Bill Cheslock

In these cynical times, I'm not so sure the U.S. ever had the goal of winning the war in Vietnam. Our goal may very well have been to slow down the growth of communism...at any cost, even if it meant fighting an unwinnable war. The eyes of history may still consider the U.S. the "winner". As far as Whiz Kid McNamara, he totally screwed up, and admits it. He crunched some numbers early on that said there would be a point at which the North Vietnamese forces would begin shrinking, but then found out he was wrong and changed his mind. The CIA also had these numbers and honestly reported them in their reports. Johnson had access to these reports. He just chose to ignore them, and ordered the Pentagon to misrepresent the numbers in their reports. This was at the heart of the lawsuit brought against CBS by William Westmoreland. Both sides were right: CBS was right in that Westmoreland's figures grossly exaggerated enemies killed and enemy strength; Westmoreland was right in that he wasn't deceivng LBJ. In McNamara's In Retrospect, a remarkable book and the basis of The Fog of War, he admits that LBJ knew Westmoreland's numbers were cooked because LBJ himself had ordered them to be cooked in order to deceive congress. (At least that's how I remember it.) In any regard, he claims that LBJ was not deceived. Westoreland, by the way, never could accept that the North Vietnamese forces were growing in direct proportion to his own and like a good hawk insisted we were just around the corner from total victory. He'd insisted the same thing when there were 100,000 men, 200,000 men etc... all the way up to the half a mil it eventually became. His refusal to accept the failure of his command and his continued insistence that we were only 200,000 soldiers away etc. is part of the reason we're having this conversation now. He came home a total failure and insisted it was the fault of dem bureaucrats in Washington who tied his hands, etc. This myth has gained popularity over the years with those who have a hard time believing the great U.S. could ever make a mistake. Guess what? We did. And McNamara's book is the proof. And your bit about Nixon and the bombing is largely untrue. It was Nixon who drove the North Vietnamese away from the tables in 68 when he got word to Thieu through Madame Chennault to cut off negotiations with the North. The North was ALWAYS willing to talk, just not to budge on their conditions. Nixon and Henry the K just felt THEY could get a better deal by putting added pressure on the North Vietnamese. They used what they called a "madman strategy," as I remember. This strategy entailed the targeting of civilians in order to force the North Vietnamese to capitulate out of fear. In some circles, this is called terrorsim and murder; we in the United States justify it all the time however, because we used this tactic to end WW2. You really need to take a gander at the Palace File, written by a former official in the South Vietnamese government. It may open your eyes and give you yet another thing to be disturbed about. As stated several times previously, the treaty signed in 73 was almost identical to the one on the table in 68. So what were the last five years about? Richard Nixon getting elected. Twice. Pat: When looking at the extension of the Vietnam War, we also have to look at the profits in dollars the war machine in the U.S. was realizing. Brown and Root, a coporation that had ties to Lyndon Johnson, made huge profits by being awarded dredging contracts along the coast. By the way, Brown and Root is now a subsidary of Halliburton. The connections to then and now are quite interesting. Bill C

John: Your article validates the fact that there was more than one bullet put into evidence; the infamous magic bullet that is in the Archives, and a mysterious bullet that Elmer Todd initialed. The question also has to be asked, "was there pre (official) autopsy surgery performed on JFK's body? Your article brings up many questions that have to be answered before we can call this, "case closed." Bill C

Stephen: I believe there are links between the JFK and RFK assassinations. For example, one Eugene Hale Brading (aka Jim Braden), a member of organized crime in the 1960's, was actually arrested in Dealey Plaza and detained by the Dallas Police. This same Brading was in Los Angeles the night RFK was assassinated. SUS officer Manuel Gutierrez interviewed Brading at his home near San Diego after the assassination in the Ambassador Hotel, and Brading claimed to be at the Century Plaza Hotel at the time of the shooting, a fifteen minute drive from the Ambassador. ("Deadly Secrets" by Warren Hinckle and William Turner, p. 276). What are the chances of this man, a member of the Mob, being at two Kennedy assassinations five years apart? I believe that RFK was going to continue his brother's policies, both domestic and foreign, had he been elected president in 1968. This was not what the power structure in the U.S. wanted. In my opinion, the powers that be got rid of a president that went against everything they stood for. Were they now going to permit his brother step in to the White House and continue with those policies that alienated them from JFK just a few years earlier? So the answer to your question is a firm yes from me.

Hi Tim: Derogatory or not, they happen to be true, and as long as one tells the truth, one can live with one's self. The true heroes in any war, whether or not that war is fought due to a pack of lies told by the country's leaders, are the soldiers who willingly go and put their lives on the line. Our fine military personnel have done this once again in Iraq, although it's quite evident that the drums of war were sounded by Bush with a "forked tongue." I find it strange that we went to Iraq to fight the demon Osama Bin Laden, the one responsible for the tragic 9/11 attacks. But at least Halliburton is making a ton of $$$. Bill

I just got home from a ride to the Kennedy Compound in Hyannisport and was reflecting on what the commentator was saying on my car radio. It was the usual rhetoric we receive at this time of year in early July; that is, 'Happy fourth," "We should be grateful for being Americans," etc. etc. How happy am I on this 2005 Fourth of July weekend? Well, we're still looking for the answers to the JFK assassination, and the answers seem to be drifting off into the sunset, and further out of reach than ever before. We have a president in office who seems to think that lying is part of the job, and it's OK to do so, as long as his agenda is satisfied. Then we have a vice president who swears that the lies of his president are in fact true, and watches his huge company, Halliburton, continue to rip off the American tax payer. Secretary Rice has an oil tanker named after her by a huge oil company (Chevron, I believe), and Secretary Rumsfeld doesn't seem to care that our troops are being put in harm's way with the inferior equipment they are given to fight a war that is based on lies in the first place. These "big four" in Washington couldn't carry JFK's attache case. And the price of gas? Well............... So if I can't say "Happy Fourth of July" this year, please forgive me. Bill

Yes Ron, I remember this episode very well. The crying part is what I remember mostly, and the part where Gates said that he just can't believe the polls show that so many Americans believe the CIA had something to do with the assassination. Bill

I am not sure if this is possible. This is not a problem that can be solved by sending in more troops. The only solution is to hand the whole thing over to the UN (if they are willing to clear up the mess that has been created). The US is currently losing on average two or three soldiers a day. In Vietnam it reached 10 a day before the government decided to pull out. Once it reaches that sort of level you will need to introduce conscription. When this process begins to hurt the middle classes, the pressure on Bush to withdraw will be impossible to resist. The other significant factor concerns the possibility of victory. The US realized it had to pull out of Vietnam after the Tet Offensive (even though technically a defeat for the NLF). The point was that the US public realized that this was a war that cannot be won. It is just a case when this enters the consciousness of the American public. People like Tim will never be convinced and is willing to continue sacrificing the lives of American soldiers. However, we have to assume that kind of political illiteracy is not common in the US. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John: I would hope that that kind of political illiteracy is not common in the U.S., although sometimes one has to wonder after the outcome of some of these national elections are finalized. However, according to a recent (June 16, 2005) CBS News poll, President Bush's approval rating is the lowest ever for a second term president. His current approval rating is at 42%. I would suspect that with the current unfortunate events taking place in Iraq, which is high on the list of priorities of those Americans who were polled, this low rating will tend to continue on a downward spiral. Bill

Mark: Johnson seemed to vascilate between a Texas inquiry and a federal one. On November 25, after a "conference with the White House," Waggoner Carr announced that a court of inquiry would be held by the State of Texas. ("Inquest" by Epstein, p. 20). Then Senator Dirksen, on November 26, proposed that the Senate Judiciary Committee conduct a full investigation into the assassination. However, on November 29, Johnson announced that a commission would be created "to avoid parallel investigations and to concentrate fact-finding in a body having the broadest national mandate." ("Inquest" p. 20) According to LBJ in "The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency, 1963-1969," he got the idea of forming the Warren Commission from Walt Rostow's brother, Eugene Victor Debs Rostow. Walt Rostow's brother would then go on to serve as Undersecretary of State for policital affairs in the Johnson Administration from 1966 to 1969. I really wonder how much influence Walt Rostow actually had in Johnson's decision to go with the WC? Bill Cheslock

John: A leader (and I use that word loosely in this case) cannot lie to the public in order to build a policy he or she wants to utilize while in power. President Bush has done exactly that over the past five years. 1) Iraq and the 9/ll tragedy connection, a Bush lie. 2) WMD in Iraq, a Bush lie. 3) Iraq purchase of uranium from Africa, a Bush lie. 4) "Mission Accomplished".........not then, not now, a Bush lie. And this list can go on, John. So why should I listen to, and believe what the man said last night? Count me out, and the old Vietnam phrase, "The credibility gap" is back in vogue. Bill Cheslock

Hi Mark Very interesting post. You say, "[Oswald] could be painted as either a patriot or a scoundrel, depending upon the needs of the hour." It is though hard for me to picture the circumstances in which Oswald might be portrayed as a hero, except perhaps if there were any evidence or any planned scenario in which he tried to stop the assassination. As it is, there seems to be no shred of evidence that he did try to stop the murder or that any such set-up was planned, quite the opposite. I do find it intriguing that the timing of individuals' movements in the Book Depository might have been such that Oswald was actually in the lunch room at the time of the assassination. Oswald's whole story as now known just seems very strange and bizarre, and seemingly at odds, in some ways, to the actual cold, hard facts of the assassination as we know them. All my best Chris <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Chris: Robert Sam Anson, who wrote "They've Killed The President," has a very appropriate paragraph about Lee Harvey Oswald. He writes: "Today, we know differently. And yet even now we can only guess: Who was Lee Harvey Oswald? Maybe the problem with understanding Oswald is that we think we know him so well. So ignore his name and then consider the facts: a man who works at a CIA base; has his records altered by the military; defects to Russia with no money; takes a plane when no planes are available; marries the niece of a high ranking Soviet official; slips across the iron curtain without leaving a trace; threatens espionage and is not arrested; lives in a community inflltrated by intelligence agents; befriends a former spy; is seen in close contact with two intelligence agents; makes travel arrangements in the company of an employee of the CIA; uses an alias; keeps an office in a building with other agents; eludes detection by surveillance devices; gets a passport when one should be denied; and is finally shot down in a room crowded with police by a former informer for the nation's chief investigative agency. Absorb these things, and then imagine that the man they happened to is named John Smith. Who do YOU think he is? ("They've Killed The President" pp 189-190) It seems that LHO indeed could say, "I led three lives." Bill Cheslock

Tim: A possible reason why JFK material is still classified is because whenever anything is declassified, it points to a conspiracy. For example the ARRB looked into the possibility of missing autopsy photographs taken on the night of November 22, 1963. According to the chief autopsy photographer, John Stringer, in his ARRB testimony, there are some views that were taken that are now missing. ( ARRB deposition of John Stringer, July 16, 1996, p. 133) However, Stringer signed an affidavit dated 11/22/63 which stated, "To my personal knowledge, this is the total amount of film exposed on this occasion." (ARRB Exhibit MD 78) Jeremy Gunn of the ARRB, who was questioning Stringer( ARRB deposition of John Stringer, July 16, 1996, pp 136-137) about this sworn affidavit had the following exchange with him: Gunn: "Do you see the phrase, next to last sentence, of the document---that I'll read to you: 'To my personal knowledge this is the total amount of film exposed on this occasion.' Do you see that?" Stringer: "Yes." Gunn: "Is it your understanding that that statement is incorrect?" Stringer: "Well, yes." Gunn: "When you signed this document, Exhibit 78, were you intending to either agree or disagree with the conclusion reached in the second to last - next to last sentence?" Stringer: "I told him that I disagreed with him, but they said, 'Sign it.'" Gunn: "And who is 'they' who said, 'Sign it.'? Stringer: "Captain Stover." Later in the interview: Stringer: "You don't object to things." Gunn: "Some people do." Stringer: "But they don't last long." (Stringer ARRB testimony, p 155) Assistant autopsy photographer, Floyd Riebe, also signed the false affidavit which was exposed by the ARRB. Here is what Riebe simply said" Riebe: "We was shown this and told to sign it and that was it." (ARRB deposition of Floyd Riebe, May 7, 1997, p. 53) (He also added that the affidavit was incorrect, p. 54 of his deposition). Now, couple this with HSCA Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey admitting that the autopsy photographs have never been authenticated ( Memorandum for File written by Doug Horne for the JFK Review Board, titled, "Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA's Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the Department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy's Autopsy, p. 4) What Blakey said in the memorandum cited above was, "Our photographic experts have determined that this camera, or at least the particular lens and shutter to it, could not have been used to take JFK's autopsy pictures." Autopsy photographers threatened into signing an affidavit they knew was false, and the Chief Counsel of the HSCA admitting that his Committee could not authenticate the autopsy photos it had in its possesssion......... no wonder they don't want to declassify anything, Tim. Bill Cheslock

Mike: Your frustration is coming through loud and strong. You mentioned the "American criminal justice system is no longer America." If we look at the system working in the opposite direction, as in how Lee Harvey Oswald was treated, we get a good idea as to how the "system" can be flexible enough to be biased in both ways. In Oswald's case, the media played both judge and jury and found him guilty in the pages of its newspapers, and on the air waves of its television and radio programs. The Warren Commission appointed Walter E. Craig, president of the American Bar Association, to represent Oswald during the Commission hearings, three months after the formation of the Commission. Not once did Craig cross examine a witness. And Craig was present to "protect" Oswald's rights for only eight testimonies before the Commission. So when you say that you "are embarrassed because of our criminal justice system," your statement could've been said during the WC hearings over forty years ago. Some things in this country do not change, Mike. In my opinion, Mike, the American system has been corrupt for many years now. When is the last time a millionaire was sent to the death chamber?? Bill Cheslock

Stan: On January 16, 1992, Robert Kennedy's press secretary, Frank Mankiewicz, appeared on "Larry King Live." This exchange between King and Mankiewicz was quite interesting" King: "Did Bobby ever express an interest in opening up the files, looking into it?" (The JFK assassination) Mankiewicz: "He indicated a couple of times--once to me and I gather once to Arthur Schlesinger and once to Richard Goodwin, at least---that he was concerned about the Warren Commission verdict; that he didn't quite believe it. He asked me to learn as much as I could. And then a week or two, as I recall, before he was killed in Los Angeles, at a political meeting, he was asked if he would open the files on the assassination of President Kennedy and he said yes---if he were elected President---and he said yes, he would." ("Larry King Live" television program, CNN, January 16, 1992) Bill Cheslock <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bill, but did Robert really think the power that murdered his brother -- and I think he had a real good idea what/who that power was -- would allow him to win the White House? It seems to me that when he announced his run for the presidency, he willingly signed his own death warrant. I wonder why. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Stan: I believe that only the Kennedy family and its tight circle of friends really know what Robert was thinking when he made a run for the White House. I think Senator Ted Kennedy knows an awful lot about both assassinations. The Kennedy family was a very powerful entity in Washington, and I find it hard to believe that the secrets of the assassinations could be kept from them. This is only speculation, but perhaps Robert felt that the powers that be had killed one Kennedy, and wouldn't kill another without bringing the wrath of the country down on them, with a demand for a complete and thorough investigation. RFK may have been counting on the powers to pull back and say, "we assassinated one kennedy, we can't get away with assassinating another." If this was Robert's thinking, and it's only speculation on my part, then he woefully underestimated his adversaries. Yet another theory I have thought of over the years has been the possible guilt that Robert carried with him after JFK's assassination. Some have written that Robert's war against organized crime brought the wrath of the Mafia down on JFK in Dallas, and Robert blamed himself for this for years after the guns of Dealey Plaza. Again, speculation brings me to theorize that perhaps Robert decided to go for broke, and make a run for the White House. I remember reading that he said the road to the truth behind his brother's murder has to go through the oval office. I wish I could remember where I read that, as I like to use references for quotes like that. I will look for the source. However, Robert may have felt that he had no choice but to go for broke, make a run for the White House, reopen his brother's assassination investigation like his press secretary said he would, and let the chips fall where they may. It may have been something similar to a death wish charge made by Robert Kennedy in 1968. Bill Cheslock

Stan: On January 16, 1992, Robert Kennedy's press secretary, Frank Mankiewicz, appeared on "Larry King Live." This exchange between King and Mankiewicz was quite interesting" King: "Did Bobby ever express an interest in opening up the files, looking into it?" (The JFK assassination) Mankiewicz: "He indicated a couple of times--once to me and I gather once to Arthur Schlesinger and once to Richard Goodwin, at least---that he was concerned about the Warren Commission verdict; that he didn't quite believe it. He asked me to learn as much as I could. And then a week or two, as I recall, before he was killed in Los Angeles, at a political meeting, he was asked if he would open the files on the assassination of President Kennedy and he said yes---if he were elected President---and he said yes, he would." ("Larry King Live" television program, CNN, January 16, 1992) Bill Cheslock

Don: I have always been of the opinion that, had JFK lived, he would've withdrawn from Vietnam like the documents now revealed reflect. In the year 2000, a book was released by David Kaiser titled, "American Tragedy." Kaiser, uses complete documentation to make his argument that JFK was not the Cold Warrior just itching for a fight with the Communists that many portray him to be. In fact, he makes the argument, using documentation from the Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations, that Eisenhower was ready to go to war in Vietnam, using nuclear weapons if need be. When Kennedy was elected, according to Kaiser, this policy changed from one of aggression that was Eisenhower's policy, to one of diplomacy, that was to be the rule under Kennedy for the three years he was President. Kaiser explains in his book that when Johnson was elevated to the presidency after the assassination, Eisenhower's policies reemerged in the military intervention in Vietnam mounted by the Johnson administration. David Kaiser gives numerous examples of how JFK used diplomacy, much to the chagrin of his senior advisors and the JCS, rather than raw military power to solve an international problem. For instance, Laos was an immediate problem inherited by the Kennedy administration. JFK asked his Chiefs and other leading officials to provide individual opinions on intervention into Laos by the next day, which was May 2, 1961. McNamara and Roswell Gilpatrick, his deputy, suggested intervention with troops. The JCS, specifically General Lemnitzer, Admiral Burke, and General Decker of the Army shared their view. Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay wanted to prepare for all-out war with China. Only Marine Corps Commandant General David Shoup opposed troop intervention. (Kaiser, pp 51-52) And what did JFK conclude? He never considered the majority recommendation of troop intervention. His policy was one of reaching a diplomatic agreement; that of a neutral government that the people of Laos could accept. This was to be the theme of his administration for the three years he was in the White House. Were the powers that be in this country unhappy with this policy of diplomacy over force? I believe they were. Bill Cheslock

Why bother writing seriously to such programs and such a channel? I think one necessary step to reality is accepting which media channels are completely bought to promote lies, and refuting the lie elsewhere. I noticed that EVERY one of the "Reviews" of this program by the "public" was cut from the same pattern: Oh-what-a-fine-program-this-is! Now-we-know-the-Warren-commission-was-right! I doubt the channel/program would accept any other type of comment. Bugliosi and this program are admirably suited for ridicule, however! Revenge is the best revenge! Stephanie <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I wanted to believe there were lone-nutters and TV producers actually concerned with the truth, who wouldn't immediately disregarrd someone's research just because they suspect a conspiracy. Iht seems I was wrong. A few months ago we had a lone nutter, Mel Layton, come to the Forum, and I begged him to read my seminar and tell me where I was wrong. Instead he disappeared. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't let the cronies get you down. I wrote Peter Jennings of ABC News after its ridiculous documentary supporting the SBT, and pointed out to him every mistake, alteration, lie, and misinterpretation of the facts that were shown. I never did hear from him. In a December 6th, 1963 edition of "Life" magazine, writer Paul Mandel wrote that JFK was hit in the throat by a bullet from the TSBD, even though the limousine was fifty yards past the sixth floor window because an 8mm film clearly shows JFK turned around and waving back at someone. This maneuver exposed his throat back to the TSBD, thus, his throat was exposed to a bullet shot from the sixth floor. Unfortunately for "Life" and Mandel, absolutely NO films show JFK doing such a thing. This is the kind of nonsense from the mainstream media we have to endure. Oh, who was the Editor-In-Chief of "Life" at the time? None other than Henry R. Luce, who was known to alter cables to reflect his own political views. Bill Cheslock

Bernice: An excellent post, to say the least. As much information as you provide, two events jump out at me, one I knew about one and questioned for years, and one you just infomred me about. The first I knew about, and that's the secret code book that was suppose to be in the plane that was flying the cabinet members to Japan. I've read that the responsibility of maintaining that code book in the cabinet's plane was given to the CIA. I don't believe in coincidences with this assassination. In my opinion, someone took that code book deliberatley out so that the cabinet could not communicate with the White House situation room in code, and was thus taken out of the sensitive security loop. From what I have studied about this code book missing, no investigation was ever performed by any government agency to determine why the code book was missing from the cabinet plane. The other fact you bring up is new to me. I didn't realize that U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, was making phone calls at a pay phone with quarters in his hand; something below an Ambassador of his stature. This suggests something very clandestine, as he had access to telephones all over military installations in Hawaii. The fact that it was reported by the Honolulu Star Bulletin adds credence to the event. This is not unlike David Ferrie making phone calls at a pay phone at the ice skating rink in Houston on the day of the assassination. Both Lodge's and Ferrie's actions at the pay phones are very suspicious, to say the least. Bill Cheslock

Just saw the last segment and it made me sick. They lined up a couple of torsos and tried to replicate the wounds by firing a Mannlicher Carcano from a sixty foot tower. Although the wounds DID NOT line up (the bullet passed below the first torso's clavicle and out of the chest instead of out of the throat, hit the second torso four inches below the armpit, and failed to penetrate its thigh) and the bullet was bent into a "c" shape, they explained it all away by saying the bullet hit two ribs instead of one on the second torso and so therefore the single bullet theory was supported by their experiment. This is utter nonsense. I SCREAMED when I heard their conclusion. I nearly broke something. Obviously, they were too chicken-xxxx to say their test did not support the "magic bullet;" I'm wondering what executive made this decision. If the whole thing was a fraud they would have just faked their results. To make matters worse, they allowed Vincent Bugliosi, who was also featured on a recent episode of Penn and Teller's TV show Bullxxxx! dismissing conspiracy theories, to have the last word, warning people that an obsession with the assassination can be "toxic" Clearly Vince is getting ready for his book release this fall. This whole turn of events really makes me angry. I wrote "Unsolved History" a letter last year offering to help them create a similar program, but one with some credibility, and received no response. Instead they feed us this crap. Well, at least they showed us the tests and that is on the record. I believe I'll be using their test in my upcoming presentation on the medical evidence. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The WC apologists have to use cartoons like Myers provides in order to feed this nonsense to the public. The SBT was nothing more than a political solution hatched in Washington by politicians to cover-up a huge medical problem they had that could not be explained logically. Even some of the WC members didn't buy Specter's theory (Russell, Boggs, Cooper, and later McCloy), and Ford had to illegally tamper with evidence in a murder case by moving JFK's back wound six inches up to his neck to facilitate the ridiculous single bullet scenario. William Law's latest book, "In The Eye Of History," is filled with interviews of autopsy personnel who were in the morgue the night of JFK's autopsy, and not one of them support Specter's fantasy. I'll listen to the people who were there before the politicians who had a preconceived conclusion to work around. Bill Cheslock

I agree. I should have made that clearer. I was not suggesting that Gerry Hemming as leader of Interpen helped to arrange this. (Although I suspect he now knows who was involved in this operation). What I was trying to say that the people who were recruited were either members of Interpen or had worked with the organization against Castro. I agree about his competence but believe he had the imagination to develop such a plan. However, he was clearly subordinate to Morales. After studying Hunt for some time I have concluded that he overcomplicated things. He also did not know as much as he thought he knew. For example, one of the reasons I don’t believe any senior figures in the CIA were involved in the original conspiracy is that they would not have gone along with the “Castro did it” plan. Like LBJ, they would have known that JFK was involved in secret negotiations with Castro. They knew that he did not have a motive. In time I think it is well worth starting up a thread on Hunt. However, in the meantime I would like to discuss him in relation to this particular theory. After all, he is still alive. He is also someone who has shown that he cares what his children think of him (that was the reason he gave for the libel action against Spotlight). Maybe he will like Gerry join us in this discussion. It will be interesting to know if he believes in the “lone gunman” theory. I think we have to separate the plots against Castro from the assassination of JFK. I do not think these two events are related. Although those involved in the cover-up tried to do this. There were several reasons for leaking information about the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro. One was to suggest a motive. For example, Castro seeking revenge (a theory much loved by Tim Gratz). This of course was completely undermined when it was revealed that JFK was having secret talks with Castro. JFK might have initially been in favour of having Castro assassinated, but clearly he did not hold this view in 1963. The other main reason was to bring the Mafia into the frame. As I said earlier, the “Mob did it” theory became Plan B during the Garrison investigation. In reality, this is all part of the cover-up that attempts to confuse those who have not accepted the conclusions of the Warren Report. It is no doubt true that JFK presented himself as more of a Cold War warrior than Nixon in 1960. He even got his CIA friends to help him with this and severely embarrassed Nixon over Cuba during the presidential campaign. As Victor Marchetti has argued, JFK was the CIA candidate in the election. Suite 8F Group had no problems with JFK. He showed his goodwill to them by appointing Fred Korth as his Navy Secretary (a vitally important post to the Suite 8F Group). Nor did JFK attempt to deal with 8F’s main source of power (the chairmanships of the key Congressional committees). My main point is that JFK changed policy as a result of the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is not surprising as the Cold War came very close to destroying the world. The problem for JFK was that he could not tell the American public this. He knew that he would be defeated in 1964 if he revealed his true thoughts about the Cold War. Therefore his speech in Dallas makes perfect sense. However, as he told his close aides, get me elected and I will pull out of Vietnam. I believe JFK’s second term would have been very different from the first one. The conspirators knew that and that is why he had to die. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John: It 's interesting that, as you wrote above, JFK told his close aides, get me elected and I will pull out of Vietnam. On the other extreme, we have Lyndon Johnson, after the assassination and securely in the Oval Office, telling the JCS, "get me elected and you can have your war (Vietnam)." (Source: "Vietnam: A History" by Stanley Karnow, p. 342) Kennedy's NSAM 263 and Johnson's NSAM 273 seem to validate what each President said. But that's for another post. Let's stay on topic with your excellent discussion. Bill Cheslock

John: The fact that Oswald (real or impostor) had the opportunity to roam areas unknown after the Tippit murder brings your thoughts to light. I think it was a matter of about 35 minutes that the alleged killer at the Tippit scene took to travel a mere eight blocks to the theater. Where was he hanging out for all that time, especially if he had the ability to travel from his rooming house to the Tippit murder scene, almost a mile, in about eight minutes? Your sentence, "Oswald was therefore supposed to get to the Texas Theater..." makes alot of sense. If he was to be killed in the theater, there was ample opportunity for the Dallas police to do so. "Oswald" was alleged to have drawn his pistol as he was rushed by officers, and Officer MacDonald already had his gun drawn. Just the fact that "Oswald" drew his gun should've been enough motivation for any oficer to shoot him. The fact that he wasn't shot begs the question, did he really reach for and draw his pistol on the officers? In my opinion, I don't believe the Dallas police would've held the restraint needed if they saw a pistol being drawn on them. Bill Cheslock

This possibility of Oswald either planning to leave the U.S. after the assassination, or his handlers permitting him to believe this would be the case is discussed in Mark North's book, "Act Of Treason." North writes; "Wayne January.....ran a plane rental business at Red Bird Airport (near Dallas).... two days before the assassination he was approached by two men and a woman, who inquired about renting an aircraft on Friday, November 22, to go to Mexico. He did not like the look of them and did not rent them a plane. After the assassination, when he saw Oswald on television, he thought he strongly resembled one of the men who had been at the airport. He gave this information to the FBI. Could this be the real Oswald, being duped into thinking that as a result of his cooperation in the coming protest he will be given passage to Cuba or Mexico? Or is it the contract people simply arranging for the look-alike exit?" (p. 369) I tend to believe this was an impostor Oswald setting up the patsy with yet another siting which could be argued as the would be assassin planning his escape after the assassination. My reason for believing this and not the real Oswald being at Red Bird is the thought that, would Oswald actually leave his wife and children in return for taking part in a protest in Dealey Plaza? It doesn't make sense to me. Bill Cheslock

Charlie: Alot of thought has been put into your post and it is appreciated. You've managed to narrow down the number of suspects from your original number of sixteen to a mere nine. It is indeed difficult to eliminate any number of suspects isn't it? Your claim that he was in over his head has been solidly brought up before, and I think it's a valid argument. The fact that he was being "sheep dipped" in New Orleans, that an impostor was working his name in Mexico City, and he was in two places at once in Dallas prior to the assassination leads me to believe that this man was indeed being set up for the patsy that he said he was. I'm still not convinced that Oswald killed Officer Tippit. There are too many loose ends here to convict a man on. The timing factor between his rooming house and the murder scene is, in my opinion, too short a time for Oswald to arrive at the scene of the murder. If he left his rooming house at 1:03, and Tippit, from accounts was murdered as early as 1:10, I don't know how he could've arrived on the scene in seven minutes, traveling almost a mile on foot. Yet, we are told that it took him about 35 minutes to travel a mere 8 blocks from the Tippit scene to the Texas Theater. Where was he for all that time? One more thing, Charlie. The jacket that was found and was alleged to be Oswald's that he discarded after the Tippit killing was found by a phantom Dallas police officer. It was turned in as evidence found near a gas station, but the officer who found it cannot be identified to this day. Tainted evidence? Perhaps. However, witnesses who saw the alleged murderer run from the scene could not identify that jacket as the one that was worn by him. A conspiracy to set up Oswald as the "patsy?" It seems that way. Bill Chelsock

Ray, I just checked and you are 100% correct--it was Tom Howard, Ruby's lawyer. All that substance abuse much be catching up with me. It appears I've done Mr. Wade a disservice. Thanks for the correction. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mark: After what Henry Wade did to Oswald's rights over the weekend of the assassination, I don't think you did him any disservice. It was Wade who made the presumptious remark that Oswald is the killer of the President beyond a reasonable doubt. However, Oswald was dead at the time Wade uttered these words, and there was going to be no trial. So what was the problem Wade thought? His words only infuriated and built a bias by the American people and the world against the alleged assassin; a man who said he was a "patsy." I don't believe you owe DA Wade any apologies, Mark. Bill Cheslock

Dixie: Cokie isn't about to swim against the official version of the JFK assassination. As you probably know, she is a television political analyst for ABC News. I strongly doubt she would be seen on ABC News again if she publicly questioned the official findings of the Warren Commission. Just my opinion, though. According to Harrison Livingstone in his book, "High Treason," Lindy Boggs helped the HSCA to continue with its investigation during the debate on the Floor by saying that her husband would have wanted it to go on. (p.320) Her husband Hale Boggs had major problems with the credibility of the single bullet theory. Bill Cheslock

Sinister isn't the word, Dawn. For those members of the forum who haven't read H.R. Haldeman's book, "The Ends Of Power," I recommend it highly. It gives a powerful insight into the Nixon White House, and Haldeman also writes about a code that Nixon used when he wanted to talk about the Kennedy assassination. Haldeman writes how he was ordered by Nixon to go and speak to CIA Director Richard Helms for his help when the Watergate crisis broke out. Nixon told Haldeman that if Helms becomes uncooperative, just mention that "this entire affair might be connected to the Bay of Pigs, and if it opens up, the Bay of Pigs may be blown." Haldeman relates to the reader that Helms went wild after hearing this. He ranted on about how the Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. But, amazingly, Helms agreed to speak to FBI Director L. Patrick Gray about stopping the Watergate investigation. Nixon got what he wanted from the CIA. However, Haldeman was intrigued. What was the connection between the CIA and the Bay of Pigs that Nixon seemed to hold over Helms? Haldeman writes, "It seems that in all those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs. he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination." (Above source comes from pages 38-39 of Haldeman's book) If what Haldeman writes is true, and Nixon used the code "Bay of Pigs" to refer to the Kennedy assassination to communicate with Helms, I find Helms' reaction most interesting. We have to ask what made Helms go wild and start to scream at Haldeman at hearing the words "Bay of Pigs?" And like a quiet lamb, Helms agreed almost immediately to go to the FBI and tried to persuade Gray to stop the Watergate investigation. Both Nixon and Helms knew something about the Kennedy assassination that was explosive, to say the least. Bill Cheslock