Greg Kooyman

On 12/5/2019 at 8:54 AM, Denny Zartman said:

So, a partial fraud maybe? Or should we reconsider Beverly Oliver entirely?

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.

On 11/8/2019 at 8:29 AM, James DiEugenio said:

LOL, yeah and I wished I had.

BTW, I do not read film reviews anymore for the simple fact that there are no reviewers worth reading.

As I noted in my review of Tarantino's joke of a movie about Tate/LaBianca, the whole institution of American film criticism collapsed a long time ago. Even Coppola admitted this in a candid moment.  He said the big film companies had bought off the newspapers through ads and other kinds of pressures. Kubrick even got a guy to change his review so it would be a better blurb for Full Metal Jacket. It said the film was the best war movie ever made. (I am sure Joe McBride understands this kind of pressure since it happened to him.)

That blurb was nuts. And Kubrick had to know it since he himself made a much better war movie decades earlier with Paths of Glory.

Once all this unethical influence set in, the real critics began to get marginalized.  And they slowly died out.  Its hard to believe, but at one time in this country we had Andrew Sarris, Dwight Macdonald, Vernon Young, Stanley Kauffmann, Pauline Kael, and John Simon all reviewing at the same time!  I read most of them and I then bought some of their books because I could actually learn something from them about art and history and aesthetics and acting.  What you have now is a corrupt practice with a bunch of hacks/flacks.  The only use for their writings is as bird cage liner.  And in my opinion, this has had an impact on the quality of product on the screen.

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.

1 hour ago, Brendan Boucher said:

I am fascinated by Carl Elmer Jenkins and Gene Wheaton right now.  The information relayed through his (Gene's) taped interviews is utterly priceless and makes SO MUCH sense when looking back at the Guatemala-Iraq period of US history.  I realize the absolute specifics are few, and that stands to reason.  He emphatically says at one point in his interview, 'It's not like somebody sat me down and explicitly laid out what happened in 1963', he was able to piece together what happened through decades of conversation both to and around him by covert operators at that time.  Is there any reason to doubt Gene Wheaton?

 

I also find it amazing that Carl Jenkins was able to avoid the "spotlight" for so long, even though it's only like the dim flickering of a lighter actually...

 

The guy responsible for the recruitment of BOP participants, who ran Maritime operations against Cuba for years, and was training a rifle assassination team to eliminate Castro in 1963 was basically unknown to researchers until 2005?  I suppose it was his ability to fall into what appears to be a fairly normal existence in the 1970's right until the present day that enabled this invisibility.  I believe he is still alive and must still be protected by certain (most?) doc releases, correct? 

 

Although it seems clear Carl Jenkins was highly unlikely to discuss his life/career with anyone outside his immediate circle of family and friends, it's hard to understand the (apparent) inaction of Anne Buttimer of the ARRB when dealing with Gene Wheaton.  The fact that she left the Board and is apparently unwilling/unable to discuss Mr Wheaton is a bit peculiar.  It's impossible to believe that someone could forget such allegations during a face to face interview.

 

Daniel Sheehan's book look's to cover a critical juncture in the live's of Wheaton and Jenkins.  The copy online leaves out the page right after Elisabeth Jenkins, herself a high ranking CIA psychologist, gives her husband the OK to work with Wheaton and Sheehan in an effort to blow the lid off Iran-Contra (among other goals).   I've ordered a copy and hope to learn a good deal more concerning this matter.  Are there indications that Wheaton and Jenkins had a falling out after this jaw-dropping scandal was (sort-of) exposed?  Possibly due to the way that Sheehan handled it?

 

Any info on Jenkins or Wheaton would be gladly welcomed.

 

 

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." 

33 minutes ago, David Boylan said:

What is astonishing to me is that JMWAVE was inquiring about a boat/maritime vessel six hours after the president was assassinated. This was the Joanne where a group of "exfiltrees" were hidden along with a cargo of silenced handguns and Collins radios (See Bill Kelly about Collins Radio). A conservative guess would be that this is "Part B" and this group was waiting for the word to assassinate Castro after he was blamed for JFK's death.

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.  

15 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Jim,

Henry Lee's report, if it exists, does not seem to be online, although Gunn apparently requested it.  Can the date of Gunn's letter (see below) possibly be correct?

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

Paul, actually he took along a variety of materials, all intended to establish his FPCC and related bonifides. There is some indication he also had a bogus

CPUSA card which throw the consulate staff off since there was no such thing. All this had to do with an FPCC related propaganda operation, likely

being run by David Philips as an offshoot of the CIA/FBI AMSANTA project which had been very successful at placing an FPCC sponsored double agent

inside Cuba. It was only one of a number of extremely aggresive MC CIA station operations being run against the Cubans at that point.

And yes Tommy, Oswald knew quite well it was unlikely he would get to Cuba on that trip, even if he had gotten the paperwork he had no money for

the travel or to stay in Cuba. And when the Cubans took time to check him out they would have quickly determined his FPCC links were bogus - plus

the only way to get in via MC was for actual pre-arranged FPCC sponsorship.

Newman, Scott and myself have all delved into the real reason for his trip, Simpich will be going further with it... Larry

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!

What it comes down to, IMO, is that this is, and always has been, John's Forum. That's the reality. He tried to make it an open one, where people could discuss the assassination in an open and civil way. That proved impossible.

John's vision for HIS forum was that it be a place where serious scholars and researchers could discuss the assassination. Members were forced to apply for membership, etc. His vision failed to come to bloom, however, in large part because those most passionate about the JFK assassination are also those most self-righteous about the JFK assassination. Things degraded to the point where some threads amounted to little more than GOTCHA! You're a xxxx! No, I'm not. You're the xxxx!! No, I'm not. You're the xxxx!

My hope is that this sends a message, and that in time Jim and Tom are allowed to return to the forum, and do so...

P.S. One of my favorite threads on this forum was one where I asked Tink Thompson about a mistake he'd made in Six Seconds in Dallas, that had misled his readers. He admitted he'd made a mistake. BINGO. That's all it took. I pointed out a mistake, and he acknowledged it as one. This went smoothly, in part, because we respected each other.

Let's all try to respect each other, and respect ourselves in the process.

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

Tommy, the bar girls may have underwritten some of the cost or its very possible that once he reported the contact to ONI he received some funds to continue

dangling himself. I think DeMohrenschieldt's (sp?) description of Oswald as a proto hippie is right on....Oswald enjoyed new experiences and was quite bright

when he wanted to be...he also got himself in lots trouble (I knew those same sorts of guys in college a few years later...grin). If you read his monograph

you see he was definitely anti Soviet and anti CPUSA...but then within months he's writing CPUSA about going underground. Clearly there are games in

progress. He just didn't realize how risky it all could be....

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

Edwin Wilson in Dealey Plaza?

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.

Wm Kelly -- "In 1982 he went to prison until 2004, spending his time proving his innocence of being a terrorist and traitor." Who charged him with treason and what country was he supposed to be abetting, if any?

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.

Greg, interesting. Have you read Secret Agenda by Jim Hougan and Silent Coup by Colodny? Was wondering if this one builds on their research , differs or what.

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.

Greg, interesting. Have you read Secret Agenda by Jim Hougan and Silent Coup by Colodny? Was wondering if this one builds on their research , differs or what.

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.

Bob Parry has commissioned a review of Waldron's new book by me for his web site Consortium news.

So I will be starting in on this one soon.

BTW, I am almost done with the Caro book. Will probably finish it tomorrow.

Very disappointing.

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

I've read at least two dozen books on Nixon and Watergate, many of them written by Nixon's closest aides. And Nixon was paranoid as heck, convinced, and not without reason, that the east coast establishment was out to undermine his presidency. He, like Johnson, felt the east coast establishment considered him an unworthy successor to Kennedy.

Unlike, Johnson, however, he decided to fight back. While many would like to believe Nixon was set-up to take a fall, no one honestly looking at the situation, IMO, can come to any conclusion other than that he brought about his own downfall, through his reckless abuse of power.

I mean, just think about it.

1. He set up a secret outfit to perform dirty tricks against his enemies. Among these dirty tricks was the creation of fake documents designed to directly implicate JFK in the murder of Diem, and fudge up his legacy, and remove some of the stain from Cabot Lodge, Nixon's running-mate in 1960.

2. He pressured the IRS to investigate his political enemies, and leave his supporters, like Billy Graham, alone.

3. He cut the legs off the SEC, in exchange for contributions from ITT and Howard Hughes, etc. The Hughes money, moreover, ended up in a personal safe.

4. He engaged in a secret war in Cambodia, and bombed Vietnamese civilians on Christmas Eve, in order to pressure the North Vietnamese to the conference table. He did this, moreover, while constantly pitting the branches of the Defense Department and Intelligence Community against each other.

5. And he planned on expanding his grip on government, and his use of it for personal purposes, in his second term.

Now, do I think he was set up? NO. But if he was, I think it was more than justified.

The President is not a King, and he cannot pardon himself, no matter what Nixon believed.

I've read at least two dozen books on Nixon and Watergate, many of them written by Nixon's closest aides. And Nixon was paranoid as heck, convinced, and not without reason, that the east coast establishment was out to undermine his presidency. He, like Johnson, felt the east coast establishment considered him an unworthy successor to Kennedy.

Unlike, Johnson, however, he decided to fight back. While many would like to believe Nixon was set-up to take a fall, no one honestly looking at the situation, IMO, can come to any conclusion other than that he brought about his own downfall, through his reckless abuse of power.

I mean, just think about it.

1. He set up a secret outfit to perform dirty tricks against his enemies. Among these dirty tricks was the creation of fake documents designed to directly implicate JFK in the murder of Diem, and fudge up his legacy, and remove some of the stain from Cabot Lodge, Nixon's running-mate in 1960.

2. He pressured the IRS to investigate his political enemies, and leave his supporters, like Billy Graham, alone.

3. He cut the legs off the SEC, in exchange for contributions from ITT and Howard Hughes, etc. The Hughes money, moreover, ended up in a personal safe.

4. He engaged in a secret war in Cambodia, and bombed Vietnamese civilians on Christmas Eve, in order to pressure the North Vietnamese to the conference table. He did this, moreover, while constantly pitting the branches of the Defense Department and Intelligence Community against each other.

5. And he planned on expanding his grip on government, and his use of it for personal purposes, in his second term.

Now, do I think he was set up? NO. But if he was, I think it was more than justified.

The President is not a King, and he cannot pardon himself, no matter what Nixon believed.

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

Greg, interesting. Have you read Secret Agenda by Jim Hougan and Silent Coup by Colodny? Was wondering if this one builds on their research , differs or what.

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

The latest example of the BBC's campaign against conspiracy theorists. On any other subject, the BBC would insist on a balanced debate. However, here we have three people all rubbishing conspiracy theories.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onsole/b01b1g96

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.

I agree that The Ends of Power is a good book, but think you misrepresent the nature of the "Bay of Pigs Thing." While the CIA may very well have had a hand in Kennedy's death, there is little evidence to suggest Nixon believed they'd PLANNED it. The "Bay of Pigs Thing" comment was made BEFORE the CIA's hit attempts on Castro became public knowledge, and are most logically a reference to these attempts and the possibility they blew back on Kennedy in particular, and the CIA's assassination capacity, in general. Nixon, as Eisenhower's VP, knew of these attempts. He probably even authorized them. By reminding Helms that Hunt was involved in the "Bay of Pigs Thing" Nixon was trying to get Helms to stall the FBI's Watergate investigation. It worked, for a spell. Just long enough to get himself re-elected.

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.

I agree that The Ends of Power is a good book, but think you misrepresent the nature of the "Bay of Pigs Thing." While the CIA may very well have had a hand in Kennedy's death, there is little evidence to suggest Nixon believed they'd PLANNED it. The "Bay of Pigs Thing" comment was made BEFORE the CIA's hit attempts on Castro became public knowledge, and are most logically a reference to these attempts and the possibility they blew back on Kennedy in particular, and the CIA's assassination capacity, in general. Nixon, as Eisenhower's VP, knew of these attempts. He probably even authorized them. By reminding Helms that Hunt was involved in the "Bay of Pigs Thing" Nixon was trying to get Helms to stall the FBI's Watergate investigation. It worked, for a spell. Just long enough to get himself re-elected.

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

Thanks for the kind words Zach and I have to admit that Amazon caught us by surprise on this one - previously the kindle version

had not gone up prior to print availability and the print version is still a few weeks out. Hence the lack of an announcement

(which should be soon) and an update to my website (a bit later). As you can imagine its a hectic time to get a book

out with the Dallas conference only a few weeks out.

- regards to all, Larry

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

Thanks for the kind words Zach and I have to admit that Amazon caught us by surprise on this one - previously the kindle version

had not gone up prior to print availability and the print version is still a few weeks out. Hence the lack of an announcement

(which should be soon) and an update to my website (a bit later). As you can imagine its a hectic time to get a book

out with the Dallas conference only a few weeks out.

- regards to all, Larry

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

Thanks for the kind words Zach and I have to admit that Amazon caught us by surprise on this one - previously the kindle version

had not gone up prior to print availability and the print version is still a few weeks out. Hence the lack of an announcement

(which should be soon) and an update to my website (a bit later). As you can imagine its a hectic time to get a book

out with the Dallas conference only a few weeks out.

- regards to all, Larry

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

I think it would be important to get to Ed Wilson and ask him a few JFK assassination related questions, like did he know Oswald in Japan when he - Wilson was in charge of U2 security and Oswald stood guard duty at Atsugi?

At one time Wilson and his wife owned a home and antique shop on Long Beach Island NJ, not far from me, but I never got the opportunity to meet or talk with either of them.

I do know a reporter who has interviewed Wilson in the past and will see if he still has contact info, but if anybody can find contact info for Wilson I would like to talk to him.

BK

JFKcountercoup

Bill,

I did some basic online skip tracing and believe I can pinpoint a phone number for Edwin Wilson. I believe he still lives with his brother in the state of Washington. I had a phone number that I believe may be his, or that of the residence of his brother. I have some questions for Edwin and his associations with Rafael Quintero. I wonder if either he or Tom Clines ever spoke about the assassination in private. Are you willing to reach out to Ed Wilson? Can I assist in any way?

-Greg