Why we will never discover who killed John F. Kennedy.

[John Simkin]

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

[David Von Pein]

Why we will never discover who killed John F. Kennedy...

The Dallas Police Department discovered who killed JFK on the day of the assassination. It was Lee Harvey Oswald, who was charged with two murders before the end of the day on November 22, 1963.

Now, just try to imagine a scenario in which the Dallas police have accumulated enough evidence to actually formally charge a totally innocent man named Lee Oswald with two murders on the same day. Do police departments normally officially charge people with double murder even though they have absolutely no hard evidence to back up the charges whatsoever, as many conspiracy theorists seem to believe?

Are we really supposed to believe that the two murder charges that the DPD filed against Oswald were trumped up charges, with all of the evidence in both murders being manufactured or planted to frame an innocent man? Can any sensible person really believe such a thing? (I sure can't.)

A big clue to Oswald's guilt (in addition to the pile of evidence that convicts him ten times over) is the crucial and often-overlooked fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was already, in effect, a political assassin seven months before President Kennedy ever went to Dallas, when Oswald took that shot at General Walker on April 10, 1963. For some reason, however, conspiracy theorists seem to want to exonerate Oswald of that murder attempt too.

But I guess that's understandable from the POV of the standard Anybody But Oswald conspiracist, because if they were to admit that Lee Oswald took a gun and aimed it at the head of a retired United States general, then they'd have to admit something they fear -- i.e., Lee H. Oswald had murder running through his veins in the year 1963.

Edwin Walker And Lee Harvey Oswald

Is it possible to imagine what kind of document will convince McAdams and Mack that he [JFK] was murdered as part of a conspiracy?

Gary Mack isn't an "LNer". He's a conspiracy believer. Why on Earth many people continue to think that Gary Mack thinks Oswald acted alone is anyone's guess. But the CTers continue to call Mack an LNer every single day. But he's not.

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

Edited March 30, 2014 by David Von Pein

[John Dolva]

Addressing general ideas re history here's a brief selection from Trotsky's preface to "The History of the Russian Revolution" (available 3 vols in pdf format : http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch00.htm )

"This work will not rely in any degree upon personal recollections. The circumstance that the author was a participant in the events does not free him from the obligation to base his exposition upon historically verified documents. The author speaks of himself, in so far as that is demanded by the course of events, in the third person. And that is not a mere literary form: the subjective tone, inevitable in autobiographies or memoirs, is not permissible in a work of history.

However, the fact that the author did participate in the struggle naturally makes easier his understanding, not only of the psychology of the forces in action, both individual and collective, but also of the inner connection of events. This advantage will give positive results only if one condition is observed: that he does not rely upon the testimony of his own memory either in trivial details or in important matters, either in questions of fact or questions of motive and mood. The author believes that in so far as in him lies he has fulfilled this condition.

There remains the question of the political position of the author, who stands as a historian upon the same viewpoint upon which he stood as a participant in the events. The reader, of course, is not obliged to share the political views of the author, which the latter on his side has no reason to conceal. But the reader does have the right to demand that a historical work should not be the defence of a political position, but an internally well-founded portrayal of the actual process of the revolution. A historical work only then completely fulfils the mission when events unfold upon its pages in their full natural necessity.

For this, is it necessary to have the so-called historian’s “impartiality”? Nobody has yet clearly explained what this impartiality consists of. The often quoted words of Clemenceau that it is necessary to take a revolution “en bloc,” as a whole – are at the best a clever evasion. How can you take as a whole a thing whose essence consists in a split? Clemenceau’s aphorism was dictated partly by shame for his too resolute ancestors, partly by embarrassment before their shades.

One of the reactionary and therefore fashionable historians in contemporary France, L. Madelin, slandering in his drawing-room fashion the great revolution – that is, the birth of his own nation – asserts that “the historian ought to stand upon the wall of a threatened city, and behold at the same time the besiegers and the besieged”: only in this way, it seems, can he achieve a “conciliatory justice.” However, the words of Madelin himself testify that if he climbs out on the wall dividing the two camps, it is only in the character of a reconnoiterer for the reaction. It is well that he is concerned only with war camps of the past: in a time of revolution standing on the wall involves great danger. Moreover, in times of alarm the priests of “conciliatory justice” are usually found sitting on the inside of four walls waiting to see which side will win."

[John Simkin]

Gary Mack isn't an "LNer". He's a conspiracy believer. Why on Earth many people continue to think that Gary Mack thinks Oswald acted alone is anyone's guess. But the CTers continue to call Mack an LNer every single day. But he's not.

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

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.

[John Simkin]

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.”

[John Dolva]

trotsky wrote this :

Testament of Leon Trotsky

My high (and still rising) blood pressure is deceiving those near me about my actual condition. I am active and able to work but the outcome is evidently near. These lines will be made public after my death.

I have no need to refute here once again the stupid and vile slander of Stalin and his agents: there is not a single spot on my revolutionary honour. I have never entered, either directly or indirectly, into any behind-the-scenes agreements or even negotiations with the enemies of the working class. Thousands of Stalin’s opponents have fallen, victims of similar false accusations. The new revolutionary generations will rehabilitate their political honour and deal with the Kremlin executioners according to their deserts.

I thank warmly the friends who remained loyal to me through the most difficult hours of my life. I do not name anyone in particular because I cannot name them all.

However, I consider myself justified in making an exception in the case of my companion, Natalia Ivanovna Sedova. In addition to the happiness of being a fighter for the cause of socialism, fate has given me the happiness of being her husband. During the almost forty years of our life together she remained an inexhaustible source of love, magnanimity, and tenderness. She underwent great suffering, especially in the last period of our lives. But I find some comfort in the fact that she also knew days of happiness.

For forty-three years of my conscious life I have remained a revolutionist; for forty-two of them I have fought under the banner of Marxism. If I had to begin all over again I would of course try and avoid this or that mistake, but the main course of my life would remain unchanged. I shall die a proletarian revolutionist, a Marxist, a dialectical materialist, and, consequently, an irreconcilable atheist. My faith in the communist future of mankind is not less ardent, indeed it is firmer today, than it was in the days of my youth.

Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression, and violence and enjoy it to the full.

Leon Trotsky.
Mexico February 27th 1940

A coda was added later dated March 3rd 1940. Mainly dealing with what should happen should he be involved in a serious drawn out illness, it ends with the following words:

“... But whatever may be the circumstances of my death I shall die with unshaken faith in the communist future. This faith in man and in his future gives me even now such power of resistance as cannot be given by any religion.”

When Lenin died he left a testament warning the party about stalin and promoting trotsky but mentioned concerns about trotskys trusting nature. I would interpret this and the testament and the death threats in the light of this. While a most able and articulate and sharp person he was a revolutionary marxist. As such he sought in all ways to be true to that. I think that means accepting consequences and not putting ones own life above that of anyone elses. He probably spent his last period contemplating how a physically spent revolutionary spends his time most meaningfully while concerned about the well being of those who sought to protect him. He died with a pen in his hand. Makes me think of a much earlier statement by him : ideas are dynamite.

[John Simkin]

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."

[Steven Gaal]

It has been stated that,"...we will never discover who killed John F. Kennedy. "

We can agree to disagree,for to me little "interpretation" is needed.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(from JFK Assassination: The Garrison Commission")

===========================================
It is fair to say that not much in the way of Caribbean intrigue
went on in those days without the CIA, or at least CIA operatives, having
a finger in it. Thus the allegations of Gary Underhill, a weapons
expert and sometime CIA "unperson," may be quite plausible [RAMPARTS,
June 1976]. Immediately after the assassination, a distraught Underhill
told friends that a semi-autonomous CIA clique which had been
profiteering in narcotics and gun-running was implicated in the
assassination. Several months later, Underhill was found dead of a
bullet would in the head; although police decided it was self-inflicted,
the circumstances indicated otherwise. When an old friend wrote to
Underhill's widow asking about his demise, the reply came from an
official of a now defunct Washington firm, Falcon Aeronautics, Inc.,which Underhill was not associated with. Falcon Aeronautics assisted CIA JM-Wave anti-Castro operations.
+++++++++++++++++++++
FALCON AERONAUTICS, INC.
Ratting4 1 FALCON AERONAUTICS, INC. Ratting class for FALCON AERONAUTICS, INC. is 4.
Company data
Company number: 600633
Incorporate date: 22.11.1960

Company type: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION
(Gone but "NOT !!!" forgotten)
+++++++++++++++++++++++
The Strength of the Wolf: The Secret History of America's War on Drugs
=======================
Valentine deeply examines the practices of the CIA, carefully and skillfully
making a connection between it and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN). Valentine reported that Jack Ruby was a FBN asset. The head of the FBN ,George White, worked from time to time with CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton.
++++++++++++++++++++++
At a now defunct website was posted a page out of David Ferrie's phonebook.Next to the number for the CIA was penned next to it the extension that was identified as for Tom Karamessines.


http://www.history-m...RomanSaid_3.htm


#########################################################
NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe

http://books.google.com/books/about/NATO_s_Secret_Armies.html?id=VAbkogswOmEC

Ganser Daniele - ‎2005 - 336 pages

The CIA invested millions into the secret Greek army and built an entire ...
Karamessines set up the CIA headquarters in Greece located in Athens on the
fifth ... In 1962 Karamessines was forced to leave Rome amidst rumours that he
had ...
•SEE PAGE 217 background Karamessines.
########################################
•SEE also http://educationforu...?showtopic=3658 background Karamessines.

Current status: Revoked

Edited April 1, 2014 by Steven Gaal

[Peter McGuire]

This statement is self serving in that those who are covering it up, and know fully well that Kennedy's own government killed him, use it to get people to say something like, "it is pretty complicated , I think there was a conspiracy , but I am really not sure."

The fact is that it is easy to see from private research , and by the use of your own eyes - the inaction of the Secret Service that day, that it was an inside job.

On another topic - a history professor stated recently in a classroom at a college that "Kennedy ordered the assassination of President Diem shortly before he himself was assassinated." The professor could not look anyone in the eye when he said it, and the Kennedy assassination itself has never been discussed in class. We were talking about ODNI , NIE's and William Casey, among other things.

Edited April 1, 2014 by Peter McGuire

[John Simkin]

On another topic - a history professor stated recently in a classroom at a college that "Kennedy ordered the assassination of President Diem shortly before he himself was assassinated." The professor could not look anyone in the eye when he said it, and the Kennedy assassination itself has never been discussed in class. We were talking about ODNI , NIE's and William Casey, among other things.

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.

[Don Jeffries]

Good points, Peter. I wish more focus would be placed on the Secret Service; no matter who the conspirators were, the assassination would not have been possible if even a few of them had been doing their job.

John, I think we can state with certainty that we do know who didn't kill President Kennedy- Lee Harvey Oswald.

The logical suspects are many; Emory Roberts, William Greer, Bill Kellerman, J. Edgar Hoover, McGeorge Bundy, etc. We know that Hoover orchestrated the cover up of the crime, so it's reasonable to believe he at least had foreknowledge of the conspiracy. Roberts, Greer and Kellerman are naturally suspect because of their actions (or inaction) in Dealey Plaza. Bundy's very early declaration to JFK's cabinet members that it had already been established there was no conspiracy makes him suspicious, especially taken with the fact he authored NSAM 273, which totally contradicted JFK's recent policy directives in Vietnam as outlined in NSAM 263, before the assassination. Why would he have expected JFK to sign that? Of course, I think many of us believe there were powerful figures above these potential ground-level conspirators, but exposing them would naturally lead to uncovering the actual identities of those who planned the conspiracy.

But it's all a moot point, and we do have cause to be pessimistic, because the crime has never been honestly investigated, and unless we get a new crop of politicians, is highly unlikely to ever be.

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xd1wuXrVPjo

LBJ talks about "others who could have been involved" besides Oswald and why we shall probably never know the full story.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Douglas Caddy

[Steven Gaal]

Good points, Peter. I wish more focus would be placed on the Secret Service; no matter who the conspirators were, the assassination would not have been possible if even a few of them had been doing their job.

John, I think we can state with certainty that we do know who didn't kill President Kennedy- Lee Harvey Oswald.

The logical suspects are many; Emory Roberts, William Greer, Bill Kellerman, J. Edgar Hoover, McGeorge Bundy, etc. We know that Hoover orchestrated the cover up of the crime, so it's reasonable to believe he at least had foreknowledge of the conspiracy. Roberts, Greer and Kellerman are naturally suspect because of their actions (or inaction) in Dealey Plaza. Bundy's very early declaration to JFK's cabinet members that it had already been established there was no conspiracy makes him suspicious, especially taken with the fact he authored NSAM 273, which totally contradicted JFK's recent policy directives in Vietnam as outlined in NSAM 263, before the assassination. Why would he have expected JFK to sign that? Of course, I think many of us believe there were powerful figures above these potential ground-level conspirators, but exposing them would naturally lead to uncovering the actual identities of those who planned the conspiracy.

But it's all a moot point, and we do have cause to be pessimistic, because the crime has never been honestly investigated, and unless we get a new crop of politicians, is highly unlikely to ever be.

SECRET SERVICE ????

Posted 26 March 2014 - 10:05 PM

Fletcher Prouty in his book ,The Secret Team, discussed Allen Dulles ambition to have the CIA penetrate all areas of the US government.Prouty used the existence of a high level FAA bureaucrat that was really a CIA asset to example CIA penetration. It is my supposition that Dulles started to penetrate the US Secret Service in the early 1950s. I come to this idea by my finding the 1963 lawfirm of Scribner,Hall, and Casey in Wash. DC area. Casey being William Casey,who was identified as a POST (thats post) WWII operative of Allen Dulles in the, The Secret War Against the Jews Book.

In 1952 Dulles had a dangerous plan to aid the Republican Party's control of the US Presidency. Dulles set up the Republican Ethnic Division (aka with some variation Heritage Groups today). THe Ethnic Division was organized initially in five states. These groups in the 1950s were a danger to the Republican Party in that key leaders were made up of recent displaced WWII Fascsists,Nazi and neo-Nazis.

Though information was reported circa 1979-1980 about these groups, this information on the Ethnic Divisions was never given the emphasis it should have gotten (LIBERAL PRESS ???). Dulles set up the Republican Ethnic Division to counter the Jewish vote that he felt caused Governor Dewey's razor thin loss to Truman.

A portion of the money for the creation of this Ethnic Divison would come from the money-laundering organization, The Crusade for Freedom,which was aided by William Casey and Ronald Reagan in the early 1950s. The head of the Republican Congressional divison in 1952 was Leonard (W) Hall. Mr. Hall would also chair the Republican Party. Hall had to have full knowledge of this fascists operation. Some of the money also came from the CIA (very illegal). In 1963 we see the lawfirm of Scibner,Hall and Casey. Who was Fred Scribner ? Mr. Scribner was head lawyer for the Treasury Department from the mid 50s till late 50s and also later the Under Secretary . On the internet I found a document that had Scribner working in the hiring of IRS agents. Now Dulles was so fixated on Presidential control he started the Ethnic Divisions which could have distroyed the Republican Party.

What strenghtens this theory is that Dulles also was a friend of another Head Lawyer at the Treasury Deptment, Gasper d' Andelot Belin. Dulles,his lover Mary Bancroft, JJA (Chief CIA CI), the Belin's,and the George Bundy's (Bundy being brother of Belins wife) ,would all share lunch and tennis at the Belin's. "Nobody could beat Allen ,at tennis",mused Mary about the Belin lunches. (A very competitive man, NO ??) There are some misspellings at NARA ,but you can find that Belin did work on the still secret (along with his mother's) Oswald tax returns. It is my supposition that via his relationship with the head lawyers of the Treasury Dept, Dulles penetrated the Secret Service.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MORE ON LEONARD HALL'S connections

JOHN HOWLEY '29

"Pop" Howley died on Sept. 1, 2000. He was 93. At Princeton, he was Phi Beta Kappa. He then attended Harvard law school, graduating in 1932, and was with the firm of Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine until WWII, when he followed "Wild Bill" Donovan, senior partner of the firm, into the Office of Strategic Services (now the CIA), which Gen. Donovan headed throughout the war. After the war, together with Leonard Hall, who was later the Republican national chair, and William Casey, who later headed the Securities and Exchange Commission and the CIA, they formed the law firm of Hall, Casey, Dickler and Howley, a renowned law firm.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Posted 26 March 2014 - 10:05 PM by Steven Gaal

• Peter Dale Scott theorized in Deep Politics and the Death of JFK that the stock transactions of the major stockholders of LTV (Harold Byrd (owner TSBD), Troy Post (financier) and James Ling (businessman) engineer) were made with foreknowledge of the JFK assassination.
• Troy Post was co-owner of Coconut micro island in Hawaii with California oil man Edwin Pauley.
• JFK researcher Bruce Adamson acquired the 6 volume set of personal phone books George De Mohrenschildt and noted that De Mohrenschildt had listed Edwin Pauleys name an unusual 4 times. ( To note to avoid confusion ,per Adamson ,George de Mohrenschildt also worked for CBS head William S. Paley after call to Paley's private secretary) The phone books also listed GHWB and also GHWB's intimate nickname "POPPY" ,which few knew. In the appendix of the Secret War Against the Jews book George de Mohrenschildt had the post WWII office number of Allen Dulles at RCA. William Paley (CBS) and Allen Dulles were very,very close friends (see letters Paley - Dulles, Adamson). Prescott Bush (father of GHWB, was a CBS trustee for 30 years (from the radio days to the TV days)) also was a friend of Allen Dulles from the 1930s.
• Edwin Pauley ,as was William Casey, were private post WWII operatives of Allen Dulles per Secret War Against the Jews book. Casey and Pauley were , per the Gold Warriors book , were top operatives (with Edwin Lasndale) in the ultra secret post WWII Asian-Japanese stolen gold project that help fund post WWII anti-communist CIA operations. Edwin Lasndale was considered by Fetcher Prouty to be a Allen Dulles operative inside the Air Force.
• Dimitri Von Mohrenschildt (brother of George de Mohrenschildt ) wrote a book in the 1950s with the nephew of Allen Dulles.
• In 63 William Casey worked with Prescott Bush Jr. (brother GHWB) in a think tank advocating a stronger CIA and increased CIA covert operations.

Edited April 3, 2014 by Steven Gaal

[Douglas Caddy]

President Obama appears to be taking an increasingly cavalier attitude towards killing people:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486809/New-book-claims-President-Obama-bragged-aides-using-drone-strikes.html

[Bill Simpich]

John, I think a strong historical case is being made by yourself and many others that David Morales led the assassination of JFK. I also think the evidence will continue to mount during this decade.