John Simkin

Article in the USA magazine Cigarettes An American Success by Alice Widener (9th September, 1960) Today a lot of inaccurate and false propaganda about American cigarettes is being printed and broadcast because they are a kind of money and the American tobacco companies make a lot of it. Also, a great deal of anti-cigarette propaganda is being put out by a few persons working hard for American failure... The American physician most respsonible for the story [linking smoking and lung cancer] is Dr. Alton Ochsner of New Orleans. For the May 23, 1953 issue of the radical Marxist magazine, The Nation, he wrote the feature article "Smoking and Lung Cancer." For the November 8, 1954 issue of the Socialist New Leader magazine, Dr. Ochsner wrote "Cigarettes Cause Cancer." Also in 1954, Dr. Ochsner's book "Smoking and Cancer" was published. The situation would be tolerable despite Ochsner's fulminations against cigarettes, except that he and his coterie have used the American Cancer society as a sounding board for their anti-tobacco campaigns. Each time money is needed, the Society announces a brilliant "new cigarette-cancer link" which is little more than the six year old statement which first thrust Ochsner into prominence and which never was valid. On the back page it says. "The U.S.A. magazine enjoys the public endorsement of such great Americans as Admiral Arleigh Burke, General Mark W. Clark, the Honorable James A. Farley, General Leslie R. Groves, Director J. Edgar Hoover and Vice President Nixon."

I have a page on John Stockwell. http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKstockwellJ.htm John Stockwell wrote about the JFK assassination in The Praetorian Guard: The US Role in the New World Order (1991): The President was perfunctorily warned of the threats against him, but the usual vigilant efforts to protect him were not taken. The Secret Service, FBI, and local police certainly can protect presidents. They do it continuously not only inside the United States but in foreign capitals around the world. Numerous, almost routine, techniques are involved, like bringing extra security forces to blanket problem areas, moving in caravans of cars at a brisk 45 miles an hour, and using, whenever possible, unannounced routes that do not include sharp, slow turns. When President Kennedy and his wife visited Dallas on November 22, 1963, nearly all of the protections were lifted. Available Texas Guard units were not called into the city and available Dallas policemen were temporarily released from duty. The result? A team of CIA, Cuban exile, and Mafia-related renegades organized a simple military ambush in Dallas and successfully gunned him down. The ambush and its coverup were brazen and astonishingly open. In fact several plots, in Chicago, Miami, and Houston, to kill Kennedy had misfired or been thwarted. The plot that succeeded in Dealey Plaza was so open that various people were reported prior to the event to have said that Kennedy would be killed with a rifle and a patsy would be blamed for the crime. Individuals like Joseph Milteer, the "umbrella man," and a CIA pilot Robert Plumlee went to Dealey Plaza on the 22nd of November to watch. Obviously, most CIA personnel were not involved and did not know of the plot since sensitive operations are compartmentalized in order to protect their security. Moreover, the great majority of the coat-and-tie people inside CIA headquarters would never have put up with a hit on the President. A great deal of the success of the CIA is due to its ability to attract patriotic, good soldiers who believe in the general rightness of what they do, and then insulate them through compartmentalization from the heavier activities. The OPMONGOOSE renegades, however, included assassins, terrorists, and people who had been involved in the drug traffic from Cuba into the United States. The team set up a military-style ambush in Dealey Plaza, with shooters on the tops of buildings and the famous grassy knoll. The route of the President's convoy included a 120-degree turn which slowed the car to a near stop. There was cooperation of elements of the Secret Service, of the Dallas Police, and of other law enforcement agencies. When the shooting began, the Secret Service driver put on - the brakes (home movies of the scene show the brake lights on). Anyone who has been through that kind of training - and I have been through their "bang and burn" courses - is drilled to react. When the bullets start flying in such a situation, you mash down on the gas and you get the hell out of the area; you do not slow down and look around as the seasoned Secret Service driver in fact did. In ten seconds of rifle fire, only one of the Secret Service agents in the trail car moved to the President's aid. The one agent who did move was Jackie Kennedy's personal guard, in Dallas at her request, not part of the team that was there to protect the President. Kennedy was shot at very close range from firing stations, probably four of them, where the assassins fired eight to ten shots. He was hit in the back, throat, and twice in the head, two bullets each from the front and from the back. Texas Governor John Connally was hit twice. Two bullets were fired into the concrete, one on each side of the convoy. After the shooting stopped, the convoy raced away. The FBI and other branches of the government immediately launched the coverup. The new President, Lyndon Johnson, ordered the limousine in which Kennedy was killed be flown to Chicago and destroyed. The announced goal of President Johnson was to "reassure" the nation by proving that the killing was the work of lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. It was variously suggested that an investigation that turned up Soviet involvement might lead to nuclear war; it might embarrass the Kennedy widow; it might lead to domestic unrest. In fact; it might have led to a sizeable number of very important people and organizations being implicated in a presidential assassination. That might very well have exercised the population sufficiently to provoke a serious investigation of CIA, FBI, and Mafia activities in the country, and to demand some changes. The evidence was extensively tampered with. The President's body was altered; the photographs of the autopsy were altered; and over 100 witnesses were killed or died mysterious and violent deaths. To this day, despite the House Committee's 1979 conclusion that there was a conspiracy, there has been no formal, official investigation. Neither have all the documents been released. Even among the majority that acknowledge that there was abroad conspiracy, many find it difficult to believe that the CIA itself could have been involved. Perhaps, they reluctantly concede, "renegades" might have had something to do with it. In fact, there is strong evidence that both the FBI and the CIA high commands had prior knowledge of and direct involvement in the conspiracy. After the Dallas Police had arrested Lee Harvey Oswald, but before they could have positively identified him (he had false identification papers in his wallet) much less interrogate him and reasonably confirm his (alleged) guilt, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover telephoned Bobby Kennedy in Washington to tell him that the assassin had been caught. Hoover gave Kennedy biographic information that he could only have had prior to the assassination. Clearly he was waiting with information about Lee Harvey Oswald, to blame him for the killing. Similarly, CIA operatives far from Dallas were waiting with biographic information about Oswald to feed to the media. Some time after the Warren Committee hearings, journalist Seth Kantor found himself broadly suspected of being somehow a secret agent because, researchers found, the Warren Commission had classified part of his testimony. Puzzled, he checked and found that the Commission had in fact classified telephone calls he made during the afternoon of the killing. In addition to checking his own notes, he succeeded in forcing the Warren Commission to return his testimony to him, and identified the calls. One was to the managing editor of the Scripps-Howard news service bureau in Washington. Mid-afternoon, again long before the police could have interrogated Oswald, made a positive identification, concluded what had happened, and eliminated the possibility of accomplices in a conspiracy to kill the President, the editor told Kantor that Oswald had been identified as the assassin and instructed him to call Hal Hendricks, a journalist who gave Kantor detailed biographic information about Oswald. Years later, in the CIA-engineered coup in Chile, Hendricks was positively identified as a CIA operative working under journalistic cover. Moreover, the Warren Commission's move to classify the phone calls is proof positive that it knew there was an intelligence connection with Hendricks and strongly suggests that it was willfully covering up the assassination conspiracy. In sum, the FBI Director and CIA media operatives were waiting, primed, before the assassination to launch the coverup and pin the blame on the pre-selected patsy, Oswald.

I have a page on John Stockwell. http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKstockwellJ.htm John Stockwell wrote about the JFK assassination in The Praetorian Guard: The US Role in the New World Order (1991) The President was perfunctorily warned of the threats against him, but the usual vigilant efforts to protect him were not taken. The Secret Service, FBI, and local police certainly can protect presidents. They do it continuously not only inside the United States but in foreign capitals around the world. Numerous, almost routine, techniques are involved, like bringing extra security forces to blanket problem areas, moving in caravans of cars at a brisk 45 miles an hour, and using, whenever possible, unannounced routes that do not include sharp, slow turns. When President Kennedy and his wife visited Dallas on November 22, 1963, nearly all of the protections were lifted. Available Texas Guard units were not called into the city and available Dallas policemen were temporarily released from duty. The result? A team of CIA, Cuban exile, and Mafia-related renegades organized a simple military ambush in Dallas and successfully gunned him down. The ambush and its coverup were brazen and astonishingly open. In fact several plots, in Chicago, Miami, and Houston, to kill Kennedy had misfired or been thwarted. The plot that succeeded in Dealey Plaza was so open that various people were reported prior to the event to have said that Kennedy would be killed with a rifle and a patsy would be blamed for the crime. Individuals like Joseph Milteer, the "umbrella man," and a CIA pilot Robert Plumlee went to Dealey Plaza on the 22nd of November to watch. Obviously, most CIA personnel were not involved and did not know of the plot since sensitive operations are compartmentalized in order to protect their security. Moreover, the great majority of the coat-and-tie people inside CIA headquarters would never have put up with a hit on the President. A great deal of the success of the CIA is due to its ability to attract patriotic, good soldiers who believe in the general rightness of what they do, and then insulate them through compartmentalization from the heavier activities. The OPMONGOOSE renegades, however, included assassins, terrorists, and people who had been involved in the drug traffic from Cuba into the United States. The team set up a military-style ambush in Dealey Plaza, with shooters on the tops of buildings and the famous grassy knoll. The route of the President's convoy included a 120-degree turn which slowed the car to a near stop. There was cooperation of elements of the Secret Service, of the Dallas Police, and of other law enforcement agencies. When the shooting began, the Secret Service driver put on - the brakes (home movies of the scene show the brake lights on). Anyone who has been through that kind of training - and I have been through their "bang and burn" courses - is drilled to react. When the bullets start flying in such a situation, you mash down on the gas and you get the hell out of the area; you do not slow down and look around as the seasoned Secret Service driver in fact did. In ten seconds of rifle fire, only one of the Secret Service agents in the trail car moved to the President's aid. The one agent who did move was Jackie Kennedy's personal guard, in Dallas at her request, not part of the team that was there to protect the President. Kennedy was shot at very close range from firing stations, probably four of them, where the assassins fired eight to ten shots. He was hit in the back, throat, and twice in the head, two bullets each from the front and from the back. Texas Governor John Connally was hit twice. Two bullets were fired into the concrete, one on each side of the convoy. After the shooting stopped, the convoy raced away. The FBI and other branches of the government immediately launched the coverup. The new President, Lyndon Johnson, ordered the limousine in which Kennedy was killed be flown to Chicago and destroyed. The announced goal of President Johnson was to "reassure" the nation by proving that the killing was the work of lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. It was variously suggested that an investigation that turned up Soviet involvement might lead to nuclear war; it might embarrass the Kennedy widow; it might lead to domestic unrest. In fact; it might have led to a sizeable number of very important people and organizations being implicated in a presidential assassination. That might very well have exercised the population sufficiently to provoke a serious investigation of CIA, FBI, and Mafia activities in the country, and to demand some changes. The evidence was extensively tampered with. The President's body was altered; the photographs of the autopsy were altered; and over 100 witnesses were killed or died mysterious and violent deaths. To this day, despite the House Committee's 1979 conclusion that there was a conspiracy, there has been no formal, official investigation. Neither have all the documents been released. Even among the majority that acknowledge that there was abroad conspiracy, many find it difficult to believe that the CIA itself could have been involved. Perhaps, they reluctantly concede, "renegades" might have had something to do with it. In fact, there is strong evidence that both the FBI and the CIA high commands had prior knowledge of and direct involvement in the conspiracy. After the Dallas Police had arrested Lee Harvey Oswald, but before they could have positively identified him (he had false identification papers in his wallet) much less interrogate him and reasonably confirm his (alleged) guilt, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover telephoned Bobby Kennedy in Washington to tell him that the assassin had been caught. Hoover gave Kennedy biographic information that he could only have had prior to the assassination. Clearly he was waiting with information about Lee Harvey Oswald, to blame him for the killing. Similarly, CIA operatives far from Dallas were waiting with biographic information about Oswald to feed to the media. Some time after the Warren Committee hearings, journalist Seth Kantor found himself broadly suspected of being somehow a secret agent because, researchers found, the Warren Commission had classified part of his testimony. Puzzled, he checked and found that the Commission had in fact classified telephone calls he made during the afternoon of the killing. In addition to checking his own notes, he succeeded in forcing the Warren Commission to return his testimony to him, and identified the calls. One was to the managing editor of the Scripps-Howard news service bureau in Washington. Mid-afternoon, again long before the police could have interrogated Oswald, made a positive identification, concluded what had happened, and eliminated the possibility of accomplices in a conspiracy to kill the President, the editor told Kantor that Oswald had been identified as the assassin and instructed him to call Hal Hendricks, a journalist who gave Kantor detailed biographic information about Oswald. Years later, in the CIA-engineered coup in Chile, Hendricks was positively identified as a CIA operative working under journalistic cover. Moreover, the Warren Commission's move to classify the phone calls is proof positive that it knew there was an intelligence connection with Hendricks and strongly suggests that it was willfully covering up the assassination conspiracy. In sum, the FBI Director and CIA media operatives were waiting, primed, before the assassination to launch the coverup and pin the blame on the pre-selected patsy, Oswald.

Interesting article by Carson Ward: Google’s influence on society is both unparalleled and poorly understood. At last count in September of 2013, the company served over 3 billion searches per day. Most of us use Google, and we’re far more likely to click the top few results. If Google is determining what we’re more likely to read, and if reading can change belief, then Google’s algorithm can change millions of beliefs daily I myself have changed beliefs – and in one case my entire worldview – based on what I found through Google. I’m happier for it, but I can’t help thinking a few different top results may have changed the course of my life forever. Most people either don’t know or don’t care how Google chooses results, as long as they find what they’re looking for. That might be fine when you’re looking for an address or a cake recipe, but are we comfortable with an unknown algorithm subtly influencing which political and philosophical opinions are most relevant and silencing opposing voices? See the rest here: http://highspeedinternet.com/blog/technology/how-googles-algorithm-silences-minority-opinions

Spartacus Educational has lost its sponsorship (I don't think this is part of any conspiracy) and has now moved to a new web address: http://spartacus-educational.com/ The JFK material can be found here: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKindex.htm

Latest details from here: http://politicalassassinations.com/2014/04/john-judge-has-passed-away/

I think it probably relates to this thread. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20976

As an old timer it hurts me when people post things on a blog about me and have no idea who or what they are talking about. Innuendos such as he is a fake, never heard of him, conspirator, etc. I am 76 years old and have quite a background. I was the Military Attaché to the US Secret Service during the JFK and Johnson Administrations. I NEVER said I was a Secret Service Agent! I NEVER said I was in Dallas at the time of the assassination. I have been in Public Service most of my life and when you are interviewed by the media what you say to them does not always appear correctly in print..I have learned over the years that they often write what they think they heard or what they wanted to hear.....they are journalists and reporters and so often it is reported incorrectly !! I have many Attorney friends who tell me...as long as they spell your name correctly let it go!...today's newspaper is tomorrow's fish wrapper......needless to say I am a very honest, open and moral individual. I have served my Country and Community for over 50 years....I have always been known to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...so help me God. Please read my attachment (see below)and you will see more about me...I have spoken with Vince Palamara, John Backes and Bill Kelley....all very pleasant and meaningful conversations....so I cannot understand why all the negativity on myself still appears. Norman Katz Norman Katz, Graduate of Northeastern University, Boston MA 1961 College of Business Administration Norm Katz became a Commissioned Officer in the US Army Signal Corps through Northeastern's ROTC Program, receiving orders to go to the Republic of Korea in 1961, after Graduation from Northeastern. These orders were rescinded by the Department of the Army and new orders were issued that were quite clandestine that reassigned him to the Military District of Washington DC...In short, he was assigned to The White House and attached to the US Secret Service as Military Attaché for the Continuity of the US Government program. Norm was Assigned to the "Special Projects" department a highly classified area in US Government (USAICA) and reported directly to James Rowley, the Director of the US Secret Service during the early 1960's. The US Secret Service was under the Treasury Department until 2002 when The Secret Service changed to the Department of Homeland Security. His tenure at The White House during the JFK Administration brought him into direct activity with Key Players in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the standoff between the United States and Russia over the Russian Installation of Intercontinental Nuclear Missiles in the Country of Cuba only 90 miles off the United States Coast. Also, the eventual disaster and trauma of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the ongoing events surrounding it i.e. the swearing in of Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson as President, Funeral of JFK, the Transition in Office of The White House Principals for the continuity of the US Government and all other activities that are now a part of United States History. Norm was part of all the major actions and activities to make sure that the United States Government went on uninterrupted. The Federal Government in March of 2010 gave Norm clearance to tell his stories and relate his experiences during these traumatic times for the United States and the World. Not just History in the making, but classified history, accounts and reports that have never been heard before by someone who was physically present at the time. Norm has appeared on NBC, Channel 7 News, WHDH-TV Boston, MA and FOX NEWS, Channel 25 in Boston MA with Host Gene Lavanchy and also appeared on NBC, Channel 7 WHDH Boston, MA on the Program "Urban Update" hosted by TV Anchor, Byron Barnett . He also has been a Featured Speaker at several Massachusetts High Schools, Colleges and Universities, Charitable Organizations along with making Presentations at Private Corporations, Senior Life Communities such as EPOCH, Rotary Clubs, Chambers of Commerce and Men's and Women's Clubs throughout Massachusetts...speaking on the Cuban Missile Crisis and The Assassination of the 35th President of The United States, John F. Kennedy. He recently appeared with Radio Talk Show Hosts, Jim Callahan on March 29, 2014, The Fireside Radio Show and with Dan Rea, WBZ Radio on March 31 , 2014, Night Side - and Jordan Rich, WBZ Radio on May 4, 2014, The Jordan Rich Show. He will be making many Speaking Presentations within the next several months throughout Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Flo Jonic, a Nationally known Icon of Journalism, TV and Radio News Reporting wrote on March 24, 2014....."Norman Katz is a national treasure whose story must be told. He had a unique perspective on some of the most important events of the 20th century because he was there. And he was only 24 years old. " Norm presently serves as Principal of Norman Katz Associates, a Professional Security Consulting Service and is also active and has been formerly active in other Business Enterprises and Banking where he served as Trustee and Corporator of Eastern Bank, Boston, MA. He has received numerous Awards and Honors over the years from both Civic and Private Organizations as well as from the Federal Government. He served as a Selectman and Police Commissioner for the Town of Sharon, MA for 32 years and was also considered for and offered the position of Undersecretary of Health and Human Services, Washington DC, under the term of Secretary and Congresswoman Margaret Heckler ( a Presidential Cabinet Position in the Reagan Administration). Norm has a long history of being involved in many Charitable and Civic Organizations where he Chaired many of them. He has Hosted his own Cable TV Show and appeared as a guest speaker on many Cable TV Shows in the Greater Boston area. He was also a speaker and lecturer at Northeastern University and many other Colleges and Universities in the New England area. He appears numerous time on "Google" if you search, Norman Katz JFK or Norman Katz Secret Service. Norm's Web Site is www.normankatzassociates.com. He has also served as an Advisor to the Massachusetts State Police on the Criminal Justice Training Council. Please note there are "blogs" which question Norm's existence, etc. As he was in a Highly Classified area of the United States Government his name will not appear unless you know exactly where to look in US History. However you can contact him at the information given above...and he has the Credentials to confirm and validate his past work in the United States Government. Norman Katz may be contacted at the Information provided on a need-to-know basis. His avocation has always been in the field of Government, Public Safety and Homeland Security. Norm also holds Certification from the United States Department Of State Protocol School and has held Security Classified Positions and Clearances i.e. : Top Secret, NATO, Crypto, Q , White House and Cosmic among others. He has completed and passed several Security Polygraph Testing procedures.

This is worth watching.

Paul, no I didn't. I will check it out.

We are currently redesigning the Spartacus website. We are trying to make it easier for students to use. I would be interested in your comments on the existing plans and any ideas you have on how it could be improved. You can see and example of this with the entry for Ted Shackley. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKshackley.htm We have made several changes. To help visitors reach the information they are looking for by including a menu at the top of the page. Do you think that works effectively? Another innovation is the use of Twitter to post photographs that links with information that takes people to different parts of the website. We have also introduced a carousal box in the side-bar where we can show a series of photographs and cartoons that will take people to other parts of the website. This is to emphasis the scale of the content that we have to offer. I have tried to select images that will attract attention. The danger is that these images will upset some people. For example, is it acceptable to show a man being lynched or a monk setting fire to himself in protest of the Vietnam War? I would be interested in your views on this matter. We have also redesigned the home page. I like it because I have been involved in its development. However, that probably makes me blind to its faults. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ I am especially interested in any views that would make the website more useable by students.

Presidents do not give orders like that (even if that is what they want). It is claimed that JFK was very upset when he heard what the CIA had done. Another example of the CIA running its own foreign policy.

Another relevant quote from E. H. Carr: "If the historian necessarily looks at his period of history through the eyes of his own time, and studies the problems of the past as a key to those of the present, will he not fall into a purely pragmatic view of the facts, and maintain the criterion of a right interpretation is its suitability to some present purpose? On this hypothesis, the facts of history are nothing, interpretation is everything."

Good quote from Trotsky. The inability to deal with evidence in an impartial way cost Trotsky his life. When Alexander Orlov defected to the West he sent a message to Trotsky outlining Stalin’s plan to kill him. Trotsky was aware that Orlov had been the man in the NKVD who had the responsibility of killing Trotsky supporters amongst the Republican forces. According to Edward Gazur, the author of Alexander Orlov: The FBI’s KGB General (2001): “Testimony in the 1955 Senate Subcommittee hearings revealed that Trotsky had considered Orlov’s warning letter to be a hoax perpetrated by the KGB and aimed at the destruction of Trotsky’s organisation.”

I did not say he was? I was just making the point that he always looks for the weakness in the evidence that anybody puts forward.

I have been a historian for over forty years. I have always been interested in subjects where there is a shortage of evidence. That there is a certain amount of mystery involved. Probably the first research I ever did was into the lives of working people in Britain at the end of the 18th century and the early part of the 19th century. I was drawn to this subject because we knew very little about the way this group saw the world. Most of them were unable to read and write and have left only a small amount of documentary evidence. During my research I read a book that I found disturbing. The book was by the historian, E. H. Carr. In What Is History? (1961) Carr addresses the problem of the politically motivated historian. He points out that the historian is likely to only write about subjects he/she cares about. In the words of another historian, W. H. B. Court: “History free of all values cannot be written. Indeed, it is a concept almost impossible to understand, for men will scarcely take the trouble to inquire laboriously into something which they set no value upon.” Carr argues that the historian starts off with a theory that needs to be tested by the evidence. The theory will reflect the political views of the historian. Carr makes the important point about the nature of the facts that the historian uses: "The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use – these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation." After reading Carr's book I began asking myself some serious questions. When I was researching working class life was I being totally objective? Was I testing a theory that was highly subjective? Was I only looking for "facts" to support my theory and rejecting evidence that suggested other interpretations? As a historian you attempt to act in a completely objective way, but is it really achievable? For example, let us take one theory of the JFK assassination. In 1981 G. Robert Blakey (with Richard Billings) published The Plot to Kill the President (reissued in paperback in 1993 as Fatal Hour: The Assassination of President Kennedy by Organized Crime). Blakey was in a good position to write a book on the assassination as he served as chief counsel and staff director to the House Select Committee on Assassinations from 1977 to 1979. He was therefore in a good position to examine all the evidence available. Carl Oglesby summarized Blakey and Billings theory as follows: (i) Oswald alone did shoot and kill J.F.K., as the Warren Commission deduced. (ii) An unknown confederate of Oswald's, however, also shot at the President, firing from the celebrated "grassy knoll." This shot missed. (iii) Apart from the question of the number of assailants in the attack, Oswald acted as the tool of a much larger conspiracy. (iv) The conspiracy behind Oswald was rooted in organized crime and was specifically provoked by J.F.K.'s anti-crime program. Singly or in some combination, prime suspects are Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante, godfathers respectively of the New Orleans and Tampa Mafias, and Teamster racketeer James Hoffa. Each one had the motive, means, and opportunity to kill J.F.K. The book successfully accumulates the evidence that supports the theory that the Mafia was behind the assassination. Although there are other researchers who agree with Blakey, the vast majority of JFK research community either supports an alternative theory or rejects the whole idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was part of a conspiracy. These people will say that the evidence that Blakey provides is from “unreliable” sources. This is of course true of any theory of JFK's assassination. I happen to believe that the assassination was organized by CIA officers, David Morales and Carl Elmer Jenkins and carried out by a team led by Rafael (Chi Chi) Quintero. However, I am fully aware that people like John McAdams and Gary Mack will have little difficulty in questioning the reliability of the evidence I could produce. Some researchers believe the answer to the question of who killed John F. Kennedy will be found in the archives of the CIA and FBI. However, is it possible to imagine what kind of document will convince McAdams and Mack that he was murdered as part of a conspiracy? The same is also true of those who believe in the idea of a conspiracy. I recently became aware of this problem during an investigation into the political assassination of Sergi Kirov on 1st December, 1934. Leonid Nikolayev was immediately arrested and after being questioned by Genrikh Yagoda he signed a statement saying that Gregory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev had been the leaders of the conspiracy to assassinate Kirov. Walter Duranty, the New York Times correspondent based in Moscow at the time, was willing to accept this story. "The details of Kirov's assassination at first pointed to a personal motive, which may indeed have existed, but investigation showed that, as commonly happens in such cases, the assassin Nikolaiev had been made the instrument of forces whose aims were treasonable and political. A widespread plot against the Kremlin was discovered, whose ramifications included not merely former oppositionists but agents of the Nazi Gestapo. As the investigation continued, the Kremlin's conviction deepened that Trotsky and his friends abroad had built up an anti-Stalinist organisation in close collaboration with their associates in Russia, who formed a nucleus or centre around which gradually rallied divers elements of discontent and disloyalty. The actual conspirators were comparatively few in number, but as the plot thickened they did not hesitate to seek the aid of foreign enemies in order to compensate for the lack of popular support at home." Nikolayev was executed after his trial but Zinoviev and Kamenev, two senior figures in the Soviet government, refused to confess. Ya S. Agranov, the deputy commissar of the secret police, reported to Stalin he was not able to prove that they had been directly involved in the assassination. Therefore in January 1935 they were tried and convicted only for "moral complicity" in the crime. "That is, their opposition had created a climate in which others were incited to violence." Zinoviev was sentenced to ten years hard labour, Kamenev to five. However, on 19th August 1936, a second trial began. This time they made a full confession. Kamenev said: "I Kamenev, together with Zinoviev and Trotsky, organised and guided this conspiracy. My motives? I had become convinced that the party's - Stalin's policy - was successful and victorious. We, the opposition, had banked on a split in the party; but this hope proved groundless. We could no longer count on any serious domestic difficulties to allow us to overthrow. Stalin's leadership we were actuated by boundless hatred and by lust of power." Zinoviev also confessed: "I would like to repeat that I am fully and utterly guilty. I am guilty of having been the organizer, second only to Trotsky, of that block whose chosen task was the killing of Stalin. I was the principal organizer of Kirov's assassination. The party saw where we were going, and warned us; Stalin warned as scores of times; but we did not heed these warnings. We entered into an alliance with Trotsky." Zinoviev and Kamenev were both executed. The Western media accepted that these two men had been guilty of this crime. An editorial in The Observer on 23rd August, 1936, commented: "It is futile to think the trial was staged and the charges trumped up. The government's case against the defendants (Zinoviev and Kamenev) is genuine." The New Statesman added: "Very likely there was a plot. We complain because, in the absence of independent witnesses, there is no way of knowing. It is their (Zinoviev and Kamenev) confession and decision to demand the death sentence for themselves that constitutes the mystery. If they had a hope of acquittal, why confess? If they were guilty of trying to murder Stalin and knew they would be shot in any case, why cringe and crawl instead of defiantly justifying their plot on revolutionary grounds? We would be glad to hear the explanation." The New Republic argued: "Some commentators, writing at a long distance from the scene, profess doubt that the executed men (Zinoviev and Kamenev) were guilty. It is suggested that they may have participated in a piece of stage play for the sake of friends or members of their families, held by the Soviet government as hostages and to be set free in exchange for this sacrifice. We see no reason to accept any of these laboured hypotheses, or to take the trial in other than its face value. Foreign correspondents present at the trial pointed out that the stories of these sixteen defendants, covering a series of complicated happenings over nearly five years, corroborated each other to an extent that would be quite impossible if they were not substantially true. The defendants gave no evidence of having been coached, parroting confessions painfully memorized in advance, or of being under any sort of duress." As far as the media was concerned, the case was closed. However, in the summer of 1937 forty NKVD agents serving abroad were summoned back to the Soviet Union. Three of these agents, Alexander Orlov, Walter Krivitsky and Ignaz Reiss received information, via a source at headquarters, that Joseph Stalin planned to have them all executed. The three men decided to defect to the West. Reiss was assassinated in Switzerland but Krivitsky and Orlov managed to get to the United States. Orlov and Krivitsky gave the FBI full details of how the confessions of Gregory Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev were obtained. Orlov pointed out. "Towards the end of their ordeal, Zinoviev became sick and exhausted. Yezhov took advantage of the situation in a desperate attempt to get a confession. Yezhov warned that Zinoviev must affirm at a public trial that he had plotted the assassination of Stalin and other members of the Politburo. Zinoviev declined the demand. Yezhov then relayed Stalin's offer; that if he co-operated at an open trial, his life would be spared; if he did not, he would be tried in a closed military court and executed, along with all of the opposition. Zinoviev vehemently rejected Stalin's offer. Yezhov then tried the same tactics on Kamenev and again was rebuffed." In July 1936 Nikolai Yezhov told Kamenev and Zinoviev that their children would be charged with being part of the conspiracy and would face execution if found guilty. The two men now agreed to co-operate at the trial if Stalin promised to spare their lives. At a meeting with Stalin, Kamenev told him that they would agree to co-operate on the condition that none of the old-line Bolsheviks who were considered the opposition and charged at the new trial would be executed, that their families would not be persecuted, and that in the future none of the former members of the opposition would be subjected to the death penalty. Stalin replied: "That goes without saying!" Walter Krivitsky published his account of the case in I Was Stalin's Agent (1939). He also visited London where he told MI5 details of the spy network set up by Theodore Maly and Arnold Deutsch, now both recalled to Moscow. This included information that should have enabled the authorities to catch Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, Anthony Blunt, John Cairncross and Michael Straight. Walter Krivitsky was found dead in the Bellevue Hotel in Washington on 10th February, 1941. At first it was claimed that Krivitsky had committed suicide. However, others claimed his hiding place had been disclosed by a Soviet mole working for MI5 and had been murdered by Soviet agents. Whittaker Chambers definitely believed that he had been killed by the NKVD: "He had left a letter in which he gave his wife and children the unlikely advice that the Soviet Government and people were their best friends. Previously he had warned them that, if he were found dead, never under any circumstances to believe that he had committed suicide." Krivitsky once told Chambers: "Any fool can commit a murder, but it takes an artist to commit a good natural death." When Alexander Orlov defected he was concerned about his mother and mother-in-law, were still living in the from the Soviet Union. He sent a letter to Joseph Stalin (a copy was sent to Nikolai Yezhov, the head of the NKVD). He warned that an account of Stalin's crimes were lodged with his attorney and should he, or any member of his immediate family, be kidnapped or murdered by the NKVD, his attorney was under instruction to have the record of Stalin's crimes published immediately. Orlov kept his promise and his book, The Secret History of Stalin's Crimes, was not published until Stalin's death in 1953. Historians now accepted that Stalin had indeed ordered the assassination of Sergi Kirov. In 1956 Nikita Khrushchev made a speech on the rule of Joseph Stalin. He argued: "Stalin acted not through persuasion, explanation and patient co-operation with people, but by imposing his concepts and demanding absolute submission to his opinion. Whoever opposed this concept or tried to prove his viewpoint, and the correctness of his position, was doomed to removal from the leading collective and to subsequent moral and physical annihilation. This was especially true during the period following the 17th Party Congress, when many prominent Party leaders and rank-and-file Party workers, honest and dedicated to the cause of communism, fell victim to Stalin's despotism." Khrushchev condemned the Great Purge and accused Stalin of abusing his power. During the speech he suggested that Stalin had ordered the assassination of Kirov. In 1961 Khrushchev launched an investigation into the assassination of Kirov and other Stalin crimes. However, according to one insider, Feliks Chuev, the Shvernik Commission "found nothing against Stalin" but "Khrushchev refused to publish it - it was of no use to him." In 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev was appointed General Secretary of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union promising an era of political reform. One of his first moves was to launch a new official investigation into the assassination of Sergi Kirov. An inter-agency team re-examined the evidence but with all previous investigations, the commission failed to produce a report. As one historian pointed out: "Their efforts dissolved into mutual recriminations among the members that leaked into the press, as some pressed for a conclusion implicating Stalin while other members argued that the evidence pointed the other way." This is of course what will happen if the CIA and the FBI opened up their archives. The members of any such commission would be unable to agree about the Kennedy assassination. All the government files concerning the Kirov assassination have now been released. Over the last few years there have been two books published by American historians on the case: J. Arch Getty's The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932-1939 (2010) and Matthew E. Lenoe's, The Kirov Murder and Soviet History (2010). Both men came to the same conclusion. The evidence does not exist to prove that Stalin ordered the assassination. They claim that the early evidence from Walter Krivitsky and Alexander Orlov, is unreliable as the information was secondhand and based on hearsay. John Archibald Getty makes the interesting point: "While it is true that most Leningrad police officials and party leaders were executed in the terror subsequent to the assassination, so were hundreds of thousands of others, and there is no compelling reason to believe that they were killed 'to cover the tracks' of the Kirov assassination, as Khrushchev put it. Moreover, they were left alive (and in some cases at liberty) and free to talk for three years following the crime. It has seemed to some unlikely that Stalin would have taken such a chance for so long with pawns used to arrange the killing." If historians cannot agree on the assassination of Kirov, how will they ever agree on the Kennedy assassination? It is possible that some researcher will come up with some new evidence over the next few years. Whatever, the quality of the evidence, the response is predictable. Some will use it to back up the theory they have been pushing in books, blogs and forums. However, the vast majority, will be able to ask difficult questions about this new evidence. These are questions that they would not ask about the evidence that they believe supports their own theory. As John Maynard Keynes once pointed out: "The difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones." http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/spartacus-blogURL26.html

Larry, do you take a look at William Stephenson and the British Security Coordination (BSC) that was established in the United States in 1940? Amazingly FDR gave permission for British intelligence to establish its own unit in the US. Its main objective was to bring the US into the war. Stephenson worked closely with William Donovan, who later became the chief of the Office of Strategic Service (OSS). Allen Dulles was one of BSC agents. As soon as the Second World War ended President Truman ordered the OSS to be closed down. However, it provided a model for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) established in September 1947. According to Joseph C. Goulden several of the "old boys" who were around for the founding of the CIA like repeating a mantra, “The Brits taught us everything we know - but by no means did they teach us everything that they know.” http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPYbsc.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWstephensonW.htm

It is true that not many historians have written pro-conspiracy JFK books. However, I am not aware of any historians writing books on the subject supporting the conclusions of the Warren Commission. One notable pro-conspiracy book written by a historian is Gerald McKnights Breach of Trust (2005). Another is John Newmans Oswald and the CIA (2008). Of course we also have the well-respected, David Kaisers book, The Road to Dallas (2008). The recent biography of Kennedy by the highly rated historian in the UK, Peter Ling, takes a pro-conspiracy line over his death. In the past, most biographers have decided not to go into too much detail over the assassination. Maybe we are getting to the stage when this will change. The truth is that most pro and anti JFK conspiracy books have been written by journalists. They vary in standard but the vast majority to do not deal with evidence in the same way as an historian. Journalists also tend to start off with a theory and then search round for evidence to support the theory. At the same time they ignore the evidence that suggests a different theory. Lawyers writing about the case have the same failing. An historian, on the other hand, is usually more flexible and should adapt his theory during his research. He should also comment on evidence that appears to be relevant but does not fully support his theory.

Larry, would you like to give a brief summary of the book?

A friend has sent me this link: http://www.ringnebula.com/project-censored/1976-1992/1986/1986-story23.htm 23. CIA CORRUPTS ACADEMIC COMMUNITY ... AGAIN In 1976, the nation was shocked, and the religious and academic communities outraged, when the Church Committee revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had surreptitiously hired clergymen and professors to do its dirty work. The Church Committee found that, prior to 1967, the CIA sponsored, subsidized, or produced over 1,000 books. It also reported that in 1967, the CIA was using "several hundred American academics (administrators, faculty, graduate students engaged in teaching) who in addition to providing leads and, on occasion, making introductions for intelligence purposes, occasionally write books and other material to be used for propaganda purposes abroad. ... These academics are located in over 100 American colleges, universities, and related institutes. At the majority of institutions, no one other than the individual concerned is aware of the CIA link. ..." When the dust settled, the CIA solemnly promised to stop such activities within the U.S. "We will, under no circumstances, publish books, magazines or newspapers in the U.S.," promised CIA Deputy Director for Plans, Desmond Fitzgerald. The CIA promise was good for just ten years (as far as we know). Last year, Harvard University discovered, and revealed, that its Professor Nadar Safran accepted $107,430 from the CIA to secretly underwrite his recently published book, SAUDI ARABIA: THE CEASELESS QUEST FOR SECURITY. It also was discovered that the CIA paid $45,700 to underwrite a symposium on Islamic fundamentalism organized by Safran. Neither Harvard nor the participants in the symposium were aware of the CIA involvement. Congressman Don Edwards (D-CA) charged that "This is serious misconduct by the CIA. So far the news accounts of this incident have focused on Harvard and Professor Safran, not on the CIA. Does this mean that the news media believe this practice is business as usual for the CIA or that we have all forgotten that ten years ago this behavior produced a major controversy? The public is entitled to know if these are isolated ventures or if we are back to the bad old days when one didn't know which book was a CIA plant. How many books, magazines, and newspapers are there in the U.S. that are in reality CIA propaganda? How many professors and clergymen are on its payroll? ... Already there are repercussions over the Harvard incidents. Islamic scholars, for example, are dismayed. Said one, 'People in the Middle East to whom we must have access would never trust us again.' As for college students, never wholly reverent towards their professors, are they beginning to wonder, as the professor lectures, 'is he real, or is he CIA?" SOURCE: RECON, Spring 1986, "Books, Professors, and the CIA," by Congressman Don Edwards (D-CA), p 3.

In September 1962, Alexander Orlov became a Senior Research Fellow at the Law School of the University of Michigan. Orlov was a former NKVD officer who had defected to America in 1938. Orlov's book, A Handbook of Intelligence and Guerrilla Warfare, was published by the university in 1963. In December 1993, Alfred Slote, a freelance journalist, published an article in the Ann Arbor Observer, where he provided evidence that Orlov’s salary had been paid by the CIA. The agency had also supplied the money for the book to be published. This in itself is not very remarkable. Orlov had provided the CIA and the FBI with some valuable information over the years and it was a reasonable reward for the help he had given them. As Orlov had trained communist guerrillas during the Spanish Civil War, the information in his book was probably very useful, especially as America was about to get involved in a guerrilla war in Vietnam. However, it was another piece of information in the article that caught my eye. Slote had interviewed Professor Whitmore Gray while writing the article. Gray had been involved in accepting the CIA’s request to employ Orlov. Gray told Slote: "You have to remember that it was a different time. There might have been a hundred members of the University of Michigan faculty receiving CIA funds for research. Back then it was the patriotic thing to do. I can assure you no eyebrows were raised about a former NKVD general being here. No one thought it was unusual." I wonder how many other universities were receiving CIA money for “academic research”? Also, does it explain why so few historians have showed very much interest in the assassination of JFK.? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPorlov.htm

People might be interested in this new JFK assassination forum set up by Greg Burnham. http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/

List of countries by life expectancy. I am surprised to find that the USA is now only in 35th place and the UK in 29th place. It is just another example of the great inequality that takes place in the two countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Could this song be about the JFK Assassination? Rufus Wainwright - Going To A Town

In fact there was a British plan to assassinate Stalin in 1918 but was rejected because at the time he was considered not important enough (that was only to change six years later). The important point I was making is that intelligence services have been planning political assassinations for a long time and they always make sure the documentation is always destroyed. Therefore, if the CIA and FBI were involved in the assassination, it is highly unlikely that they have allowed any documents that proove this to survive.