Bill Cheslock
-
Posts
112 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Bill Cheslock
-
-
To me this image appears to show a " FULL ON BULLET STRIKE " to the chrome trim.
I see the perfect shape of a dent which appears to be produced from the NOSE of a bullet, it also appears that the shot was fired from a low trajectory bending the chrome trim UPWARD.
I don't see how it is physically possible to do this from the sixth floor of a building !
Robin
Great photos of a very controversial issue. In the Z film, we can see
the driver, Bill Greer, duck as if he thought he was going to be hit. He ducks
his head as he is staring straight ahead. It's possible he heard the bullet hit
the chrome directly over him and to his right.
Bill C
-
According to Jerry Policoff's article on the media and the Kennedy assassination, in January 1967, Life magazine's Dick Billings was told by a superior that "It is not Life Magazine's function to investigate the Kennedy assassination." This effectively ended the series begun in November 1966.
Does anyone know 1) who was the superior who told Billings to back off, 2) what day in January this occurred, and 3) where Policoff heard about this? Did Billings write about this incident? Tink Thompson? I've been unable to locate Policoff's source. Did Policoff interview Billings for his article? I'm trying to figure out if this incident is connected to McCloy's involvement in the CBS special. Your help appreciated...
Pat
The following excerpt is taken from "The Taking Of America 1 2 3," chapter nine,
"Control of The Media." It describes how Billings was abruptly told by Life to stop the
investigatory piece he was working on.
Bill C
The government naturally did not respond to Life's suggestion for a new investigation, so nothing ever came of that editorial policy. Billings, however, continued his team's efforts and in October 1968 was preparing a comprehensive article for the November anniversary issue. The author continued to work with him and continued being given access to the photos right up to October 1968.
It was at that point in time that a drastic change in management policy occurred at Life magazine. Dick Billings was told to stop all work on the assassination; his entire team was stopped. All of the research files, including the Zapruder film and slides and thousands of other film frames and photographs, were locked up. No one at the magazine was permitted access to these materials and no one (including the author) was ever allowed to see them again.
Simultaneously, editorial and management policy toward the assassination changed to complete silence. Billings and crew were not allowed to discuss the subject at Life, let alone work on it. In November 1968 the article Billings had been working on was turned into a non-entity. A few of the hundreds of photographs collected by the author and purchased by Life were published in the article, along with an innocuous commentary. Credit for discovering the photos was given to a number of people at Life magazine in New York and Dallas, not to the individuals who actually found them.
That article, published nearly nine years ago, was the last word Life has ever uttered about their extensive research probe and their feelings about a conspiracy. Dick Billings moved to Washington, D.C. to become editor of the Congressional Quarterly and is a member on the board of directors of the Committee to Investigate Assassinations (CTIA).
Who made the policy change decision at Life and why? Various high-level conspiracy enthusiasts claim that the cabal behind the assassination of the President brought extreme pressure to bear upon the owners and management of Time Inc. to silence all opposition to the Warren Commission findings. Others conclude it had something to do with the CIA's control of Life's editorial policy from inside. This author takes no position on why. Dick Billings knows only that the decision was made at high levels and passed downward and that it was irrevocable.
-
Here is the George HW Bush quote from today's all network televised eulogy for Gerald Ford, from CNN transcripts:
Why? Because Gerry Ford put his name on it and Gerry Ford's word was always good."
Does Junior realize that Ford was against the Iraq War? If Gerry Ford put his name
on his position against the war, is Bush agreeing with him, because ole Gerry's word
was always good? One of the more comical events of this five day marathon was
a dedication to "The Character of Gerald Ford." Character? The man lied about JFK
evidence, altered evidence, and should've been given a prison term for doing so. He's
in a league with Arlen Specter.
Good bye Gerald Ford !!!
Bill C
-
What did the Parkland Doctors use to make the tracheometry incision in kennedy's throat " A BROCKEN BOTTLE " ?
Where is the nice neat scaple incision. ?
Is this a wound of "Entrance or Exit" ?
Hi Robin
I remember an ABC documentary a few years ago.
Telejournalist Tom Jarriel interviewed Dr. Charles Crenshaw. Crenshaw
was shown the throat photo, and said it didn't look anything like
that while JFK was at Parkland Hospital. One has to wonder what happened
to JFK during the chronicled time between Parkland and Bethesda.
Bill C
-
This is an interesting article about documents released with
respect to a possible assassination attempt on JFK during his
visit to Ireland. It seems law enforcement in Ireland took the
threat very seriously. The source of this story is a Dublin newspaper,
"The Irish Times."
Bill C
Previous Day Friday, December 29, 2006Front Page | Ireland | World | Finance | Features | Sport | Opinion | Letters | The TicketSniper threat sparked alert during 1963 Kennedy visit
A tip-off about a plot to assassinate John F Kennedy with a sniper rifle during his visit as US president to Ireland in June 1963 sparked a massive security alert, with heavily armed Garda reinforcements escorting his motorcade after arrival at Dublin airport. Stephen Collins , Political Editor, reports.
The alert began in the early hours of June 22nd, five days before the US president was due to arrive, when a man rang Independent Newspapers claiming a sniper using a rifle fitted with a telescopic sight intended to kill him.
According to a Department of Justice file in the National Archives released today, gardaí arrived at a telephone kiosk at the junction of College Green and Westmoreland Street, from which the call had been made, within two to three minutes.
A Garda report said the caller must have left in a hurry because they saw nobody in the kiosk or in the vicinity. The man had sought payment for information about the claimed assassination plan.
He said the shot would be fired from a flat roof on the president's route between Dublin airport and the US ambassador's residence in the Phoenix Park.
Although gardaí suspected it could be a hoax, extra precautions were taken and a memo was sent to all stations, the Central Detective Unit and the Special Branch. "All roofs on the route to Dublin airport were scanned by members with binoculars travelling in the advance and escort cars," Garda commissioner Daniel Costigan reported.
"A rifle as well as Thompson guns and revolvers were carried for use against a possible sniper," he added.
President Kennedy was shot dead by a sniper in Dallas, Texas, five months later.
The newly released files, which have been withheld for well in excess of the normal 30 years, detail the extensive precautions that were taken in the weeks leading up to his visit. An advance party of US Secret Service agents, White House special detail agents and a CIA man from London took part in the planning.
They told Mr Costigan that they would not tolerate plans by NBC to put a television vehicle within 50 or 100 feet of the presidential car. All that was allowed was a motorised float travelling a reasonable distance ahead, carrying equipment for RTÉ and approved US TV companies.
The files also show that plans to make Mr Kennedy an honorary Irish citizen were scrapped after extensive behind-the-scenes consultations.
The awarding of the honour was to have been one of the high points of the president's four-day visit to Ireland but Irish and American officials raised so many legal difficulties that the plan was abandoned.
© 2006 The Irish Times
Sorry Ladies and Gentlemen, I didn't see that Doug has already posted this story.
What I found interesting is the difference between how Irish officials and Dallas
officials handled security. I can't accept the excuse that the DPD didn't have any
clue that there was danger lurking prior to JFK's Dallas trip. JFK told his wife,
"we're going into nut country." If the President of the U.S. knew this, why didn't
law enforcement?
Bill C
-
This is an interesting article about documents released with
respect to a possible assassination attempt on JFK during his
visit to Ireland. It seems law enforcement in Ireland took the
threat very seriously. The source of this story is a Dublin newspaper,
"The Irish Times."
Bill C
Previous Day Friday, December 29, 2006Front Page | Ireland | World | Finance | Features | Sport | Opinion | Letters | The TicketSniper threat sparked alert during 1963 Kennedy visit
A tip-off about a plot to assassinate John F Kennedy with a sniper rifle during his visit as US president to Ireland in June 1963 sparked a massive security alert, with heavily armed Garda reinforcements escorting his motorcade after arrival at Dublin airport. Stephen Collins , Political Editor, reports.
The alert began in the early hours of June 22nd, five days before the US president was due to arrive, when a man rang Independent Newspapers claiming a sniper using a rifle fitted with a telescopic sight intended to kill him.
According to a Department of Justice file in the National Archives released today, gardaí arrived at a telephone kiosk at the junction of College Green and Westmoreland Street, from which the call had been made, within two to three minutes.
A Garda report said the caller must have left in a hurry because they saw nobody in the kiosk or in the vicinity. The man had sought payment for information about the claimed assassination plan.
He said the shot would be fired from a flat roof on the president's route between Dublin airport and the US ambassador's residence in the Phoenix Park.
Although gardaí suspected it could be a hoax, extra precautions were taken and a memo was sent to all stations, the Central Detective Unit and the Special Branch. "All roofs on the route to Dublin airport were scanned by members with binoculars travelling in the advance and escort cars," Garda commissioner Daniel Costigan reported.
"A rifle as well as Thompson guns and revolvers were carried for use against a possible sniper," he added.
President Kennedy was shot dead by a sniper in Dallas, Texas, five months later.
The newly released files, which have been withheld for well in excess of the normal 30 years, detail the extensive precautions that were taken in the weeks leading up to his visit. An advance party of US Secret Service agents, White House special detail agents and a CIA man from London took part in the planning.
They told Mr Costigan that they would not tolerate plans by NBC to put a television vehicle within 50 or 100 feet of the presidential car. All that was allowed was a motorised float travelling a reasonable distance ahead, carrying equipment for RTÉ and approved US TV companies.
The files also show that plans to make Mr Kennedy an honorary Irish citizen were scrapped after extensive behind-the-scenes consultations.
The awarding of the honour was to have been one of the high points of the president's four-day visit to Ireland but Irish and American officials raised so many legal difficulties that the plan was abandoned.
© 2006 The Irish Times
-
Ford should be remembered for pardoning Nixon, for assisting in the JFK assassination cover-up, for never having been elected, for falling down, for vetoing any bill that wasn't military in nature, for being a snitch for the Dame, for authorizing unauthorized material for his book, for Squeaky Fromme and whatever the hell that was really all about, for violating the Constitutional Right to the Freedom of Speech by aiding in the banning of the final three episodes of TMWKK, and for maintaining that the Warren Report got it right about Lee Oswald for the remainder of his life.
Lee
And let us not forget the infamous statement made by then President Ford
during a presidential debate with Jimmy Carter on October 6, 1976:
MR. FRANKEL: I'm sorry, could I just follow -- did I understand you to say, sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as their own sphere of influence in occupying most of the countries there and making sure with their troops that it's a Communist zone, whereas on our side of the line the Italians and the French are still flirting with the possibility of Communism?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't believe, Mr. Frankel that the Yugoslavians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don't believe that the Rumanians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don't believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. Each of those countries is independent, autonomous; it has its own territorial integrity. And the United States does not concede that those countries are under the domination of the Soviet Union. As a matter of fact, I visited Poland, Yugoslavia and Rumania to make certain that the people of those countries understood that the President of the United States and the people of the United States are dedicated to their independence, their autonomy and their freedom.
-
CNN is reporting Gerald Ford has died. The media is determined to remember him in the best possible light.
Please see the following for Gerald Ford:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8416
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAfordG.htm
It is important that we use this opportunity to publicize the role he played in both the cover-up of the assassination of JFK and Watergate.
John
This is an AP article from July of 1997, in response to notes that showed how
Ford altered JFK's back wound into a neck wound. Of course, moving the wound
from JFK's back to his neck facilitated the ridiculous SB theory that Ford and Specter
were pushing.
Bill C
Gerald Ford forced to admit the Warren Report fictionalized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cited under "fair use".
By MIKE FEINSILBER
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (July 2) - Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford took pen in
hand and changed - ever so slightly - the Warren Commission's key sentence
on the place where a bullet entered John F. Kennedy's body when he was
killed in Dallas.
The effect of Ford's change was to strengthen the commission's conclusion
that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and severely wounded Texas
Gov. John Connally - a crucial element in its finding that Lee Harvey
Oswald was the sole gunman.
A small change, said Ford on Wednesday when it came to light, one intended
to clarify meaning, not alter history.
''My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory,'' he said in a
telephone interview from Beaver Creek, Colo. ''My changes were only an
attempt to be more precise.''
But still, his editing was seized upon by members of the conspiracy
community, which rejects the commission's conclusion that Oswald acted
alone.
''This is the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission
report,'' said Robert D. Morningstar, a computer systems specialist in New
York City who said he has studied the assassination since it occurred and
written an Internet book about it.
The effect of Ford's editing, Morningstar said, was to suggest that a
bullet struck Kennedy in the neck, ''raising the wound two or three
inches. Without that alteration, they could never have hoodwinked the
public as to the true number of assassins.''
If the bullet had hit Kennedy in the back, it could not have struck
Connolly in the way the commission said it did, he said.
The Warren Commission concluded in 1964 that a single bullet - fired by a
''discontented'' Oswald - passed through Kennedy's body and wounded his
fellow motorcade passenger, Connally, and that a second, fatal bullet,
fired from the same place, tore through Kennedy's head.
The assassination of the president occurred Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas;
Oswald was arrested that day but was shot and killed two days later as he
was being transferred from the city jail to the county jail.
Conspiracy theorists reject the idea that a single bullet could have hit
both Kennedy and Connally and done such damage. Thus they argue that a
second gunman must have been involved.
Ford's changes tend to support the single-bullet theory by making a
specific point that the bullet entered Kennedy's body ''at the back of his
neck'' rather than in his uppermost back, as the commission staff
originally wrote.
Ford's handwritten notes were contained in 40,000 pages of records kept by
J. Lee Rankin, chief counsel of the Warren Commission.
They were made public Wednesday by the Assassination Record Review Board,
an agency created by Congress to amass all relevant evidence in the case.
The documents will be available to the public in the National Archives.
The staff of the commission had written: ''A bullet had entered his back
at a point slightly above the shoulder and to the right of the spine.''
Ford suggested changing that to read: ''A bullet had entered the back of
his neck at a point slightly to the right of the spine.''
The final report said: ''A bullet had entered the base of the back of his
neck slightly to the right of the spine.''
Ford, then House Republican leader and later elevated to the presidency
with the 1974 resignation of Richard Nixon, is the sole surviving member
of the seven-member commission chaired by Chief Justice Earl Warren.
-
Michael,
Greta seems to be leading the new mainstream media charge for new investigation. What's going on?
What's next Nancy Grace grilling Ruth Paine?
I missed this show but I agree that it is new twist for Greta. A trend maybe?
Grace grilling Ruth Paine. Now there's one damn good idea. Bill why don't you contact her
with this idea. Nancy is so unrelenting she'd likey get Paine to confess all.
Dawn
Dawn
This program was first shown on Fox a couple of years ago. Since then, we've heard
nothing from Greta in the form of a follow up documentary. Actually, I haven't heard her speak
about the assassination since that first broadcast. It would be terrific if people like Greta and
Nancy Grace were allowed to investigate the assassination more deeply than the networks are
accustomed to doing. What's fascinating about the Fox documentary is that it actually came from
Fox. I have to say, as a continuing critic of that network, Greta's program on the assassination
was a more in depth investigation than I have seen in a very long time.
Bill C
-
I watched segments of it, as I viewed this documentary a couple of
years ago. The U.S. Marine, who was categorized as a "sharpshooter"
stated that it was a fairly easy shot (from the sixth floor of the TSBD).
He never did state if he attempted the shots himself, or if this was just an
opinion of his based on visual determination. If he did indeed attempt to
reenact the alleged shooting, he either failed miserably and the network
didn't want to delve into that embarrassment, or it was simply overlooked.
Does anyone remember if he said he attempted what he said was a fairly
easy shot? If he didn't attempt to duplicate the shots, then what he had to
say about it is a moot issue.
Bill C
-
John
If Brazil was the reason McCloy defended the WC conclusions, there was reason for him to return to his doubts about the lone assassin theory.
In 1978 McCloy told the House Select Committee that, "I no longer feel we had no credible or reliable evidence in regard to a conspiracy." (HSCA, vol. XI, supra note 11, at 14, referenced in "President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Act of 1992" by Charles J. Sanders and Mark S. Zaid, p. 413 footnote # 11).
According to the above mentioned reference, The Records Act, WC members Russell, Boggs, and Cooper also publicly declared doubts about the WC conclusions.
Bill C
-
W in 04 was very well prepared and rehersed.
Who was he talking to in the debate when he interrupted himself to say, "Let me finish"? No one was stopping him.
An interesting article on Bush being wired.
Salon The Web
Bush wore a device during debate
Physicist says imaging techniques prove the president's bulge was not caused by wrinkled clothing.
By Kevin Berger
Page 1October 29, 2004 | George W. Bush tried to laugh off the bulge. "I don't know what that is," he said on "Good Morning America" on Wednesday, referring to the infamous protrusion beneath his jacket during the presidential debates. "I'm embarrassed to say it's a poorly tailored shirt."
Dr. Robert M. Nelson, however, was not laughing. He knew the president was not telling the truth. And Nelson is neither conspiracy theorist nor midnight blogger. He's a senior research scientist for NASA and for Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and an international authority on image analysis. Currently he's engrossed in analyzing digital photos of Saturn's moon Titan, determining its shape, whether it contains craters or canyons.
For the past week, while at home, using his own computers, and off the clock at Caltech and NASA, Nelson has been analyzing images of the president's back during the debates. A professional physicist and photo analyst for more than 30 years, he speaks earnestly and thoughtfully about his subject. "I am willing to stake my scientific reputation to the statement that Bush was wearing something under his jacket during the debate," he says. "This is not about a bad suit. And there's no way the bulge can be described as a wrinkled shirt."
Nelson and a scientific colleague produced the photos from a videotape, recorded by the colleague, who has chosen to remain anonymous, of the first debate. The images provide the most vivid details yet of the bulge beneath the president's suit. Amateurs have certainly had their turn at examining the bulge, but no professional with a résumé as impressive as Nelson's has ventured into public with an informed opinion. In fact, no one to date has enhanced photos of Bush's jacket to this degree of precision, and revealed what appears to be some kind of mechanical device with a wire snaking up the president's shoulder toward his neck and down his back to his waist.
Nelson stresses that he's not certain what lies beneath the president's jacket. He offers, though, "that it could be some type of electronic device -- it's consistent with the appearance of an electronic device worn in that manner." The image of lines coursing up and down the president's back, Nelson adds, is "consistent with a wire or a tube."
Nelson used the computer software program Photoshop to enhance the texture in Bush's jacket. The process in no way alters the image but sharpens its edges and accents the creases and wrinkles. You've seen the process performed a hundred times on "CSI": pixelated images are magnified to reveal a clear definition of their shape.
Bruce Hapke, professor emeritus of planetary science in the department of geology and planetary science at the University of Pittsburgh, reviewed the Bush images employed by Nelson, whom he calls "a very highly respected scientist in his field." Hapke says Nelson's process of analyzing the images are the "exact same methods we use to analyze images taken by spacecraft of planetary surfaces. It does not introduce any artifacts into the picture in any way."
How can Nelson be certain there's some kind of mechanical device beneath Bush's jacket? It's all about light and shadows, he says. The angles at which the light in the studio hit Bush's jacket expose contours that fit no one's picture of human anatomy and wrinkled shirts. And Nelson compared the images to anatomy texts. He also experimented with wrinkling shirts in various configurations, wore them under his jacket under his bathroom light, and couldn't produce anything close to the Bush bulge.
In the enhanced photo of the first debate, Nelson says, look at the horizontal white line in middle of the
president's back. You'll see a shadow. "That's telling me there's definitely a bulge," he says. "In fact, it's how we measure the depths of the craters on the moon or on Mars. We look at the angle of the light and the length of shadow they leave. In this case, that's clearly a crater that's under the horizontal line -- it's clearly a rim of a bulge protruding upward, one due to forces pushing it up from beneath."
Hapke, too, agrees that the bulge is neither anatomy nor a wrinkled shirt. "I would think it's very hard to avoid the conclusion that there's something underneath his jacket," he says. "It would certainly be consistent with some kind of radio receiver and a wire."
Nelson admits that he's a Democrat and plans to vote for John Kerry. But he takes umbrage at being accused of partisanship. "Everyone wants to think my colleague and I are just a bunch of dope-crazed ravaged Democrats who are looking to insult the president at the last minute," he says. "And that's not what this is about. This is scientific analysis. If the bulge were on Bill Clinton's back and he was lying about it, I'd have to say the same thing."
"Look, he says, "I'm putting myself at risk for exposing this. But this is too important. It's not about my reputation. If they force me into an early retirement, it'll be worth it if the public knows about this. It's outrageous statements that I read that the president is wearing nothing under there. There's clearly something there."
-
AMAZON $17.95
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Originally published in Europe in 1968, this is a once-notorious, now-dated look at John Kennedy's assassination and an excoriation of the American scene in its aftermath. Turner (Rearview Mirror, etc.) explains in his introduction that the book was first published under mysterious circumstances and was "aimed at advancing the 1968 presidential campaign of Robert F. Kennedy," but its U.S. distribution was rapidly curtailed after RFK's death. The authors ("James Hepburn" is a pseudonym) conducted clandestine research among KGB and Interpol agents and French petroleum espionage specialists and relied on a rare, unmodified print of the famed Zapruder film. The book seethes with aggrieved passion in defending the Kennedys and their ideals, and seeks to defrock the "lone gunman" theory of JFK's assassination. Most of the text is a damning jeremiad, portraying pre-1964 America as a vicious, discriminatory oligarchy controlled by alliances of Big Steel and Big Oil, the military and organized crime, which all had reason to fear JFK's proposed reforms. According to "Hepburn," these interests combined with ultra-right-wing paramilitary groups like the Minutemen and Cuban exile groups to plan the assassination. Chapters discussing the assassination itself will be grimly convincing to some readers, with excellent analyses of the Secret Service's failures and the ambiguous roles played by the CIA and FBI during this tumultuous era. This is a pungent historical document, but its conspiracy theory is familiar by now, and its information has been surpassed by more recent studies such as Murder in Dealey Plaza, edited by James Fetzer.
Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Ed Tatro, JFK assassination expert
Penmarin Books deserves high praise for allowing Farewell America to reach a new and expanded audience.
Book Description
Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L’Amerique Brule (America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in Europe in eleven languages. It was the inside story of the assassination of President John Kennedy. Although borrowing heavily from published critics of the Warren Commission Report, the book describes the roots of the Cold War, the linkage between large corporate and banking interests, the ever-growing American intelligence apparatus, and the international petroleum cartels that were lined up with a bevy of military brass and Mafia chieftains against JFK.
A combination of these powerful interests called "The Committee" coordinated all aspects of the murder, from setting the time and place of the shooting to the recruitment of the gunmen and the coverup of the conspiracy afterward. The bottom line was that enemies of JFK collaborated with the CIA to erase the perceived threat to their interests by John and Robert Kennedy.
Heady stuff for 1968. So incendiary, in fact, that importation of the book through Canada was squelched, allegedly at the instigation of the FBI. Farewell America wasn’t just another book about the assassination conspiracy; it bristled with restricted information about U.S. intelligence agencies, the White House, global business, and military and political affairs that had to have come from a knowlegdeable source, in this case, French intelligence. It also represented the surreptitious intrusion by those in French government circles into American politics, namely, the 1968 presidential elections.
About the Author
Herve Lamarre, the publisher of the original edition of Farewell America, admitted that the author of record, James Hepburn, was fictitious and that the true sources included Andre Ducret of the Surete; Interpol; and, among others in French intelligence, Philippe Vasjoly, the chief French petroleum agent in the United States. William Turner is an authority on the Kennedy assassinations, the FBI and the CIA, and the author of nine books, including his recent memoirs, Rearview Mirror: Looking Back at the FBI, the CIA and Other Tails.
>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
The following message was forwarded to me by Hal Lockwood, the
publisher of Penmarin Books, which published the new edition of Farewell
America. He requested that I post it on the forum:
To All Concerned:
Our publishing house, Penmarin Books (www.penmarin.com) published several
works by William Turner, including Rearview Mirror:Looking back at the FBI, the
CIA and Other Tails, his memoirs. As one reader commented, Turner devoted
a chapter to Farewell America. As his publisher, I was fascinated by the story
of its creation (by members of Interpol and French Intelligence under a pseudonym
in the mid-'60s) and the embargo of a shipment of the English edition in Canada
by the RCMP. I obtained an original edition in hard copy from Bill and read it
cover to cover.
It was all that it promised...and then some. Not to be held back because it was
repressed--and in fact driven to finally publish the book here in the U.S.--I agreed
to publish it, with Bill's chapter as introduction and history of its creation, purpose,
publication, and suppression. We took pages from the original work, scanned them,
added Bill's introduction, and new frontmatter, and published it in facsimile. We
did due diligence as far as Frontier Publishing, the nominal Swiss publisher, and
James Hepburn, the ostensible author and copyright holder, were concerned. We
found no copyright restrictions and went ahead and published Farewell America
in paperback.
It is available on Amazon, in most bookstores, and directly from our Web site,
www.penmarin.com.
Incidentally, the hard copy original edition we received had no photos.
Hal Lockwood
Publisher
Penmarin Books
-
Bill, Peter Dale Scott is a member of this Forum, I will send him a P/M and ask if he would contribute to this thread.
I am a little surprised at the general lack of comment on this matter. Perhaps if I had posted a cropped, blurred Nix frame claiming it showed Ritchie Cunningham, and the Fonz discharging blunderbuses from the storm drain instead..................
Stephen
Not only is there a difference between NSAM 263 and 273, which shows
more of an aggressive apporach to Vietnam days after the assassination, but
the draft of 273 wasn't as aggressive as the final NSAM.
In "JFK And Vietnam," John Newman writes that the draft for NSAM 273,
dated November 21, 1963, was not as aggressive towards Vietnam as the final
edition of that NSAM was. For example, Newman writes that McGeorge Bundy
stated that Johnson "held stronger views on the war than Kennedy did"
and this is why the final NSAM was stronger. ( p. 445).
Newman states that the revision of paragraph seven was substantive.
It was on the operations against North Vietnam. This revision, Newman continues,
was the most significant of all the changes made to Bundy's first draft of 273.
The entire first part of the sentence from the draft NSAM-- which mentioned who
the operations were against, as well as the specific wording that the plan would be
to develop South Vietnamese resources--was missing. The paragraph (7) now
read:
7. Planning should include different levels of possible increased activity, and in
each instance there should be estimates of such factors as:
A. Resulting damage to North Vietnam;
B. The plausibility of denial;
C. Possible North Vietnamese retaliation;
D. Other international reaction.
Plans should be submitted promptly for approval by higher authority. (pp 445-446).
This part, number 7, was not in Kennedy's NSAM 263, but was
put into NSAM 273, after the assassination. This literally escalalted hostilities against North Vietnam.
Johnson was misleading the American people when he said that he would continue
Kennedy's policy. Perhaps using the word "misleading" is too mild of a word in this
context.
Bill C
-
Foe JK Galbraith's take on this subjecttry this He makes some good points regarding the vital differences between 263-273.
Part of a memo from McGeorge Bundy to.
Secretary of State, Secretary of Defence and Chairman Joint Chief's of Staff.
"The president (JFK)approved the military recomendations contained in section 1 B (1-3) of the report, but directed that NO FORMAL ANNOUNCEMENT be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 US military personnel by the end of 1963."
From McNamara-Taylor report on Vietnam Oct 1963.
" Major US assistance in support of this military effort is needed only only until THE INSURGENCY HAS BEEN SUPPRESSED, or the security forces of the S/V Government are capable of suppressing it."
" Secretary McNamara, and General Taylor reported that the major part of the US military task can be completed by the end of 1965....By the end of this year (1963) the US programme for training Vietnamese
personnel should have progressed to the point where 1,000 US troops can be withdrawn.
I'd like to hear what you, Steve, and other members feel about the
level of validity of Kennedy's desire to withdraw 1,000 troops, through his words
in NSAM 263.
Thanks
Bill C
Bill, In reading Galbraith, and Peter Dale Scotts research in this area my original belief has shifted somewhat. It appears that there were real, concrete differences between 263 and 273, which I had not picked up on, this mainly concerns the differing objectives for continued support 263 "to offer continued support to South Vietnam" 273, To win the conflict" I now concede that the two Documents are materially different. Regards, Steve.
Stephen
Yes, Galbraith and Scott did excellent work in this area. Thank you for
reminding me of these two important sources. Now that you mention Scott,
I believe he cooperated with John Newman on researching the NSAM's.
Thanks
Bill C
-
"Planning should include different levels of possible increased activity,
and in each instance there should be estimates of such factors as:
A. Resulting damage to North Vietnam
B. The Plausibility of Denial
C. Possible North Vietnamese retaliation
D. Other International Reaction
What did B mean? Bomb North Vietnam and blame it on somebody else? Who did they have in mind? Castro?
Ron:
An excellent question you bring up. Perhaps part C could help interpret
what part B really meant. Is it possible that a devious plot was being set up here?
What I mean is, the U.S. would bomb North Vietnam, forcing retaliation. The U.S.
could then tell the world that North Vietnam actually started hostile actions, and that
the subsequent bombing of North Vietnam was retaliation for the North's military
actions against us. To the rest of the world, North Vietnam started the fighting, and
not the U.S.
Bill C
-
Bill, quick reply, more later.
Lets be clear what were talking about.
NSAM 263 is a simple rubber stamping of the Mcnamara-Taylor Vietnam report of Oct 2nd, and all troop withdrawals are conditional on victory in the field.
NASM 273 refers to the White House statement of Oct 2nd already cited which approves the same proposal, further, the draft signed by LBJ is identical to one prepaired (11/21/63) for JFK's signature.
I agree that 273 is more aggressive in content, but is essentially an approval of the points covered in 263.
Would you agree, Regards, Steve.
Steve
I'll also have to re read both of the NSAM's. I took a quick look at John Newman's
book, "JFK And Vietnam," and Newman's interpretation of the events in October 1963 are
quite relevant. He cites three dates; October 2, October 5, and October 11.
October 2, the mission members had their first meeting with Kennedy. After a one
hour oral presentation to the President, McNamara was called in to a private meeting by
the President in the Oval Office. When they emerged McNamara ordered the recommendation
on the 1,000-man withdrawal be PUT BACK ( my emphasis) into the report. The withdrawal
recommendation was originally in the report, but McNamara and Taylor succumbed to
a recommendation by William H. Sullivan, an Assistant to the Under Secretary of State,
to delete it, or he would write a dissenting report.
However, McNamara put the withdrawal recommendation back into the report after his
private meeting with Kennedy, as stated above. (p. 403).
October 5, at a White House meeting, JFK brought up the 1,000 man withdrawal
recommendation. The minutes of this meeting indicate that Kennedy brought it up during the discussion on the McNamara-Taylor report. The minutes state:
"The President also said that our decision to remove 1,000 U.S. advisors by December of this year should not be raised formally with Diem. Instead the action should
carried out routinely as part of our general posture of withdrawing people when they
are no longer needed." (p. 409). Newman points out that JFK used the words, "our
decision" to remove the 1,000 men, and that the President decided to implement the
1,000-man withdrawal that day.
October 11, President Kennedy signed NSAM 263. Newman points to the
following words in the signed NSAM:
"The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section
I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the
implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963." (p. 409).
Newman states that October 5th was Judgment Day for the McNamara-Taylor
report, and Kennedy made the withdrawal "a policy objective in its own right." (p. 409).
I'd like to hear what you, Steve, and other members feel about the
level of validity of Kennedy's desire to withdraw 1,000 troops, through his words
in NSAM 263.
Thanks
Bill C
-
John, and Bill thanks for your thoughtful replies. I had hoped that this subject might stir up a bit more controversy, but there you go.
Bill, I dont disagree with a word, it is entirely possible that Kennedy would have walked away from the whole mess, he was after all one of the most astute politico's of the 20th century, my only point being that NSAM 263 cant be used to support this position, other sources, such as your's are a different matter.
John, Eerie indeed. the same noises from military and Politicians down throughout the centuries. First world war? All over by Christmas, of course they forgot to mention which Christmas.
Stephen
If we take a look at NSAM 273, I think it gives us some insight as to
the alteration of the approach Lyndon Johnson took after the assassination to
Vietnam. NSAM 273 is a much more aggressive policy towards the North, and
it specifically states that in part 7:
"Planning should include different levels of possible increased activity,
and in each instance there should be estimates of such factors as:
A. Resulting damage to North Vietnam
B. The Plausibility of Denial
C. Possible North Vietnamese retaliation
D. Other International Reaction
Stephen, this part is not included in NSAM 263. In my opinion, it calls for
increased hostilities against the North. If NSAM 263 was able to be utilized in the
same way, why was there a need for NSAM 273?
Thanks
Bill C
Bill, good point. I need to re-read 273 (been a long time) But wasnt it a responce to the Tonkin inncident, I may be wrong here, going from my 51 year old memory, but I feel the reasoning was 273 was drafted as a responce to a worsening situation....Regards, Steve.
Stephen
Actually, NSAM 273 is dated November 26, 1963, just four days after the
assassination. Johnson signed it, and I believe that the provisions in it actually
led to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. However, I would like to get your impressions
of NSAM 273 before we jump into this.
Thanks
Bill C
-
John, and Bill thanks for your thoughtful replies. I had hoped that this subject might stir up a bit more controversy, but there you go.
Bill, I dont disagree with a word, it is entirely possible that Kennedy would have walked away from the whole mess, he was after all one of the most astute politico's of the 20th century, my only point being that NSAM 263 cant be used to support this position, other sources, such as your's are a different matter.
John, Eerie indeed. the same noises from military and Politicians down throughout the centuries. First world war? All over by Christmas, of course they forgot to mention which Christmas.
Stephen
If we take a look at NSAM 273, I think it gives us some insight as to
the alteration of the approach Lyndon Johnson took after the assassination to
JFK. NSAM 273 is a much more aggressive policy towards the North, and
it specifically states that in part 7:
"Planning should include different levels of possible increased activity,
and in each instance there should be estimates of such factors as:
A. Resulting damage to North Vietnam
B. The Plausibility of Denial
C. Possible North Vietnamese retaliation
D. Other International Reaction
Stephen, this part is not included in NSAM 263. In my opinion, it calls for
increased hostilities against the North. If NSAM 263 was able to be utilized in the
same way, why was there a need for NSAM 273?
Thanks
Bill C
-
Some researchers claim it was Kennedy's plan to end the Vietnam war that served as a trigger to the assassination, and that NSAM 263, with its plan to withdraw 1,000 soldiers in 1963, and all troops by 1965 proves his commitment to a peaceful end to the conflict. However in reading the document it is difficult not to come to a different interpretation. NSAM 263 is not, as some claim, a simple roadmap for ending the war, it does talk of troop removal but under very specific circumstances, for example, McNamara and Taylor were "Convinced that the Vietcong insurgency could be sharply reduced in a year." and that the US efforts should be "completed by the end of 1965" They called for an "Increase in military tempo of the war" and withdrawal of some troops in 63 and all by 65 if this could be achieved "without impairment of the war effort" and further that "The insurgency has been surpressed, or so weakened that the US client regime (GVN) is capable of surpressing it" And they stressed that the "The overidding objective is victory, a matter vital to US security" These were the recomendations that JFK approved.
A constant refrain during America's ill-fated war was that there was "Light at the end of the tunnel" or they were"close to total victory" all that was needed was "one final push" from Kennedy through LBJ to Nixon advisors, both military, and civilian cosistantly assured them that 1,The war was winable, indeed close to being won, and 2,That to prevent the spread of Communism and to protect American interests, and security it must be won..Viewed in this context, it is difficult to percieve NSAM 263 as much more than the usual
wrong headed, blue sky thinking based on troop withdrawal following rapid victory.
_____________________________________
Stephen,
Eerie, are they not, these refrains we've heard over the years, including some of the same platitudes used by the mouthpieces du jour? But the wording of NSAM 263 essentially outlines withdrawal despite the DOD stock-in-trade qualifiers that Johnson, Nixon and now Rumsfeld/Bush have offered ("Peace with Honor") over the years. This is all very much on point, though, and was as one of the key threats - along with Kennedy's fiscal proposals regarding currency and the Federal Reserve - to the plans of the elite.
My favorite quote on this topic is from 1969, uttered by Senator George Aiken, Replican of Vermont, who said, when asked about a Vietnam exit strategy, "Declare victory and get out."
Best Regards,
JG
Stephen and John,
There are two incidents which happened days before JFK was assassinated. One
was on November 12, 1963, ten days before the tragedy in Dallas. Senator Wayne
Morse was a vocal critic of the Vietnam War, and had business with the President at
the White House on that particular day. Morse describes what happened with Kennedy
that day:
I'd gone into President Kennedy's office to discuss education bills, but he said, "Wayne,
I want you to know you're absolutely right in your criticism of my Vietnam policy. Keep this
in mind. I'm in the midst of an intensive study which substantiates your position on Vietnam.
When I'm finished I want you to give me half a day and come over and analyze it point by
point." ("JFK And Vietnam" by John Newman, pp 423-424).
What was this "intensive study" on Vietnam that Kennedy was performing? Since early
in the year, his plan was to wait until after the 1964 elections to pull out. (Newman, p. 424).
Newman's book also reveals yet another hint that JFK was pulling out of Vietnam, as
late as November 21, 1963, a day before the assassination. Michael Forrestal was a member
of the NSC. According to Newman, Kennedy told Forrestal that because this "was in the
context of an election campaign," he could not consider a quick, "drastic change" of policy
but instead how "some kind of a gradual shift in our presence in South Vietnam could occur."
(Newman, p. 427).
Of course, these events do not finally clarify that Kennedy was pulling out of Vietnam.
However, it does give us a look at his thought process regarding Vietnam, just days and
literally hours before his death. It seems that he was leaning towards leaving Vietnam.
Bill C
-
Ever wonder why Dan Rather, recently of CBS, has never been seriously asked by the American media where he actually was on November 22, 1963? He said he was standing just west of the triple underpass, and saw the presidential limo speed by him. Yet, no photos or film footage show him where he said he was standing.
Yet, when he questioned the validity of W's National Guard record, he was taken to task. It cost him his job.
-
De Torres seemed to have a sweetheart deal with the HSCA prior to and during the time he testified. According to Joan Mellen in her book, "A Farewell To Justice," she writes that both Blakey and Cornwell granted de Torres' wish for immunity. Then, Blakey permitted a visit from the CIA prior to the time de Torres was to be interrogated. The CIA demanded that the HSCA not ask de Torres anything about the time frame when de Torres was was its operative, a period, according to Mellen, that included the Kennedy assassination. ("A Farewell To Justice" by Joan Mellen, p. 90).
Of course, Blakey ("they wouldn't lie to me would they?") gave the CIA his assurances. (Mellen, p. 90).
Bill C
-
___________________________________
Francesca,
While the PBS/Oswald work is not quite the propaganda of that outrageous ABC piece, it is still not worth the celluloid it's printed on. It is indeed the usual Oswald-did-it-despite-some-unanswered-questions claptrap. But the use of video is always most effective in dispensing disinformation and that old standby, misinformation (read: lies).
I highly recommend the well written and scrupulously researched "Spy Saga: Lee Harvey Oswald and U.S. Intelligence" by Philip Melanson. There is no substitute for fundamentals.
Regards,
JG
Thanks for the recommendation, I didn't know Philip Melanson had written any on JFK, I have read his books on the RFK assassination and they are excellent. His books are always well researched, Unlike some people...... :-)
Is it an old book? I looked it up on a few book shops here but no trace of it. I suspect it might be out of print?
Francesca:
"Spy Saga" was written in 1990, and published by
Praega Publishers, One Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010.
Dr. Melanson teaches Political Science at Southeastern Massachusetts
University in Dartmouth, Massachusetts.
There are 11 chapters in the book in the following order;
Agent Oswald: Setting the Framework
The Pinko Marine
Oswald in New Orleans; Marxist or Mole?
The Mohair Marauder
Smearing the Left Kremlin-Red
Dallas: The Long Arm of Langley
Mexican Mystery Tour
Legend I: Incidents
Legend II: Artifacts and Evidence
Cover-ups
Beyond Disinformation
In addition
Appendix A: Selected Chronology of Lee Harvey Oswald
Appendix B: Excerpts from the Testimony of Former CIA
Director Richard Helms before the House Select
Committee on Assassinations.
From Helms' testimony from his executive session before the HSCA, as
reported by George Lardner of the Washington Post:
"Helms told reporters during a break that no one would ever know who or what
Lee Harvey Oswald, named by the Warren Commission as kennedy's assassin,
represented. Asked whether the CIA knew of any ties Oswald had with either
the KGB or the CIA, Helms paused and with a laugh said, 'I don't remember.'
Pressed on the point, he told a reporter, 'Your questions are almost as dumb as
the Committee's.' " ( Melanson, prefix to the contents).
Bill C
-
I just reviewed a MS by Michael Kurtz that will be coming out this year under the University of Kansas Press label. His Introduction speaks to your question better than I have above and I recommend you keep your eye peeled for it.
By the way, I assume that this is the same Michael Kurtz who wrote "The Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination from a Historian's Perspective"? If so, does he still think it is possible that the Soviets were involved in the assassination?The Kurtz I mention is the one you suspected. But from his ms that I reviewed for the Kansas Press he is now of the view that JFK was a victim of CIA or rogue US elements. However, while he does not believe Oswald shot JFK, he does deem it probable that Oswald shot Tippit. Go figure.
Good. It sounds like Kurtz might be the one to convince the mainstream media that there's something to allthis conspiracy talk. The CT insistence that Oswald was totally innocent has done nothing but drive them away, IMO. It just doesn't sell in Peoria that someone would kill a random cop and try to pin it on Oswald. Not when it would have been easier to just kill Oswald and make it look like a suicide, etc. I look forward to Kutz' new book.
Pat
Then there's the school of thought that the Tippit murder had nothing to do
in any way with the assassination. It was an unfortunate murder of a Dallas police
officer with no connection to JFK's death. I'm not saying that I subscribe to this
theory. However, didn't Tippit have skeletons in his closet that would've brought
the potential of danger to him? Then again, is it a mere coincidence that Tippit would
be murdered 45 minutes after the President? So many questions and few answers.
Bill C
Question for Jack White
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Hi Jack
I am interested in the seance held at Ruby's apartment. Could you answer a
couple of quick questions for me? Whose idea was it to have the seance? How did
the Enquirer get involved? I wonder if Mary got in touch with them.
Before moving to Cape Cod, we lived not too far from what is called the
Amityville Horror house. A local television channel held a seance in that house
as well. Thanks for any information you could give me on the Ruby apartment seance.
Bill C