Greg Kooyman

Denny, I think your description of Beverly as a partial fraud fits. I put her in the same league as Madeline Brown. Yes, she was a mistress for LBJ. but that's about it. Beverly Oliver used to be a stripper at a club next to Jack Ruby's Carousel Club. Did she know who Jack Ruby was? I have no doubt she did. But everything else she has said is a fairytale.

I finally decided to watch this movie on Netflix. Even before Jim's wonderful review of this ludicrous film, I had seen the movie trailer and thought what a piece of junk. I couldn't even bring myself to finish watching it. The script writing is horrendous. Forget the fact that Frank Sheeran's story is a fairytale, I could not bring myself to watch 3 aging actors try to pull off the impossible.. act as though they were in their 30's and 40's as this movie unfolded. What was Scorsese thinking when he cast DeNiro in the leading role anyway?? Neither he nor Pacino can hide their distinct New York accents. In my humble view, Jack Nicholson was outstanding as Jimmy Hoffa. Not only does he nail it with Hoffa's mannerisms, his nasal Detroit accent was spot on. (I liken it to a Chicago accent) It is laughable that he couldn't find someone other than Al Pacino for that role in his movie. Jim's great review of Tarantino's movie about the Tate/LaBianca murders kept me away from the theaters also. I agree 100% on Jim's view of Tarantino's movies.. my son, who is in college and an aspiring filmmaker has noted that Hollywood seems to have run out of real creativity. I agree with his view and hope that he and others like him will find a way to turn that around.

Brendan, In addition to the links that David posted above, I highly recommend Larry Hancock's book, Someone Would Have Talked. If I recall, Larry devoted and entire chapter to Gene Wheaton and his associations with Carl Jenkins and Raphael "Chi Chi" Quintero.

-David, Would you agree that the individual named "Gordon" would be Gordon Campbell? That would fit well since Gordon Campbell was chief of Maritime Operations at JMWAVE during that time, correct? Jenkins interviewed and selected certain members of Artime's MRR the DRE's AMHINT crew. He worked with a guy who went by the first name of "Gordon." https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasión_de_Bahía_de_Cochinos Solis was a founding member of MRR. "In these meetings, the Revolutionary Recovery Movement (MRR) was created. Among its founders was Manuel Artime Buesa , who became a lieutenant of Castro's forces, led a group of ACU youth, who had been founders of the LAR, and were moving to the United States to be trained militarily by the CIA. . Beginning in January 1960, the group formed by university students began to move to the United States and on May 17 , 1960 , a group of 10 called José Andreu, Antonino Díaz Pou, Vicente Blanco Capote, Javier Souto, Armando Acevedo Arencibia, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, Enrique Casuso, José Raffo, Ramón Machado Vidal and Humberto Solís Jurado, were transferred to the Marie Antoinette Motel in Fort Lauderdale . At dawn on May 19 , Manuel Artime and Roberto de Varonas showed up at the Motel and were introduced to the CIA members (Carl Jenkins and Gordon) who were responsible for moving them to Useppa Island, in the state of Florida . In that initial group was Carlos Rodríguez Santana.

Hi David, Is it your position that the exfiltrees were directed in anticipation of a Black Op into Cuba in retaliation for JFK's death? That is very interesting. My thoughts when I read that document was that the "exfiltrees" were the assassination squad from Dallas that were trying to get out of the US and back to Artime's camps as an escape from any investigations. The fact that David Morales was looking for the Joanne mere hours after the assassination only underscored my suspicion.

Look at the date Jeremy Gunn anticipates meeting Dr. Henry Lee. Pretty sure we can assume that the date is prior to that.

Larry, I have read Bill Simpich's work online and found it to be very intriguing. I hope his research has been able to uncover more information about the mystery behind Oswald and Mexico City. I share the belief that has been often noted that the Mexico City story is the "Rosetta Stone" to the assassination itself. From everything I have read about Oswald and the Mexico City visit, I still come away unsure as to exactly what Oswald was doing there. While I believe there is enough evidence to show that Oswald indeed applied for and received his Mexican tourist card, and most likely even traveled to Mexico City, I am still on the fence as to if he was the one who actually visited both the Cuban & Soviet Embassies. If I recall correctly, I believe Sylvia Duran's physical description of Oswald did not match the real Lee Harvey Oswald. But, I am not sure now if that is from her testimony while under arrest and the interrogation she endured at the hands of the Mexican secret police just after the assassination. At any rate, I look forward to Bill's new book and hope it comes out soon!

Pat, I believe your post describes best what John did. I have been a longtime member, but have few posts, simply because I only try to post when I feel it may be of some benefit. I never saw any success in the personal attacks I have witnessed on this forum over the years. They never resulted in changing the other side's opinion about things. Quite frankly, I felt it was a complete waste of time and space on the threads they appeared on. I had hoped as you so aptly put it, that this forum would be "hotbed" of activity in terms of active research and exchanges of ideas concerning the assassination among the research community. With the 50th anniversary of the assassination approaching, it is my hope that this forum can work closer to that ideal goal. That said, I am hoping that John re-considers admitting both former members back to the forum. I greatly admire the work that James DiEugenio has done, and admit that though he is passionate in his views, I believe Jim has a lot to offer this forum in terms of research and historical opinion. - Greg

Larry, My take on Oswald is that ONI saw his potential as a low level operative and Oswald was paid to be a dangle to the Soviets while in Japan. I believe Angleton picked up Oswald along with others that were handpicked for his "Operation Redskin" false defector program. I believe Angleton later picked Oswald as a perfect "Patsy" due to his eagerness to volunteer and that his experience in Russia was the perfect sheep dip for creating his false legend as a communist sympathizer. Oswald in my opinion felt he was doing his patriotic duty by volunteering for this intelligence type work, and later was used by the FBI and CIA in their competing schemes to spot communists and report on their activities. I believe by the time David Phillips got ahold of Oswald and started grooming him as a fall guy for the assassination, Oswald had no clue as to what he was truly involved in. I believe that up until the day of the assassination, Oswald thought he was still operating as an infiltrator of Anti Castro Cuban groups reporting on their activities as well as trying to spot possible communists within their ranks. Just my humble opinion. By the way, I really enjoyed both editions of SWHT and your latest book, Nexus. Both are "Top Shelf" material on the assassination in my opinion! Regards, Greg

While that photo is intriguing, I do not believe Ed Wilson was directly involved in the assassination. However, he was very well acquainted with some of the usual suspects. as a matter of fact I recently got independent confirmation that Ed Wilson knew David Sanchez Morales intimately. Ed's knowledge of certain events and players after the fact is what I am currently researching.

Steve, The United States charged Edwin Wilson with selling 20 tons of explosives to Libya. He was also charged with running guns to Libya, one of which was used to murder a Libyan dissident in Bonn. The U.S. attorney, Larry Barcella used a false statement made by the CIA that Ed Wilson was not employed by the agency when he made these deals with Libya.

It is my sad duty to report that on Sept. 10 2012 Edwin Wilson died due to complications from heart valve surgery. It was my strongly held belief that Ed had knowledge of what Raphael Chi Chi Quintero meant when he hinted about being in dallas in Nov. 1963. Edwin Wilson was on the periphery of several high level Cia officers like Ted Shackley and also knew David Morales. I had been in recent contact with him prior to his heart surgery. He had granted me an opportunity to meet with him once he had healed from surgery. Sadly, I believe we have lost another valuable link in the Jfk assassination mystery. My heartfelt condolences go out to Ed's children and extended family. In my few convesations with Ed, he came across as a very warm an d affable personality. my only regret is our failure to meet in person and fulfill his last wish, which was a memoire in his own words.

Nathaniel, I read Secret Agenda a few years back, but haven't referenced it in respect to this new book by Don Fulsom.. All I can tell you is he pulls information and interviews from several sources including the tapes recently released in the last few years. One last thing, in case anyone thinks that this is some all encompassing bio on Richard Nixon's life and presidency, rest assured it is NOT. The title should be the dead giveaway. This is a narrow focus on the Secrets Nixon tried to keep from everyone and Don leaves no stone unturned in his expose. I highly suggest the Kindle book. It is an excellent read.

Nathaniel, I read Secret Agenda a few years back, but haven't referenced it in respect to this new book by Don Fulsom.. All I can tell you is he pulls information and interviews from several sources including the tapes recently released in the last few years. AS for the the information he puts out about the JFK assassination, the only criticism I have for the book is he cites the Madeline Brown allegations about Johnson attending a party at Clint Murchison's place the night before and that Hooover also attended. I have been skeptical of that account because I don't believe that Hoover was anywhere but in Washington D.C. at the time. I also have a hard time believing that the "planners" had to have 1 last meeting the night before to discuss the plan. Other than that, I was impressed with the information Don lays out in his book. One last thing, in case anyone thinks that this is some all encompassing bio on Richard Nixon's life and presidency, rest assured it is NOT. The title should be the dead giveaway. This is a narrow focus on the Secrets Nixon tried to keep from everyone and Don leaves no stone unturned in his expose. I highly suggest the Kindle book. It is an excellent read. Please disregard my last post wherein I erroneously attributed the Madeline Brown claim was in Don's book. It is NOT. After going back and re-reading several passages I cannot find where She was mentioned anywhere. I apologize for the posting both to the readers here and to the author, Don Fulsom. I must have read one of his footnotes somewhere where he references the History Channel program, but mistakenly took it for an endorsment. Again my apologies.

Jim, I knew you might be weighing in on Waldron's latest crappy tome. However, I thought you might be interested in another work about Nixon that I just read. Its called, "Nixon's Darkest Secrets" by Don Fulsom, a former UPI investigative reporter and a guy who covered the Nixon presidency along with several other presidential administrations from Johnson to Clinton. I was pretty impressed with the book overall, although it isn't without a few flaws about the JFK assassination in my view. I would be interested in your viewpoint if, and when you may choose to read this book. Greg

Excellent points Pat. While I believe now that Nixon was aware of the Watergate break-in before it happened, I also believe that McCord had a hand in making sure they got caught the second time around. Why? because even though Chuck Colson "hired" this team of plumbers, both Hunt & McCord were very close to Richard Helms. As Don Fulsom points out in his new book, I believe Helms never trusted Nixon, and if the eastern establishment wanted a way to do Nixon in, Helms had the means and the back channel to do so. I also believe Butterfield was another CIA plant that gave up the goods about Nixon having a secret taping system. Once he was setup, Nixon's own paranoia and obsession for secrecy set in and became his own undoing. When the leaks about Hunt and his past started leaking in the press, I believe both Helms and Nixon had reason to fear what Hunt would say, but only Nixon caved first and started sending "hush" money. JMHO...FWIW

Nathaniel, I read Secret Agenda a few years back, but haven't referenced it in respect to this new book by Don Fulsom.. All I can tell you is he pulls information and interviews from several sources including the tapes recently released in the last few years. AS for the the information he puts out about the JFK assassination, the only criticism I have for the book is he cites the Madeline Brown allegations about Johnson attending a party at Clint Murchison's place the night before and that Hooover also attended. I have been skeptical of that account because I don't believe that Hoover was anywhere but in Washington D.C. at the time. I also have a hard time believing that the "planners" had to have 1 last meeting the night before to discuss the plan. Other than that, I was impressed with the information Don lays out in his book. One last thing, in case anyone thinks that this is some all encompassing bio on Richard Nixon's life and presidency, rest assured it is NOT. The title should be the dead giveaway. This is a narrow focus on the Secrets Nixon tried to keep from everyone and Don leaves no stone unturned in his expose. I highly suggest the Kindle book. It is an excellent read.

Blind curiosity caused me to browse Lamar Waldron's book on Nixon. I found it to be an extension of his take on the JFK assassination , and hardly credible. AS luck would have it, I stumbled upon another tome about Nixon, by Don Fulsom. I bought the Kindle version and haven't been able to put the book down. It is an extremely well written documented and footnoted account. Don Fulsom was an investigative reporter during the Nixon Administration and has brought to light some frightening things I never suspected Nixon of being capable of doing. It is one excellent read and I heartily recommend anyone who is interested in Watergate, and Nixon's presidency to get this book. Don also spends some time shedding some new light on the Nixon / Haldeman / Helms "Whole Bay of Pigs" reference to the JFK assassination. My suggestion to John Simkin, can you possibly reach out to this author to see if he would be interested in joining the forum and commenting about his book? http://www.amazon.com/Nixons-Darkest-Secrets-Americas-President/dp/0312662963/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343074729&sr=8-1&keywords=nixon%27s+darkest+secrets Greg

I have just gotten the Kindle version of Don Fulsom's New Book, Nixon's Darkest Secrets..It is absolutely a fascinating read. I had seen Lamar Waldron's Book about Nixon on Amazon and started reading some reviews as well as browsing pages of the book. I found Waldron's book another work of fiction, and read Don's review of it which lead me to his own book. Don Fulsom was an investigative reporter during the Nixon presidency and has compiled an excellent book that is fully footnoted and documented. Not only am I finding this an explosive expose on Nixon, it delves deeply into the Nixon / Haldeman / Helms "Bay of Pigs thing" reference to the JFK assassination. I suggest everyone get this book as it puts Nixon into a whole new historical perspective, and leaves the reader wondering if Nixon had any prior knowledge of the assassination. I was wondering if John might be able to invite this author to the forum to discuss Nixon and any ties there may be to Nixon and the JFK assassination. Here is a link to his book on Amazon; http://www.amazon.com/Nixons-Darkest-Secrets-Americas-President/dp/0312662963/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343074729&sr=8-1&keywords=nixon%27s+darkest+secrets Greg

Yes, John, they talk in their snotty way about the Mooners, Jews, the French Revolution and the need to have a secret explanation for everything, including the assassination of JFK. Let's see, there's a whole slew of academic scholars who think such hair brained conspiracy theorists are worth studying, rather than the events they find were the result of conspiracies - Ken Rahn, John McAdams, Olmstead,....a little industry set up to counter conspiracy theories, and sidetrack the real debate. I am not concerned with the psychology of nut-cases, and I think that the proper way to proceed is to disassociate the assassination of JFK from the other theories, and by approaching Dealey Plaza as an issue of National Security, and insisting that it be discussed as such. Once the issue of the assassination is isolated, even from other political assassinations, most of the arguments can be bypassed by the simple acknowledgement that even if Oswald had anything to do with the assassination, the MO for what happened at Dealey Plaza was that of a covert operation - and any serious analysis must begin with that approach. It's not a question of whether Oswald could have done it all by himself or was a patsy, the question is who manipulated him? Who controlled his network and directed the operation, including the cover-up? And not knowing the answer makes it a question of national security, and instead of thinking of it in terms of "conspiracy theories" and "lone-nut" cases, it should be viewed as a homicide that can and should be solved and understood, not for the sake of truth or justice, but so that it doesn't - can't happen again. Those who want to continue the debate over insignificant issues can continue to do so, and those who want to try to answer the outstanding questions about the murder can just solve it. BK JFKcountercoup Center/Study of Political Assassinations Excellent post Bill. I share your viewpoint on the assassination entirely. We need to focus on solving this murder. I believe a step in that direction would be the release of the remaining documents still held by the CIA. We also need to do an interview blitz on the remaining persons still alive that were close to some of the suspected conspirators and get their stories before they are lost forever.

Pat, I think you're off base here and am a little surprised by that. Do you honestly think that Nixon was simply being cute? Explain Helms's reaction then? Few presidents have understood power politics more than Nixon and Nixon was clearly trying to poke at the CIA using information that Nixon certainly was in the loop for. If your argument hinges solely on *planning* culpability then I don't think you have much to go on. When you look at it all in context, it makes perfect sense. The CIA considered its assassination capacity, and its attempts on Castro, Top Secret #1, so much so that its internal IG report on its attempts on Castro was locked up in a safe only accessible to the Director. Helms was extremely defensive of the CIA's secrets. So was Hunt, at least then. It seems more than a coincidence that Hunt and Liddy discussed killing Jack Anderson, the one journalist pushing the "Kennedy and the CIA tried to kill Castro but Castro got Kennedy first" story. So, in essence, I don't feel Nixon was being "cute." He was, as ever, playing HARDBALL politics, in effect telling Helms "You help us keep Hunt out of it, or we'll be sure your role in the assassination attempts on Castro gets blown, and well, y'know, Congress won't like that, will they? They might even cut your funding. Or, perhaps, just perhaps, re-open an investigation into Kennedy's death. Which nobody really wants. Capiche?" Pat Speer, the CIA considered its ASSASSINATION OF JOHN KENNEDY as Top Secret #1, not it's assassination attempts on Fidel Castro. They had already pretty much tried to kill Castro with the Bay of Pigs invasion in April, 1961. That was public knowledge, the other assassination attempts could hardly be more scandalous. There was no report on the CIA's role in the JFK assassination locked up in a safe at Langley. They just did it. Robert, the highlighted statement of yours is remarkably ill-informed. If you actually read about the assassination plots of the sixties and seventies, you'll find that there was a willful naivete among the vast majority of Americans--including the Kennedy family--that led them to believe one could authorize military action and the overthrow of a government, but that this would not be the moral equivalent of committing a MURDER. They separated the two. Most people today separate the two. Within the Church Committee's papers--I can't remember which interview--it was brought up that CIA Director John McCone was a Catholic, and would not stomach assassination (as it was murder!!!). This is a recurring theme of the Church Investigation--WHO believed they were covertly overthrowing Castro vs. WHO KNEW they were trying to MURDER him. The evidence suggests that the Kennedys believed they were trying to covertly overthrow Castro, but that cynical members of the CIA chose to see this as an implicit authorization to MURDER him. They then tried to blame the Kennedys for this--saying stuff similar to "Well, if Bobby hadn't pushed us so hard we wouldn't have tried to kill Castro". But this was self-serving nonsense. Documents exist that prove both RFK's and Hoover's disapproval of the CIA's plots using the mafia, and the CIA's promise to get approval before continuing on this course. William Harvey, who hated Bobby with a burning passion, then started them up again, WITHOUT telling RFK. The revelation of this skullduggery, moreover, led to Senator Church's denouncing the CIA as a "rogue Elephant" and to new rules outlining that assassination targets must be specifically designated such by the President and in writing. Read the Church Reports and testimony. They're on the Mary Ferrell website. Pat, Using John McCone's own personal feelings of assassination (while I am sure was accurate) doesn't let the CIA's Prateorian Guard off the hook. People like Dulles, Helms, James Angleton, Tracy Barnes, & William "Bill" Harvey certainly felt differently about assassination as a means to effect a change in government. McCone was never a CIA insider and it has been noted in several books and testimonies of former CIA officials that McCone was purposely kept in the dark about alot of what the CIA was truly doing.

Pat, I think you're off base here and am a little surprised by that. Do you honestly think that Nixon was simply being cute? Explain Helms's reaction then? Few presidents have understood power politics more than Nixon and Nixon was clearly trying to poke at the CIA using information that Nixon certainly was in the loop for. If your argument hinges solely on *planning* culpability then I don't think you have much to go on. When you look at it all in context, it makes perfect sense. The CIA considered its assassination capacity, and its attempts on Castro, Top Secret #1, so much so that its internal IG report on its attempts on Castro was locked up in a safe only accessible to the Director. Helms was extremely defensive of the CIA's secrets. So was Hunt, at least then. It seems more than a coincidence that Hunt and Liddy discussed killing Jack Anderson, the one journalist pushing the "Kennedy and the CIA tried to kill Castro but Castro got Kennedy first" story. So, in essence, I don't feel Nixon was being "cute." He was, as ever, playing HARDBALL politics, in effect telling Helms "You help us keep Hunt out of it, or we'll be sure your role in the assassination attempts on Castro gets blown, and well, y'know, Congress won't like that, will they? They might even cut your funding. Or, perhaps, just perhaps, re-open an investigation into Kennedy's death. Which nobody really wants. Capiche?" Pat, I have read many of your posts, and respect your opinions regarding the assassination. However, I must agree with most of what the others have posted here previously regarding Nixon's and Helms' knowledge of the assassination. Helms knowledge of the Castro assassination attempts had to run much deeper than that. He HAD to know that Angleton was running a special op with Oswald as a intelligence dangle down in Mexico and other places.(sheep dipping him as a Communist/agent provocateur) Helms almost certainly had to know that (even if it was after the fact) David Atlee Phillips was setting up Oswald as a patsy in places like New Orleans and Dallas and that the possiblity existed that a)a rogue plot involving CIA officers like Dave Phillips, David Morales, Carl Jenkins, etc. had turned an assassination team meant for Castro against JFK.(which I doubt) or b.)The operation was tasked to Helms by Allen Dulles at the behest of very highly influential, vested interests who wanted Kennedy gone for a whole host of reasons. Helms was a "Patriot" in his own mind, and I believe he surely felt that private corporations and the ruling elite of the United States were the true "interests" he was tasked with protecting in the "Free World". IF he was told thru Allen Dulles that the majority of the ruling elite felt that Kennedy was a "threat to National Security" and had to go, then I believe he would have willingly taken part in an operation run by CIA and Cuban Exiles to facilitate the assassination. I think that Nixon either heard it was coming down, or saw the tell tale fingerprints of an assassination team and figured the rest out on his own about the CIA's culpability. So, in the final analysis, its IMHO that Nixon knew he was pushing Helm's buttons by stating this would open up the "Whole Bay of Pigs thing".. -Greg

It is really unusual to release the Kindle version before the print version. Its usually the opposite. Jim, it surprised Debra as well as she had no notice of it - which is why the Nexus area on my book web site and document links were not ready (its there now though and document links should be going up shortly). In fact it happened before any announcement because that was to be tied to the in print date. Beats us, although certainly Amazon is really pushing Kindle. In any event both Kindle and print are available now and there will be print copies at the Lancer conference (have not seen one myself actually, but its in the mail Deb says). -- Larry Hi Larry, I just want to say I have both editions of your book SWHT, and have read your many posts, and essays on this forum as well as Lancer's. I congratulate you on your latest literary effort "Nexus" and have my copy ordered from Amazon. As I anticipate your book in the mail, I would like to pose a question to you. I have read up on Edwin P. Wilson and believe that his close dealings with Ted Shackley, Tom Clines, and Rafael "Chi Chi" Quintero put him in a very close circle of folks I believe had knowledge of, or were participants in the JFK assassination. I have posted it here and have been told that trying to reach out to Edwin Wilson would be a futile effort. Given that Edwin Wilson is in the twilight of his life, and the fact that the CIA literally turned him into the "Man in the Iron Mask" doesn't it seem likely that he has a few motives for which to set the record straight on issues such as the JFK assassination? I just think if someone who has interviewed Ed Wilson in the past could come forward and contact him now before he dies, I think he could shed some serious light on the assassination. I believe Ed could corroborate many facts about the players we suspect, and possibly even give us a few we don't know about. I know he trusted Joeseph Trento, and have thought about contacting Mr. Trento myself to make this appeal, but I defer to your opinion on the matter. Do you see any merit in chasing down this lead? Best regards, Greg Kooyman Greg, I posted earlier this afternoon and again just now but it does not appear to be showing up - I'll try again below, if it does not show please email me at larryjoe@westok.net so I can reply direct.. thanks: Greg and Bill, my thought on Wilson is that given his position in 1963 (with setting up and running front companies) I do not believe he would have had any direct knowledge of the JFK plot. My view is that sort of knowledge would have been circulating only within some very select groups of paramilitary assets in touch with or having been trained by JMWAVE operations. On the other hand I'd be willing to bet that he heard the same sort of gossip that Wheaton heard when associating with Quintero and Jenkins. If you hung with the right crowd it appears that they were not bashful talking about it - just another cover ops war story. If someone talks with Wilson it might be a good angle, just ask about gossip he heard afterwords, anything could be useful. Beyond that its pretty clear that Wilson played the same game that several like him did, leverage your old true agency connections to make your own money, implying its Agency sanctioned. And on the backside, pass on some intelligence to your old CIA associates so they look the other way if they hear what you are doing. A really nasty side effect of deniability. Doubt he would talk about that angle but if so would help us understand a lot about how that sort of game was played. -- Larry Larry, I agree with you completely, it was that association that Wilson had with Quintero and Tom Clines that I was referring to. When Wilson was asked to provide a hit man for an assassination job,( murdering a Libyan Dissident living in Egypt) I believe Clines referred him to Quintero, who in turn asked the Villaverde brothers to do the contract killing. It was this association with assassination,& the fact that in the early 1960's Carl Jenkins was Rafael's case officer from the Bay of Pigs thru the AMWORLD affair, that I believe Quintero either knew, or participated in the assassination hit squad originally designed for Castro that was turned on President Kennedy. IF Quintero ever spoke to Wilson about assassination, hit men, etc, I think he may have brought up the Kennedy assassination as bonafides for his recommending the Villaverde brothers. ( just my hunch.) At any rate, I will follow up with Bill Kelly and see if we can put together a comprehensive format for contacting Ed Wilson and see what he may or may not be willing to talk about. My hope is to find someone he may feel comfortable in talking with, so we don't scare him off. Thanks Larry for your insight on this.. -Greg

It is really unusual to release the Kindle version before the print version. Its usually the opposite. Jim, it surprised Debra as well as she had no notice of it - which is why the Nexus area on my book web site and document links were not ready (its there now though and document links should be going up shortly). In fact it happened before any announcement because that was to be tied to the in print date. Beats us, although certainly Amazon is really pushing Kindle. In any event both Kindle and print are available now and there will be print copies at the Lancer conference (have not seen one myself actually, but its in the mail Deb says). -- Larry Hi Larry, I just want to say I have both editions of your book SWHT, and have read your many posts, and essays on this forum as well as Lancer's. I congratulate you on your latest literary effort "Nexus" and have my copy ordered from Amazon. As I anticipate your book in the mail, I would like to pose a question to you. I have read up on Edwin P. Wilson and believe that his close dealings with Ted Shackley, Tom Clines, and Rafael "Chi Chi" Quintero put him in a very close circle of folks I believe had knowledge of, or were participants in the JFK assassination. I have posted it here and have been told that trying to reach out to Edwin Wilson would be a futile effort. Given that Edwin Wilson is in the twilight of his life, and the fact that the CIA literally turned him into the "Man in the Iron Mask" doesn't it seem likely that he has a few motives for which to set the record straight on issues such as the JFK assassination? I just think if someone who has interviewed Ed Wilson in the past could come forward and contact him now before he dies, I think he could shed some serious light on the assassination. I believe Ed could corroborate many facts about the players we suspect, and possibly even give us a few we don't know about. I know he trusted Joeseph Trento, and have thought about contacting Mr. Trento myself to make this appeal, but I defer to your opinion on the matter. Do you see any merit in chasing down this lead? Best regards, Greg Kooyman Hi Larry, I don't know if you've had the chance to read my question, but I am interested in your feedback.. Any thoughts? -Greg