Pat Speer

Here's an overview of what really happened with Junor... http://www.surfinagain.com/archives6.htm :::: SuRFiN' AGAIN :::: Ironically, a book I found on the FBI gave the address of the house used in the kidnapping, and it was on Masen street in the West San Fernando Valley, maybe 5 miles from my apartment...

I'm sure it's a tie-in to the movie. Lee Remick is begging for her "Running Man" to come back. In the movie she plays the wife of Laurence Harvey, who may have inadvertently just played a different Lee in the Manchurian Candidate. He fakes his death in an insurance scam and goes on the run.

I was suspicious for a long time that Sinatra Jr. was kidnapped to make sure Frank Sr. kept his mouth shut. But then I read about the kidnapping on a Jan and Dean website, It turns out the kidnapping was financed by Dean Torrence. A very entertaining film entitled Stealing Sinatra came out about it last year. Truth is simetimes stranger than fiction.

I believe Rosselli once put a hit out on Cohen. As I remember, Cohen was Cleveland mob transplanted into L.A. , while Rosselli was pure-bred Chicago mob. Both were in L.A. with the blessing of long-time Angeleno mobster Jack Dragna. At times they'd step on each other's toes. They must have known a lot of the same people and they must have attended a lot of the same parties however. I believe they also used the same attorneys. Why did you call him Marvin Belli in the thread title? Sleepy????

I had to edit my post, sorry for the previous, misquote. Debra, your post is very interesting, except for Maheau was closer to Hoover's FBI wasn't he? I think maheau used the CIA the way that Jim Garrison used it --to cover up the truth, in the name of the national security. Lynne, you are of the mistaken opinion that all former Feebies remained loyal to Hoover. This was simply not true. Maheu was far more a spook than a feebie. There's a famous memo where RFK and Hoover discuss the CIA's use of Maheu and Giancana on the attempts on Castro. Hoover notes that RFK was concerned because of MAHEU'S reputation. And Hoover agrees! In other words, they trusted Maheu less than they did Giancana. While Hoover's memo fails to explain why, a little research will show you that Maheu was considered a prime suspect in the kidnapping of a Dominican dissident off the streets of New York. This dissident, Jesus de Galindez, was tortured and murdered by the Dominican dictator Trujillo. It makes sense that Hoover and Kennedy were both aware of this and were unsure of Maheu's loyalty. Particularly since the CIA had just taken out one of Maheu's clients, Trujillo.

-------------------------------- Anagrams for running man running man mung ran inn rung mann in rung man inn rum ginn ann rum ginn nan rug mann inn run manning urn manning run mann gin urn mann gin run man ginn urn man ginn nun grim ann nun grim nan nun gram inn nun mann rig nun arm ginn nun ram ginn nun man grin nun man ring nu mann grin nu mann ring -------------------------------- Chairs, GPH ___________________________ Could it be Newman from Seinfeld? No, seriously. Lee was a common name for women back then; I'd bet this is a message from a woman to her husband who's run off. If it was Oswald, maybe the "running" reference was to a gun runner. The "please, please" doesn't sound like a message between two men, however.

Let me guess, Tim... The Onion?

My undertstanding is that Chomsky thinks that Kennedy was not worth killing. Chomsky considers Kennedy one of the bad guys and so fails to see why the other bad guys would want to kill him. I simplify it because I think that's how simple it is for Chomsky. I've heard that he does believe MLK was killed by a conspiracy, so he has nothing against the idea of a mass conspiracy to kill a public figure, just not against Kennedy. This massive BLIND SPOT on Chomsky's part makes me skeptical of much of his other work. Which is as it should be.

Chris, it is intriguing to me that Waldron's scenario has seemed to light so many fires. I'm wondering if the attraction isn't that it clears LBJ and the CIA of any malevolence. The one piece that is an ABSOLUTE CROCK, as far as I'm concerned, is that Bobby Kennedy went along with the cover-up of his brother's death in order to protect the proposed coup. Anyone who's been around grieving people should understand that Bobby and Jackie were in deep shock, the kind of shock that takes months if not years to get over (if ever). If I'm reading Waldron right in that he proposes RFK went along with the Warren Commission cover-up in the name of national security, I must admit I'm skeptical.

I think my own experience with the assassination is relevant to this discussion. I'm 44 and have no memory of Kennedy as President. I have quite clear memories of watching "Grandpa Lyndon" on TV however. A few years back, around the time a certain group of liars took over this country, I decided I wanted to look into recent history and determine whether or not there was anything to all this conspiracy chat on the internet.. the one world order, skull and bones, Bilderberger stuff . While I rapidly lost interest in that stuff, finding it too fantastic, my attention soon began to center on American politics in the sixties and seventies. It was astounding to me that after 30 years the era was still so controversial. There were still so many mysteries. In talking to my family I found out I had a number of personal connections to some of these mysteries. My father's boss when I was a kid was a Texas oilman with mob ties, who just so happened to be one of Robert Maheu's best friends. My stepfather, on the other hand, had been a mercenary in WW2 (Flying Tigers) and had known Claire Chennault. He'd later worked on the ARAMCO pipeline in Saudi Arabia. At one point he supposedly ran guns to Castro. (In the past I've mentioned this incident but hid his identity. He was reportedly quite ashamed of this incident. I no longer think he had anything to be ashamed about. If he's up there looking down, I hope he's not too angry...) Anyhow, the point is, my decision to help figure this stuff out came from both my desire to figure out the present, and my desire to figure out my family's relationship to history. I think younger people with similar interests will be drawn to this case for generations to come. When I was 3 years old, an old, old, man named Mr. Ellis took me aside and gave me a Kennedy half. He told me not to spend it, because the coin was printed to honor a great president. I still remember that day, and I still have that coin.

I don't think anything would come from talking to either Nosenko or Ruth Paine. Michael Paine has a bit of "splaining" to do, however.

While I have not yet read Lamar's book, I have to admit I am skeptical of any so-called invasion. I've read enough about the Kennedys to have a feel for how they thought about things, and an invasion of Cuba was not at the top of their agenda in November, 1963. While it's possible they might have given someone, even Guevara, the U.S.' blessing to overthrow Castro, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES would they have authorized the landing of U.S. troops in Cuba as part of the plan. This would have given the Russians the green light to move on Berlin. Having not read the exact plans for AMWORLD myself, however, I remain open-minded. If there's anyone here who thinks the case remains where it was after JFK and Case Closed, by the way, they need to read Larry Hancock's book and my own presentation, among other sources. While my presentation uses the medical evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt there was a conspiracy, Larry's book draws a circle around the likely culprits. Does anyone have Liz Smith's phone number?

Scott, thanks for your input. I don't remember reading about Yaras' death. Are you aware of when, where, and why he got whacked? I'm wondering if his death had any connection to the assassination. If Trafficante was behind it, hmmm... Or am I misreading you? Was it Dave or Ronnie who got whacked?

Without knowing for sure one way or the other, I suspect Moore owns stock in just about every MIC company in the country for the same reason he owns stock in GM and is a member of the NRA: access. Anyone familiar with his films knows that he joins these organizations and/or buys stock in them so that he can attend stockholders meetings and get the real scoop up close. While their body types may be similar, he has ten times the credibility of a Limbaugh.

Yeah, that's the one. Now, does anyone have one with the line of where the face is supposed to be divided? ************************* Harvey & Lee.... Top photo on right: passport Second photo on right :Marine Third..right ..I believe taken in Russia.. B Okay, people, now, seriously, this is obviously the same man. Look at the ears, look at the eyes, look at the relative positions of the eyebrows. Oswald is Oswald. I could post five pictures of myself that based upon aging, slight changes in weight, changes in hair stylings, changes in hair color, changes in facial expression, would convince you they were of different people. My elementary school pictures from year to year, have more differentiation than these pictures of Oswald. To me, the fake Oswald/Harvey and Lee scenario is, along with body alteration and Zapruder film alteration, a HUGE RED HERRING that has led many earnest researchers down the wrong path.

While I'm undecided, many question Sheehan's motivations and ability to separate what he wants to believe from what has any factual basis. Journalist Martha Honey, who worked with Sheehan in the La Penca bombing case brought against the U.S. Government, eventually denounced him. Similarly, the Shackley as leader of the Secret Team theory seems to be losing lustre. About ten years ago, there were a lot in the conspiracy community who completely bought this. By my estimation, there are fewer today. Wheaton's inclusion of Shackley and Morales in his statements lessens his credibility, IMO. As for Jenkins being an informant? To Sheehan? If this can be substantiated, it would certainy be interesting. Sheehan was so closely connected to radical beliefs and causes, however, that if Jenkins were one of his informants, it would be a strong argument against Jenkins' involvement in any assassination work.

Then maybe you could explain what Bob Woodward has refused to do since going public on his story. If Felt was Deep Throat: (1) Why did Felt not tell Woodward about Alfred Baldwin's role in the break-in. (2) How did Felt know about Nixon's taping system? (3) How did Felt know that Nixon had erased part of the tapes? I don't think these questions need to be answered to believe Felt was Deep Throat. He'd been the number two man in the FBI--who knows who FELT'S sources were--perhaps Butterfield, perhaps Haig, perhaps, Rose Woods, the list goes on and on. While our friends overseas focus on the shenanigans of the CIA, within the United States the FBI has been a far more insidious force. COINTELPRO was many times as large an operation as any of Angleton's operations. Mark Felt was himself behind many of these operations. As far as why Felt may have left anything out, two reasons come to mind--1, he may have forgot (lets not forget how BAD the information was that Hoover gave to Johnson about the Kennedy assassination) and 2, he wasn't asked (both Woodward and Bernstein have stressed in all their recent writings about Felt that he only confirmed what they'd asked about, and offered up very little fresh info. As for Debra's comments, I feel that they are quite pertinent. I saw Richardson on a talk show--the Daily Show?--talking about how his father's career was sabotaged. I'd read about the Richardson incident before, in Death in November, I believe. Anyhow, it certainly seems that Lodge, Harriman and Hilsman were throwing their weight around and trying to run their own foreign policy, and that they were even willing to butt heads with the CIA and use their media friends to discredit the CIA. (Let's not forget about Arthur Krock's column around this same time claiming that if there was a coup within the U.S. it would be at the hands of the CIA.) This raises the ugly question of whether or not these same men, or even others like them, might have been involved in the assassination. By bringing the best and most powerful men in the country into his administration, Kennedy made the mistake of giving additional power to the most power-mad men in the country, and they may have used this power to subvert his policies, much as the CIA and Pentagon attempted to do during the missile crisis.

Tim, I defy you to read the Church Committee report and testimony and continue to believe the Kennedys were in full control of the CIA in 1963. You have an obvious blind spot when it comes to this simple fact...the CIA believed they had a license to kill, and the license to create their own foreign policy, and they used these licenses.

Bernstein actually agrees with me. He said after the story first appeared that Mark Felt was just "one" of the sources that made up "Deep Throat". As I have pointed out, the facts show that "Deep Throat" was not one person. Woodward argues this to cover-up the role that the CIA played in destroying Richard Nixon. As Ron has pointed out, the CIA have been much kinder to George Bush so far. The full story will eventually come out and Bush will be destroyed as well (see the bombing of al-Jazeera story that is gradually emerging in UK at the moment). I agree with you about Bush, but you are apparently unaware of the recent Bernstein article in Vanity Fair in which he recounted the whole Deep Throat saga. The information attributed to Deep Throat may have come from multiple sources before being confirmed by Deep Throat, but there was, and is, only one source the people working on the story called Deep Throat, and that man was Mark Felt.

Tim, why don't you re-post the actual words to the speech, rather than other people's interpretation of the words? Virtually no one at that time knew that Kennedy was beginning secret negotiations with Castro. The speech was a double-edged sword; it gave the appearance of getting tough with Castro whilst simultaneously offering Castro an olive branch if he threw out the Russians and promised not to export revolution.

I nominate this as the strangest thread ever. Sidney posts something reasonable. Gillespie becomes an attack dog, using 11 month old posts by a high school girl to discredit everyone, and Ecker and Simkin start arguing that Mark Felt was NOT Deep Throat. Carl Bernstein--one of those who blew the whistle on the CIA's use of the media--remember?--says Mark Felt was Deep Throat, his ex-wife swears he told her it was Felt back in the seventies. That's good enough for me. I can think of no reason why both Bernstein and Ephron would lie about Felt being Deep Throat. Anyone who remembers the movie Heartburn knows she hates her ex's guts and would be unlikely to go along with any belated cover-up. It should also be noted that Woodward's book was written BEFORE the Vanity Fair article in anticipation of Felt's death. I firmly believe the identity of Deep Throat has been resolved.

If Mark Felt is Deep Throat then my name is Sidney Blumenthal. BTW: Sam Dash, on Larry King's old radio show, opined that Deep Throat was a composite. One can speculate (lots of that on THESE pages) on the relative innocence or merits of the remark but it was made clearly. This business about Woodward sort of forgetting his roots is the spin, however benign or malignant, making the rounds these days. Don't you believe it! He is, however, a most fascinating character of these interesting times. JAG Call me Pollyanna but I believe 100% that Felt was Deep Throat. He had the motive and the connections. What a lot of people miss is that Deep Throat merely confirmed what Woodward and Bernstein were able to get from their other sources, mostly still un-named. Haig and some of the other "suspects" may well have been among these other sources. I do agree that Woodward is such an institution that he may have become institutionalized--too sympathetic to the powers-that-be. As such he may have incorrectly assumed that Rove telling him Plame was with the CIA was merely gossip unworthy of repetition, rather than a deliberate attempt to out the woman and drop a gotcha on her husband. I don't believe Woodward has been fully brain-washed however. His interviews with Powell demonstrating the in-fighting over intelligence and the efforts to sell the Iraq war were undoubtedlly damaging to the Bush Ad legacy. To Woodward's mind, his ability to get such admissions from a former Sec. of State justify his keeping the lid on numerous other scandals. I'm not so sure he's wrong.

The first question that pops to mind is: are either or both of these guys (Jenkins and/or Quintero) still alive? Good candidates to be involved in JFK's assassination or not, it's easy to point fingers at dead men who (1) don't point back, (2) don't shoot back, (3) will neither confirm nor deny, ergo (4) cannot provide further information or proofs, e.g., as to higher-ups (you can't assume it was done at the "operative" level or even with "field management"), (5) cannot defend themselves, (6) cannot sue, and (7) cannot be prosecuted. Accusing dead people of stuff - even if true, which requires some pretty stiff (no pun intended) proofs in my mind - is how we got bogged down in the Roscoe White business for so long (and some people still can't deal with the fact that it's BS because they don't like the messenger ... or perhaps they just like to believe all of the theories out there?). The second question that pops to mind is: what is anybody doing about it, if these guys are alive? Are they writing a book or going to the authorities? Why would Wheaton tell Law and Sobel about the others' involvement? If he wanted it known and had proof, one would think that he would go to the authorities. After all, is this a crime we're dealing with here, or merely an interesting soap opera? If Wheaton didn't want to go to the authorities for some reason, why would he tell someone who might either do just that or (more likely?) write a book about it, in any case not be quiet about it? Either because it isn't true, or that it is and he figured anyone who could do anything about it wouldn't believe a couple of "conspiracy buffs" anyway? Or perhaps another reason (like maybe they will write a book and he'll share in the royalties)? What suss you? Duke, you obviously were not at the conference so I'll help fill you in. Jenkins and Quintero are BOTH alive. This is why this info is so tricky. Outside of what they told Wheaton, there is NO evidence connecting them to the killing. Researchers are scrambling to find this evidence at this moment. And Wheaton did come forward to the authorities--he sent a series of letters to the ARRB, which were not acted upon. Some researchers recently found these letters in the archives. That is why this is news now, twenty years after Wheaton was first told these things, and ten years after he first told the government about what was said.

I've read a lot about the Cermak killing, and I'm still undecided. Those who came in contact with Zangara swear he was completely off his rocker. I also found a book published right before the killing that insists that Cermak was himself completely corrupt, and in bed with gangsters. If so, his death might make more sense as the rub-out of a competitor than as the rub-out of an upright politician out to clean up the town. The strangest aspect of the Zangara as mob assassin scenario is that Gus Russo, Tim's hero, subscribes to it. Even better, he claims that Dave Yaras--JACK RUBY'S CHILDHOOD FRIEND--was the brains behind it. Seeing as he believes this, is it possible he honestly believes Ruby's involvement in the Kennedy assassination, where another "lone-nut" just went haywire and killed a prominent politician, was a coincidence? I think not. I think Russo changed the premise of his book at the last second, either on a whim, or under pressure from his publisher, and now he's stuck with it.

Schiller is intriguing. Did you read his book on the Simpson trial? One of his main sources, strangely enough, was a fellow ho who was paid 100k to say that O.J.'s cuts were inconsistent with a prolonged knife fight. The same ho who confirmed the single bullet theory and insisted there was no evidence for a second shooter in the Kennedy case... Dr. Michael Baden. Presumably, they met on a street corner somewhere and swapped some stories between tricks.