Dawn Meredith

____________________ No one here has called you a "criminal". Interesting choice of words. A bit defensive, Tim? When Ruby spoke to Warren and Ford about "a whole new form of government " that was going to come about I daresay he was NOT referring to the Mob taking over the US government. "Castro" and "the Mob" are "false sponsers". Dawn

[Don't remember the details but wasn't JFK flying under bad conditions or without adequate training for instrument only flying? I seem to recall statements after his crash that like many Kennedys he was a risk-taker. _________________ Those are just some of the made up things about 7/19/99. Just Google "murder of JFK Jr". Wellstone was NOt going to be "beat at the polls". Accidents do occur, of course, but from the study I have made of the abouve deaths I do not believe these were accidents but political murders. Jackie correctly observed before her marriage to Ari that in the US "they're killing Kennedy's and (my) children are next". Dawn

[ John, Interesting stuff on the Chappaquiddick thread. Assuming it's accurate, there's always a chance Ted will tell all. He might find an inventive way of revealing it. Hope I live long enough. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ________________________-- I do not think we will ever see Ted comment on this case. I believe his nephew's murder so close to his own conspiratial history on 7/19/99 has ensured his silence for life. (Anyone who does not agree that JFk Jr. was blown out of the sky should read online all the discrepancies that will never be found on CNN, or CBS.) Dawn

John, however, has graduated to the second stage (violent opposition to some of my posts). Sometime soon, I suspect, the truth of my scenario will become self-evident. ________________________________ Tim: Everyone who has ever seriously studied this case is in "violent opposition" with your posts. Unlike most people on the right you have actually studied this case so you KNOW it was a conspiracy. You are intellectually honest enough to go beyond Posner, but like most on the right, you are simply blinded to the fact that JFK was killed by a coup. So you find writers like Russo- (who almost no one else trusts)- to support your view. Even when someone gives you proof after proof of the government's complicity, like was found in the pieces I posted by my friend Vince Salandria you just ignore this in favor of a scenario that is exactly what Shanet called it: "disinformation". The only issue for most of us here is whether or not we believe you sincerely hold this view, NOT that any of us are going to accept it as a "valid" explanation. That you post this innane stuff day after day makes me question your motives. Dawn

If your name is not "Bud Gibson" why is this that name that is in the article? I find it very curious that someone only 14 has more than one alias. Usually when people have an alias it is because they are involved in some criminal activity. The rule here is that if we want to post we have to use our real names and post a pic. Why should they rules be changed for you? I am not trying to get on your case, I am just asking that the rules be evenly applied. I do not recall that you have EVER posted a pic. Dawn

CURRENT SIGNIFICANCE OF MAKING ROBERT KENNEDY A FALL GUY IN JFK ASSASSINATION Did Robert Kennedy Kill His Brother? Vincent J. Salandria A review of In Love With Night–The American Romance with Robert Kennedy, by Ronald Steel (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000). The Pearson-Steel thesis This is a stupid idea with no basis in fact whatsoever--blaming Robert Kennedy for the assassination of President Kennedy--but it has been espoused by a raft of not only insignificant commentators over the years, beginning with Drew Pearson in 1967, and most recently by Ronald Steel, an award-winning historian, in his recent book. It is important to understand not only that this thesis is patently false, but also to understand how it serves the ongoing general propaganda mission of covering up the true nature of both assassinations. This mission, tragically, considering the loss of integrity involved, has been embraced and performed assiduously by virtually the whole of the mass media and academia, including the latter's so-called "progressive" elements, for almost four decades. The truth is that Robert was a victim of the same powers that killed his brother, as polls have always told us most Americans agree, in stark contrast to their so-called "opinion leaders." In fact he was doubly victimized, by also being drawn, however reluctantly, into cooperating with the cover-up of the truth about JFK's assassination in the hope of attaining the presidency himself, until this vain hope precipitated his own assassination in 1968, on the very night he won the California primary and was virtually assured of becoming the Democratic presidential candidate in that mid-Vietnam-war year. The "RFK did it" idea was first offered up by Drew Pearson in his regular column in the Washington Post on March 3, 1967. Castro, Pearson speculated, had become aware of the plot to kill him and decided to retaliate by having President Kennedy killed. Add this to the assumption (also false) that RFK was personally behind the CIA's attempts to assassinate Fidel, and presto, we have Pearson's conclusion that not only was RFK ultimately responsible for his brother's murder (by Castro), but was also "plagued by the terrible thought that he had helped put into motion terrible forces that indirectly may have brought about his brother’s martyrdom." All of this was based on hearsay "evidence" provided by an FBI spy named Edward Morgan, whose sources admittedly were not directly involved in the assassination and whom he refused to identify--in other words, pure gossip. Ronald Steel continues this fantasy, speaking of "powerful" and even "overwhelming circumstantial evidence" that RFK, "through Operation Mongoose, had made the removal of Castro his personal responsibility and highest priority" and made "incessant demands of the CIA and the Mongoose planners to 'get Castro.'" This evidence consists exclusively of prattle directly attributable to CIA and Pentagon sources, which can hardly be considered reliable sources in this matter. For example, Steel cites a statement in 1975 by then secretary of state Henry Kissinger to President Gerald Ford that Richard Helms of the CIA had informed him that "Robert Kennedy personally managed the operations on the assassination of Castro." This triple hearsay, originating from the mouth of a convicted xxxx (Helms lied under oath to a Senate committee to cover up CIA improprieties) is what Steel calls "overwhelming circumstantial evidence." As a further example of Steel's scholarship, he swallows whole the Warren Report's contention that Oswald was a pro-Castro agent, failing even to mention the work of Philip H. Melanson, who did in fact present overwhelming evidence eleven years ago to prove that Oswald was not an agent of Castro but of the CIA. Nor should we be surprised that Steel ignores the statement of Castro himself, made the day after the assassination, in which he said that Oswald "was never Secretary or Chairman of any Fair Play for Cuba Committee in any city of the United States" and that President Kennedy’s assassination was the work of some elements who disagreed with his international policy; that is to say, with his nuclear treaty, with his policy with respect to Cuba… And what happened yesterday can only benefit those ultra-rightist and ultra-reactionary sectors, among which President Kennedy…cannot be included." (cf. E. M. Schotz, History Will Not Absolve Us, Appendix II, pp. 51-86). But not unexpectedly, Steel, like the various post-Warren Commission government committees that "investigated" the assassination, hedges his bets. If it wasn't Castro, it was the Mafia. The problem with the Mafia theory is logic. If the Mafia were powerful enough to kill the president and maintain the cover-up ever since, including controlling or deluding the Warren Commission, the Dallas police, the FBI, the CIA, and the entirety of the American press and academia, to this day, then there is no discernible distinction between the Mafia and the United States Government. It is just a question of terminology. I will follow the traditional practice, however, and call the government the government. A second hedge, abundant in the assassination literature, is that if it wasn't Oswald, Castro, or the Mafia, it was "rogue" CIA agents. Steel is eager to embrace this foolish idea as well. "Perhaps," says Steel, "individuals linked to the CIA who feared after the missile crisis of 1962 that the Kennedys were not pushing hard enough against Castro" were behind the assassination. This "rogue" agent theory has been popularized most successfully by John Newman, who arose full-blown from the depths of a career in Army intelligence and the National Security Agency in 1992 to become the media darling of assassination research. First Newman contended that JFK had intended to pull out of Vietnam--a quite credible thesis--and, three years later, that Oswald was in fact a CIA agent (as Melanson had already proved three years earlier), but did not act on behalf of the CIA . In other words, even though Oswald was an agent, the CIA as an institution remains blameless. I have taken Newman to task elsewhere for the absurdity and dishonesty of this position. What was the real relationship between the Kennedys and Castro? The historical record could not be clearer. At the very time that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, he was actively exploring the normalization of relations with Castro. In fact, Castro was a willing and most interested initiator of and participant in a peace-feeler project. Common sense dictates that we recognize that a president intent on normalizing relations with a foreign country would not be simultaneously trying to assassinate its head of state. The U.S. Department of State’s Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, VOLUME XII, Cuban Missile Crisis and Aftermath tells us about the Kennedy-Khrushchev-Castro relationships which evolved as a consequence of the 1962 Missile Crisis. These documents make it clear that at the time of President Kennedy’s assassination Fidel Castro had much to lose and nothing to gain by JFK’s death, and also that Robert Kennedy had no reason to goad the CIA into killing Castro. The details of meetings between William Attwood, the U.S. emissary acting on the direct orders of President Kennedy, and Castro's representatives are detailed here, and are also re-confirmed by Attwod in his July 10, 1975, testimony to the Church Committee (Select Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities). After the assassination, things were different. The rapprochement with Castro had become a "more doubtful issue," and Attwood's efforts had lost much of their meaning since "Lee Oswald has been heralded as a pro-Castro type. Five days after the assassination, Johnson asked CIA director John McCone about the effectiveness of the "economic denial" program with Cuba and "how we planned to dispose of Castro." McCone's answer was that Cuba was exporting arms to Venezuela and that the U.S. should get the OAS to agree to "economic denial through blockade and even to possible invasion" of Cuba. New courses of action were proposed to make life difficult for Castro, including precipitating a break in economic relations between Cuba and the rest of Latin America, "unleashing the exiles," and generally intensifying covert operations. On December 13, 1963, the Standing Group of the National Security Council authorized the CIA to develop the capacity to conduct air attacks against selective Cuban targets by autonomous exile groups, and endorse the intensification of these raids. It is clear, then, that immediately following the assassination of President Kennedy, normalization efforts were snuffed out and replaced by a strategy involving an embargo (which continues to this day), blockade, and possibly invasion. There are thus no grounds whatever, either in common sense or in the historical record, for the Pearson-Steel thesis. On the contrary, when Attwood was by the Church Committee in 1975 whether he had "heard any conversation by any Cuban about any possible past retaliation or future retaliation" for the attempts on Castro’s life, he replied that he had "never heard anything like that down there." Why didn't Robert Kennedy challenge the Warren Report? Steel's answer to this question is that to challenge the Warren Report would have made public "the CIA’s efforts to kill Castro and use the Mafia as hired killers," revelations that "would have strongly implicated both the Kennedys in these illegal activities" and would also have revealed that the president had "shared a mistress with a Mafia capo." First of all, this explanation falls on its face because Robert Kennedy did challenge the Warren Report, privately. In One Hell of a Gamble, Aleklsandr Fursenko and Timothy Nafti, inform us that Jacqueline and Robert Kennedy sent William Walton, a close friend of President Kennedy, to Moscow on November 29, 1963 to deliver their analysis of the assassination. Walton told the Soviets that the Kennedys believed the killing of President Kennedy was "the result of a conspiracy." Four days earlier, in fact, the Soviets had come to their own conclusion that Kennedy had been killed by "extremely right-wing elements that did not like his policies, especially his policy toward Cuba." "By the end of December [1963] KGB analysts had concluded that an anti-Soviet Coup d’etat had occurred." Publicly, Robert remained silent about the true nature of the killing of his brother because he deferred to the need to maintain domestic tranquility in the face of a high-level conspiracy far more powerful than the Kennedy family. Only the highest levels of the national security apparatus could have accomplished the following: Using Oswald, a CIA operative, as a patsy. Killing Oswald while he was in custody. Spreading a broad pattern of false clues pointing to the Soviets and Cuba as suspects, yet opting for a lone assassin theory. Ignoring the overwhelming and immediately available eyewitness and other solid forensic evidence in Dealey Plaza. Ignoring the fact that persons were impersonating Secret Service Agents in Dealey Plaza where no Secret Service Agent had been assigned. Ignoring the position of the holes in President Kennedy’s coat and shirt, which precluded an exit wound in the neck. Ignoring the Parkland Hospital doctors’ opinion that the neck wound was an entry wound and that the wound in the back of the head was a massive exit wound. Allowing the military officers present at the autopsy to prevent the doctors from tracing the neck and back wounds of the President so as to determine their trajectory. Allowing one of the autopsy doctors, Commander James Humes, to burn his initial notes. Allowing Allen Dulles, the Director of the CIA who had been fired by President Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs debacle, to be appointed to the Warren Commission. Accepting as unchallenged evidence (Warren Commission Exhibit 399) an essentially pristine bullet that after flying in several directions through two bodies (Kennedy's and Connally's) and shattering several bones, left more metal in Connally's body than is missing from the bullet. Not allowing the Warren Commissioners to examine the x-rays and photographs of the President’s autopsy. Cleaning out the presidential limousine immediately after the execution, and then unlawfully shipping it out of Dallas, the jurisdiction of the crime, to be stripped and refitted, thereby destroying the evidence of the bullet impacts upon the vehicle. Allowing Life Magazine to withhold the eight millimeter film of Abraham Zapruder which showed, inter alia, that following the impact of a bullet on Kennedy’s head his body was propelled leftward and backward onto the rear seat of the limousine, contradicting the Warren Report's contention that the bullet was fired by Oswald from the rear. Allowing Life Magazine to then lie about the content of the film, and claim that Kennedy had turned completely around to receive a frontal hit from the rear. Allowing Life Magazine to change a single issue of October 2, 1964 twice in order to conceal the visual documentation of a head shot from the right front. Deleting from the Warren Commission Exhibits the testimony of Jacqueline Kennedy regarding the wounds of the President. Allowing Deputy Attorney General Nicholas de Katzenbach send memoranda dating from November 25, 1963 to December 9, 1963 to Chief Justice Earl Warren and others stating that "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial." The writing is on the wall--but it is obviously not on the walls of newspaper or university offices. This is the only truth to be gleaned from Steel's book. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent J. Salandria E. Martin Schotz Copyright 2002. All rights reserved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Links: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About Vincent Salandria About E. Martin Schotz JFK Forum -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Order Schotz' book Order Salandria's book Read Salandria's "False Mystery" Speech on Fair Play's site -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also Read "Castro Assassination Plots Time-Line" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Columns February 21, 2001 May 2001

______________________________ THE TALE TOLD BY TWO TAPES May 2001 by Vincent Salandria On March 26, 2001, I was instructed by my personal computer that I had e-mail. I was bemused to learn that the e-mail was "a courtesy of the Washington Post." My confusion was compounded when I learned that the courtesy e-mail transmission was an article by a nemesis of mine, George Lardner, Jr. Why is Lardner my nemesis? In a June 2, 1991 Post article attacking Oliver Stone's movie JFK Lardner described me as "an assassination critic full of far-out theories that Garrison regarded highly." I will write an article shortly in response. In this future piece I will show that the work I did for Jim Garrison, which Lardner describes as a "far-out theory," was neither a theory nor far out, and that Garrison used my work for a good purpose. Let us examine the recent Post article forwarded to me "courtesy" of Lardner entitled: "Study Backs Theory of 'Grassy Knoll' New Report Says Second Gunman Fired at Kennedy." In this article Lardner recounts how D.B. Thomas, a British government scientist, examined the tape of a police dictabelt which had recorded the sounds in Dealey Plaza when the fusillade felled President John F. Kennedy. Thomas, the article tells us, believes that the shot from the knoll killed the president. In his article Lardner quotes G. Robert Blakey, former chief counsel to the House Assassinations Committee, who headed the investigation, as stating that Thomas' work was an "honest, careful scientific examinationthat's beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Lardner adds that James Barger, Mark Weiss, and Eric Aschkneasy, House Committee experts, "have always held firm to their findings of a shot from the knoll." What is the import of Lardner's article? It tells us that the House Assassination Committee's investigation of the Kennedy killing had arrived at scientific proof of a conspiracy. Lardner quotes Blakey as stating, "It shows that we made mistakes, too, but minor mistakes." In the article, Lardner tells us that one of those House Committee "minor mistakes" was the conclusion that the shot from the picket fence had missed the President. Lardner tells us that the National Academy of Sciences, which after the House Committee had closed down had been assigned to do studies of the acoustic evidence, mistakenly disputed the evidence of a fourth shot. What is the reason for Blakey calling the House Committee's failure to find that the shot from the picket fence had struck the President a "minor mistake"? The reason is that if the House Committee made a mistake in this regard, then the Warren Commission could also have "mistakenly" gotten this wrong. The plain fact is that neither governmental body made a mistake in that regard. In reality both the Warren Commission and the House Assassination Committee were government bodies which consciously produced fraudulent reports aimed at covering up the fact that the existence of the conspiracy was completely obvious. Both bodies were in this and many other regards plainly fraudulent in the manner in which they interpreted their own evidence, a manner which was not only irrational but was also fraudulent. The anthology of my work on the Kennedy assassination includes a series of articles, which make clear that a microanalysis of the Warren Commission's own evidence compels the conclusion that a shot had struck Kennedy from the right front. (False Mystery, An Anthology of Essays on the Assassination of JFK, Vincent J. Salandria, self-published, available at the Last Hurrah Bookshop, 937 Memorial Avenue, Williamsport, Pa. 17701, (570) 321-1150 (phone/Fax)) There were no mistakes made by our governmental investigating bodies. There was no mystery. There was just fraud designed to conceal the fact that President Kennedy was killed by government agents acting on orders from the center of our warfare state. With respect to the integrity of the House Committee, there was none. My friend Gaeton Fonzi who served on that Committee as a field investigator demonstrates this. He revealed its fraudulent nature in his fine book, The Last Investigation, Thunder's Mouth Press, 1993. Indeed, Fonzi reveals in this book how Blakey played a crucial role in undoing the work of the staff members of the Committee who were actually attempting to carry out an honest investigation. So, the Lardner article seeks to depict Blakey as a truth hunter employing a scientifically correct interpretation on the microanalytic details of how Kennedy was killed. Lardner describes Blakey as successfully dispelling the supposedly legitimate mysteries which surrounded the killing of Kennedy. Lardner depicts Blakey, a representative of our government, as concluding that there was scientific proof that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. Lardner tries to convey to the reader that the government and its operatives are now willing to confront the troubled past. Lardner would have us believe that because of its passion for truth our "democratic" government has honestly struggled to achieve historical precision on the Kennedy assassination. Lardner proudly proclaims that our government and its operatives are now willing to reveal and to confess having made honest mistakes, albeit minor, in interpreting data that remained mysterious until addressed with a scientific precision not previously available to our truth-seeking government. I submit that Lardner's piece is false and is an opening salvo to a new series of lies by the U.S. government in its ongoing effort to obscure the Cold War nature of the President's assassination... It is false when Lardner labors to paint for us a picture of the mainstream media reporting on a democratic government's honest efforts over decades to pursue truth regarding the Kennedy killing. It is false with respect to failing to confront the fact that the national security state killed Kennedy. It is false in seeking to conceal the aid that the mainstream media offered our warfare state in concealing the true nature of the Kennedy assassination. It is false when it seeks to verify the U.S. House Committee's work as aimed at attaining historical truth. It is false when by sending that article to the critics as a courtesy, the Post was appearing to acknowledge that our democratic government and free press were aided in their joint search for the truth by the hard work of the assassination critics. It is false when it appears to be telling the critics that over the many years in which they have maintained their painstaking research into the many "legitimate mysteries" surrounding the Kennedy killing they have been nestled in the warmth of our free society. I submit that the truth is that ever since President Kennedy's murder we as citizens have experienced proof that the fearful warnings of President Dwight D. Eisenhower about the dangers of our military industrial complex have been realized, and civilian rule has succumbed to the perceived needs of our garrison and warfare state. Where does this new torrent of lies spelled out in the Lardner article aim to drive us? To answer this question, let us turn our attention back to Lardner's hero of his piece, truth hunter G. Robert Blakey. As students of the assassination research know, Blakey coauthored with Richard N. Billings, a book which purports to explain who killed Kennedy and why. That book is entitled The Plot to Kill the President-Organized Crime Assassinated J.F.K. the Definitive Story. N.Y. Times Books (1981). That book ascribes the killing of President Kennedy to the Mafia, and tells us that the U.S. government was free from responsibility for the killing. Blakey in that book admits that the government, in interpreting the data of the assassination, made "mistakes". But he instructs the reader that there is no doubt that the U.S. government was not responsible for the killing nor for engaging in any systematic cover-up of the killing. Lardner and Blakey seek to have our citizenry believe that the above-described Dealey Plaza dictabelt was the scientific evidence that the government was eagerly waiting for so long so as to be able to determine the truth about the assassination. In my November 20, 1998 Dallas speech before the National Conference of the Coalition of Political Assassinations (included in False Mystery) I detailed how an innocent U.S. government would have acted after the killing of Kennedy. I sharply contrasted that course with how our guilty national security government acted. I would urge those seriously interested in the question of how high into the institutional structure of our national security state the killing of Kennedy reaches to read that speech. In that speech I espoused the thesis of a high-level national security state plot to kill President Kennedy. I explained why any concept of a renegade or Mafia conspiratorial killing was irrational. On November 23, 1998, I sent a copy of that speech to Professor Noam Chomsky, the world's leading linguistic scholar, who had long declared a high-level conspiracy to be irrational. I wrote him: "I have that kind of perverse nature that only benefits from negative criticism. Could you find time to provide some?" On February 16, 1999, Professor Chomsky replied: "It [the speech] is a lucid presentation of the conclusions that you and others have reached." Lucid in dictionaries and for linguists is defined as rational. Therefore, Professor Chomsky no longer shares the view that a high-level institutional conspiracy explanation of the assassination is irrational. A high-level national security state crime to kill Kennedy for Cold War reasons is indeed rational. We will prove that Lardner and Blakey are involved in efforts to hoodwink the public in their efforts to dismiss a high-level national security state plot to kill Kennedy. For proof, we now turn our attention to another audiotape that puts the lie to the conclusions at which they arrive from their analysis of the audiotape discussed above. This other audiotape convincingly proves that the most recent effort to explain the killing of President Kennedy as a Mafia crime is irrational and disingenuous. The purpose of the myth that Mafia and renegade elements killed Kennedy is simply an endeavor to exculpate the guilt of the U.S. national security state, which as a matter of simple ascertainable facts killed Kennedy for Cold War reasons. The audiotape which we will now discuss bears critically on the question of who killed Kennedy and why. My 1998 Dallas speech contains many data that compel the conclusion of a high-level national security conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. I will excerpt one concept from that speech. It involves, like the Lardner article, an audiotape. I submit that this audiotape disproves the theory espoused by Blakey that the Mafia and/or renegade elements killed Kennedy. Readers will no doubt recall the 18 - minute gap in the Watergate tapes which served to prove the guilt of and brought down President Richard M. Nixon and his cohorts. I will demonstrate how the U.S. national security state destroyed not 18 - minutes of tape, but about 5 - hours of three tapes, which proved their guilt in the killing of President Kennedy. In November of 1966, I read Theodore H. White's The Making of the President, 1964. On page 9 of the book I came across the following: There is a tape recording in the archives of the government which best recaptures the sound of the hours as it waited for leadership. It is a recording of all the conversations in the air, monitored by the Signal Corps Midwestern center "Liberty," between Air Force One in Dallas, The Cabinet plane over the Pacific, and the Joint Chiefs Communications Center in Washington. Then on page 33 I read the following about the flight back to Washington, D.C. from Dallas: On the flight the party learned that there was no conspiracy, learned of the identity of Oswald and his arrest; and the President's mind turned to the duties of consoling the stricken and guiding the quick. I knew that on November 23, 1963, The Dallas Morning News had informed its readers that the Dallas District Attorney, Henry Wade, stated: "Preliminary reports indicated more than one person was involved in the shootingthe electric chair is too good for the killers." Despite the evidence of conspiracy of which Dealey Plaza reeked, the White House Situation Room had informed President Johnson and the other occupants of Air Force One that, notwithstanding what they may have smelled, seen and felt in Dealey Plaza which spoke of a conspiratorial crossfire, Oswald was to be designated as the lone assassin. I wrote to Mr. White. Mr. White replied by letter that the communications to Air Force One and to the Cabinet Plane were "By government radio-all relays go through a big Signal Corps center In the Midwest-and the White House was in constant communications with the plane." I then wrote to Dr. Robert Bahmer, Archivist of the United States, requesting access to the tape. Dr. Bahmer replied: We have no knowledge of the existence or location of the tape recording mentioned by Mr. White, despite having made some efforts since the receipt of your letter to obtain some information about it. I then noted that Pierre Salinger in his book, With Kennedy, (Avon Books, New York, New York 10019 (1969) reported what the party on the Cabinet Plane heard: The message kept coming off the wire service machine and finally one started grinding out the story of Lee Harvey Oswald and his previous life in Russia (pp. 27-28) So, I wrote to Pierre Salinger on December 3,1966: In your fine work, With Kennedy, you make mention of radio communications between the White House and the cabinet plane over the Pacific on November 22, 1953 (p. 10) You identify "Stranger" as Major Harold R. Patterson. Theodore H. White, The Making of the President, 1964, also refers to taped conversations but particularly those related to dialogues with the Presidential plane, Air Force One. I have asked the National Archives for a copy of this tape. Dr. Bahmer, the excellent Archivist of the United States, cannot locate it, although Mr. White states on page 9 of his book: "There is a tape recording in the archives of the government." I enclose Dr. Bahmer's letter; Mr. White will not provide any further information. Specifically what I am about is the verification of what Mr. White states was on the tape, to wit: "On the flight the party learned that there was no conspiracy; learned of the identify of Oswald and his arrest; and the President's mind turned to the duties of consoling the stricken and guiding the quick." If such was said, before there was any evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin, and while there was overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy, then the White House is in the interesting position of being the first to designate Oswald as the assassin and the first to have ruled out in the face of impressive evidence to the contrary, that there could have been a conspiracy. Now, Mr. Salingerthat tape is being denied only to the American public Will you render this service to civilian rule and democracy for which President Kennedy gave his life? Respectfully yours, signed) Vincent J. Salandria Mr. Salinger replied on December 26. He was most willing to serve civilian rule and democracy: The section of my book dealing with the conversations between the White House and the Cabinet plane were taken from a transcript of the tape of those conversations made by the White House Communication Agency. I have never either read or heard the tape to which Mr. White refers, i.e. the conversations with Air Force One. Since the tape with which I worked was provided by the White House Communication Agency, it would seem to me that the tape of the conversation to which you refer would emanate from the same source, if such a tape, in fact, exists. As to the conversation with the cabinet plane, the transcript of that conversation is in my personal files, which have been turned over to the National Archives for placement in the Kennedy Library. I certainly have no objection to your seeing that transcript. I again wrote to Dr. Bahmer, who replied: After receipt of your letter of December 28, a careful examination was made of the papers that Mr. Salinger has sent to us for storage. We have not, however, been able to find anything in the nature of a transcript of the tape recording that you are searching for. So I wrote directly to the White House Communication Agency requesting access to the tape recording. James U. Cross, Armed Forces Aide to the President, replied: I have been asked to respond to your letter, addressed to theWhite House Communication Agency, concerning a tape recording to Air Force One, November 22, 1963. Logs and tapes of the radio transmission of military aircraft, Including those of Air Force One, are kept for official use only. These tapes are not releasable, nor are they obtainable. I am sorry my response cannot be more favorable. Of course, Cross lied. They were obtainable by Theodore H. White and Pierre Salinger for non-official use. Robert Manning, Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of State, who on November 22, 1963 was on the Cabinet plane over the Pacific, confirmed the content of these messages in 1993 for Public Affairs. He reported having heard the same account of Oswald being designated as the presumed assassin. (Gerald S. and Deborah H. Strober, Let Us Begin Anew, An Oral History of the Kennedy Presidency, Harper Collins Publisher, 1993) Mr. Douglas P. Horne, a staff member of the Assassination Records Review Board, spoke at the Lancer conference in Dallas in November, 1999. He spoke at length of the Review Board's fruitless attempt to locate the audio taped communications to Air Force One. He informed the audience that it was a shame that the 6 or 7 hours of three separate tapes appears to be gone from this world. 18 - minutes of missing tapes was a fatal matter which caused the Nixon Presidency to unravel. A 90-minute, edited tape of Air Force One communications is extant and can be purchased commercially. The disappearance of some 5 - hours of this vital tape which was made to disappear by the U.S. military leaves our national security state, the force behind the assassination of a peace-seeking President John F. Kennedy, undisturbed and still the preeminent power extending U.S. military hegemony throughout the globe. We know from the three sources (which we have supplied) what is contained on those three tapes and what is proven by those tapes with respect to the institutional involvement of our national security state in the killing of President Kennedy. What else do we know from the U.S. military's criminal withholding of tapes which I early advised them was direct evidence that the national security state had planned and carried out the execution of President Kennedy? * Oswald was framed by the U.S. military as the lone assassin. * The Situation Room of the White House first fingered Oswald as the lone assassin when an innocent government, with so much evidence in Dealey Plaza of conspiracy, would have been keeping all options open. Therefore this premature birth of the single-assassin myth points to the highest institutional structure of our warfare state as guilty of the crime of killing Kennedy. Such a source does not take orders from the Mafia nor from renegade elements. But such a source is routinely given to using the Mafia and supposedly out-of-control renegade sources to do its bidding. * McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending that fateful afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who was calling from Air Force One when the lone-assassin myth was prematurely given birth. (Bishop, Jim, The Day Kennedy Was Shot, New York & Funk Wagnalls, 1968), p. 154) McGeorge Bundy as the quintessential WASP establishmentarian did not take his orders from the Mafia and/or renegade elements. * The U.S. military, in causing the Air Force One and Cabinet Plane audiotapes to disappear, demonstrated that it could involve itself without fear of punishment in obstruction of justice because Kennedy's assassination was a high state crime and the warfare state institutions which committed the crime were above punishment. * A crime was committed in taking of the transcript of the Cabinet plane from the possessions of Pierre Salinger who had assigned those documents to the National Archives for transmittal to the Kennedy Library, and a lack of respect in committing this crime was shown to the Kennedy Library and the Kennedy family. But we state again that successful state crimes which effectively transfer and/or reorganize governmental power are crimes without punishment, and the criminals have no need to show respect to the deposed leader and his family. * James U. Cross, Armed Forces Aide to the President, lied to me, and in so doing obstructed justice. But I understand that he was doing so under orders from higher military authority. I understand well that in the killing of Kennedy there will be no successful prosecution of the killers. There never are in state crimes committed by the world's superpower while it continues to maintain its hegemony over the globe. What can we expect to follow from Lardner's tale of the Dealey Plaza tape? Let us make some predictions: * The Mafia and/or renegade C.I.A. myth will be pushed by Blakey and others. * The shop-warn and indefensible Warren Report single-assassin myth will be at least partially retired as no longer fit for prime time. It will be viewed by our media as "honestly mistaken," which it was not, rather than "clearly fraudulent," which it certainly was. * The United States news media, while parading as a free press, will continue to work closely with U.S. military intelligence to pretend that there are mysteries surrounding the killing of President John F. Kennedy when the identity of the killers and their motives could not be clearer. This is what we learn from an analysis of the tapes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent J. Salandria E. Martin Schotz Copyright 2001. All rights reserved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Links: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About Vincent Salandria About E. Martin Schotz JFK Forum -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Order Schotz' book Order Salandria's book Read Salandria's "False Mystery" Speech on Fair Play's site -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Thomas Acoustical Study (pdf) Order the Doug Horne NID 1999 Video -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Columns May 2001 February 21, 2001 Home

Just saw two excellent pieces by Vince Salandria. I am going to post them here for the benefit of our Castro did it poster. Perhaps the clear thinking offered by the inimitable Salandria can get Tim's own thinking on track. Dawn

48 hours later????? This speaks volumns Gibson, Surely it does'nt take this long to find a photo of someone who could pass for fifteen. Tic toc, tic toc. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> _________________________- What on earth is this so- called "15 year old" really up to here?? Writing threatening letters to FBI? Now this will really advance the case. And what's his damn real name??? "Bud Gibson"? Thought we all had to abide by posting rules here. Dawn

opps, different "Saul"..... Dawn

I think it would better to start a new thread on this. This should be reserved for comments on Saul Sague/Mario Tauler and Reinaldo Pico. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ______________________ The person called "Saul" in "Appointment In Dallas" is listed by Glen Sample and Mark Collom, in "Men on the Sixth Floor" as "Ralph Geb" who was allegedly Mac Wallace's best friend. (This is also the person who was id as" LHO" at the Cuban and Soviet Embassies in Mexico). Interesting bedfellows. Dawn

Does anyone know what the most popular high school or college textbooks say about the assassination? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ___________________________ When my daughter, Christa, (now 33) was growing up I used to check with her on her history class every single year. It was either not dealt with at all, (history pre-JFK), or else with just one sentence "JFk killed by LHO". Never a word about any controversey, never the world "alleged" before Oswald's name. I doubt this has changed. Dawn

______________________________________ I was really enjoying Dallek's book this time two years ago, great writing, then, about 2/3 rds the way thru, I jumped ahead to the brief part on Dallas. I could not finish the book after that. He has JFk telling Jackie "we're heading into nut country today. But Jackie if someone wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it, so why worry about i?". What evidence is there that JFk actually made such a comment? I think mainstream historians are very leery at being judged by the media who devours anyone who is labled by them as a "conspiracy believer". Easier for historians to go along with the hoax than go for the truth. Certainly easier to get a publisher. Dawn

I don't buy the Felt alone is DT. Just does not add up. He could not have known certain things. Of course Felt is in no shape to tell us his whole story is he? Dawn

__________________-- I know you are not asking my opinion about McCord, but I am responding just the same. I do not think it is conceivable that McCord was doing anything except TRYING to get them caught. After being caught with the tape horizontally placed Barker wanted to abort the breakin, but McCord made the decision to re do the tape and go back in. And again he placed the tape horizontally, I believe, ENSURING, that they be caugth. One has to wonder why?? But a "mental lapse" does not eplain this action. Dawn

I think we can speculate until the cows come home about who MIGHT have killed JFK. Our government told us it was LN Lee Oswald. As John noted on another thread, historians continue this falsehood, so that when we are dead and gone, history will be forever falsified. Our "mission" is not to prove who did kill JFK but to who did not. Dawn

Cesar gave an interview in 1987 or so where he admittted that he had his gun out and was immediately behind Robert Kennedy at the time of the shooting. This ties in with the wounds. I always found it strange that Cesar lived to to tell this and that nothing has come of this information. Of course Cesar also said he did NOT fire his weapon. Dawn

In my opinion OJ walked because the then DA was stupid enough to bring the case where OJ had ONLY black jurors. I watched much of the trial and felt he was guilty. I also aked strangers regularily, standing in the grocery store check-out and discovered that almost all whites thought he was guilty and blacks said he was innocent and "framed" so that verdict did not surprise me. California "justice" has always seemed crazy to me. Trials take way too long. Celebs get off routinely. I am listening to the MJ jurors and am astounded by their thinking. I truly think they were star struck. Also this mother made a terrible impression, she lied in the JC Penny case and apparently had her boys lie, so the jurors felt they were lying here too. Now the 25 year old Christian youth pastor: no one is discussing his very credible testimony. I was SICKENED by the verdict last night. I feel so bad that these boys aren't believed. Dawn

Surely the article is satire?? Dawn

I'm commerating Memorial Day by re-reading "Farewell America". (And pretending I did not MOVE TO TEXAS 15 years ago. ) Dawn

Tim: The problem for me and some others is not your opinions, but the fact that you have to TAKE OVER EVERY SINGLE THREAD with your view that Castro killed JFK. You have your own tread that you could continue to post this on, but that did not satisify you. You could have started yet a third thread, (after Castro you moved onto the Soviets) and this too would have been just fine. But to inject this view into every thread and go on and on about it feels like a form of sabotage. Castro knows that JFK and he were in the process of PEACE negotiations when JFK was shot down. Not a single President has even attempted this since JFK. Castro could NOT have removed JFK's body from Dallas in violation of State law, seen to it that LBJ appinted a Warren Commission to make sure LHO was found to be the official killer. You have just stated here that you originally believed this fairy tale. If ANY foreign leader were able to assassinate a sitting US president our military would take out that leader in a heartbeat. So you find a few writers who support the position that you are comfortable with, one that lets the powers that be off the hook completely. But you realize that the US government and press covered up this crime. Why on earth would they cover up for a man W calls a "terrorist"? LHO was the first phony story, Castro the second and the mob the third. The Mob or Castro had no power to tell the Secret Service to stand down on 11/22/63. Dawn

______________________________ I often feel it is out and our sabotage of this forum. Especially when we see a thread and he posts a long post in response to each sentence of the poster with whom he is disagreeing. And that is basically everyone here. NO ONE believes Castro did it unless they are part of a disinfo team or are very right wing Republicans who cannot deny conspiracy where it is SO obvious, but would not ever concede that it's OUR conspiracy. All of the evidence points to home grown but the pushers of the Jack Anderson fiction are blinded by their (im)moral superiority and defense of the near- fascist regeime that today rules Washingto. Ultra Conservatives either say "who cares?" when it comes to the assassination, or say "I think it was Castro". Those in the media know better and are reading what they are told to read. But that Tim just takes over every single thread with this theory that NO ONE here agrees with makes some of us just totally avoid those threads. And if we don't read just ONE book then we are pronounced ignorant by not agreeing with this propaganda. Someone needs to stand up to disinfo and to bullys. Many books are not in agreement, but your- (John) -initial thesis here on JFK and Watergate is very close to what most of us long ago concluded. (Of course I see LBJ in way at the start, his WH calls are for "history". Who's goona admit to murder on tape? Not even Nixon got THAT stupid..tho, close on 6/2372: "scab...whole BOP thing") tape. JMHO on the "Gratz- takes- ovey- EVERY- thread- with- his- solo advancement of "Castro did it". Got very old months ago. We may not all be positive on WHO did it, but we are certain of who didn't and Castro and LHO lead that list. Dawn

______________________ J had nothing to do with the Judyth episode, it was the other two he was involved with, the Texas stuff. We have not ever discussed her, so I have no idea what he thought of her relevations. Dawn