Jim Root

Greg

You said, "Maxwell Taylor is certainly someone that BOTH brothers, JFK and RFK, would NEVER have even seen coming at them...never. If your supposition is true, it would explain a lot."

Taylor was a very close to John J. McCloy and I believe that I can piece together a logical sequence of events that would allow these two men to pull off the assassination of JFK. By the way if you have read many of my older posts you can find where Edwin Walker fits in with both McCloy and Taylor as well as a man named John Hurt.

Jim Root

I first began this thread over six years ago. Since that time I have covered a lot of research ground and believe that Prouty is a guy who may have shot from the hip a little to much which caused his aim to be off at times. On the other hand I do believe that he was positioned to know some information about the way that things were supposed to have been done in Dallas and was knowledgable enough to know that something had gone wrong. Even more I might suggest that while he could not quite pinpoint exactly what went wrong Prouty may have allowed his speculations to become sure facts within his own mind which has created some problems. ...

Let me ask this question since you've done so much work along these lines, Jim: has anyone ever substantiated that Fletch Prouty actually did what he said he did? For work, that is?

Duke

While I have read some criticism of Fletcher's statements that seem to contain historical mistakes, I have never read that he was a crank pretending to be someone that he was not. While it is not unusual to find many people in the relm of Kennedy assassination researchers, posters, whitnesses, sorcerers, etc. that have been called or uncovered as fakes, Proudy's military career has never been questioned. This does not mean that everything he said about it would be true but military records are not that difficult to uncover, especially after a career officier has died. Their service is supposed to be public record.... and it seems that many people would have wanted to discredit Prouty in this very public way but it does not seem that anyone has.

If you take his military career at face value it begins at a very interesting time and Prouty is associated with a very interesting group training for a very specific mission.....many of the men that were involved with this particular deception find their way into my background research.

Jim Root

Jim Root

Of course my speculation is that General Maxwell Taylor was one of two major players in the assassination and, if true, could explain Prouty's statement very easily.

I think it would also explain why Taylor twice became emotionally overcome when the subject of the assassination arose in conversation, years after the event.

Ron

Yes Ron, I would agree after having read those accounts as well. Have you ever read Taylor's graduation speech to the cadets at West Point, June 1963? It is interesting as well when cast in the light of later events.... especially knowing that he was engaged in a disagreement with Kennedy over the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963.

Jim root

I first began this thread over six years ago. Since that time I have covered a lot of research ground and believe that Prouty is a guy who may have shot from the hip a little to much which caused his aim to be off at times. On the other hand I do believe that he was positioned to know some information about the way that things were supposed to have been done in Dallas and was knowledgable enough to know that something had gone wrong. Even more I might suggest that while he could not quite pinpoint exactly what went wrong Prouty may have allowed his speculations to become sure facts within his own mind which has created some problems.

That being said a reread of my original post had a few sentences pop out that I can appreciate and support my own speculations:

Prouty

"While clarifying that record, I should make it clear, that had I been in the Pentagon at the time the assignments for Presidential Protection for Kennedy's trip to Dallas were being made, I might very well have been called...as an available and experienced senior officer...when the Commander of the Army unit that ought to have been assigned that task was told his unit was not needed in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963.

"As a matter of fact, I was called later after my return from Antarctica by an officer there who knew me, because he and his boss were extremely up-set by that call that told them not to go to Dallas. This was quite irregular

Of course my speculation is that General Maxwell Taylor was one of two major players in the assassination and, if true, could explain Prouty's statement very easily.

Jim Root

Interesting passage in John Newman's, Oswald and the CIA (1995) on John M. Whitten and Mexico City:

On December 11, 1963, John Scelso (John M. Whitten), chief of Western Hemisphere Branch 3, wrote an alarming memo to Richard Helms, deputy director of Plans. In bold handwriting at the top of the memo are the words "not sent." Below this is written "Questions put orally to Mr. Helms. 11 Nov. 63." In smaller handwriting under this are the words "Dec. presumably," reflecting the obvious fact that the Helms oral briefing was December 11, not November 11. Scelso wasted no time in throwing this stone into the pond: " It looks like the FBI report may even be released to the public. This would compromise our [13 spaces redacted] operations in Mexico, because the Soviets would see that the FBI had advance information on the reason for Oswald's visit to the Soviet Embassy."

How could the FBI have known Oswald's reason in advance? Next to this piece of text was a handwritten clue: "Mr. Helms phoned Mr. Angleton this warning." Perhaps "this morning" was meant, but in either case this may mean that CIA counterintelligence operations were involved.

It is intriguing that anyone in U.S. intelligence would have had advance notice of Oswald's visit to the Soviet Embassy. Evidently the FBI report that was mentioned was worded so that its readers might conclude that the FBI had been the source of information, but from Scelso's report, it is not hard to guess that it was the CIA's operations in Mexico that had yielded "advance information on the reason for Oswald's visit to the Soviet Embassy." But just what exactly does this phrase mean?

Oswald had told the Soviet Consulate in Mexico City that he corresponded with the Soviet Embassy in Washington about returning to the U.S.S.R. As previously discussed, the FBI would have learned of the contents of this correspondence. But this would not have compromised CIA operations in Mexico City. The CIA station monthly operational report for October 1963 did mention Oswald's visit to the Soviet Consulate, and did so under the subtitle "Exploitation of [7 letters redacted] Information." The same seven-letter cryptonym is redacted in the line beneath this subtitle, but the last letter is partially visible, enough to see that it is the letter Y In another CIA document from the Mexico City station the cryptonym LIENVOY has been left in the clear, and it was apparently used for the photo surveillance operation against the Soviet Embassy and Consulate." If this is true, the point of the Scelso memo above might have been this: Publication of the October 9-10 cables would show the telephone intercept had been linked to the photo surveillance, and that since the phone call came first, the cable showed the Agency had advance knowledge of the reason for Oswald's (the impostor) visit to the Soviet Consulate.

It appears that the CIA had advance knowledge about more than Oswald's October 1 visit to the Soviet Embassy. There is circumstantial evidence that the CIA Mexico City station might have been watching Oswald since his arrival on September 27. This evidence, according to the Lopez Report, was the Agency's decision to investigate the transcripts back to September 27, before they had learned of that date through post-assassination investigation:" This Committee has not been able to determine how the CIA Headquarters knew, on 23 November 1963, that a review of the [redacted] material should begin with the production from 27 September, the day Oswald first appeared at the Soviet and Cuban Embassies".

This was an incisive point. So was the direction in which the Lopez Report then headed: what headquarters knew about Oswald's visits to the Cuban Consulate.

I think there is an obvious suggestion for how the CIA or FBI would have known of Oswald's visit to Mexico City in advance....It is as simple as looking at the Silvia Odio incident and then suggesting that the two men who were with this mystery Oswald were in fact somehow connected to one or both of the agencies and would have reported this information. The attorneys nvestigating the Odio case also suggested that Oswald may have been provided with a phone number to use in the event that he needed a contact by these same two mystery men. The Warren Commission attorneys were then, apparently, not allowed to persue this avenue of speculation.....and then we have the Raleigh Call.

Jim Root

Robert

Can you give a site for this statement?

"John J. McCloy wanted to attack the Cubans from the beginning."

Jim Root

This quote interests me and perhaps I can put a little different spin on what has usually been suggested:

"[David Heymann, Bobby and Jackie: a Love Story, pp. 117-118]:

'Over lunch that afternoon, Smathers asked Bobby why he’d aborted his personal investigation into his brother’s assassination.

'Because every time I pump the FBI or CIA for information,' RFK responded, 'I end up with a death threat in the mail. So does Teddy. I don’t care about my own life, but I do care about my brother’s. My using the CIA in conjunction with the Mafia to go after Castro may have led to Jack’s death. One in the family is enough.”

As the Cuban Missle Crisis was developing John J. McCloy was called in to negotiate with the Russians. McCloy was very proud of the part he played in these negotiations and they are well documented. One of the points were that the US was not to go after Castro......Bobby defied this part of the agreement.....and as I have pointed out reviously, one does not defy John J. McCloy without consequences.

Jim Root

I'd like to echo Mark's statement and I too appreciate both Jim and Robert for all the leg work that they are doing.

Just to make one thing clear, Ed Coyle is the Army Intelligence agent and not a ATF agent.

In addition, I recently came across this early affidavit from Michael Paine in which he says

Michael Paine Affidavit – “I heard that the President was shot from the Texas School Book Depository. I knew that Lee Oswald worked there, and immediately thought of him and wondered if he might have shot the President, and wondered if I should call the FBI. I thought it unlikely that he shot the President, and that the F.B.I. was fully aware of his presence there….”

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10490&relPageId=282,

Who else in the FBI could the Paines - either Ruth or Micahel, have told about LHO working at TSB?

BK

William

If Michael Paine was involved in the assassination, why, in heavens name, would he let on that he knew that the FBI was aware of where Oswald was working. The Warren Commission itself seems to have kept that information (Hosty's third note)out of the record.

Jim Root

During the War the OSS [apparently on Donovan's initiative] joined some forces with the NKVD. Then each spied on the other - the Soviets apparently getting the upper hand here. A few fascinating glimpses of this. Seems it has a lot to do with Donovan being axed and the rise of Dulles and many other such changes at the end of the war. Here is one short document. Each had spies in the other - but the Russians were much more successful at this and ran circles around the Americans in most respects. Part of the strong anti-communist reaction of McCarthy, Nixon and others was [in part] a reaction to this, IMO. I think this even plays into the biases and players who were later connected to the JFK assassination. [though the connections are complex and not linear!] Book 8 in this hard to get and expensive series is also on this matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_Warfare_(book)

One of the reasons that the Soviets had so much success was that they recruited men and women who were playing the role of right-wingers. Meanwhile, the FBI/CIA concentrated on those who were on the left. Of course, these are the last ones that the Soviets would have used. The classic example of the this was Kim Philby. He was a well-known Marxist at university. He then pretended he had moved sharply to the right and joined neo-fascist organizations. He was then recruited by British intelligence that at the time was being run by fascist sympathizers. In reality, Philby was still a Marxist and had been recruited by the Soviets in the 1930s. He played the role so well he became close friends with James Angleton. When evidence emerged that Philby might be a spy in the late 1950s, Angleton investigated him and gave him the all clear. This allowed him to get away. Angleton never got over this and after this incident he thought everyone was a Soviet spy.

FWIW, I completely agree with you, Peter's pdf, I thought, was one of the most important bits of information I had seen lately.....

Thanks. I have more info and thoughts on this line - but - it is complex - I can sort of work it out in my mind, but can't yet find the right formulation on paper [screen]. I'll endeaver to do so in the next week. I'm making notes. The complexity is great. One also needs to see the political biases of the persons involved [not overly turned-off by socialism [or willing to work with USSR during war] v. not overly put-off by fascism types [who were ascendent after the War]. Donovan had thought about post-war German intelligence operatives in the service of the USA and had chosen Hoettl and those around him. Dulles and others who I class as not upset by fascism [only, perhaps, by Hitlerism] tapped Gehlen and his gang. In this and other internal conflicts and even assassination in one's own 'camp', suspicions grew to the point of paranoia and lasted until today, if my theory is correct. There were real moles at high levels working for the USSR in the UK, US and other 'western' intel, as John reminds us above. The US and UK had, to a lesser extent, their agents in the other camp and the US and UK were spying on each other during the War, bigtime. Angleton's paranoia likely started in the Camp A v. Camp B tensions of the war. Which side he was on is an open question.

I think the various USSR and Russian defectors and false defectors who later came to tell about LHO in Russia et al. are part of this phenomenon. I have NO doubt that Patton was murdered by this Camp A v. Camp B phenomenon, as well. In fact both camps wanted him dead for different reasons. I'm not yet sure which side did it - but both had good reason not to expose the other side after the fact. The Camp B group was ascendent after the War and came into their bloom in the new CIA. They were those most comfortable with corporate fascism, as long as it was Americanized and had never been very upset with German fascism, but got a bit upset with Hitler when he went past his assignment of destroying the USSR to trying to take-over all of Europe, if not the World. [that was to be reserved for the USA]. One of the stations that was a breeding ground for Camp B operatives to meet-up, help their Nazi pals, plunder gold, art and other things and then return to the USA to set-up all sorts of nasty things was the camp at Oberammergau, just after the War. Kissinger was there. Patton was in charge of that general part of Gemany. I believe even Clay Shaw was there, if I remember correctly - but many of those we see as OSS, CIC and G2. etc. who later were connected to Dallas directly or through their buddies passed through or interacted with Oberammergau just after the War was over.

I'll have more to say soon on this, if anyone is interested. It also ties in to the McCarthy witchhunt, the Red Scares, Hoover's obsession with Communists, why FDR [though dying slowly] may have been pushed-along on his way to the grave so the bomb would be used [the bomb by the way, I believe, needed one component only the Nazis had, and were obtained in the few days just after German defeat by various deals]. Camp B was also tied-in with the guys Seagrave and Seagrave write so wonderfully about, who were doing the same sorts of things in the East.

I have to agree that to understand the assassination of JFK if you don't know history, you're in big trouble.....

I felt that the following is another area worth perusing......

From OSS: The Secret History of America's First Central Intelligence Agency pg 199, 201; by Smith, R. Harris (1972)

........a Harvard professor of government, Bruce Hopper had boarded a whale cruiser at New York bound for Liverpool; he was later flown to Sweden by the RAF from a secret air base in Scotland. The 50-year-old New Deal liberal became the first OSS chief in neutral Stockholm. Hoppers capable chief of operations was Wilho Tikander, a Finnish-American attorney from Chicago. His aides included Dr. Taylor Cole, a Duke University political science professor, Washington economist Richard Huber, and New York attorney Walter Surrey.

After the summer of 1943, .........the British admitted that their backhanded treatment of the resistance had been in error.The following year was a period of reconciliation with MILORG, (the Norwegian military underground) and in the British view a poor time for OSS bunglers to arrive on the scene. The British sucessfully resisted American interference in Norwegian operations until the fall of 1943, when Colonel Joseph Haskell took command of the SO Branch in London and Dr. Hopper relinquished his own position to Wilho Tikander, his second-in-command.

Washington Post, The (DC) - February 1, 1989

Deceased Name: WALTER STERLING SURREY -- Lawyer

Walter Sterling Surrey, 73, a senior partner at the Washington law firm of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, who was a State Department lawyer in the late 1940s, died Jan. 30 at Sibley Memorial Hospital after a heart attack. He lived in Washington.

A specialist in international law, Mr. Surrey had been at Jones, Day since 1986. Before that he had been a partner in a firm that he had started in 1950.

Mr. Surrey was a native of New York. He graduated from the University of Virginia and Yale University law school. He came to Washington in 1940 when he joined the claims division of the Justice Department. He joined the State Department in 1941 and from 1943 to 1945 he was chief of the Economic Warfare Section of the American legation in Stockholm. From 1947 to 1950, he did legal work at State dealing with the Marshall Plan and NATO.

Mr. Surrey was chairman of both the United States-China Business Council and the National Planning Association. He was secretary and counsel to the Institute of International Finance Inc., which he helped start in 1983.

His marriages to Rita Surrey and Virginia Surrey ended in divorce.

Survivors include his wife, Dana Surrey of Washington; two children by his first marriage, Richard Surrey of Washington and Elizabeth Surrey Adams of Arvada, Colo.; five stepdaughters, Laura Akerman of Norfolk, Kathleen Hux of Falling Waters, W.Va., Letitia Zimmerman of Arlington, Stacy Johnson of Orange Park, Fla., and Mary O'Conor of Lusby, Md.; a stepson, Edward O'Conor of Arvada, and eight grandchildren.

Washington Post, The (DC)

Date: February 1, 1989

Edition: FINAL

Page: b7

Record Number: 189468

Copyright © 1989 The Washington Post

Jim Root is another Forum member who is interested in Wilko Tikander....

Sorry Robert that I had not viewed this earlier. Surry was another of those persons meeting with Helms, Tikander, Shepardson, etc. in June of 1959 when Tikander speculated that an off the record mission was being planed that would be conducted via Helsinki. In October 1959 Oswald would be moving through Helsinki on his way to the Soviet Union. Interestingly the group seemded to handle Surry with kid gloves although they were interested in him reviewing some of the information provided by Tikander.

Jim Root

Can anyone find any connection with Harrod G. Miller and Abraham Sinkov? (Sinkov was a member of William Friedman's original team of cryptologists)

Jim Root

Robert

Might sugggest a good read of the information provided in the backyup docs for the Warren Commission dealing with the Silvia Odio case. Edwin Walker made a lot of notes dealing with this investigation which sparked my interest. At one point the attorneys investigating the Odio incident suggested that the men who may have been with Oswald may have provided him with a contact number. The investigation went no further than that speculation for some reason but as we now know John Hurt's name comes into the story as a potential Oswald contact.

Why is this important to me?

John Hurt's work for US intelligence from 1947 on is still classified to this day. All others from Friedman's original group have had their bios open and we have at least an outline of thier career work.....except Hurt.

If Oswald was provided this name and a contact number to call and further told to mention this name, Oswald may have signed his own death warrent. Imagine if US Intelligence becomes aware of the fact that the accused assassin of the President of the United States has a contact name for a man who is involved with some of the most highly classified secrets of US Intelligence. I speculate that this puts into motion the demise of Oswald and that those involved in ploting the death of the President to not have to handle the dirty work of the elimination of their suspect.

Following this lead and speculating on who in Raleigh, NC Oswald may have called and set the wheels of intelligence in motion I unearthed a rather interesting cache of material that has tightend my theory of the assassination. And yes the cryto portion of this is the key to lead us to John J. McCloy.

Jim Root

I'm sure this has been gone over before many times - but I'm a relative newby. Taking in to consideration that the "head on" shot with the president coming right at you (as a lone assassin) prior to turning away from the TSBD and going away and downhill to the left...and dealing with a tree...why would you (as a lone assassin) not take the earlier shot?

Any fool would take the earlier shot. It was easier (by far) and it would give a better second shot (if necessary) since at that semi-blocked in space the motorcade would still be coming at the shooter.

So obviously, the lone assassin would have set himself up for the oncoming shot - and something had to prevent that (scare him?) and get him to have to quickly regroup his senses to fire the three shots downrange at a president in a car moving away, on a slight curve, and going downhill.

I think (if it were a single shooter - Oswald) that something had to take him away from his primary "shooting lane" and force him into plan B. With all the video footage and pictures there should be a clue as to what spooked Oswald off the best shot.

Of course - I personally don't think there ever was an attempt to shoot at the pre-turn point when the target was approaching the 6th floor TSBD...the best shot for a LONE shooter...still, for those who believe in that - I would say - what caused Oswald to not make the easiest shot?

There should be some sort of anomally in that segment of the motorcade trip that would cause the shooter to not take his easiest/best shot and instead shoot at a much harder - receding and turning a bit downhill target.

David

The actual car that Kennedy was in at the time of the assassination had an overhead bow that the bubble roof would have attached to. In the straight on shot the shooter would have had the view of the windshield and this metal piece obstructing the shot. In the reenactments that were done the car did not have this added piece of hardware and many people have seen that reenactment and thought the same as you. Add the piece and it is a major obstruction.

Jim Root

Robert

Your three H. G. Miller's must all be different. The first would have been born in 1897 the second in 1903 and the third does not thave the same name. Interestingly the Harrod Miller that I have been interested in did, it seems, spend time in the Canal Zone and his age seems about right. Also interesting is that his time in Central America may overlap with time that John "Frenchy" Grombach spent there as well.

I agree this man is of interest if for no other reason than he is associated John B. Hurt and Frank Rowlett as well as John Freidmans group of cryptologists.

Jim Root

In the past I have been asked for a "cite" on McCloy's refusal to negotiate the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963......thought I should add one here:

According to Carl Kaysen, deputy special assistant to the president for national security affairs 1961-63, when speaking to President Kennedy, "The President said,'Lets ask McCloy' and McCloy was asked and he didn't want to do it."

(taken from, The National Security Council Project, Oral History Roundtables, Arms Control and the National Security Council, March 23, 2000, pgs 17 & 18)

In the McCloy papers at Amherst you find a lack of communication dealing with disarmament talks starting from June to August 1963.

My recolection is, from previous research, that McCloy was upset with Kennedy because he felt that a comprehensive treaty could have been negotiated following the Cuban Missile Crisis had Kennedy been more decisive. McCloy was not willing to negotiate for less.

Jim Root

Of course I too believe that the Amemerican University speech was a turning point in US Foreign Policy and that this change in position may well have led to the death of John F. Kennedy. I tend to feel that this speech led to the negotiation of and passage of the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963 and may well have led to the assassination. For myself these pieces of information are relevent to this position:

First:

Two days befor the attempted assassination of Edwin Walker this "Memorandum by Director of Central Intelligence McCone/1/" (was sent)

Washington, April 8, 1963.

/1/Source: Central Intelligence Agency, DCI, ER Subject Files, White Papers-Nuclear Test Ban 3/1/63-1/2/64. Secret. Circulated to McCloy.

With respect to the test ban treaty, I have not gone over the last draft./2/ However, it is my understanding that the present negotiating position provides for seven on-site inspections, seven black boxes within the USSR, and an inspection area of 500 square kilometers, and that the treaty deals with all the other issues which have been developed through the years. Some consideration is being given to reducing the seven on-site inspections to six, or even to five. There is also a difference of opinion as to the value of the black boxes.

/2/Reference is to a March 23 draft comprehensive test ban treaty. (Washington National Records Center, RG 383, ACDA/CRSC Files: FRC 77 A 59, Basic Policy, Pol 3-3, Proposals to President)

One would have to make a penetrating study of the results of the Vela experiments to make a final judgment as to the adequacy of the verification provisions of the treaty. However, Mr. Foster, at a recent Executive Committee meeting,/3/ stated that the threshold is on the order of one kiloton in granite, two kilotons in tuff, and 10 to 20 kilotons (and possibly 30 kilotons) in alluvium. He added that this was the threshold for a single test. Based on a theory of probabilities, he further concluded that a series of tests which included a meaningful number of underground shots in a single location would, with a small number of inspections, undoubtedly be detected and identified as nuclear rather than natural.

/3/Not identified; the test ban was not discussed in the Executive Committee of the National Security Council during 1963.

On the basis of these threshold figures, I have expressed the view to Mr. Foster and to the President/4/ that the degree of verification is not sufficient, as it cannot prove adherence to a suspension of testing in an important area of yields. Of greater importance, however, is the fact that under present political circumstances a test ban between the U.S., USSR, and UK would not, in the final analysis, answer the "proliferation" problem because the Soviets cannot handle the Chinese Communists and we and the British cannot handle the French.

/4/In a memorandum for the record, April 4, McCone wrote he had told the President that day that former President Eisenhower had expressed opposition to the present draft treaty "because of inadequate verification, the threshold, etc.," and that he, McCone, agreed with this position and also opposed it because "the Russians could no longer handle the Chinese situation and we and the British could no longer handle the de Gaulle situation, and hence the proliferation problem. The President seemed to agree, and restated that he did not think we were going to get a treaty anyway." (Central Intelligence Agency, Meetings with President, 4/1/63-6/30/63) McCone's memorandum of April 4 of a meeting held with Eisenhower on March 30 is ibid.

As for the advantages to the United States of further testing, doing so would yield a continuing improvement in our technology through the further development of small weapons, improvement of weight/yield ratios and increased knowledge of weapons effects. With respect to the first two of these items, improvements are important. Our failure to pursue them while the Soviets do so (clandestinely) would probably deprive us of our superior nuclear position. However, this would not necessarily affect the military balance as the improvements are expected to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary, although important information would be provided. With respect to effects of testing, more study would be necessary before I would have an opinion.

There is a great danger of engaging in a treaty, living under it for a number of years, and permitting our laboratories to go downhill (which they undoubtedly would do) while the Soviets covertly pursue developments in their laboratories. The Soviets could then abrogate the treaty for some reason they claim provocative, and confront us with a situation under which they had made a significant forward step in their technology. This, as will be recalled, was exactly what they did in 1961. I do not see how we can avoid this risk if we engage in a treaty unless the treaty is subscribed to by all world powers and contains substantial penalties for such abrogation.

The Plowshare problem must be considered. Meaningful Plowshare experiments involve our most advanced weapons technology and, if the inspection arrangements outlined in the treaty are undertaken, it would mean exposing to the Soviets our most advanced weapons technology. This might mean abandoning Plowshare and therefore one must consider whether Plowshare is important to our national interest.

Intelligence will make some contribution to the verification of a test ban. Some indicators which have been meaningful in the past are now lost to us, some useful indicators are still available but they, too, could be lost. Aerial surveillance might help in some circumstances, and clandestine penetrations might also help. Soviet fear of the latter might also serve as a deterrent. No useful figure can be placed on the contribution of intelligence.

It seems to me that there has been an overemphasis on the importance of the test ban treaty and the whole issue of testing for many years, and most particularly, during the last two or three years. The issue at first centered around fallout. The most responsible scientific judgment seems to indicate that the effects of fallout were vastly overemphasized by the test ban advocates. I feel the whole issue should be brought into proper perspective and question whether much is to be gained by an agreement to stop testing so long as the United States, Soviet Union, and the British continue the production of fissionable material, nuclear weapons, and delivery systems at a high rate, and in addition, the French and the Chinese Communists pursue an independent and uncontrolled program, and rumor has it that the Israelis are now doing likewise. Hence, stopping testing does not slow down the arms race, does not remove the dangers of a nuclear holocaust, and does not end the proliferation problem.

One important consideration is that if we reach an agreement with the Soviets, we have "broken through" in our effort to negotiate with the USSR on an issue of disarmament, and this might lead to other more meaningful agreements. This consideration is important and we could sacrifice a great deal to accomplish such a "break through". However, this consideration is of value only if the test suspension agreement provides reasonable means of verification and reasonable guarantee for conformance with all treaty terms, including some protection against unilateral revocation or abrogation of the treaty. If, however, we are reckless on the question of verification, then the "break through" will be a decided disservice to the United States' security interests because it will establish a precedent for further steps in disarmament without adequate means of verification.

I have not personally studied the most recent developments in detection and identification techniques and cannot render a judgment on the proposed treaty. However, Mr. Foster's disclosure of the threshold set forth in the second paragraph of this memorandum represents a drastic departure from US policy so often stated, i.e. we will only agree to a suspension of tests which can, in the opinion of responsible and informed people, be verified with reasonable assurance.

Second:

Maxwell Taylor would have a problem with this treaty as well:

Document 56: Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Glenn Seaborg, Journal Entry for 9 July 1963

Source: Journals of Glenn T. Seaborg, Volume 6, July 1, 1963-November 22, 1963 (Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1989)

Early in the evening of 9 July, Kennedy met with the NSC to discuss the Harriman mission. Still unsure whether a limited three environments test ban treaty was negotiable, the participants briefly discussed an agreement that permitted a quota of underground tests. Nevertheless, if an atmospheric test ban was feasible, Rusk wanted Harriman to be able to conclude an agreement "on the spot." Bundy wondered whether the French should be consulted, which raised the question of whether it would be possible to induce Paris to sign a limited test ban treaty. Maxwell Taylor's comments questioning the advantages of an atmospheric test ban raised the continuing problem with the Chiefs, but Kennedy declared that the issue was settled: "such a ban is to the advantage of the U.S." Nevertheless, Taylor vainly pushed away on the issue.

Third:

On June 12th John J. McCloy would address a letter to Edwin Walker.

Fourth:

Although asked by President Kennedy to negotiate this treaty with the Soviets, John J. McCloy refused.

Fifth:

The thought of Jsckie Kennedy at the time of the funeral of her assassinated husband are also of interest.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the day she buried her husband, Jacqueline Kennedy clung to the hands of a Soviet diplomat and urged Moscow to continue working with Washington in an effort to achieve peace, according to newly released Soviet documents.

The documents show a delicate diplomatic dance between the two super powers during the days immediately following the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy 36 years ago. They also reveal that personal letters were exchanged between the U.S. president's widow and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.

Russian President Boris Yeltsin turned the documents over to U.S. President Bill Clinton during their June meeting in Germany. Copies of the documents, and translations by the U.S. State Department, were released Thursday by the National Archives.

Particularly poignant were descriptions of a White House reception following Kennedy's burial at Arlington National Cemetery.

Soviet diplomat A.I. Mikoyan, who was first deputy chairman of the council of ministers, met Mrs. Kennedy at the reception to express his nation's condolences.

Diplomat's perspective

In a dispatch about the reception to Soviet leaders, Mikoyan wrote: "It struck us that Jacqueline Kennedy, who exchanged only two or three words with the persons introduced to her, looked very calm and even appeared to be smiling.

"However, when we were presented to her, and when we conveyed our heartfelt condolences to her on behalf of Nina Petrovna, N.S. Khrushchev, and Rada and Alyosha Adzhubey ... Jacqueline Kennedy said, with great emotion and nearly sobbing: 'I am sure that Chairman Khrushchev and my husband could have been successful in the search for peace, and that they were really striving for that. Now you must continue this endeavor and bring it to completion.'

"She said all this with inspiration and deep emotion," Mikoyan wrote. "During the entire conversation she clasped my hands with her two hands, trying to convey as convincingly as possible her feelings and thoughts ... Her fortitude is most impressive."

New widow wrote of self-control

A week later, Jacqueline Kennedy wrote a handwritten letter to Khrushchev, the Soviet documents show. Soviet Ambassador Anatoly F. Dobrynin wrote in a telegram to Soviet officials that, "The envelope was slightly glued in one spot. The entire letter was not typed, but written from beginning to end in the handwriting of Jacqueline Kennedy, which is considered here to be a sign of particular respect for the addressee."

In the letter, Mrs. Kennedy thanked Khrushchev for sending Mikoyan to the funeral. But she said that it had been "such a horrible day for me that I do not know if my words were received as I wanted them to be."

So the new widow said she was writing to explain how important her husband had felt Khrushchev was to the peace effort --- and how she hoped those efforts continued.

"The danger troubling my husband was that war could be started not so much by major figures as by minor ones," Mrs. Kennedy wrote. "Whereas major figures understand the need for self-control and restraint, minor ones are sometimes moved rather by fear and pride. If only in the future major figures could still force minor ones to sit down at the negotiating table before they begin to fight!"

Dobrynin concluded his report by suggesting that Khrushchev and his wife reply to Mrs. Kennedy with a personal letter. The ambassador also suggested Mrs. Khrushchev invite Mrs. Kennedy and her children to an unofficial summer vacation on the Black Sea.

Dobrynin said that would "make a very good impression on American public opinion and on U.S. government circles as well. Moreover, it would also be useful to maintain contacts with the Kennedy family."

Final thoughts:

It would seem as if Mrs. Kennedy's phrases, "The danger troubling my husband..." and, "If only in the future major figures COULD STILL FORCE MINOR ONES(emphisis mine) to sit down at the nefotiating table before they begin to fight!" are supportive of the belief that immediately following the assassination she may have thought certain government officials could have been involved in the assassination.

And John J.McCloy refused to sit at the negotiating table when the Limited Test Ban Treaty was finalized.

Jim Root

Strange for me....I can piece together a conspiracy that was designed to kill President Kennedy complete with the who's the what's the where's the why's and the how's and I can accept the Warren Commission Report as well......but it is just way to simple in its own very complicated way. And to succeed all the conspirators had to do was convince the public that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have done it.......My conspirators could control the timing of the motorcade route. My conspirators were postitioned to cover up evidence (and did as a member of the Warren Commission). My conspirators had a motive and it is very posible that they had used Lee Harvey Oswald previously to obtain another of their goals......oh well.....obviously the old effective approach that has been used for the past 47 years has gotten us a lot closer to naming the killers so we have no need to even think of trying a new and different approach that might shed light on the subject.

Jim Root

FBI Agent J P Hosty's third note (identifing where Oswald was working prior to the design of the motorcade route)not being given a WC Exhibit Number. People in government knew where Oswald was working but the WC evidently did not see fit to follow up on exactly who had access to this information.....I believe this information was an essential piece of information needed for the crime to have occured.

Jim Root

Tony

Might suggest you read the transcript of the man who administered Ruby's lie detector test for the Warren Commission. He was questioned twice, once by the Warren Commission attorneys and I believe by an attorney for the HSCA. They both questioned the man about an annomally that appears on the printed test record that was not noted with an explanation at the time of the test (a movement by Ruby was not reported and written on the paper feed as was done when Ruby made other movements during the test, at least that was the conclusion made by the attorneys to explain it). If you find it, it may lead you to an interesting place.

Have fun

Jim root

After 86 replys and 2756 views, it seems that only 5 people could make suggestions on the names of people who may have been involved in the assassination.

Intersting.

Jim Root

Please.....if you believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone then that is all that you would need to list....but if on the other hand you do not believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone then please add additional names (or some sort of identification) and what their actions would have been in the conspiracy.

Not looking for discussion or to pass judgements on peoples thoughts just to compile a list of persons YOU think were invovled and the manner of their involvement......nothing more.

Thank You,

Jim root

A lone nutter would say just ONE and provide us with the name Lee Harvey Oswald

Those of us who believe in a conspiracy seem to have taken on a much more difficult project when it comes to identifing those responsible for the death of Kennedy.

After all how many people (and who were they) did it take to pull off the assassination in your opinion?

How many people in Dealy Plaza that day where invovled? How many within the Secret Service or at Parkland Hospital or within the CIA? How many did it take to collect and alter films or enter the TSBD and plant the weapon recovered from that building? How many Dallas police officers were involved? How many people were in place to alter the body of the President while it returned to Washington and how many people were needed to fake the autopsey? How many people worked with Jack Ruby to kill Oswald that were within the Dallas Police Department or invovled with organized crime or recruited Ruby to do the deed? How many people did it take to set up Oswald in Mexico, in New Orleans, in Dallas before and after he went to New Orleans? How many people were involved in Oswald's defection to the Soviet Union and arranging his return to the United States? Exactly what planted evidence needed which sort of people to be in place to create the Warren Commission story? How many people have been involved over the years to silence how many whitnesses or to eliminate what loose ends?

The above is just a short list to begin with but it would be interesting to compile a complete list of how many and the who's you believe were necessary to accomplish this coup.

Not trying to debate each entry but rather provide an opportunity for everyone to list all the persons (even if they are just called "Badge Man") they believe it took to assassinate the President.....remember it takes more than one to have a conspiracy but there is no limit for the total number novlved.

Jim Root

Willam

Thank you for refining my point in your excellent post!

Jim Root

David

Oswald's "patsy" statement was a little longer than just, "I'm a patsy." He actually said that the reason he was being arrested was because he had gone to the Soviet Union, I'm a patsy. For myself it is difficult to just take one part of the statement (I'm a patsy) without examining the total comment and attempting to put it into context with the man.

Oswald had gone to the Soviet Union, Oswald had worked on radar that tracked the U-2 spy plane, a U-2 spy plane was downed over the Soviet Union while Oswald was there and the downing of the U-2 did lead to the failure of the Paris Summit.

Just week prior to the assassintion of JFK Oswald gave a speech at Spring Hill College and spoke of the downing of the U-2 and the failure of the Paris Summit. It seems obvious to me that these two events were, in Oswald's mind, tied together and that they were in fact something that Oswald was thinking a great deal about in the time period leading up to the assassination. Oswald, at Spring Hill College, spoke of powerful people or forces within both the Soviet Union and the United States that did not want there to be a peace between these two countries.

Oswald either by preperation or chance was also well prepared in knowing exactly who he wanted to act as his attorney after being arrested for the assassination of JFK, Jonathon Abt. Abt had been an Smith Act attorney and had argued successfully in front of the Supreme Court of the United States defending people who had been accused of attempting to overthrow the government of the United States.

I guess it woud be possible to argue that Oswald the "patsy" was setting up his defense based upon his belief that he may have been used or even tricked by some very powerful forces to go to the Soviet Union and in so doing may have helped to derail the Paris Summit.

Interestingly, John J. McCloy, did not want the Paris Summit to be successful and it was not. McCloy had also resigned in discust with JFK as Chief Arms negotiator in June of 1963. After the assassination of JFK McCloy would once again become the Chief Arms negotiator. Two seperate events that can be associated with two sepeate people, Oswald and McCloy and I guess I would agree, one may well have been a "patsy" for the other and Oswald, might I suggest, may well have figured out the first time he had been used as a "patsy" was when he went to the Soviet Union(based upon his speech at Spring Hill College).

Jim Root

Duncan

IF the conspirators were in fact inclined to plant CE399 at Parkland Hospital after the assassinaiton of JFK had taken place and IF this were a fundamental part of their plan that would insure, as it seems to have done, success in "getting awasy" with their plan to assassinate the President of the United States I could easily believe they could have found a myriad of ways to have matched the ballistics of the bullet either before or after the assassination as so many researchers seem to suggest.

The question that troubles me so much in this line of inquiry is how did the meticulous planners of this assassintion know that the bullet that they needed to plant would match a wound that would be inflicted to Connelly's thigh during the assassination that would create the explanation of where the bullet came from that had to be planted for the conspirators to "get awasy" with the assassination?

What is interesting for me to ponder is if the "magic bullet" had not been "planted" would we all be asking, "Were did this "magic bullet" disappear to? Would this line of inquiry continue with, "If we had this bullet that has "magically" disappeared then we could have checked the ballistics to prove if it was or was not fired from the weapon recovered from the sixth floor snipers nest!" Would there be those who would suggest that since that bullet had disappeared the conspirators must have planted someone at Parkland to insure that this bullet would never be found?

But my mind wonders. We have the "magic bullet" and we have the wound to Connellys thigh so lets just accept that it must have been planted because the ballistics did somehow match.

Jim Root

Thank you Bernice

As you may know it is my belief that this subject may be the primary reason that John F. Kennedy was assassinated. John J. McCloy, Kennedy's chief arms negotiator, had resigned over this issue and Gen. Maxwell Taylor had openly argued against the treaty with the President. Taylor's commencement speech at West Point in June of 1963 is an interesting read when overlaid with the political issues surrounding the Limitied Test Ban Treaty, the roll of an elected President in a Constitutional Government, the security of the United States and the duty of a professional soldier under the Constitution of the United States.

From the excerpts it seems that even Kennedy beleives the treaty was only a short term policy that may not have been in the long term interest of the US, as much a political tool as real instrument designed to stop the spread of nuclear testing. It also seems that the political capital expended was a pressure point that Kennedy seems well aware of.

Will have to study this material further. Thank you again

Jim Root