Ultimate Sacrifice by Thom Hartmann & Lamar Waldron

[John Simkin]

Review of Ultimate Sacrifice:

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=7078

Progressive Portland radio talk-show host Thom Hartmann has co-authored the ne plus ultra of conspiracy books about the JFK assassination. At a doorstopping 900-plus pages, Ultimate Sacrifice presents enough speculation mixed with fact to fill at least three books. Part I reveals in convincing detail a covert U.S. plan led by Bobby Kennedy to use Cuban exiles to assassinate Fidel Castro and invade Cuba, with full U.S. military backing if necessary, in December 1963. Part II describes how the Mafia, led by mob bosses Carlos Marcello, Santo Trafficante and Johnny Rosselli, infiltrated the Cuba coup plan, purportedly to compromise U.S. officials into suppressing a thorough investigation of JFK's murder, which the godfathers later organized. Part III discloses two heretofore overlooked or unknown plots to kill Kennedy in Chicago and Tampa, Fla., which bore several similarities (a sniper or snipers with scoped rifles were to fire on the president's motorcade) to his assassination in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.

Whether you agree or disagree with the authors' theories, it's impossible to ignore this book as an important counterpoint to Gerald Posner's 1993 book Cased Closed, which concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in shooting the president. Marshaling reams of newly declassified documents, interviews with surviving participants, and stray puzzle pieces from other researchers, the authors have compiled an imposing mass of scholarship on the 1963 coup plan and the Mafia's interest in it. Where Ultimate Sacrifice is ultimately unconvincing, though, is in linking the mob's penetration of the coup plan to JFK's assassination. The Mafia would have had plenty of reasons to want to help overthrow Castro, none of which necessarily involved killing Kennedy: For one thing, the coup would have let Marcello, Trafficante and Rosselli in on the ground floor to regain control of organized crime in Cuba. Kennedy's murder actually hindered that, because plans to invade Cuba were dropped after JFK's death. The book's treatment of the assassination itself, at a scant 16 pages, is an incoherent mess, rehashing the usual hooey about unidentified gunmen, shots from the grassy knoll and "magic bullet" theories, without incontrovertibly linking the mob to the scene of the crime. The authors try repeatedly to show Oswald being manipulated by "mob associates" to take the fall for Kennedy's murder, but almost everyone mentioned in this book, including Dean Martin and Marilyn Monroe, is described as a mob associate.

[Pat Speer]

I have yet to read the book, but found something which might have a bearing on the reliability of one of its main sources, Harry Williams. On the Mary Ferrell site there are a number of old essays by researchers. In "The Assignment of G. Robert Blakey", by Richard E. Sprague, presumably written in the early 80's, Sprague writes that the HSCA failed in part because they had Richard Helms on the stand but that "They didn't ask him about Harry Williams' statement that Helms, Hunt, Williams, and Lyman Kirkpatrick were together in Washington, D.C. on November 22, 1963, talking about the CIA supporting another invasion of Cuba, without JFK's knowledge."

Does anyone know where Sprague got this? Did Williams really say this? Is this covered in Ultimate Sacrifice? If Williams really said this then as far as I'm concerned his credibility is nil. Hunt and Kirkpatrick in the same room planning an invasion of Cuba, WITHOUT JFK's knowledge? This is not only completely incompatible with UT's central premise, it's also incompatible with everything we know about the inner politics of the CIA in 1963. Kirkpatrick was the number one critic within the CIA of the BOP; Bissell and Barnes despised him; Hunt was working for Barnes in '63, apparently, not on Cuba. The idea that these four men would be in a room together on November 22 is absurd. After all, when put to the test, Hunt testfied he was with his wife in a Chinese market when the assassination occurred. He couldn't remember if he worked that day. If he'd been with these other three, how come none of them testified on his behalf?

Those that wish to believe in Sprague's accuracy--he repeats this argument in The Taking of America (Tim Gratz's favorite book)--are seemingly forced to choose between trusting Sprague or the new book. We can be pretty sure that Sprague made more than his share of mistakes. Are Waldron and Hartmann's faith in Williams' story a similar mistake?

[Ron Ecker]

Helms wrote in his autobiography that he and McCone spent that morning with the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), and were having lunch together in a small room adjoining McCone's office when word came of the assassination.

According to Clark Clifford's biography, Clifford chaired that PFIAB meeting, the subject of which was not Cuba but (according to Monte Evans in a Fourth Decade review of Fonzi's book) "how to dismantle and restructure the CIA in accordance with President Kennedy's desires."

Interestingly, if this is true, the shots in Dallas brought an immediate end to two things in Washington that day: the Don Reynolds hearing on Capitol Hill, and the dismantling of the CIA by the PFIAB.

[Pat Speer]

I have yet to read the book, but found something which might have a bearing on the reliability of one of its main sources, Harry Williams. On the Mary Ferrell site there are a number of old essays by researchers. In "The Assignment of G. Robert Blakey", by Richard E. Sprague, presumably written in the early 80's, Sprague writes that the HSCA failed in part because they had Richard Helms on the stand but that "They didn't ask him about Harry Williams' statement that Helms, Hunt, Williams, and Lyman Kirkpatrick were together in Washington, D.C. on November 22, 1963, talking about the CIA supporting another invasion of Cuba, without JFK's knowledge."

Does anyone know where Sprague got this? Did Williams really say this? Is this covered in Ultimate Sacrifice? If Williams really said this then as far as I'm concerned his credibility is nil. Hunt and Kirkpatrick in the same room planning an invasion of Cuba, WITHOUT JFK's knowledge? This is not only completely incompatible with UT's central premise, it's also incompatible with everything we know about the inner politics of the CIA in 1963. Kirkpatrick was the number one critic within the CIA of the BOP; Bissell and Barnes despised him; Hunt was working for Barnes in '63, apparently, not on Cuba. The idea that these four men would be in a room together on November 22 is absurd. After all, when put to the test, Hunt testfied he was with his wife in a Chinese market when the assassination occurred. He couldn't remember if he worked that day. If he'd been with these other three, how come none of them testified on his behalf?

Those that wish to believe in Sprague's accuracy--he repeats this argument in The Taking of America (Tim Gratz's favorite book)--are seemingly forced to choose between trusting Sprague or the new book. We can be pretty sure that Sprague made more than his share of mistakes. Are Waldron and Hartmann's faith in Williams' story a similar mistake?

I looked through the book today and found that it does indeed cover Sprague's statements, on pages 135-136. Sprague's source on Williams was a 1973 conversation he had with Haynes Johnson. Evidently, Johnson interviewed Williams in the sixties while writing his book on the Bay of Pigs. Johnson himself has mentioned Williams' statements in two articles, both written for the Washington Post in the 80's.

What was surprising to me, upon looking through their book, is that Waldron and Hartmann spin Williams' statement into being a statement that supports their claims. They take the statement that Williams was meeting with the CIA on November 22nd and planning an invasion behind the president's back as somehow being a statement that supports that the President and AG were planning an invasion. To them it makes sense that Kirkpatrick would be involved in the planning, to insure that he would approve or some such thing. This is silly, IMO. If the Sec. of Defense and Sec. of State. were cut out of the loop, I sincerely doubt Kirkpatrick and Hunt would be included. Hunt had worked with the exiles back in the day but had cut-out before the BOP because he so disliked Manolo Ray. Would he then be brought back and consulted on a new plan, that included Ray (and perhaps others to the left of Ray)? (Or was Ray cut-out of the plan by then?) Everything I've read indicates that the Kennedy brothers trusted Rusk and McNamara more than they did the CIA. I'm extremely skeptical of this scenario.

Adding to my skepticism is that Waldron and Hartmann fail to even deal with the problem of Hunt's presence. If Hunt was with Helms and Kirkpatrick on that date then why weren't they called in Hunt's trial against Marchetti and the Libery Lobby? Why wasn't Williams called? As Ron has pointed out, Helms makes no mention of this meeting in his memoirs. Why would this meeting be covered-up at the expense of Hunt's lawsuit? That Hunt may have been involved in the assassination is a HELL of a lot more damaging to the prestige of the CIA than that he had a meeting that day with a Cuban exile. Big whoop. No one would have cared one bit.

To their credit, Waldron and Hartmann tried to contact Haynes Johnson to verify Sprague's notes of the 1973 conversation, but received no response. If I'm not mistaken, Waldron and Hartmann failed to confront Williams with this story, to gauge his response. If so, someone needs to do this. If he stands by this story, someone needs to talk to Hunt and see if he will suddenly remember where he was on November 22. Until that point, I believe Sprague's statements should be held against Williams' credibility.

It's been pointed out to me that the evidence for the invasion exists outside Williams' credibility, and is really in the documents. This appears to be true. But it's also been acknowledged that Williams was Waldron and Hartmann's main source that there was indeed someone close to Castro willing to go along with the plans... As most everyone has come away from the book with the idea that this man was Che, then it would appear that Williams was their source that Che was willing to overthrow Castro in cahoots with the USA, even the CIA. Does anyone really believe this? I mean, why would an anti-Castro Cuban try and smear the memory of Che with such a story? Hmmm...could it be that young children everywhere are growing up believing that Che was a man of great nobility, and a HERO, while men like...let's say Harry Williams... have largely been ignored???

I'm anxious to read Gerry Hemming's response to this. Should we trust Williams? Do you really believe that Che would betray Castro? In league with the CIA? Or is the leader in Ultimate Sacrifice someone other than Che?

Edited December 24, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Carroll]

Hunt was working for Barnes in '63, apparently, not on Cuba. The idea that these four men [Helms, Hunt, Williams & Kirkpatrick] would be in a room together on November 22 is absurd.

Hunt had worked with the exiles back in the day but had cut-out before the BOP because he so disliked Manolo Ray. Would he then be brought back and consulted on a new plan, that included Ray (and perhaps others to the left of Ray)?

Whether or not Ultimate Sacrifice's supposed coup leader was Che, it was definitely someone the right-wingers like Hunt would not have tolerated. Finding a way to install a moderate leader was the Kennedys' big problem in the Bay of Pigs preparations, and the same problem existed in 1963. I don't see why the authors necessarily consider the Mafia, as an entity, to be responsible when you have someone like former Cuban President Prio running around, with a zillion dollars to spend to reclaim his position. His contacts are generally the same usual suspects identified with the Mafiosos and right-wingers.

The Bay of Pigs planning had also included manipulating the politics of the Cuban exiles in the aftermath of what was hoped to be a successful takeover. Even many of the Cuban exiles would have been shocked at how far some in the United States were willing to go in this regard. The President’s directive that the exile leadership include more people from the left-of-center orientation to counter charges that the exiles were nothing more than Batisteros in disguise caused some dissension in the CIA’s ranks. E. Howard Hunt’s resentment of the change led him to “resign” or be “fired” from his job as Political Action Officer for the invasion, depending on who’s version one believes. He thought these changes amounted to a policy of Fidelismo sin Fidel, Fidelism without Fidel. Hunt’s political orientation, which was distinctly right-wing, was far more amenable to Batistism sin Batista. One of the moderate Cuban leaders, stung by Hunt’s charge, stated: “I don’t know what it means to be a leftist. If it means to be in favor of all the people and for the welfare of the masses, then I am.” Hunt retorted: “Fidel Castro could not have phrased it better.” Hunt's ideology was reflected in a quote he was fond of citing: “The liberal’s arm cannot strike with firmness against communism... because the liberal dimly feels that in doing so he would be somehow wounding himself.”

The rightwing Cubans and those in the CIA like Hunt who were most sympathetic to counter-revolutionary politics did make contingency plans for the exiles’ leadership after the landing. “Operation 40 called for assassinating the moderates after their return to the island following an invasion.” The U.S. supported the creation of a moderate provisional government during the planning, while its own agents were plotting to install a more right-wing one later. The moderates were intended to legitimize the efforts of the exile force while at the same time becoming targets themselves for some later murderous manipulation.

The Batistianos had not let go of their ambitions, and were plentifully represented in Artime's operation. If, as the authors themselves note, the Kennedys' enthusiasm for the C-Day project was waning and they were perceived to be dragging their feet (perhaps because the backchannel negotiations were looking better from a cost/benefit view), it would have been the more militant of the anti-Castroites who had played along with the Kennedys that would have had the most to gain from twisting up the "Cuban Contingency Plan" part of the playbook, piggybacking the part involving assassinations of American leaders.

T.C.

[Gerry Hemming]

I have yet to read the book, but found something which might have a bearing on the reliability of one of its main sources, Harry Williams. On the Mary Ferrell site there are a number of old essays by researchers. In "The Assignment of G. Robert Blakey", by Richard E. Sprague, presumably written in the early 80's, Sprague writes that the HSCA failed in part because they had Richard Helms on the stand but that "They didn't ask him about Harry Williams' statement that Helms, Hunt, Williams, and Lyman Kirkpatrick were together in Washington, D.C. on November 22, 1963, talking about the CIA supporting another invasion of Cuba, without JFK's knowledge."

Does anyone know where Sprague got this? Did Williams really say this? Is this covered in Ultimate Sacrifice? If Williams really said this then as far as I'm concerned his credibility is nil. Hunt and Kirkpatrick in the same room planning an invasion of Cuba, WITHOUT JFK's knowledge? This is not only completely incompatible with UT's central premise, it's also incompatible with everything we know about the inner politics of the CIA in 1963. Kirkpatrick was the number one critic within the CIA of the BOP; Bissell and Barnes despised him; Hunt was working for Barnes in '63, apparently, not on Cuba. The idea that these four men would be in a room together on November 22 is absurd. After all, when put to the test, Hunt testfied he was with his wife in a Chinese market when the assassination occurred. He couldn't remember if he worked that day. If he'd been with these other three, how come none of them testified on his behalf?

Those that wish to believe in Sprague's accuracy--he repeats this argument in The Taking of America (Tim Gratz's favorite book)--are seemingly forced to choose between trusting Sprague or the new book. We can be pretty sure that Sprague made more than his share of mistakes. Are Waldron and Hartmann's faith in Williams' story a similar mistake?

I looked through the book today and found that it does indeed cover Sprague's statements, on pages 135-136. Sprague's source on Williams was a 1973 conversation he had with Haynes Johnson. Evidently, Johnson interviewed Williams in the sixties while writing his book on the Bay of Pigs. Johnson himself has mentioned Williams' statements in two articles, both written for the Washington Post in the 80's.

What was surprising to me, upon looking through their book, is that Waldron and Hartmann spin Williams' statement into being a statement that supports their claims. They take the statement that Williams was meeting with the CIA on November 22nd and planning an invasion behind the president's back as somehow being a statement that supports that the President and AG were planning an invasion. To them it makes sense that Kirkpatrick would be involved in the planning, to insure that he would approve or some such thing. This is silly, IMO. If the Sec. of Defense and Sec. of State. were cut out of the loop, I sincerely doubt Kirkpatrick and Hunt would be included. Hunt had worked with the exiles back in the day but had cut-out before the BOP because he so disliked Manolo Ray. Would he then be brought back and consulted on a new plan, that included Ray (and perhaps others to the left of Ray)? (Or was Ray cut-out of the plan by then?) Everything I've read indicates that the Kennedy brothers trusted Rusk and McNamara more than they did the CIA. I'm extremely skeptical of this scenario.

Adding to my skepticism is that Waldron and Hartmann fail to even deal with the problem of Hunt's presence. If Hunt was with Helms and Kirkpatrick on that date then why weren't they called in Hunt's trial against Marchetti and the Libery Lobby? Why wasn't Williams called? As Ron has pointed out, Helms makes no mention of this meeting in his memoirs. Why would this meeting be covered-up at the expense of Hunt's lawsuit? That Hunt may have been involved in the assassination is a HELL of a lot more damaging to the prestige of the CIA than that he had a meeting that day with a Cuban exile. Big whoop. No one would have cared one bit.

To their credit, Waldron and Hartmann tried to contact Haynes Johnson to verify Sprague's notes of the 1973 conversation, but received no response. If I'm not mistaken, Waldron and Hartmann failed to confront Williams with this story, to gauge his response. If so, someone needs to do this. If he stands by this story, someone needs to talk to Hunt and see if he will suddenly remember where he was on November 22. Until that point, I believe Sprague's statements should be held against Williams' credibility.

It's been pointed out to me that the evidence for the invasion exists outside Williams' credibility, and is really in the documents. This appears to be true. But it's also been acknowledged that Williams was Waldron and Hartmann's main source that there was indeed someone close to Castro willing to go along with the plans... As most everyone has come away from the book with the idea that this man was Che, then it would appear that Williams was their source that Che was willing to overthrow Castro in cahoots with the USA, even the CIA. Does anyone really believe this? I mean, why would an anti-Castro Cuban try and smear the memory of Che with such a story? Hmmm...could it be that young children everywhere are growing up believing that Che was a man of great nobility, and a HERO, while men like...let's say Harry Williams... have largely been ignored???

I'm anxious to read Gerry Hemming's response to this. Should we trust Williams? Do you really believe that Che would betray Castro? In league with the CIA? Or is the leader in Ultimate Sacrifice someone other than Che?

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

Pat:

There is NO WAY that "Che" would have betrayed the "Revolucion", especially if it included a horde of Batistianos "waiting-in-the-wings". The reality of late 1963 was: That Harry still had RFK's ear, but Manolo Reboso was considered the Cuban Intel/Paramilitary "expert". And especially when considering any short /long-range strategies re: a coup d'etat against Fidel's ever shrinking clique. As usual, the "insider", Harry has failed to grasp that: Other anti-Castro Cubans, especially those without a "Batista-taint"; had been operating [since March 1963] as totally compartmented groups.

That Harry later discovered that he was NOT even in the 10% of "the know", was no doubt a shock to his ego. This happened to everybody who grew "more political than military", especially when the focus was on long range politico/military options.

Artime, and his wannabe "leaders", had been shipped out to, isolated within, the camps in Nicaragua and Costa Rica. That Artime, et al. didn't have a clue as to tradecraft or paramilitary operations, had been well known even before the BOP.

During the BOP he had been "relegated" to being just a "Political Kommisar". Upon arrival at the camps, he once again was isolated to that "office". All who had experienced his incompetence before, during and after "Playa Giron [especiallly in Castro's prisons] refused trust their lives to this clown. The true leaders quickly surfaced, took command, and ran all of the "2nd Naval Guerrilla" Ops -- and Artime, et al. weren't about to raise even a whimper in protest.

The "multiple" covert meetings with "Che" centered upon assuring him that: Should the Soviet Brigade continue to cause unrest within the F.A.R. and the Militia, or attempt a coup; the U.S. would recognize any "moderate" grouping of military/political entities to be the "new" government of a sovereign Cuba.

"Che" warned that: Should the JFK "Administration" announce support prematurely, it would cause the insurgent element to engage in extended civil unrest. More than once he made reference to recent historical facts. Specifically that; The Eisenhower administration, after years at encouraging an uprising in Hungary, had abandoned those insurgents to a tragic fate.

Richard Goodwin sang to "Che", and it was a favorable tune. However, useless "wannabes" -- like Robert Hurwitch [state Dept.] tried to sabotage every one of the "transition" schemes. Hurwitch had "back-stabbed" Sterling Cottrell, and when John Hugh Crimmins [as replacement] opted to continue Cottrell's policies, Hurwitch tried, and failed, to "side-line" Crimmins' efforts in support of RFK.

The driving force behind the September through December 1963 operations was:

[1] Solid intelligence indicating widespread unrest within the Cuban military and militia. Some of which was residual anger carried over from the mass jailing of suspected "counter-revolutionaries" -- during the weeks before the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

The same measures had been initiated (on a lesser scale) during the "Missile Crisis". This had resulted in mass resignations amongst the military and militia. That they were immediately "press-ganged" into cutting sugar cane, created even more ferment;

[2] The newly returned officer corps, recent graduates of Soviet military schools, created "pools" of distrust and suspicion, amongst the "old-line" Rebel Army commanders. Even the PSP (Cuban Communist party) hierachy exhibited disdain towards "newcomers". This was mostly due to their exhibiting greater loyalty to the Soviet military/civilian "advisers" than to their Cuban brothers;

[3] The Soviet "Anti-Aircraft Artillery" [AAA] regimental commanders refused to relinquish control of even one S.A.M. site [sA-2 & SA-3] to the Cuban military. Moreover, they refusing Cuban access to the sites. The only Cubans authorized to "observe & monitor" SAM operations (inside the secure bases) were the recent graduates of the Soviet military/political courses; and,

[4] Severe rationing of foodstuffs, fuel, and especially sugar; was creating a "caste" system within the military. This in turn, created stark schisms within the the rank and file of the entire Cuban armed forces, and the "newbies" returning from the USSR only aggravated the situation.

The uncontrollable dissident elements continued to exacerbate these widespread tensions, and were the prime factors in the severe production shortfalls. This continued to be the case, until the some pressures were "bled-off' by the 1965 "Camarioca Boatlift".

The later Cuban views on that period are, in pertinent part, reflected here:

[www.canadiannetworkoncuba.ca/Documents/rafters.shtml]

".....By the end of 1962, the US Government had made the decision to suddenly cancel the regular flights to and legal departures for the United States. These facts, together with the economic warfare waged against our country after the revolutionary triumph, strongly encouraged illegal migration. That same year, President Kennedy signed Public Act 87-510, known as the "Migration and Western Hemisphere Refugees Assistant Act" - whose purpose was to portray that every Cuban trying to migrate was doing so because of persecution based on their "political opinions contrary to the regime." Also, the migration of Cubans into the United States became a "national security" issue. This law provided special financial conditions to support Cuban émigrés and the US Government appropriated over US$ 1 billion only to the Cuban Refugees Program."

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

The "coup d'etat" operations underway during 1963, involved giving frequent assurances that: No U.S. military intervention was planned should there be a "regime change" in Havana. Moreover, ALL subsequent support for the new regime would only come from "moderate" O.A.S. member countries.

There was no way that "Che" would agree to "Recover the Revolucion", especially if it required a direct betrayal of Fidel's leadership core. And moreover, any inclusion of entities whichhad been even mildly associated with "Batistianos", or followers of ex-Prez Carlos Prio, would insure his nNON-participation !!

ALL operators [Cuban, U.S., Brit, Italian, French, etc.] involved in AM/TRUNK, AM/LOT, AM/BLOOD, AM/TRUCK, ZR/REIN, ZR/STOCK, ZR/BARREL, etc., etc., had been assured that the principle goals were the prevention of a Soviet coup, and the "non-violent" shift to a more moderate Havana regime.

During October 1963, General Lansdale cleared his "asset", female war correspondent Dickey Chappelle, to join a December 1963 Cuba "insertion mission"!! This operation was directed by Cmdte. Felipe Vidal Santiago, who was the boss of the CIA's AM/LOT teams. Dickey was a definite asset to the mission because: She was personally acquainted with most of the dissident Cuban leaders. They all knew her from those days with Fidel in the Sierra Maestra during 1957-58!! Cmdte. Felipe Vidal Santiago was being "handled" by Charles DeGaulle's SDECE case officers.

__________________________________

[John Simkin]

Here is the response from Salon's readers to David Talbot's article on Ultimate Sacrifice:

http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...01/review/view/

[Chris Cox]

Big book. Just cracked the pages and there's a ton of stuff here, some repeated and some fresh stuff but worth the space next to Hinckle Turner tomes as a reference guide to topic. I have many questions.

Question for authors:

How much contact with Menoyo did you have during the 17 yrs research and has he commented on the finished piece?

Did you interview Masferrer family members and do they concur with the research? How about Olga Morgan who is on a mission to restore Morgan's lost citizenship? Was there cooperation from her as well? Any cooperation from sources in Cuba? Were guys like Wayne Smith or other USemb/State people helpful to you?

Just started reading and jumping around the book so maybe these q's are answered within.

Thank you for illustrating there was an ongoing program to get to Castro and also that he didn't triumph on his own-important to keep in mind.

I'm curious why you don't name key individual C-day, is it because they are still alive? If the docs are avail and declassified I wonder why not refer researchers to the source or the documents that name source in some manner so the researchers can sleuth it out?

Verona seems to come out of book an opportunist not well respected and I've heard this in Miami during interviews myself. I wonder why you don't mention the Feria/Masferrer 27 man invasion prior to BOP but I may have missed it in bk. Side story of this event, I was told, is that Verona gave Castro the heads up on 27 man invasion team out of fear he would be superceded by Masferrer in a new Cuba. Castro's men were waiting and men were captured and executed on heels of JFK election which should have been an indicator that this mini Bay of Pigs was a forshadowing of failure to come six months later, mho.

[John Simkin]

Big book. Just cracked the pages and there's a ton of stuff here, some repeated and some fresh stuff but worth the space next to Hinckle Turner tomes as a reference guide to topic. I have many questions.

Question for authors:

How much contact with Menoyo did you have during the 17 yrs research and has he commented on the finished piece?

Did you interview Masferrer family members and do they concur with the research? How about Olga Morgan who is on a mission to restore Morgan's lost citizenship? Was there cooperation from her as well? Any cooperation from sources in Cuba? Were guys like Wayne Smith or other USemb/State people helpful to you?

Just started reading and jumping around the book so maybe these q's are answered within.

Thank you for illustrating there was an ongoing program to get to Castro and also that he didn't triumph on his own-important to keep in mind.

I'm curious why you don't name key individual C-day, is it because they are still alive? If the docs are avail and declassified I wonder why not refer researchers to the source or the documents that name source in some manner so the researchers can sleuth it out?

Verona seems to come out of book an opportunist not well respected and I've heard this in Miami during interviews myself. I wonder why you don't mention the Feria/Masferrer 27 man invasion prior to BOP but I may have missed it in bk. Side story of this event, I was told, is that Verona gave Castro the heads up on 27 man invasion team out of fear he would be superceded by Masferrer in a new Cuba. Castro's men were waiting and men were captured and executed on heels of JFK election which should have been an indicator that this mini Bay of Pigs was a forshadowing of failure to come six months later, mho.

Just reposted this on the right thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5494

[Guest Matt Allison]

The unnamed coup leader was Che Guevara.

In case anyone hasn't figured it out yet, to the CIA, the Kennedy's putting Che in charge of Cuba was tantamount to treason; it cemented the hard-liners belief that JFK was a communist. Add that to the fact that JFK was going to "dismantle and restructure" the CIA, and, well, I think you can figure out what happened next.

There were two wars against Cuba at this time, the one that RFK was running as he believed he had taken control of the agency with McCone, and the one Helms, Phillips, etc. were running as the old-school hardliner faction at the CIA. Two CIAs really; obviously NOT working in concert with each other, as evidenced by Phillip's insane move of bombing the Baku in Cuban waters after the missile crisis.

Ultimate Sacrifice is an interesting book, but fails in some key areas, namely trying to fit new information into the author's presupposed theory. The book fails at dealing with Oswald, the key player in this drama. Not addressing who sent LHO to work that day with a rifle and directed his actions in the Depository, is an unfortunate lapse. I can tell you this though, it wasn't a Mafioso that was running him that day.

BTW, Tim Gratz reviews this book in this morning's Solares Hill supplement to the Key West Citizen.

cheers,

Matt

Edited December 31, 2005 by Matt Allison

[Tim Gratz]

Here is an easy access to the article:

Go to keysnews.com.

That gets you into the newspaper ("The Key West Citizen.")

Then go to Solares Hill. (The links to other Key West Citizen publications are down the page on the right hand side.) It is in pdf format. The article starts on page one.

The article will be there through next Thursday. When Mark Howell returns to work, he should be able to paste the entire article.

Look forward to your comments.

(If anyone wants a hard copy of the article, in the tabloid format, please send a stamped self-addressed envelope, addressed to Mark Howell at Key West Citizen, 3420 Northside Drive, Key West, FL 33040. (Offer good for Forum members only.)

Edited December 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[T. Casey Brennan]

...In 1970, when Castro was again worrying about an invasion, this time from President Nixon, the Soviets used the construction of a submarine base at Cienfuegos Bay to compel the Americans to finally ratify the no-invasion pledge. Kissinger did so, asserting that the submarine base was prohibited by the 1962 understanding, which he privately described to the president as "never formally buttoned down."

T.C.

I'm on the fotum now, and I got a nice letter from Kissinger some years back, supporting my work. It's posted at:

http://danielfry.com/index.php?id=1905

Best,

T. Casey Brennan

http://tcasey.inri.net

[John Simkin]

Paul Comstock interviewed Lamar Waldron in the California Literary Review (February 13, 2006)

http://www.calitreview.com/Interviews/waldron_8024.htm

So much has been written about JFK's assassination - what in your book is new?

A tremendous amount. With the help of almost two dozen people who worked with John and Robert Kennedy--backed up by thousands of documents in the National Archives--we discovered that JFK and his brother had a never-before-revealed plan to stage a coup against Castro on December 1, 1963. The CIA's code-name for their part of the plan--AMWORLD--has never appeared in print before, and was withheld from the Warren Commission and later Congressional investigating committees. As part of the coup plan, in the days and weeks before Dallas, Robert Kennedy even had a top secret committee making plans for dealing with the possible "assassination of American officials," in case Castro found out about the coup plan and tried to retaliate.

However, the Kennedy's coup plan was infiltrated by three powerful Mafia bosses being targeted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy: Johnny Rosselli of the Chicago Mafia, Tampa godfather Santo Trafficante, and Carlos Marcello (godfather of Louisiana and east Texas). The Mafia dons used parts of the secret coup plan to try and assassinate JFK first in Chicago (on 11-2-63), then in Tampa (on 11-18-63, an attempt never revealed before), and finally in Dallas. By planting evidence implicating Castro, the mob bosses prevented Robert Kennedy and other key officials from conducting a thorough investigation, in order to protect the coup plan and prevent nuclear confrontation with the Russians.

While it's been known since the early 1990s that Robert Kennedy eventually told close associates the Mafia was behind his brother's death, the book finally explains how the Mafia did it, presenting a huge amount of new information.

Can you tell us more about these two attempts on JFK’s life just prior to Dallas and their connection to November 22nd?

As we were told by Chicago Secret Service Agent Abraham Bolden, they had uncovered a plot by four men to kill JFK during his Chicago motorcade planned for November 2, 1963. An ex-Marine (with several recent parallels to Oswald) was arrested, but the four men remained at large. So, JFK had to cancel his motorcade at the last minute, even as people were lining the motorcade route. Pierre Salinger told us about the two different excuses he gave for the cancellation. In addition, Salinger--who began his work for the Kennedys as a Mafia investigator--revealed that Jack Ruby had been in Chicago a week prior to the motorcade, where he had received $7,000 from someone who worked for an associate of Trafficante and Marcello. Salinger's revelation was confirmed by two eye-witnesses and FBI reports in the National Archives.

The Tampa attempt had more than a dozen parallels to JFK's assassination in Dallas, including a male suspect in his early twenties linked to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. The Police and Secret Service warned JFK about the threat, but JFK bravely went ahead with the motorcade anyway, because of an important speech about Cuba he had to give in Miami that night, a speech that was part of the coup plan.

No news reports about the Tampa threat appeared while JFK was alive--just a tiny article the day after this death; by the following day the Tampa Chief of Police and Secret Service weren't talking to the press about it. On the very day Secret Service Agent Abraham Bolden went to Washington to tell Warren Commission staff about the Tampa and Chicago attempts, and other Secret Service laxity, he was framed by the Chicago Mafia and arrested. He was sent to prison for six years, even though his main accuser later admitted committing perjury against Bolden. The book finally explains exactly who framed Bolden, and why.

Why did the three Mafia godfathers want to assassinate JFK?

Because Robert Kennedy was waging the biggest war against organized crime that America has ever seen, and the Mafia families of Chicago, Tampa, and Louisiana were under incredible pressure. Rosselli's boss was under "lockstep surveillance" by the FBI, and even Trafficante's family members were being prosecuted. Marcello himself was put on trial by Robert Kennedy's prosecutors the day before the Chicago attempt. Marcello bribed a key juror to ensure his acquittal, which Marcello timed for 11-22-63, when JFK was shot in Dallas. Marcello had a big celebration that afternoon and the only other known celebration after JFK's death was in Tampa, were Trafficante publicly toasted JFK's murder at the very restaurant where JFK had given a speech, just four days earlier.

The Kennedys had worked hard to keep the Mafia from having a role in their coup plan, and JFK's plans for a democratic government in Cuba after the coup would have kept the Mafia from returning to reopen their casinos there. So, the Mafia dons had to kill JFK before December 1, 1963, because only the secrecy surrounding the coup plan could prevent a thorough, public investigation that could have exposed their involvement.

Walk us through exactly what transpired in Dealy Plaza. Where did the shots come from and who were the shooters?

Very briefly: There is much evidence that Oswald was in the lunchroom of the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the shooting. Two men were seen behind the fence on the "grassy knoll." Other witnesses saw two men on the sixth floor of the Depository.

Riding in the limo directly behind JFK's were his two closest Presidential Aides, Dave Powers and Kenneth O'Donnell. As Powers told my co-author Thom Hartmann, both men heard--and Powers saw--shots from the grassy knoll. That explains why JFK's limo slowed at the sound of the first shot from the front, because they thought they were riding into an ambush. Powers and O'Donnell confirmed the shots from the knoll to former House Speaker Tip O'Neill, who wrote about it in his autobiography, Man of the House. Our book also explains why Powers and O'Donnell were pressured to alter their Warren Commission testimony "for the good of the country," and which current US Senator was involved with that.

The book deals with evidence indicating that Mafioso present in Dealy Plaza that day could have included Johnny Rosselli, Chicago Mafia hitman Charles Nicoletti, French assassin Michel Victor Mertz, and a CIA operative working on the Kennedys' coup plan who was (unknown to the Kennedys) also working for the Mafia.

As you state in your book, there are many credible witnesses who believe shots were fired from the grassy knoll and it certainly looks on the Zapruder film that Kennedy has been shot from the front, but isn’t the autopsy of President Kennedy proof that the bullet entered the rear of his skull? The entry wound on the back of his head was small, but the exit wound on the right side of his head was nearly six inches.

Many distinguished experts disagree with what you've just stated, including Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the country's leading forensic pathologists. Remember that what is visible in the remaining photographs doesn't sometimes match what is in the surviving x-rays--and there is considerable testimony that photos and x-rays were taken that are not part of the evidence today. Plus, crucial evidence, like JFK's brain, disappeared once it was in the custody of Robert Kennedy.

Entire books have been written about the autopsy, so I won't try to cover everything here. Suffice it to say that the wound descriptions by the Dallas doctors didn't sometimes match those of the autopsy physicians at Bethesda, and vice versa. For example, in Dallas the small wound in JFK's throat was described as an entrance wound. Because they made a neat tracheotomy incision over the wound, the doctors at Bethesda didn't even realize it was a bullet wound. JFK's back wound was almost six inches below the base of his neck--making it impossible for a bullet coming down from the steep angle of the sixth floor of the Book Depository to have entered there and emerged many inches higher, from the front of JFK's throat. (where it would have been heading up, only to have to head down again to hit Gov. Connolly--that's just one reason the pristine bullet is called the "magic bullet").

In addition, new information declassified from the House Select Committee on Assassinations and the JFK Assassination Records Review Board casts further doubt on the Warren Commission theory of JFK's wounds.

We present new information in the book, based on interviews with two people at Bethesda during the autopsy, including David Powers, a JFK aide who was also one of the closest eye-witnesses to the assassination.

Much evidence we cite shows that Robert Kennedy essentially controlled JFK's autopsy. After the autopsy, control of JFK's body was turned over to two officials who had been working with Robert Kennedy on covert Cuban operations. Even JFK's personal physician, Admiral Burkley--the only doctor present in both Dallas and Bethesda--believed JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy.

What were Oswald’s actions from the time of the assassination until he was arrested?

After reviewing all the evidence as part of seventeen years of research, we were stuck by how much of the conventional Warren Commission story is contradicted by other evidence, including earlier statements by many of their key witnesses. Thus, Oswald's movements from shortly after the assassination until he returned to his rooming house can't be pinned down with certainty.

While Oswald was in his rooming house, a police car pulled up, honked its horn, then pulled away. A short time later, Oswald walked out of the rooming house.

The Warren Commission says then that Oswald was walking (since he didn't drive or own a car) on a quiet street, when a patrolman drove up to him. According to the official story, the crazed ex-serviceman pulled out a pistol, shot the patrolman and fled. As our book points out for the first time, that exact scene (involving an ex-serviceman) is in a movie that Johnny Rosselli produced (uncredited, but confirmed by court documents) in 1948, called "He Walked by Night."

Oswald next shows up at the Texas Theater, where he was arrested, though again, much evidence contradicts the conventional version of events. We present evidence (including some from secret Warren Commission memos not included in their final report) that Oswald thought he was going to Mexico City, on a "mission" that involved getting into Cuba on a mission in support of upcoming US action against Cuba. The theater was where Oswald had been told he would meet his contact.

The book presents a huge amount of evidence that Oswald was a low-level asset for a US intelligence agency, and not a communist. For example, the Warren Commission claimed Oswald was a Marxist as teenager, but how many communist teenagers join the Civil Air Patrol? And not only join the US Marines, but try to join before he's even old enough? We uncovered new information showing that Oswald was under 'tight" surveillance by Naval Intelligence from the time he returned to the US from Russia. Oswald's role as an intelligence asset explains why US authorities weren't concerned when Oswald--a seeming former defector with a Russian wife--got a job in Dallas at a firm that prepared material for maps created from U-2 spy plane photos, at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Oswald had been looking for work in Dallas in October of ’63 and found the job at the School Book Depository through a friend of his wife’s. He started work there October 16th. It doesn’t sound like an active plot to kill the President is in place at that time (Kennedy’s motorcade route had not yet been planned) and it also wouldn’t give much time for anyone to set him up as a patsy – creating a bogus snipers nest, etc.

That's a common misconception. JFK's long-rumored Dallas visit had finally been announced on Sept. 26--right before Oswald tried to go to Cuba via Mexico City. It was well known by Jack Ruby and others in Dallas that any major motorcade would go through Dealy Plaza along Main Street. It's not generally known, but 11-22-63 wasn't the first time JFK had been through Dealy Plaza in a motorcade--JFK had been there in 1960, during the campaign. (Of course, Oswald was in Russia at that time, but Ruby and the Marcello associates he worked for were in Dallas then.)

The mob bosses who'd been carefully planning to kill JFK had plenty of time make sure Oswald got a job near the motorcade route. In fact, Oswald applied for several jobs near and along the motorcade route.

It's important to note that around the same time Oswald moved to a new city (Dallas, from New Orleans) and got a new job, so did the ex-Marine arrested at the time of the 11/2/63 Chicago attempt against JFK and the young man linked to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee who was investigated by authorities after the 11/18/63 Tampa attempt to assassinate JFK.

Where does Ruby fit in to all of this? Why would he kill Oswald knowing that he would spend the rest of his life in prison or be sentenced to death?

Ruby was a long-time Mafia associate who was in desperate financial straits at the time. In addition, the book documents for the first time that Ruby (who ran guns to Cuba) had been part of the 1959 CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Ruby had also been an informant for the FBI at that time--and for other law enforcement agencies later--which would also insure the various agencies couldn't dig too deeply into Ruby's background or share key information with those investigating JFK's assassination. As if to drive the point home to authorities, even the pistol Ruby used to shoot Oswald came from Ruby's time in the first round of CIA-Mafia plots against Castro.

Ruby's job--in Chicago and probably Tampa, as well as Dallas--was to get a policeman to quickly kill the patsy, since Ruby had numerous friends in law enforcement. Failing to do that, Ruby had to do the job himself, though Congressional (and even Warren Commission) investigators felt he had the help of one or more policemen. One of them let Ruby know when Oswald was heading to the basement, the day he was shot.

Under Texas's "sudden passion" murder defense at the time, Ruby could have received as little as five years, and with good behavior, had to serve less than three years. Ruby's mob-linked lawyer chose not to use that defense, and instead used a bizarre "psycho-motor" defense that had never worked before.

But once Ruby’s in jail for life, and particularly after his diagnosis of cancer, what would prevent him from telling the truth about his role in the assassination?

One reason the Jewish Ruby had been able to work with the Mafia for so long was that he'd shown he could keep his mouth shut, even when it came to murder. Robert Kennedy wrote in his book "The Enemy Within" about a Mafia murder in 1939 that was important in forging a link between the Mafia and the Teamsters--and police records show that one of the mobsters who kept his mouth shut about that hit was Jack Ruby.

By 1963, Ruby was a long-trusted lower-level mob associate, part of a tight-knit Mafia heroin network that went through Dallas.

The night before the assassination, Ruby dined at the restaurant of a long-time Marcello associate. After Ruby's arrest, he was visited by the same Marcello associate. As we cite in the book from Warren Commission testimony, there are indications that the lives of Ruby's family (sister, brothers, their children) had been threatened, that Ruby had been told they could face death or torture if he didn't cooperate. One of the Chicago mobsters that framed Abraham Bolden was known for the same type of brutal torture murders that gave Ruby nightmares.

In addition, it's been said that for much of the time of Ruby's incarceration, Dealy Plaza was visible from Ruby's jail cell in Dallas. That's the ultimate reminder of what could happen to those who angered the Mafia, even a President. In the same way Ruby's close connections to hundreds of Dallas police made him valuable to the Mafia, Ruby knew that it would be just as easy for the Mafia to take action against Ruby, even in prison.

Ruby didn't have that much time to talk after his sudden diagnosis of cancer. Ruby had received a clean bill of health from a medical exam not long before. As I write in the book "Ruby had been diagnosed with cancer three days after winning a December 7, 1966 appeal for a new trail, to be held in Wichita Falls." Just over three weeks later, he was dead. By not talking after his cancer diagnosis, Ruby probably felt he had insured the safety of his family.

Will we ever find a definitive answer to this mystery? Is there anyone alive who was involved and could provide important information?

The answer to both questions is "yes" and "yes." NBC News and a government watchdog group, OMB Watch, both reported that well over a million documents remain secret, possibly until the year 2017. Everyone we have uncovered who was knowingly involved in JFK's death (less than a dozen) is either dead (most of those confessed to associates prior to their death), in prison, or has served time for a crime related to the assassination.

With so much still secret, and so much time having passed, further prosecutions for the assassination would be difficult if not impossible. That's why we recommend a South African-style truth commission about the assassination. They could review and release the vast majority of the million still-secret files, and take testimony from those who were involved.

We also feel strongly that Abraham Bolden--who had a sterling service record before his arrest and was America's first black Presidential Secret Service agent-- deserves to finally have his name cleared.

[John Simkin]

Lamar Waldron be giving a rare talk and holding his first bookstore signing in New York City on April 4, 2006. At 7pm at McNally Robinson bookstore, 50 Prince St. (between Lafayette and Mulberry).

Waldron will be talking about how the operations revealed in "Ultimate Sacrifice" set the stage for many of today's government secrecy problems. He'll explain why one million JFK files are still withheld from Congress and the America people, and why others were destroyed in 1995.

Waldron will also show how new information in "Ultimate Sacrifice" finally clears framed ex-Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden, as well as what people can do to get justice for Bolden and get all the remaining JFK files released. Waldron's discussion will be hosted by noted author Mark Crispin Miller, as part of his "First Tuesday" series at McNally Robinson. Following the discussion, Waldron will answer questions and sign copies of "Ultimate Sacrifice." For bookstore directions or info call (212) 274-1160 or go to:

http://www.mcnallyrobinsonnyc.com/

Also on April 4, from 10pm to 11pm (Eastern), Waldron will be a guest on New York's "Joey Reynolds" radio program, heard on WOR and other cities in the US. He'll be talking about "Ultimate Sacrifice" and taking questions from callers. Later in the show, they will be joined by long-time JFK researcher Jones Harris.

[John Simkin]

The unnamed coup leader was Che Guevara.

In case anyone hasn't figured it out yet, to the CIA, the Kennedy's putting Che in charge of Cuba was tantamount to treason; it cemented the hard-liners belief that JFK was a communist. Add that to the fact that JFK was going to "dismantle and restructure" the CIA, and, well, I think you can figure out what happened next.

There were two wars against Cuba at this time, the one that RFK was running as he believed he had taken control of the agency with McCone, and the one Helms, Phillips, etc. were running as the old-school hardliner faction at the CIA. Two CIAs really; obviously NOT working in concert with each other, as evidenced by Phillip's insane move of bombing the Baku in Cuban waters after the missile crisis.

Ultimate Sacrifice is an interesting book, but fails in some key areas, namely trying to fit new information into the author's presupposed theory. The book fails at dealing with Oswald, the key player in this drama. Not addressing who sent LHO to work that day with a rifle and directed his actions in the Depository, is an unfortunate lapse. I can tell you this though, it wasn't a Mafioso that was running him that day.

Big book. Just cracked the pages and there's a ton of stuff here, some repeated and some fresh stuff but worth the space next to Hinckle Turner tomes as a reference guide to topic. I have many questions.

Question for authors:

How much contact with Menoyo did you have during the 17 yrs research and has he commented on the finished piece?

Did you interview Masferrer family members and do they concur with the research? How about Olga Morgan who is on a mission to restore Morgan's lost citizenship? Was there cooperation from her as well? Any cooperation from sources in Cuba? Were guys like Wayne Smith or other USemb/State people helpful to you?

Just started reading and jumping around the book so maybe these q's are answered within.

Thank you for illustrating there was an ongoing program to get to Castro and also that he didn't triumph on his own-important to keep in mind.

I'm curious why you don't name key individual C-day, is it because they are still alive? If the docs are avail and declassified I wonder why not refer researchers to the source or the documents that name source in some manner so the researchers can sleuth it out?

Verona seems to come out of book an opportunist not well respected and I've heard this in Miami during interviews myself. I wonder why you don't mention the Feria/Masferrer 27 man invasion prior to BOP but I may have missed it in bk. Side story of this event, I was told, is that Verona gave Castro the heads up on 27 man invasion team out of fear he would be superceded by Masferrer in a new Cuba. Castro's men were waiting and men were captured and executed on heels of JFK election which should have been an indicator that this mini Bay of Pigs was a forshadowing of failure to come six months later, mho.

I have yet to read the book, but found something which might have a bearing on the reliability of one of its main sources, Harry Williams. On the Mary Ferrell site there are a number of old essays by researchers. In "The Assignment of G. Robert Blakey", by Richard E. Sprague, presumably written in the early 80's, Sprague writes that the HSCA failed in part because they had Richard Helms on the stand but that "They didn't ask him about Harry Williams' statement that Helms, Hunt, Williams, and Lyman Kirkpatrick were together in Washington, D.C. on November 22, 1963, talking about the CIA supporting another invasion of Cuba, without JFK's knowledge."

Does anyone know where Sprague got this? Did Williams really say this? Is this covered in Ultimate Sacrifice? If Williams really said this then as far as I'm concerned his credibility is nil. Hunt and Kirkpatrick in the same room planning an invasion of Cuba, WITHOUT JFK's knowledge? This is not only completely incompatible with UT's central premise, it's also incompatible with everything we know about the inner politics of the CIA in 1963. Kirkpatrick was the number one critic within the CIA of the BOP; Bissell and Barnes despised him; Hunt was working for Barnes in '63, apparently, not on Cuba. The idea that these four men would be in a room together on November 22 is absurd. After all, when put to the test, Hunt testfied he was with his wife in a Chinese market when the assassination occurred. He couldn't remember if he worked that day. If he'd been with these other three, how come none of them testified on his behalf?

Those that wish to believe in Sprague's accuracy--he repeats this argument in The Taking of America (Tim Gratz's favorite book)--are seemingly forced to choose between trusting Sprague or the new book. We can be pretty sure that Sprague made more than his share of mistakes. Are Waldron and Hartmann's faith in Williams' story a similar mistake?

It has occurred to me that if the Ultimate Sacrifice analysis of the Chicago and Tampa assassination plots is correct, neither of the Kennedy brothers would have allowed Jackie to be riding in an open limo through Dallas only days later. This is especially true considering that Jackie hadn't motorcaded with the President since the Inauguration Day Parade down Pennsylvania Avenue.

This is a very good point. I cannot imagine any husband encouraging his wife to sit in an open-topped car if he really thought he was going to be assassinated.

According to the authors, JFK was a profile in courage when he stood in the limo for the Tampa motorcade on November 18. It's their premise that the Kennedys deliberately concealed the Tampa plot and the earlier one in Chicago on November 2 to protect the C-Day cover. Finally, on its own, Dallas represented a uniquely variegated security threat.

If that November began with the coup in Vietnam and the assassination of Diem, followed the next day by a plot in Chicago, the final countdown meeting for C-Day on the 12th, and then the Tampa plot and Miami Airport circumstance on the 18th, the last thing in the world Kennedy would have done is have Jackie ride with him for the first time since the Inauguration in an open limo through Dallas.

It's somewhat amazing that this wasn't considered by the authors. This is especially true given that they specifically argue that the Cuban Contingency Plan concerned the judgment that as C-Day drew near, "attempts at assassination of American officials" were "likely."

I have added these questions to this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5494