to us and simply

claim that the bullet went through his neck. And the supporters

of the Warren Commission are still telling us the same thing,

although this is totally opposite to what the medical evidence

shows us.

So it's a huge thing. You have to look at the totality of this

case. Any one particular issue can be picked apart or explained

away or rationalized as coincidence or happenstance, but if you

look at the total picture, you can begin to get an understanding

of what really went on.

GARY NULL:

Alright, Jim Marrs, I want you to hold on, because we're going to

present some new information. By the way, Jim Marrs is an award-

winning reporter for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and he was a

reporter at the time of the assassination for the Denton Record-

Chronicle. He teaches at the University of Texas at Arlington.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,

please assist in disseminating it by posting it to other

networks, and by posting hardcopies in public places,

both on and off campus. As evidence accrues concerning the

mass media's thirty year cover-up of the coup d'etat

against the People of the United States, the necessity of

citizen reportage becomes ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 15678 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part III, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:54:18 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep9.155418.16387@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 157

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

Now, just today -- just less than an hour ago -- the American

Medical Association gave it's official position on the Kennedy

assassination, and a Doctor George Lundberg, the editor of the

Journal of the American Medical Association and Editor-in-Chief

of Scientific Publications of JAMA, read their position paper,

and I'll just quote something from it. Later in the show we're

going to come back to this, because we have a part of the press

conference recorded by WBAI. It says:

"The recent Crenshaw book"

(and we had Dr. Crenshaw on the show)

"is a sad fabrication based upon unsubstantiated allegations. The best

explanation for the motivations of myriad conspiracy theorists are

paranoia, the desire for personal recognition, public visibility and profit.

Anyhow, it says that this is all nonsense. There was no

conspiracy; that the Warren Commission was right. And THAT was

the press conference. We'll get more on the press conference, but

I just want you to know that finally JAMA (and I don't know why

JAMA would be sticking it's nose into something that it knows

nothing about, to begin with) came out and felt the need to hold

a press conference to say that the Warren Commission was right.

Everyone (they say) in the field writing books, doing broadcasts,

or offering information to the public, must be doing it for profit,

recognition or some other [personal] motive.

JIM MARRS:

I've got news for them. Talk to anybody who has known me and

they'll tell you that I've been making the same criticisms since

the early `70s, and I certainly never made any money. In fact,

people ....

GARY NULL:

Jim, let me ask you something. Have you ever been found guilty, in

an extended trial, of restraint of trade, monopolistic practices,

and, if so, was that conviction upheld all the way clear up to

all the different appeals courts, and now the conviction is

final?

JIM MARRS:

Not me.

GARY NULL:

Well that has happened to the American Medical Association. So,

when the AMA has the audacity to come onto a press conference --

with the muddled background that they have for having been caught

engaging in the restraint of trade and in monopolistic practices

-- claiming that others have ulterior motives, I think it's

absolutely absurd.

JIM MARRS:

Anybody who knows anything knows that the AMA is a FIRM supporter

of the status quo, and that it has been highly political for

years. And I would ascribe political motives to almost anything

that they do. The point that I want to make here is -- if my

understanding is correct -- if they are simply quoting from the

two autopsy doctors who worked on President Kennedy, well then,

this is just an affirmation [of that autopsy]. Of course, those

doctors are going to say the same things they said in 1963 and

1964, and it's going to support the Warren Commission's

contention. But this is a diversion. This is a red herring. This

is not the issue. The issue is that what the autopsy doctors saw

was not the same as what the doctors saw [at Parkland Hospital]

in Dallas. And there is a very DEEP discrepancy between the

wounds as viewed in Dallas .... I just quoted you all these

people who said that there was a large hole in the back of his

head. This was not seen at the autopsy -- or not reported. So

we've got some real discrepancies here, and this particular

little news conference and their pronouncements are simply

skirting the issue.

GARY NULL:

Okay, Jim, I want you to hold on because we're going to introduce

some new evidence and a new individual to our conference here.

He is Harrison Edward Livingstone, the author of HIGH TREASON II.

Welcome to our program, Mr. Livingstone.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

Thanks for inviting me.

GARY NULL:

I would like to go straight to some of the most important issues,

and if you would, please give us the research that you have

uncovered on these. First, I would like to have you review, from

your perspective, the eyewitness descriptions of Kennedy's real

wounds.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

Well, as you know, I've been able to interview almost every

living medical witness. I did not talk to Doctor Clark, although

he gave me certain answers through his secretary, twelve years

ago. I have talked to Doctor Humes, but I can't say that anything

was productive there, even after as much as an hour of talk.

But, other than that, my book presents the most complete history

of what these doctors are saying today, and put in perspective of

what they said and wrote in 1963. No other book or writer or

researcher has achiveved this.

GARY NULL:

We're not here to promote your book, as such. We're here for you

to please share your information with us. So if you could, please

go right to the information. Would you talk about the evidence of

forgery and retouching of the autopsy photographs and X-rays?

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

[initial words were drowned out by Gary Null's voice]

.... doctors and the two autopsies. And the point being that they

are trying to head off at the pass the research that I have just

published, and for no other reason; also [they're targeting] Doctor

Crenshaw's book and his statements. They made a number of totally

false statements at this press conference. For instance, that

Crenshaw (they quoted other doctors, and this is an example of how

they cooked their article by the American Medical Association) ....

that Crenshaw was not present at the autopsy -- when if you go and

read in Volume Six of the Warren Commission books, he is mentioned

by almost every doctor as having been there. And he was certainly

in a position to observe the wounds and to see what was going on.

And it doesn't take anybody more than an idiot to know that a

bullet is either an entry hole through the skin of the neck, or

it's an exit, because, if it's coming out, it's going to make

quite a tear. And anybody, basically, would see the difference.

I was pretty stunned, as you probably know, because I was at this

press conference today. You ask: Why is JAMA [the Journal of the

American Medical Association] doing this at this time, and I'm

just telling you there is only one reason why they're doing it.

It's because the whole cover-up perpetrated by the Government in

this case is directly threatened by the research that I have done

and by my making it possible for Crenshaw and the other doctors

to come forward.

GARY NULL:

Alright. Would you give us some link between Richard Nixon's men

and John Kennedy's killers that ties the assassination directly

to Watergate? And could you please give us the facts?

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention,

please assist in disseminating it by posting it to other networks,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty

year cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the

People of the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage

becomes ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 2723 of alt.conspiracy.jfk:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part IV, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 12:12:09 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep11.121209.3771@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 152

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

Before I get to that, you had asked me a question on this medical

evidence. Do you recall?

GARY NULL:

Yes. I asked you for the evidence of forgery and retouching in

the autopsy photographs and X-rays.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

This is my special area of research. I discovered that the X-rays

were fake in that they show the entire face missing on the right

side. And again, this is what JAMA tried to head off at the press

conference today. They tried to ridicule criticism of the medical

evidence without facing these facts. And I asked them at the

press conference: "Didn't you notice that the face is missing --

that the President's face is missing in the X-rays, but it's NOT

missing in the photographs?" And, of course, at that point, the

press conference became tumultuous, and the whole thing began to

be overturned. The photographs, of course, show extensive

retouching and evidence of forgery. And this was directly how the

Chief Justice of the United States was tricked -- with this faked

evidence. The doctors, most recently (quite a few that JAMA did

not interview, and they don't dare interview, and if they did,

like other researchers, they're not going to report it) ....

because those doctors insist, to this day, that that throat wound

WAS an entry hole. And the many people who were at the autopsy

.... and Doctor Fink, the forensic pathologist who was at the

autopsy, who was not interviewed by JAMA, and whom they claimed

declined, and I've talked to him. But he testified that the hole

in the back was an entry hole that did not penetrate into the

chest. So what JAMA did -- and as Jim Marrs just said: They're a

political action committee that doesn't dare let this evidence

link up because .... they've kept it compartmentalized. I asked

them: "What about Doctor Humes's stating at the end of his

testimony to Arlen Specter that the bullet that hit John Connally

could not possibly have been the same bullet that went through

John Kennedy because of the fragments that were found in Connally?"

They said: "We did not discuss John Connally in this article.

It's not relevant." So that's an example of compartmentalizing

the evidence by a political action committee which has sought

to control the medical community in this country.

GARY NULL:

Okay. Let's try to go back to the photographs. And please, if

you would, try to keep .... we have limited time and we want the

opportunity for you to give us as much information as you can.

Let's go specifically to the fraud that you are asserting, and

on the retouching of the photographs that no one else in the media

has picked up on.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

Right. This is the key to the case, right now. The Chief Justice,

Earl Warren (and he mentions in his memoirs that he was shown

autopsy photographs) [said] that he was tricked by phony

photographs and X-rays which apparently show a shot that came from

behind. They claim that there is an entry hole in the area of the

cowlick, although the autopsists, Doctors Humes and Boswell, told

the committee of doctors at the House of Representatives that

they denied .... He said: I defy you to see this hole here where

you say it is; that this is not a hole. It's something else. And

it was four inches -- as the Clark Panel found in 1968 -- from

where that entry hole was placed in the autopsy report by Doctor

Humes and Doctor Boswell. It was four inches above it. Then,

showing the face missing in the X-rays and not showing Earl

Warren the photographs that showed the President's face intact

made him think that his face was blown away. And that's what we

see in the Zapruder film. And I believe that that's animated.

GARY NULL:

Okay, let's go to some specific references. I'm looking now at a

photograph of John Kennedy. It's called "the stare of death"

photograph. And I'd like for you to talk about the reference

black triangle that appears on the right upper forehead of

Kennedy in this photograph.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

Yes, if you have a clear print of that in the negative, in the

negative there is no light whatsoever that comes through that

triangle. It's much clearer in a clear print. In my book, we were

able to do the best possible reproductions, but, of course,

they're screened and it's not that clear. But in a comparable

right profile photograph, which we publish there, you can see

what has been covered up. And they're from two DIFFERENT sets of

photographs. One, with the reference black triangle is known as

"the Fox set of photographs" which came into the possession of

Mark Crouch, who was a friend of the Secret Service man, James K.

Fox, who took the rolls of film from Bethesda Naval Hospital over

to be developed in the Navy labs. The other set of photographs,

which were in the possession of Robert Groden, show that there is

a major laceration extending into the forehead of the President.

This was NOT seen in Dallas, but two of the autopsy doctors did

describe this laceration to me. They brought it up. I did not

bring it up. And they told me about the laceration going a half

an inch into the forehead above the right eye. That's where that

reference black triangle is. What the reasons were for covering

it up in some of those photographs are not clear to me. I can't

answer that question. All I know is that they conflict with each

other -- these two different pictures, as do many of the

photographs conflict with each other.

GARY NULL:

Also, it's very clear that the whole right side of the head is

blackened out, and only the ear is visible. That is CLEARLY

retouching.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

That's it. And the whole back of the head, extending around

behind to the right ear was missing. And a major part of my

research was to try to resolve the puzzles of the medical

evidence. Exactly what did the wounds look like? I was able to

determine -- by having the doctors and the witnesses at the

autopsy and in Dallas draw on mannequin heads -- exactly where

the bone defect was and how much scalp was missing. And they are

identical. The wound was not altered, but there was a large hole

that went all the way around to the side of the head. The autopsy

report is accurate in that respect, but the problem was that

there was sort of a flap of scalp that was badly macerated and it

did have an egg-shaped-sized hole through it. But it could not

possibly cover up all of the missing bone that was underneath

there. And this caused a lot of confusion among engineers and

accountants and other people with that mindset who do this

research, because they can't semantically separate out the

issues, for instance, between alteration and tampering, or

between laceration and incision. A lot of the confusion in the

case (in the medical evidence) is semantic, so I was able to

determine that the body was not altered. It may have been

tampered with, but even that doesn't appear to have been

necessary when all they really had to do was to fake the

photographs and flash them at Earl Warren who put them aside

immediately because of their gore.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 15763 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part V, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:56:49 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep14.165649.23560@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 160

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

Alright, now there are two other very VERY important issues here.

And they are that the photographs of John Kennedy's body, where

he is on his face, lying on his stomach here, it shows ....

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

Lying on his back. There's no picture of him lying on his

stomach.

GARY NULL:

Oh, okay. Yeah, it's been turned around there. I have a picture

of his back, and the first bullet hole ....

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

He's lifted up from the table -- yes.

GARY NULL:

Okay. The first bullet hole is about four inches, it looks like,

below the ....

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

Well the larger hole is not the hole. It's about two inches below

that. You'll see a small red thing, closer to the roller, and

that, the men all state, was a hole. And they also indicate that

that deep depression down toward the bottom of the roller is a

bullet hole.

GARY NULL:

Yeah, well there are two bullet holes in his back. How can a man

have two bullet holes in his back, and then ....

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that there were

gunmen all around that car. In Senator Dodd's report -- that was

appended to the House Committee report when he was in the House

of Representatives -- stated that there were at least three

gunmen firing, and two of them had to have been from behind,

because of the closeness of the shots. There ARE six shots on

that Dallas [motorcycle] police tape recording.

GARY NULL:

Yeah, but you see, the Warren Commission does not state that.

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

No! They say that three shots were fired and two struck the

President.

GARY NULL:

Also, you have the entire back of the head shown very clearly,

and you do not see the ....

HARRISON LIVINGSTONE:

No. Part of that is not clear at all. You see the area that's out

of focus there. The background is in focus and the foreground --

where the cowlick [is] closest to the lens of the camera -- is in

focus. But the area all along the hairline from behind the ear

down to the center of the neck (in the hair) is out of focus. And

that's where they smudged all that over when they made their

composite photograph.

GARY NULL:

Alright, what I'd like to do is this. Let's just summarize here

for a moment. What we have are some CLEARLY retouched

photographs. We have more bullet holes in the President's body

than the Warren Commission, or any of the so-called "official"

investigations, have recognized. How in the world does a man end

up with this many proveable bullet holes, and yet, still have

one man doing all the shooting? Some of these bullet holes are

clearly exit wounds. Some are entrance wounds. And yet, the

Warren Commission has, for whatever reason, only presented that

these were rear entrance wounds. The autopsy photographs HAVE

been altered. The X-rays HAVE been altered. It is not possible to

end up with an X-ray .... Let's say if you took a normal anterior

/posterior skull X-ray, and then you took the Kennedy anterior/

posterior skull X-ray -- the Kennedy lateral skull X-ray --

there's an amount of facial bone that's missing. If this were

presented in any regular forensic trial today, it would be

LAUGHABLE. The evidence would be thrown out as inadmissible and

faulty.

We're going to take a brief break. I'd like both Jim Marrs

[author of CROSSFIRE] and also, our guest on the phone right now

-- who just returned from the press conference -- Harrison Edward

Livingstone, who needless to say, was part of the reason that the

AMA called this hasty press conference (and the press conference

itself you'll hear a little later on. We tape recorded some of

it) .... we're going to get to some information that I think the

people in this audience have always wondered about. Are you aware

that not ONCE were we ever given the real reason as to why the

Watergate Break-In occurred? What was in the safe they were

looking for? Why did CIA people go into that safe? Why did Nixon

authorize it? That brought down the whole Nixon Administration

-- about sixty-seven of his top cronies. Why? We were never

asked that! The media never probed it further than what was

given to them.

Well, you're going to hear something when we come back, about the

link between Richard Nixon's men and John Kennedy's killers that

ties the assassination directly to Watergate.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[JD: There was an incident which remains vivid in my memory, and

it has never been explored by anyone, though it might provide

a fuller picture of the possible link between the Watergate

Break-In and the assassination of President Kennedy.

Those of you who are old enough will recall the numerous

Presidential press conferences of Richard Nixon during which

he was interrogatively flayed and driven to the brink of

impeachment by a concerted onslaught from the press corps,

members of which have since been alleged to be journalistic

prostitutes for the CIA (e.g. Walter Cronkite and, I think,

Dan Rather, notorious among many). In one of those press

conferences (I think it may have been the "I'm not a crook!"

press conference) a reporter asked Nixon [i'm paraphrasing]:

You said something about the John Kennedy assassination as

an example or an analogy ....

And then, Nixon cut him off and exclaimed, with distress:

"No, no, no! I didn't mean to imply that I know any more

about that assassination than anyone else does."

Nixon's tenseness at this moment was striking.

Since then, I have been suspicious that Nixon might have

knowledge, if not some involvement in the assassination.

What ought to be examined is a tape of that press

conference so that perhaps a scientific voice analysis

can be done to indicate, albeit not to prove, that Nixon

was lying about his lack of knowledge of any unreported

evidence surrounding the assassination of John Kennedy.

If enough people wish to collaborate on such a project,

we may be able to finance the purchase of the tape and the

voice analysis with small cost to everyone involved.

Please send me e-mail if you are interested.

John DiNardo

jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com or jad@att!ckuxb

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 15807 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part VI, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 15:53:10 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep16.155310.24072@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 123

I made the following transcript from a tape recording of a

broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

GARY NULL:

We're also going to talk about proof of fraud and disinformation

campaigns WITHIN the assassination research community, and how a

United States Senator and two former Presidents personally

covered up facts in the case. And we're also going to talk about

proof that bullets WERE removed from the President's body at

Bethesda Naval Hospital before the autopsy began. That's just

some of what we're going to talk about today. New information;

very powerful information. And, contrary to what my first guest

suggested (and I respect that each guest can have their own point

of view, and everyone has the right to have a point of view, even

if it differs with other people on the show) he suggested that

there was no hard data. This is as good data as can be produced.

Now I'm going to ask our guest, Jim Marrs, you're going to have

about ten minutes, and Harrison Edward Livingstone, you're going

to have about ten minutes. You can take a break, because you're

talking on the commercial-free Pacifica Radio station in

New York, WBAI, 99.5 FM, a 50,000 watt station. I've been here

for fifteen years. We work for free -- those of us on the air,

and we ask, three times a year, for pledges from the station's

listners to help support our efforts.

[JD: My apologies for missing the subsequent discourse.

I'm trying to obtain a tape of it. If and when I do,

I'll promptly transcribe it for you. However, I have taped

numerous hours of information covering the succeeding

episodes in the series. So the following transcript resumes

the discussion with the next day's broadcast in the series.]

GARY NULL:

Alright, David, if you could, please, would you go through this

evidence in some detail? You're making a lot of statements and a

a lot of allegations. We'd like you now to substantiate the

differences between the official version.

DAVID LIFTON:

Okay. With regard to the casket, for example, the witness who

opened the casket .... the persons who saw the casket come in the

back door of Bethesda Naval Hospital, and who actually unloaded

it are Dennis David, the chief-of-the-day at Bethesda Naval

Hospital and a man named Don Rabbatisch [sp] who was actually one

of the casket toters, so to speak -- who took it out of the black

hearse in which it arrived.

The account of Dennis David is that he is at the back of the

hospital. He is in charge of part of the security function. He is

told that the President's body is going to arrive there. They go

down. The black hearse pulls in. He assembles some of his men.

Don Rabbatisch is one of them. They bring the casket inside.

A black hearse pulls up. There's a group of plainclothesmen and

two men in O.R. smocks. They get out of the ambulance. The

shipping casket (and that's what it was: a shipping casket) is

removed from the black hearse. It is brought onto the loading

dock and it is brought to the door of the morgue. In the door of

the morgue is Paul O'Connor. He's the medical technician listed

in the FBI reports, and who is also listed in the official Navy

records, and in the House Select Committee records. He opens the

casket which is a shipping casket, according to O'Connor. Inside

the shipping casket is a body bag. He unzips the body bag, puts

the President's body, along with others in the morgue, on the

table. He said that when the wrapping was removed from the head

area, there was a gasp in the room, and he said: "and I looked

down and said, `My God, there's no brain!'" And you could see

this. It was apparent. The FBI, at that time, writes notes. They

write a report that weekend. In their report, which was not

published with the Warren Commission documents, but is at the

National Archives, they write that when the body was removed from

the casket in which it was transported, it was (quote) "apparent

that there had been surgery to the head area; namely in the top

of the skull." And that's the official record. That's the

evidence.

Now, the Warren Commission did not know about most of this

evidence that I am talking about here. They did not perform this

kind of analysis. They did not establish what, in law, is called

a "chain of possession" on the body. So the Navy commander who

performed the autopsy simply comes before the Commission, raises

his right hand and testifies as to the condition of the body.

And they accept that autopsy report which states that President

Kennedy was shot twice from behind, based on wounds you see on

the body which were NOT on the body in Dallas, if you compare

Dallas versus Bethesda -- Dallas being where the President was

shot, Bethesda being where the autopsy was performed six hours

later. Based on the Bethesda wound pattern, President Kennedy IS,

or appears to be, in fact, shot twice from behind. Based on the

Dallas wound pattern, he was NOT.

Now ordinarily, you would trust the autopsy over the accounts of

the doctors at Dallas, because the autopsy is better evidence.

It's, in fact, the "best evidence". It's based on the body of the

President. But the irony is that, in this case, there is a

subterfuge, and, in fact, the body was altered. That's what my

book was all about: persuading the reader that there is evidence

that the body was altered, and that this is the reason why the

evidence looks the way it does. I might just add that if you

start with this evidence in 1992, the same evidence that they had

in 1963, unless this autopsy is overturned, you're going to come

to the same conclusion: that Oswald shot the President. This

autopsy is the legal foundation for that whole house of cards.

It cannot collapse unless the autopsy is overturned in a

definitive fashion.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 15839 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part VII, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 16:16:26 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep18.161626.13759@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 132

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

What would have been the sequence of events to have allowed the

brain to have been removed, since there is no evidence that it

was removed in Dallas during the procedures that were performed

on the body at that time?

DAVID LIFTON:

If I understand you correctly, you're asking me when was the body

stolen. Is that what you're saying?

GARY NULL:

Yes. When was it stolen, and why would they have removed the

brain, and where did the brain next appear?

DAVID LIFTON:

The only time that the body could have been taken out of the casket

(and this is covered in the conclusion of my book), and the only

time (I don't want to say that the casket is unguarded because

there are always Secret Service agents around, and you cannot have

this go forward without the connivance of some Secret Service agents),

but the only time that the Kennedys aren't all over that casket is

when they come back to Air Force One after the shooting. That is,

after the President is pronounced dead at Parkland Hospital,

a coffin is obtained -- a large viewing casket which everybody sees

on national TV. They go out to Love Field with the President's body

in the casket. They go aboard the aircraft and they learn that

there is going to be a delay. "Why," they ask. "Why can't they

take-off immediately for Washington?" "Well," they're told,

"Lyndon Johnson is aboard this aircraft. He didn't go back to

Washington on the other plane. He's on this plane."

And he appears and says: "I spoke to Bobby Kennedy, and Bobby

Kennedy said, `Delay the flight. I must be sworn in first in the

state of Texas.'" This is all denied that night by Bobby Kennedy

who tells his sister-in-law Jacqueline Kennedy that he said no such

thing to Lyndon Johnson; that he (Johnson) called Bobby Kennedy,

who was Attorney-General in Washington, and said: I'm being told

that I should be sworn in. Do you have any objections; that it

wasn't the other way around.

Anyway, the result of this is that the flight is delayed by about

a half-hour, and basically, the Kennedys (Mrs. Kennedy and the

Kennedy aides) are told or requested to come to the front of the

plane to witness the swearing in. It is in connection with this

activity of "delay the flight and let's go to the front of the

plane for the swearing in" .... that's the only time that the

Kennedy party is not all over that casket. That's the time, I

believe, (and it's a process of elimination, I will concede. I

don't have a direct witness; otherwise I'd have solved the Kennedy

assassination) .... but it's during that period that the body

must have been taken out of the casket and put into some other

casket and brought somewhere. I personally believe, at the time I

wrote BEST EVIDENCE, that the body was flown to Washington, D.C.,

and that the alterations occurred on the East Coast after the

plane landed at Andrews Air Force Base at six o'clock. And I

cited, as evidence, helicopter activity on the starboard side;

that is, the side facing away from public view -- and from radio

transmissions indicating that they were going to go with the body

to Walter Reed Army Hospital where (quote) "an autopsy was to be

conducted under guard." And all that's on the radio. And I

spelled it out in my book.

Now, it's an unsolved mystery as to where this body was taken.

But wherever it happened, that's where the brain would be removed

and the wounds altered. It would be done very quickly. It was

done VERY sloppily, I might add. And that's why, when the body

arrived without a brain, it was immediately noted that there had

been surgery to the head area. That's what the FBI wrote down.

We're not dealing with some kind of perfect fraud here. We're

dealing with a very imperfect crime with footprints all over the

place; footprints which are ignored by the Warren Commission

because they saw the crime -- or you might say they saw these

events through very Establishment eyes. They never questioned any

of this stuff that's brought up in my book.

GARY NULL:

When did the brain next appear?

DAVID LIFTON:

A brain is infused, in the autopsy room, by another technician:

James Jenkins. Now let me explain this. It's kind of interesting.

There were three technicians in the room: a guy named Ranicki, a

fellow named Paul O'Connor and a fellow named Jenkins. Paul

O'Connor gives me the account (and it's a thing that he will

never forget. It just came out of his mouth when I interviewed

him in 1979), that the cranium is empty. There's no brain, etc.

And on the chart where the body organ weights are listed (a chart

which is perfectly authentic. It has little pink spots on it.

That's Kennedy's blood. It's in the National Archives today)

there is no weight given for the brain, but there is a weight for

many of the other body organs.

That night, at some point -- and I don't know when -- a brain is

brought into the room. That brain is given to James Jenkins,

another technician. James infuses that brain with formaldehyde.

And that brain becomes the evidence brain. It is weighed ten days

later, or something. It's weight is recorded in a supplementary

brain report. When I confronted O'Connor, on camera, with the fact

that there is this brain, he said: "Well I don't know where they

got it from. It certainly couldn't have been the President's!"

In other words, it did not arrive in the body. Now, that's the way

an autopsy is supposed to happen. The body is supposed to have the

body parts inside it. You know, we're not dealing with United

Parcel Service where you send something and say: "See attached."

The brain is supposed to come in the cranium. Now, a brain is

definitely brought into the room. I do not know how it got into

the room. I can just tell you that James Jenkins infused a brain

that night, whereas Paul O'Connor said that the cranium was empty.

And by the way, O'Connor's account is corroborated by the X-ray

technician who said that the hole was so large and the thing was

so empty that he could have put his hands inside the hole.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 2820 of alt.conspiracy.jfk:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part VIII, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 12:50:12 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep22.125012.13133@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 140

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

Alright. We're going to be speaking with Paul O'Connor in just a

few moments. We have him on the show, as well, because we wanted

indidividuals who could corroborate your information.

But right now, we're going to ask you to remain on hold. We're in

the midst of a WBAI fund-raising [period] ....

.... My show is on the air five days a week bringing programs to

you that will give you insights. Like right now we're doing a

whole series on Government agendas and hidden agendas, and the

conspiracies. We're targetting, right now, the [John] Kennedy

Assassination, just because that assassination is something that

everyone would agree had a major national impact. The trouble is,

what we were told is the OFFICIAL position doesn't blend with what

other researchers and first-hand observers are suggesting were the

actual cases. And then, we have to ask: Why would someone cover-up

this information? Why? Why would the media not report it? Why

would the Government not investigate it? Why would the Warren

Commission not explore it? So we're looking at that.

Right now, on our program (and I want to thank our guests for

being patient and for standing by) is David Lifton, the author of

BEST EVIDENCE. He is suggesting that there were two caskets, one

body; and that the body arrived without a brain; and that the

brain that we were told was President Kennedy's brain may have,

indeed, been someone else's; that there was a gaping hole large

enough to put a fist through when it arrived in Washington; and

that therefore, there had been alterations.

Now, let us see what other corroboration we could have for this.

We have, on the conference phone right now, Dr. Charles Crenshaw.

Dr. Crenshaw, who graduated from the Parkland Memorial Hospital in

Dallas, Texas, who specializes in general surgery, is presently

the chairman and director of the Department of Surgery at Saint

Peters-Smith Hospital, in the Fort Worth area. He is a professor

of clinical surgery at the University of Texas, Southwestern

Health Center's Science Center in Dallas. Welcome to our program,

Dr. Crenshaw.

DR. CRENSHAW:

Thank you.

GARY NULL:

By the way, Dr. Crenshaw is also the author of a very important

work on the Kennedy Assassination called, JFK: THE CONSPIRACY OF

SILENCE, which right now, I believe, is number one on the New York

Times bestseller list. Isn't it?

DR. CRENSHAW:

Yes, it is.

GARY NULL:

And, by the way, THREE other books on the top-ten bestseller list

are also about this assassination, so CLEARLY there is interest.

Would you be good enough to explain to us the inconsistencies

between your EYEWITNESS account and the official report upheld by

the Warren Commission?

DR. CRENSHAW:

That day, on November the 22nd, 1963, all of the surgeons at

Parkland believed that our President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was

shot at least once from the front. We saw two wounds there. Both

of them were from the front. The head wound was tangential in

nature, coming in over the right side, above his ear, and leaving

a large exit area, a vulsed[?] area in the right-rear part of the

head. There was loss of part of the parietal, temporal and most

of the occipital lobe of the right cerebral hemisphere, with

exposure of the cerebellum. It was about two-and-a-half to two-

and-three-fourths inches in diameter. It was more or less

circular. And in the photos from the National Archives -- which

are so damaging -- this wound had completely vanished. There was

no wound seen in the exhibits that are marked "B" and "E" in the

book. This wound, that ALL of the physicians at Parkland

described, was completely gone. The second wound was in the

anterior part of the neck. It was about three to six millimeters

in size and with an arc the size of your little finger. It was

clearly demarcated as round and relatively clean-cut. Then the

tracheal tube that had been put down was ineffective. And then

Dr. Perry performed a tracheostomy through the entrance wound.

The incision was sharp with smooth edges, and about an inch to

and inch-and-a-half long. It was no longer than the flange on the

tracheostomy tube, which was one-and-three-fourths inches. Not

only that, after the nurses had removed this tracheostomy tube

before we placed him in the coffin, it was brought back again.

The edges were still smooth and very sharp. And in the autopsy

photographs that I first saw in looking for the head wound, this

wound was widely gaping, it was irregular, and it was now about

two-point-five to three inches long. So there was CLEARLY a

change between these wounds, that I saw at Parkland, and the

wounds that we saw on the autopsy pictures that were given from

the National Archives.

GARY NULL:

Why didn't you or others at the scene later complain or even make

an issue or an affidavit showing that this was an alteration?

DR. CRENSHAW:

We never saw the photos. The first time I saw these was in early

1991. The Parkland physicians were never given this opportunity.

They were only told about the additional wounds (which I doubt

whether there was another wound in the back of the head, because

I looked there) and were never told or shown any other evidence.

We were told only about the autopsy. And we, like most people,

felt that they would have had the best forensic minds in our

country to examine our President. However, obviously, [from] what

has been discussed and what we now know, [that assumption] was wrong.

And so, we had no other knowledge other than the description by the

Secret Service.

GARY NULL:

So if you had the description by the Secret Service, by an

extension of this logic, the Secret Service or someone would have

had to participate in this cover-up, or this obstruction of

information. Would that be a reasonable assumption?

DR. CRENSHAW:

I think that's a very reasonable assumption.

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 15923 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part IX, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1992 13:24:03 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep24.132403.3774@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 171

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

GARY NULL:

Alright. Do you believe that the shots came just from the Book

Depository, or from the Grassy Knoll, or from where?

DR. CHARLES CRENSHAW:

I cannot say that, but he WAS shot twice from the front. And I

assume, also, that he was shot from the back. So there could not

have been just one shooter; that is, Oswald. We spent all of the

next week from the 22nd to the 29th [of Nov. `63], trying to figure

out (as we had been told the official version: that it was Oswald)

how in the world the President could have been shot from the

front when Oswald was supposedly the lone shooter. And on

December the 5th of that year, it was the same way with the

Secret Service. They reenacted the assassination, and it was

their ability there, trying to show how he was shot from the

front, yet being shot from the School Book Depository. It was a

question in everyone's mind.

GARY NULL:

We know that there was one bullet that missed the bodies of both

Kennedy and Connally completely, because it ricocheted off of the

cement. There is absolute evidence of that. The ricochet struck

one of the people standing right on the curb. That meant that

there had to have been four bullets shot, at minimum. We know

then of three. There is an estimate of six. There were acoustical

recordings showing six shots. So even if we assume that there

were four, the Warren Commission claims that there were not four.

DR. CRENSHAW:

Yes.

GARY NULL:

Now, how in the world is it possible for one shooter, from the

Book Depository, firing at a moving target, to get off four

rounds in what would have to have been under approximately

four-point-eight seconds. And even extending it to six seconds,

it's not humanly possible. No one has ever been able to duplicate

that.

DR. CRENSHAW:

No. And I don't think they ever will be. And one other thing.

I also took care of, post-operatively, Governor Connally. And

Connally and Mrs. Connally (Nellie) have always stated that he

was not hit by the same bullet that the President was hit by. He

stated that post-operatively, and he has also stated it recently.

GARY NULL:

Alright. The Secret Service's refusal, against [Parkland]

Hospital policy and Texas law, to allow an autopsy to be

performed on JFK, and the swift removal of the President's body

from the hospital to Air Force One and back to Washington, D.C. ....

Give us your insights on that, please.

DR. CRENSHAW:

Well, you know, this is the reason. I was a junior resident,

staying there preparing the President's body along while the

nurses were preparing him. But I would stay there because this is

just a law, and we MUST have a chain of evidence if we were going

to prosecute whoever had shot the President.

Then, all of a sudden, there was such a hubbub with the Secret

Service. They would not have the autopsy performed there, even

though our forensic pathologist, Dr. Earl Rose, had told them, in

no uncertain terms, that this had to be. So they asked the

administrator to get a justice of the peace. A very young,

uneducated justice of the peace came there. And he even talked

with the district attorney and the chief of police, and he was

told that he should at least have an autopsy or a bullet.

However, he chose to go along with the Secret Service and sign

the death certificate. Also, in so doing, he checked the inquest

that was performed. That was merely his walking at the head of

the room, looking in. And also, he checked that an autopsy was

performed. And I can assure you, there was no autopsy performed

there. Then, at Mrs. Kennedy's request and [that of] the Secret

Service, the coffin was brought in, and it is the one that is

described. It was the large bronze coffin. And there, we put a

rubberized sheet there, and a clear plastic mattress cover over

that to keep the blood from getting into the satin. He had,

initially, towels around the head, but he had bled through that,

and Mr. O'Neill, of the O'Neill Funeral Home, put several

rubberized sacks (we had no good plastic then), and then we

placed him in the coffin. After, again, I looked at the head

wound and placed a sheet over the President, with his clothes at

the bottom. And there was no body bag at Parkland. He had just a

sheet over there. And the coffin was the bronze one that all the

pictures were made [taken of] at Andrews Air Force Base.

GARY NULL:

Isn't it rather unusual that a Dr. Boswell would state that he is

now removing head bandages? What is the significance of that

statement?

DR. CRENSHAW:

I do not know. Boswell is also the one who has said, of course,

that the tracheostomy was almost three inches long. And it was not

that [length] when it left Parkland. But he did have those rubberized

sacks over his head. This is the only thing that I could have

thought: that maybe they thought it was a body bag. But there was

NO body bag.

GARY NULL:

Okay. I'm going to go now to Paul O'Connor.

Mr. O'Connor, are you on the line?

PAUL O'CONNOR:

Yes sir.

GARY NULL:

And Dr. Michio Kaku, are you on the line?

MICHIO KAKU:

I'm on the line.

GARY NULL:

Okay. We're going to come to both of you in just a second, but I

want to follow this train of thought:

Lyndon Johnson's direct order to YOU, Dr. Crenshaw, to obtain a

deathbed confession from Lee Harvey Oswald during an emergency

surgery to save his life ....

DR. CRENSHAW:

Yes, this was on that Sunday. Obviously, we did not watch the TV.

And the head administrator of Parkland called for a free

operating team to come to the emergency room. We went there.

We were told that Oswald was coming in. At least we were

prepared. So immediately, in seven-and-a-half minutes, we got

Oswald up to the operating room, and operated on him on the cart.

We didn't even place him on an operating table.

After all of the attending staff .... some even at home had seen

this [the shooting on TV] .... they immediately came. And Dr. Perry

initially started the operation. I was an assistant there. So

when all of the attending staff arrived, I scrubbed out, was

standing there, and looked at this funny looking gentleman over

there on the left side. But, of course, Parkland was so wild

then. People were in every corner there. This man looked like the

comedian, Oliver Hardy, in a small scrub suit. He did have a

badge out of his front pocket, and a very large gun out of the

back pocket. And I thought: Well gee, it's just something weird

again at Parkland. The nurse tapped me on the shoulder then and

asked me if I would take the phone call. I went to the operating

room supervisor's office, picked up the phone, and there, a voice

like thunder said: "This is the President, Lyndon B. Johnson.

How is the accused assassin doing?" And I said: "Well, he's

critical. He's lost a lot of blood, but he is holding his own."

He said: "Would you take a message to the chief operating surgeon?"

And I said, obviously: "Yes sir." He said: "There is

a man in the room, and I want him to take a deathbed confession

as soon as possible."

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 15989 of alt.conspiracy:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part X, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:03:47 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep28.120347.8405@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 140

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

DR. CHARLES CRENSHAW:

So I went back, I tapped Dr. Shires[?] on his shoulder and he

looked at me because everything was bedlam there. And I said:

"I've just been talking to the President of the United States,

and that man over there is to take a deathbed confession." And we

both just kind of looked and knew that, had Oswald survived, he

wouldn't have been able to talk for two or three days anyway.

Consequently, because of the ravages of hemorrhagic shock,

Oswald's heart started failing and ultimately fibrillating. We

tried all of the resuscitative measures -- chemical injections

and starting with the shocks -- but to no avail. So I then went

over and tapped this guy on the shoulder and said: "There'll be

no deathbed confession today." So Oliver Hardy melted away again.

I don't know who he was. I don't know how he got there. The only

interesting part is that I know that the President of the United

States knew that he was in the room.

GARY NULL:

Give us again the astonishing differences between the Dallas

medical team's account of the JFK wounds and the findings of the

official Bethesda autopsy team.

DR. CRENSHAW:

The most striking, of course, is the head wound which is right at

the back of the head at this occipit. It was in the right-rear

portion, in the occipital area. It was about the size of a

baseball. In the official pictures of the autopsy, this wound had

vanished. It was completely gone. And then the neck wound which

had the tracheostomy performed there, which was an inch to an

inch-and-a-half -- smooth, sharp edges, EVEN when the

tracheostomy tube was removed. This is now gaping, irregular and

was three inches in length [in the Bethesda autopsy].

GARY NULL:

The Parkland Hospital's nervousness about residents treating the

President, which resulted in the Warren Commission's failure to

obtain crucial statements from the attending medical staff ....

Would you give us some background on this please?

DR. CRENSHAW:

Well, basically, there were thirty visits -- twenty-four of them by

the Secret Service and six by the FBI -- in which they talked to

different physicians and nurses there. And it's interesting that

not ONE of these conversations was given to the Warren Commission.

GARY NULL:

Not one of thirty?

DR.CRENSHAW:

Not one!

GARY NULL:

What does that tell you? What does that imply?

DR. CRENSHAW:

It would imply that they didn't want to hear any contradictory

remarks.

GARY NULL:

Alright. What is your feeling about Robert Kennedy's involvement

in any possible cover-up?

DR. CRENSHAW:

I've always felt that maybe he wanted to become president so that

he could reopen this investigation. Three days before HIS

assassination, in a small community college, he announced to

everyone that only the power of the Presidency could unravel the

mystery of his brother's death. And he was, of course, assassinated

then. But immediately, Mrs. Lincoln, John Fitzgerald Kennedy's

secretary, called Senator Ted Kennedy and told him of artifacts

that the Kennedy Family had in their possession. And he told her

not to worry; that everything was taken care of. So the implication

has been that the attorney-general or Senator Kennedy, at that

time, did have important information that he had sequestered

there, so that, if it were at all possible, he could

reopen this investigation.

GARY NULL:

And lastly, Jacqueline Kennedy's immediate reactions and behavior

following the shooting?

DR. CRENSHAW:

I thought Mrs. Kennedy was very regal. She was standing there

initially. We asked her to sit outside the room. And then, of

course, after his death we did not officially pronounce him dead

because of her request for a priest and the last rites. The

priest arrived, and she walked into the room after him. We had

pulled the sheet up. It was a little short. She stopped at the

foot and kissed his great toe, and then went forward and stood

there holding his right hand, listening to the last rites.

Immediately after that, she took her wedding ring off and placed

it on the President's little finger. It would not go past the

knuckle, and so when she came in, after they had had the harangue

about the autopsy, and before we placed him in the coffin, one of

our orderlies there -- I believe it was Aubrey Wright -- helped

her get the ring on his small finger.

I had read many accounts of how their marriage was just that, in

name only. But being in trauma surgery now for thirty years, I

have seen grievances and unhappiness and definite examples of

removing the facade of what one felt. And I still will always

believe that there was no greater example of genuine and intense

love for the President than that exhibited by Mrs. Kennedy.

GARY NULL:

I want to thank you very much, Dr. Crenshaw, for sharing

your insights with us in this special report on cover-ups.

DR. CHARLES CRENSHAW:

Thank you.

GARY NULL:

Now let's shift gears. I want to go over to two other panelists

standing by: Dr. Michio Kaku, Professor of Theoretical Physics

here at CUNY, the City University of New York. Would you give us

your comments about the physics of the exhibit 399, the single

magic bullet?

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes

ever more striking.

John DiNardo

Article 2881 of alt.conspiracy.jfk:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa,alt.activism

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part XI, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:01:26 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Sep30.170126.4338@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 137

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

MICHIO KAKU:

I think it's very important when we look at the ballistics tests

that show, for example, frame 313 of the Zapruder film which

clearly shows the President's head going to the rear, which

indicates that a bullet came from the front. Now in the Warren

Commission Report, the FBI, of course, had access to the Zapruder

film and also to the ballistics -- and what they did was they

REVERSED two frames of the Zapruder film to make it look like the

Now, there was one bullet -- the famous "magic bullet" -- that

zig-zagged and essentially reversed direction about seven times,

going through two bodies and winding up on a stretcher with only

two percent of its mass disturbed. However, if you take a look at

the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and simply perform ballistics

analysis on this, shooting bullets through, for example, animal

carcasses, you can show very clearly that when it goes through

cartilage and goes through tissue, you get much more than two

percent deformation of the bullet. So, in two very egregious

examples, we have major deficiencies within the Warren

Commission Report.

GARY NULL:

Alright. Approximately what percentage of that bullet should

have been missing?

MICHIO KAKU:

Tests show that you could easily get twenty to thirty percent

deformation of that bullet. Now I should also mention that NOVA,

the science program on PBS, did a reenactment wherein they got a

watermelon, and they shot bullets through the watermelon, and the

watermelon actually recoiled in the direction of the bullet,

which violates common sense. The conclusion would be, therefore,

that it is possible to violate common sense and have the head

lurch in the wrong direction. However, the tests done on this

watermelon were of a disembodied head, in the sense that there was

no neck and there was no body. You could even blow on a

watermelon with your breath and have the watermelon move.

In other words, this is an extremely minor effect. It only takes

place when you have a watermelon suspended without being attached

to another body. However, tests done on animals by, for example,

deer hunters and bear hunters have not shown this recoil effect

where the head lurches in the direction of the bullet. So I think

that NOVA was grasping for straws, trying to get a relatively

minor effect to explain a major discrepancy within the ballistics

[data] of the Warren Commission Report. And the very fact that

the FBI was forced to deliberately tamper with the Zapruder film

indicates that the FBI itself was aware of the fact that the body

was going in the wrong direction.

GARY NULL:

That would therefore give us the impression that the FBI

participated in the cover-up of the assassination of President

Kennedy.

MICHIO KAKU:

That's right. In 1975, the Freedom of Information Act revealed

some of the minutes of the Warren Commission Report, which stated

that they were aware of the fact that Oswald was, in fact,

Agent S179 of the FBI, and that he was an informant of the FBI

who got something like two or three hundred dollars a month for

his work, and that this information would be EXTREMELY important.

But, basically, they failed to follow it up because they couldn't

put FBI agents under oath and have them lie under oath. And so,

this report was essentially unverifiable. But three different

sources, including the Attorney-General of the State of Texas,

stated to the Warren Commission that their understanding was that

Oswald was, indeed, Agent S179 of the FBI. And the conclusion of

the Warren Commission Report was that this evidence was so HOT --

it was SO damaging that it would have to be kept classified for

fifty years. Fortunately, the Freedom of Information Act revealed

this document in 1975.

Also, by the way, in 1978 the House Select Committee [on Assassinations]

interviewed the CIA paymaster -- a Mr. Wilcott, James Wilcott --

and he testified under oath that he was, in fact, the paymaster

of the CIA in charge of covert operations against the Soviet Union,

and that one of his contract employees was, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald.

So, in other words, Oswald was a bit player and he apparently had

a role to play with the FBI and also the CIA. And both agencies,

of course, had a vested interest in keeping this information out of

the Warren Commission Report.

GARY NULL:

I think it's interesting at this point that CIA Director Gates is

now suggesting that the file on Oswald, which he is turning over,

will show that Oswald had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination.

Of course, anyone who would accept for a moment that the CIA is going

to give any information about anything that has not been altered

is extraordinarily naive.

MICHIO KAKU:

Right. In fact, in 1973 the CIA destroyed most of the Oswald

file. We know that it was in two large file cabinets -- in fact,

two large file cabinets with four drawers apiece. He had a 201

file, which means that he had a very long history with the CIA,

and in 1973 the CIA destroyed that entire file. So, in other

words, what is going to come out now is basically a fraction of

what was, once upon a time, in the files of the CIA. Now the CIA

has been questioned about this and they said that this was

"routine cleaning" [housekeeping]. So in the "routine cleaning"

of the files, they destroyed potentially damaging information.

We will never know what was in these files. So whatever Gates

might reveal, at some point, will only be a shadow of what was

actually in there.

GARY NULL:

And CERTAINLY nothing that would implicate the CIA.

Also, is it not the case that the primary person pushing this

"single bullet", this "magic bullet" theory is Pennsylvania's

Republican Senator Arlen Specter, who also was the Anita Hill basher?

[JD: Sorry, but my tape ran out at this point, and

the person who was taping the broadcast for me did not

immediately flip over the tape. I'm trying to obtain

copies of the missing segments of the broadcasts, so that

I can incorporate those transcripts into future installments

of this series.]

(to be continued)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please

assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,

and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus.

As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year

cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of

the United States, the need for citizen reportage becomes

ever more urgent.

John DiNardo

Article 2927 of alt.conspiracy.jfk:

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.c

ulture.usa

Path: cbnewsl!jad

From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)

Subject: Part XII, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy

Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

Distribution: North America

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:58:20 GMT

Message-ID: <1992Oct6.145820.996@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy

Lines: 174

I made the following transcript from a tape recording

of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio Network station

WBAI-FM (99.5)

505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.

New York, NY 10018 (212) 279-0707

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

(continuation)

JOHN DAVIS:

Now, first of all, I have to explain myself why I think there was

a conspiracy, because the available evidence indicates that

Kennedy was struck twice by bullets from the front and twice by

bullets coming from the rear, and Governor Connally was struck by

a bullet coming from the rear that was not the same bullet that

hit the President. Therefore, this adds up to anywhere from two

to four shooters. Hence, a conspiracy. But evidence that it was a

conspiracy goes far beyond an accounting of bullet holes.

Let's consider first the motive for an organized crime conspiracy.

We have to realize that, for the first time in United States

history, the executive branch of the Federal Government declared

war on organized crime. This had never happened before. For the

Kennedy brothers, it was all-out war against the Mob.

"I'd like to be remembered as the guy who broke the Mafia", Bobby

Kennedy told an associate in 1961, shortly after he took office

as attorney-general. In his book, THE ENEMY WITHIN, Robert

Kennedy had written: "If we do not attack organized criminals

with weapons and techniques as effective as their own, they will

destroy us." Now, to back up this admonition, one of the first

things that Robert Kennedy did, in his assault against organized

crime, was the so-called kidnap/deportation of Carlos Marcello

on April 4th, 1961. Now this was an unprecedented and arguably

illegal act. Kennedy had Marcello snatched off the streets,

herded to an awaiting Federal jet, flown to Guatemala, and dumped

in a Guatemala City airport. Marcello had complained that he

couldn't call his wife, pac