Jump to content
The Education Forum

Gene Kelly

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gene Kelly

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/05/1950

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Philadelphia PA

Recent Profile Visitors

10,618 profile views
  1. O.V. Campbell quoted Truly - who accompanied the carpenter team that removed the window on Byrd's instructions - that the westernmost window on the sixth floor was removed, not the one in the southeast corner. Perhaps Byrd knew/wanted the real sniper's nest. Since I'm convinced that the successful shots which hit the President came from other locations (the fatal one originating front /left of the limousine, from the South Knoll), the Southwest window frame was used to put incriminating MC brass into the limousine ... quite the trophy for a "big game" hunter.
  2. Congratulations Jim ... and very well-deserved. I love the title, as it says so much. ... as Albert Rossi's 2013 review of your book once described it: The deliberate theft of what should have been ... both in terms of US foreign policy and in bringing the perpetrators to justice ... the unravelling of five decades has "betrayed" (i.e. revealed) the character of John Kennedy" Finally a series that will be informative (for a change). Given the contemporary more favorable press coverage (e.g. Salon, Washington Post), do you think we will see the distortion campaign and ad hominem attacks on Oliver Stone that he received in his earlier film? The truth seems less of a threat to everyone these days, as much of the opposition seems "old" and faded. Has any thought been given to a strategy to counter that possibily? Gene
  3. Just an observation, but the AMIPA film shows quite a bit of activity on the Knoll in/around the Pergola prior to the motorcade passage. You can see Zapruder on the pedestal (there exist very few good photos of him) and what appears to be a male standing on top of the Pergola. Has anyone studied that film in detail?
  4. Interesting ... memo to Mr. Belmont (with a copy to W. Sullivan). We know what happened to those two in 1977, prior to talking with HSCA. Donald Gibson had this to say about Belmont: The review of the facts that follows shows that Alan Belmont, the number three man in the formal hierarchy of the FBI, was the primary official in charge of FBI activities following the assassination. It is Belmont, not Hoover, who ran the FBI cover-up. Reports written by Sullivan and Angleton became the basis for the Warren Commission ... at the time of his death Sullivan was working on a book with journalist Bill Brown about his FBI experiences published posthumously in 1979. The book was highly critical of both Hoover and LBJ
  5. Gladio points to the plotters and perpetrators ... some implications: Italian politics, fascism, Angleton and Harvey, Allen Dulles ... Clay Shaw The precursor assassination attempt (1961 Generals' Putsch) on Charles DeGaulle who later kicked NATO out of France in 1966 Extensive use of false flag events Middle East foreign policy and Israel NATO secret armies created by Dulles and Angleton in 1952, and controlled by the CIA JFK's approval of "l'apertura" and financial support to Italian socialists (and Aldo Moro's fate) William Harvey's posting as CIA Rome Station Chief The Italian press (Paese Sera) reporting of Permindex and CMC (expelled from Italy in 1962) as a "creature of the CIA" Permindex financial backing from J. Henry Schroder Corp. (Allen Dulles became their General counsel) closely associated with Sullivan and Cromwell Lyman Lemnitzer becomes NATO's Supreme Allied Commander of Europe (SACEUR) from 1963-1969 Basing the NATO Mediterranean command in Naples, moving the Defense College from Paris to Rome, and the US Sixth Fleet from Villefranche to Gaeta in 1967 JFK's foreign policy in Vietnam, Cuba, Congo and Indonesia Later use of CIA/FBI domestic infiltration of antiwar activists (same game plan)
  6. Lyndon Johnson had many political pressures imposed upon him, as well as personal reasons (i.e. Bobby Baker) to deflect Congressional inquiries with a Commission. LBJ initially rejected the idea of a Commission after consulting his de facto counsel, Abe Fortas, who cautioned against getting the White House involved in any way with an investigation into the murder, believing that such a commission would set a bad precedent by engaging the federal government into what was a state matter. The President then got a call from journalist Joseph Alsop, who encouraged him to discuss the matter with Dean Acheson, the elder statesman and former Secretary of State. Alsop "argues, cajoles, and invokes the name of Acheson" in his persistent attempts to get Johnson to change his mind and conduct a Commission. The edited transcript of this conversation is in Michael Beschloss' "Taking Charge" where Alsop persuaded Johnson of the need for the results of the criminal investigation to be sanctified by a number of august figures, mentioning several influential people including Nicholas Katzenbach, Dean Acheson and Fred Friendly, the president of CBS: “I’m not suggesting that you appoint an additional investigating commission … I’m just suggesting that if you want to carry absolute convictions, this very small addition to the admirable machinery they’ve already have … will help you and I believe that it will counter the imagination of the country and be a very useful, happy thing … ask Dean Acheson, he’s the man to ask. What I’m really honestly giving you is public relation advice and not legal advice … I am suggesting simply a device for summing up the result of the FBI inquiry in a way that will be completely coherent, detailed, and will carry unchallengeable convictions and this carrying conviction is just as important as carrying on the investigation - in the right way - and I worry about this Post editorial … I’d like you to get ahead of them. From the public relations standpoint and from the standpoint of carrying conviction, there is that missing key which is easy to supply without infringing upon Texas feelings or sovereignty.” On November 25, Johnson was against the idea, but by the 28th he is lobbying support for it ... his change of mind somehow transformed in the space of four days from an opponent to the creator of the Warren Commission. Soon, a Washington Post editorial highlighting the need for a national solution to the crisis appeared on the 26th. By this time, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Internal Security, chaired by James Eastland, had announced its intention to hold hearings, plus there were also signs that the House Un-American Activities Committee was making noise on the grounds that Oswald had been affiliated with left-wing groups as the FPCC. Rostow argued that LBJ needed a commission because “world opinion and American opinion is just now so shaken by the behavior of the Dallas Police that they do not believe anything.” The same politicians, who had been calling for an investigation into the Baker case, were now calling for an assassination investigation. In a phone call to John McCormack (speaker of the House) on November 29th, LBJ emphasized that he didn't want someone testifying in public that “Khrushchev planned the whole thing and he got our President assassinated... you can see what that’ll lead us to, right quick. You take care of the House of Representatives for me”. Johnson was lobbying to ensure the joint Senate-House Investigation suggested by Goodell would not take place. That same day, LBJ spoke to Charles Halleck, House Minority Leader, using the same tactic stating "It's got some foreign complications - CIA and other things - and I'm going to try to get the Chief Justice to go on it." Alsop lived in Washington where he associated with a group of journalists, politicians and government officials known as the ‘Georgetown Set’. This included Dean Acheson, Richard Bissell, Philip Graham, Clark Clifford, Walt Rostow, Eugene Rostow, Cord Meyer, James Angleton, William Averill Harriman, John McCloy, and Allen W. Dulles (it's clear who JFK's enemies and advesaries were). In 1960, when JFK secured the Democratic Party nomination. Alsop helped persuade Kennedy to make Lyndon Johnson (instead of Stuart Symington) his running-mate, commenting: "We've come to talk to you about the vice-presidency. Something may happen to you, and Symington is far too shallow a puddle for the United States to dive into. Furthermore, what are you going to do about Lyndon Johnson? He's much too big a man to leave up in the Senate." Phillip Graham then added that not having Johnson on the ticket would certainly be trouble”. Within LBJ’s hawkish administration was “shadowy clique” for examining covert operations, including a secret political agreement in 1966 by which Israel and the United States had vowed to destroy Egypt’s Nasser, with military name Operation Cyanide. Johnson's closest advisors (Eugene and Walter Rostow, Special Assistant for National Security Affairs) supported military and economic assistance to Israel and concerns about Israel's nuclear program were tabled during the build-up to the Six Day War and its aftermath. John Kennedy’s death eased the pressure on Israel, and Johnson chose to turn a blind eye on the nuclear activities at Dimona ... CIA Director John McCone resigned in 1965, complaining of Johnson’s lack of interest in the subject.
  7. Admiral Zumwalt spoke at my college graduation ceremony in 1972. It was also the night of the first Watergate break-in (and the height of the Vietnam War).
  8. Ron and Jim I read your July article about Gladio in Kennedy's and King and it is excellent. This article connects quite a few "dots" ... Gladio and Permindex, the Aldo Moro murder and the attempts against DeGaulle. Shaw and PERMINDEX (and CMC). Italy becomes Ground Zero for Angleton and Harvey's activities, and the sociopathy of Allen Dulles ... and how NATO was structured and used. The subversive work of Gladio operatives, Aginer Press, and who the real Puppet-Masters are. How secret warfare is approached, stay-behind networks, false-flag operations and the use of patsies. I often wondered why Charles de Gaulle removed France from NATO in 1966 and kicked them out of Paris. Unfortunately, we are not particularly well-informed about issues in Europe, and especially Italian politics. I have also speculated about who/what was behind the Red Brigade, FBI COINTELPRO, antiwar movements of the 70's and other fronts. Your article and the work of Daniel Ganser really shines a light on those tumultuous years. Most important for this Forum, it provides context for and perspective on JFK's murder. It pulls many deep state concepts together in a more coherent picture, and shows that Jim Garrison was truly on the trail of the assassins. And can there be any doubt that JFK's foreign policy is what got him killed? Or that Dulles, Angleton and Harvey had a hand in it? Who pulled the triggers becomes academic and moot. The end of the article was poetic; I did not know much about Elisabeth Frank's bronze sculpture of an eagle at the Dallas Trade Mart , an ironic location (and end point) for a great President that never happened ... and where the conspirator Clay Shaw's office front was located. The quote from William Blake's "Marriage of heaven and Hell" inspires. Well done Gene
  9. That interview is shocking to watch and listen to ... I was a fan of Carson (as was everyone) in those days, but he really showed his true colors. I would assume many folks in those days (me included) had no idea how well-informed (or who) Jim Garrison was, and how close he was to a more truthful account of JFK's murder. That fact was effectively suppressed from the public for many years. The interview occurred at the end of the chaotic 60's when I was a senior in high school; Bobby would be killed that coming June, race riots were erupting all over, and we would all soon find out about the evil of Richard Nixon. The Vietnam War subsequently polarized the country, and we started to acknowledge the unthinkable (at the time) ... namely, that our government would deceive us. Trust in government and politicians became lost. The night of my college graduation was the Watergate break-in, and it all went downhill for the next 5 years. There was some hope when the limited hangout known as the HSCA was formed from 1976-78 ... and that was thought to appease the public skepticism for a time. Garrison had been effectively silenced, and remained out of the public eye for the next decade, content to author books on the subject. Zachary Sklar, a professor of journalism at Columbia, altered that quiet ignorance in 1988 with publication of On the Trail of the Assassins. Oliver Stone obtained a copy of the book and bought the film rights with $250,000 of his own money, to prevent talk going around the studios about projects he might be developing. The rest as they say, is history. The media reaction to Stone was as vicious as that given Garrison himself. A few weeks after Stone began shooting in May 1991, the Chicago tribune wrote that JFK was "an insult to the intelligence." Five days later, the Washington Post followed suit with a scathing article by George Lardner titled, "On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland" that used the first draft of the JFK screenplay to blast it for "the absurdities and palpable untruths in Garrison's book and Stone's rendition of it." The article pointed out that Garrison lost his case against Clay Shaw and that he inflated his case by trying to use Shaw's homosexual relationships to prove guilt by association. Other critical articles soon followed. Anthony Lewis in the NYT stated that the film "tells us that our government cannot be trusted to give an honest account of a Presidential assassination." Washington Post columnist George Will called Stone "a man of technical skill, scant education and negligible conscience." Jack Valenti, then president and chief executive of the Motion Picture Association denounced Stone's film in a seven-page statement: "In much the same way, young German boys and girls in 1941 were mesmerized by Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will", in which Adolf Hitler was depicted as a newborn God. Both JFK and Triumph of the Will are equally a propaganda masterpiece and equally a hoax. Mr. Stone and Leni Riefenstahl have another genetic linkage: neither of them carried a disclaimer on their film that its contents were mostly pure fiction." TIME magazine ranked it in "Top 10 Historically Misleading Films." Historian David Wrone stated that "80 percent of the film is in factual error" and rejected the premise of a conspiracy involving the CIA and the military-industrial complex as "irrational." Warren Commission attorney David Belin called the film "a big lie that would make Adolf Hitler proud". Strange praise, given that Stone's movie helped prompt the JFK Records Act and the AARB ... as we continued to kick the can forward. Its no surprise that you've focused on the Garrison story in Destiny Betrayed ... and as Joan Mellen posits, you can tell which side people are on by how they react to the name Jim Garrison. Even today, there are many good people that I know who have a very difficult time digesting all of this, and the government's behavior in 1963.
  10. On January 31, 1968, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison appeared on the Tonight Show to discuss his investigation into government involvement in the assassination. Carson devoted more than half of his then 90-minute program to the DA from Orleans Parish. In those days, the show was still broadcast live from New York, making it edgier, less predictable and, sometimes, dare it be said, thought-provoking. Mort Sahl, a political satirist and occasional Tonight guest, paved the way for Garrison's appearance. Sahl had begun eschewing comedy for political lectures after the assassination, and was one of Garrison's many "volunteer investigators," who put themselves at the disposal of the DA. Sahl had previously appeared on the Carson show, discussed the assassination, and asked the audience if they would like to hear from Garrsion directly. The response was so affirmative that it left Carson and the network with no alternative, and a telegram requesting his appearance arrived a few days later. Sahl persuaded Carson that, if Tonight was to give Garrison the venue to explain his evidence, everything would become transparent. When Garrison showed up at the NBC studio the afternoon of his scheduled appearance, he later wrote that "three or four well-dressed men," apparently NBC lawyers, entered the room and started grilling him for several hours. Carson himself, "stiff and ill at ease," popped in for some small chat and then just as quickly disappeared. A few hours later, Garrison was back for the taping. Carson's "small humorless eyes, like a pair of tiny dark marbles, were fixed on me," writes Garrison. The talk show host fired off questions from a list prepared for him by the NBC lawyers. Garrison refused to play along with the pre-arranged script. Carson out of frustration finally asked why the government would still be concealing evidence. In a response that evoked a palpable response from the studio audience, Garrison responded: “Don't ask me, John … ask Lyndon Johnson. You know he has to have the answer." A January 2005 article written by freelance journalist Larry Chin describes the interview. Over the course of 90 minutes, the smiles and laughs went silent. Carson, America’s nighttime friend, was the assassin. He badgered, belittled, and mocked Garrison, repeatedly interrupting Garrison as he made an impassioned plea to the audience to question the official story. Garrison handled himself quite well during the broadcast and didn’t lose his cool, even though Carson interrupted him on numerous occasions, as it became evident that Johnny wasn't buying into the story. When Garrison attempted to show the photograph of the “Three Tramps”, Carson made sure America would not see it. He yanked Garrison’s arm aside and cut the cameras. What happened in the next few seconds was unsettling. As Garrison held the pictures in front of the camera, Carson "lunged at my arm like a cobra, pulling it down violently so that the pictures were out of the camera's view. 'Photographs like this don't show up on television,' he said sharply." Garrison later mused: “Why had I been debriefed in advance so that Carson could be apprised of my likely answers? Why had Carson pulled my arm away so that the photographs were out of camera range? And why had the director and the control room switched the camera so that the photographs could not be seen? The only reasonable, realistic explanation, I found myself concluding, was control. Some long-cherished illusions of mine about the great free press in our country underwent a painful reappraisal during this period. The restraint and respect for justice one might expect from the press did not exist”. One series of questions and answers was particularly prophetic: Garrison: "I am trying to tell you that there is no question as a result of our investigation that an element of the Central Intelligence Agency of our country killed John Kennedy, and that the present administration is concealing the facts. There is no question about it at all." Carson: "That is your opinion." Garrison: "No, it is not. I know it, and if you will just wait you will see that history will support this as fact." One critic wrote that the “unholy alliance between the media and the government,” in covering up government crimes, was evident that night. By 9:00 am the next morning, Garrison had received more than 2,000 telegrams from district attorneys across America, who felt that Carson’s “nervous antagonism,” was a sign that Garrison was onto something. Feeling the need to apologize for Carson’s demeanor, NBC sent out thousands of form letters saying, “The Johnny seen on TV that night was not the Johnny we all know and love. He had to play the devil’s advocate, because that makes for a better program.” Carson was furious about NBC’s letter, and promised never to allow Garrison on his program again. Mort Sahl was never invited back to the Tonight Show. Steve Allen, the original host of the Tonight Show, had another talk show at this time and invited both Garrison and Sahl on, but also invited critic Bob Dornan on that same panel, who effectively derailed the interview (and Mort Sahl's career in the process). Sahl presciently summarized the assassination plot as follows: “The scenario points toward a coalition of anti-Castro, Cuban exiles, oil rich psychotics, according to the district attorney in Texas, retired militarists, various voices of the right. That is at an operational level of the conspiracy and at the planning level. The Cubans were a good setup up because they were disenchanted with the Kennedy administration and also, they were lawless. You've got to remember that these informants who worked for the CIA along the way, if you have government by hoodlum, what are you spawning? The CIA keeps them on staff for 20 years and gives them a watch at the end of their service. This undercover thing of doing what you want to, and countermanding orders of the President, and writing blank checks, and not being checked by the Congress, spawns a government by hoodlums.” Carson played the role of "Devil's advocate" but he played the role too well which "surprised" viewers by the thousands, who complained to NBC the next day, that Johnny was a very rude host. Carson challenged Garrison at every point and turn, to point of being uncomfortable when you hear how Carson is all over him. Garrison, to his credit, stays very cool, wins the audience over, and frustrates Carson. A broadcast media blog wrote that "Garrison in contrast is wonderful, and the exchange between the two is amazing". Today, we think of Johnny Carson as charming, epitomizing the goodness of middle America. His Garrison interview - the one glaring moment that exposed Carson (as Jim Marrs states) as a servant of larger forces - continues to be studiously avoided. Carson had the power to change the world on that night in 1968, but he chose to use that power to destroy a courageous whistleblower, kill truth, and keep America naïve and stupid. Near the end of the awkward, occasionally tense, 48-minute segment, Carson aptly stated that Garrison's grand conspiracy was "a much larger fairy tale than to accept the findings of the Warren Report." Jim Garrison concluded the Tonight interview with this statement. "Am I asking the people of America to believe all this? I'm doing more than that! I am trying to tell the people of America that the honor of this country is at stake. And if we don't do something about this fraud. We will not survive. And there is no way to survive if we don't bring out the truth about the how our President was killed four years ago. And the investigation by the Warren Commission wasn't even close. Walter Sheridan, who authored the Frank McGee "white paper" entitled “The Case against Jim Garrison” discredited and defamed Garrison publicly. NBC was not going to allow a rebuttal of their white paper on national TV, and prepared Carson in advance; in other words, it wasn't an interview. But by the end of the show, the audience became sympathetic to Garrison, and Carson was humiliated.
  11. Jim It seems that Garrison was way too close to the truth, given the extraordinary resistance his investigation received. His investigation was undermined by scores of "researchers" and "authors" spreading disinformation and using pseudonyms with questionable curriculum vitae (Patricia Lambert/Patsy Ruth, Steven Roy/David Blackburst , Lynne Foster, Gus Russo) and a score of hostile media too many to mention. On the same day that Ferrie was being taken out, Eladio del Valle was murdered ... right about the time that Garrison's inquiry had been coincidentally infiltrated by Bernardo de Torres, a principal character of interest. Garrison countered almost everything that the Warren Commission concluded: he more correctly characterized Oswald as a decoy, patsy and victim (not the loner as he is historically portrayed) ... exposing him as a person working in intelligence circles. Garrison shed light on what was being orchestrated with Oswald in New Orleans, and further dramatized in Mexico City. Garrison's work makes it clear that the HSCA should have indicted Anne Goodpasture and David Phillips. No less than John Rosselli (with the help of Edward P. Morgan and Jack Anderson) began a sophisticated cover story about a Castro retaliation plot - classic disinformation - as a false lead to throw the Garrison investigators off the trail of the assassins. Rosselli (likely with the help of the CIA Clandestine Services) constructed a perfect cover for Trafficante and the Cubans, should they be exposed. I therefore understand why you would concentrate on Garrison, because it illuminates the details of the plot and leads to the identities of the plotters. This is similar to what Vincent Salandria said about the Michael and Ruth Paine's actions branding them as "clear beacons leading to the killers". I also like the analogy used by Joan Mellen in "Farewell to Justice" where one can use a barometer for who was working for CIA (or sympathetic to a hostile agency) by how they felt about Jim Garrison. I used to enjoy and respect Johnny Carson, but when you see his hostile reception and treatment of Garrison on the Tonight Show, it is troubling. So, here is my question: in your work with Destiny Betrayed, did you find evidence of the opposite nature? People who believed Garrison was on the right path, and tried to right the wrongs and publish the truth? People of conscience who saw through all of the subterfuge and disinformation. Or was the deck simply too well stacked? Gene
  12. Snipers call this a "command fire" tactic.
  13. While we tend to vilify these individuals, I'd put forward (assuming it wont be popular) that James Mc Cord was a patriot, and did many things for the country and CIA that deserve a measure of respect. It seems that - with Watergate unfolding and Richard Helms out of the loop and no longer able to protect these guys - McCord did what he had to do. It's not clear who "they" are ... but its a dangerous game they were playing ... William Colby experienced a suspicious end in 1996, 20 years after Watergate and the Rockefeller Commission. Mc Cord succumbed to pancreatic cancer and had a notable record. An Army Air Force bombardier in WWII, FBI special agent, MS in International Relations from George Washington University. More than 20 years with CIA in very sensitive roles (with a Distinguished Service Award). We may not like his politics or roles, but he was a warrior, and deserves respect.
  14. Interesting that McCord died in Douglasville PA. I live and work about 8 miles away. This is a rural town, outside of King of Prussia and on the way to Reading and Pottstown. Lots of farms and Mennonite communities. Only about 45 minutes from Philadelphia. Living to 93 (in a quiet and low key manner) after all he did is quite an accomplishment. Imagine the stories that he could relate ... Gene PS. Jim, I hope you're taking care of yourself, and feeling better.
  15. Jim The August 2012 Martin Hay critique (in Kennedys and King) of Paul Chambers' book is not that flattering or conclusive: In my view, Chambers' handling of the medical evidence is by far the most disappointing aspect of this book. I found myself shaking my head in several places, and I think my jaw actually dropped at one point. He makes a number of bold statements without backing them up or even mentioning the evidence to the contrary. He pushes an outdated and incredible theory involving the handling of Kennedy's body. And he makes one particular claim that many may find beyond belief. Taking what some readers may feel is too long a digression in what is a fairly slim book ostensibly about the Kennedy assassination, Chambers attempts to explain “How Science Arrives At the Truth.” Therefore the reader must make a choice between Chambers' reconstruction of the head shot—which is based on a dismissal of both the hard evidence of the X-rays and the soft evidence of the Dallas doctors' testimonies—and his acceptance of the dictabelt which the author previously told us has only a 1 in 11 billion chance of not being an authentic recording of the shots. The two are not compatible. In the end I believe this contradiction sums up Chambers' work. Despite telling us that “Consistency with other evidence is very important to scientists” he appears to have studied each point in isolation and then cherry-picked the details that fit his own thesis. The one point it can really be said that Dr. G. Paul Chambers Ph. D. both makes and proves in his book is that credentials and a good reputation are no proof against being wrong. Gene
  • Create New...