Mark Stapleton

A few points.

Firstly, you've misread my reply to Lee. I'm referring to Piper's book being banned, not books on the Liberty being banned. Do you deny the US Government has tried to silence Piper?

Secondly, being anti-Israel is not my intention. In pointing out, quite correctly, that Israel gained from the assassination, and that Mossad has form in regard to subversive activities and has been supported in these endevours by the Israeli leadership, I'm making a case for Israel's complicity in the assassination. According to you, being explicitly anti-Israel won't fly with most Americans. I don't see how you can speak for most Americans, but my intention is to highlight the truth about America's policy towards Israel and the Middle East generally. If this makes me explicitly anti-Israel, I'll have to live with such a label but I don't agree with it.

If you want to start a thread about whether or not US policy has favored Israel or the PLO, then I'll be happy to participate in that debate. However, you know that such an issue is not the subject of this thread. I'm eager to see how you can justify the argument that US policy has favored the PLO over Israel. It will take more than simply cherry-picking dubious articles sympathetic to such an absurd claim--you might have to place the argument into some kind historical context. I'd like to see that. BTW, how many times has the PLO leadership been invited to Washington for discussions?

I don't need to list lots of sites which agree with my views in order to justify my arguments. They'll go nowhere if not backed by common sense. I'm happy to debate you on these issues tangential to the main issue (ie. Israel's involvement in the assassination). Just start the thread. I'm keen to see how far out on a limb you will go.

Final Judgment’s case in this regard is principally built on the key significance of Meyer Lansky as the real power player in American organized crime in the 1950s and 1960s, the superior of Giancana, Roselli, Marcello, Mickey Cohen, Mickey Weiner, Moe Dalitz, Frank Costello, and others previously mentioned as participants in the Kennedy conspiracy. quote]

Which is completely untrue. Lansky was subservient to the Genovese family. He was not the boss of Trafficante, and had a close confidant, Jimy Alo, look over Lansky's interests FOR the Genovese family.

THis comes from wiseguys' mouths not mine.

Also he did not die rich, nor did he die powerful. HIs 'power' in the underworld was being eclipsed by the 1960's.

BTW- another good book on Jewish gangsters is Rich Cohen's TOUGH JEWS- a great account of the Lower East side guys like Kid Twist Reles.

Scott,

Are you saying Lansky died poor? Didn't he offer the Israeli Government ten million bucks to allow him to emigrate in the 70's?

Lansky subservient to Genovese? Laughable. Genovese spent the last decade of his life in jail. Some believe Lansky helped put him there.

Politics of Heroin - I guess we could ask McCloy - he has Lansky being first to Havana. Trafficante 'assumed responsibility' for Lansky's interests in Havana and Miami.

I have never seen anything about Lansky being subservient to the Genovese family - would you mind sharing a reference?

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/mafia/luciano.html

Can't copy and paste from this site. Worth reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Anastasia

However, Genovese dared not move against Anastasia and his real target, Costello, because of Meyer Lansky, one of the highest ranking and most powerful members of the National Crime Syndicate. Lansky and Genovese were long-standing enemies, with disputes dating from the 1920s, and Genovese could not make a move for power without Lansky's support.

Anyone know the names of the Israeli journalists Ruby allegedly met with? Was Ruby a Zionist? If Ruby is really a hardcore Zionist, and I see no reason to believe otherwise, it would make a great deal of logical sense to me.

- lee

I think it's a safe bet he was fiercely Zionist. Cohen was and Jack looked up to him. To me it's obvious.

Good question re the journalists, Lee. It's a very hard topic to nail. Were they (if the story is true) "journalists". I wonder.

On the Genovese thing, I've always been under the impression that the 'big four'--Luciano, Lansky, Costello and Seigel--started out together. Two Italians and two Jews. I'm willing to be corrected but I've not read anything contradicting this. Luciano became leader of the New York mafia but didn't interefere in non competing jurisdictions, enhancing his underworld popularity. Genovese was Luciano's 2ic and from the beginning was disliked by the other three and Luciano himself, according to his bio. I can't see how the other three would accept Genovese as the boss once Luciano went to prison. It's daft.

Hi Mark - they could in a rewrite of history from an Italian perspective.

Thought the same thing on the journalists - with the assumption that 'journalists' were used as a cover frequently.

On the Liberty - As with anything else, more than likely there is more to the story. I would recommend studying the damage done to the ship before drawing any conclusions. If there are any photos of the before and the after, I'd like to see them.

- lee

Hi Lee,

I agree on all counts.

Of course Jewish mobsters, especially Lansky, had immense influence. They were also politically active on the issue of Israel, as your quote from Mickey Cohen's own bio illustrates. Those attempting to shield the likes of Lansky--and by extension, Israel--from suspicion in regard to the assassination always seem to employ the tactic of citing the Italian mafia as being solely responsible for wielding underworld power and influence. The fact that Arnold Rothstein was able to fix the World Series way back in 1919 disproves it from the start.

Re the Liberty, you offer sound advice. The trail of events can be tailored to suit the reader, depending on which sites or books you want to read. Getting bogged down in an arduous debate about the Liberty will only sidetrack the thread.

In addition to Israel's motive and the emerging suspicion of their possible role, one thing that leads me to suspect Israel is the point raised by Mark Wilson in his initial post. Namely, it was the Government and the media which sponsored the coverup and has attempted to justify the WC's absurd conclusions for so many years. Therefore, when the Government and the media, as the main sponsors of the coverup, attempt to discredit and destroy certain alternative theories--even to the extent of banning books--my suspicious nature tells me these theories must be too close for comfort for those who wish the issue would go away.

i tend to agree with Piper's general theory on the landscape of how Israel has progressed militarily and in the United States policies since 1963.Bottom line,they call the shots...look no further than the United States waging and threatening war today on Israel's worst blood enemies....the whole 9 yards from the USS Liberty to Jack Abramoff and everything in between.

More anti-Israeli nonsense. Israel as a state can certainly be subjected to criticism, but much of it is ridiculous and borderline, yes, "anti-Semitic." I really fail to see how the attack on the USS Liberty can be seen as anything other than a case of mistaken identity. First of all, I have never seen any plausible motive whatsoever put forward for why Israel would deliberately attack the ship. Second, Israel did not sink the Liberty. These two factors pretty much "sink" the theory. Its just another smear to paint the Jewish nation as totally malevolent and evil.

This little piece by Dr. Dore Gold (former Israeli ambassador to the U.N.) shows that the U.S.'s recent Iraqi adventure has not been at Israel's behest, nor is it even necessarily in Israel's best interest.

Also, this lengthy analysis by Dr. Francisco Gil-White shows that U.S. foreign policy has been pro-PLO, not pro-Israeli. How interesting that the United States should get the PLO out of Lebanon on the brink of their destruction by Israel, or that the PLO provided security for U.S. diplomats in the same conflict. This is just one example among many. In addition, another long series of articles by the same author details the attacks on Israel in the media by "former" CIA officials Raymond McGovern and Vincent Cannistraro, including linking Israel to 9-11 (for which there is still no evidence that hasn't been "cooked," so to speak).

You sure know where to find articles to support your ideas. The one by Dr. Gil-White is the most intriguing, IMO. For all these years it appeared to me that America's words and actions indicated they were strong allies, even protectors of Israel. Blow me down, now I find out that the US foreign policy has been pro-PLO all along!

Of course, it's hard to suspend disbelief for too long. It gives me a headache.

Len,

I originally wrote: "And although much of his research is not flattering to certain Israeli interests, I do not find him anti-Semitic......"

My statement would have been more accurate had I said, "I do not find his research and writing (As appearing in Final Judgement and The High Priests of War) to be anti-Semitic....."

I know little of Mr. Piper's affiliations, or other writings. Nor did I refer to them in my post.

My comments were based upon a reading of the two aforementioned books and intended to reflect my interpretation of the merits of documentation and research in same books.

I also wrote: "I observed the intense passions and controversies sparked during Mr. Piper's brief participation on this forum. I have no desire to be a part of that." I still don't.

Perhaps you know much more about Piper than I do, but your quickness to label me as anti-Semitic speaks volumes about you.

Mike Hogan

Touche.

Astute post, Robert. It's the leader who is popular, can influence the people and rejects the temptation to grant largesse to the wealthy who is most at risk. Threatening the status quo is a much bigger crime than war-mongering, lying or electoral fraud.

It should be remembered that Bush and his cohorts in Government are just shills for the impossibly greedy power elite which supports and directs them.

Final Judgment’s case in this regard is principally built on the key significance of Meyer Lansky as the real power player in American organized crime in the 1950s and 1960s, the superior of Giancana, Roselli, Marcello, Mickey Cohen, Mickey Weiner, Moe Dalitz, Frank Costello, and others previously mentioned as participants in the Kennedy conspiracy. quote]

Which is completely untrue. Lansky was subservient to the Genovese family. He was not the boss of Trafficante, and had a close confidant, Jimy Alo, look over Lansky's interests FOR the Genovese family.

THis comes from wiseguys' mouths not mine.

Also he did not die rich, nor did he die powerful. HIs 'power' in the underworld was being eclipsed by the 1960's.

BTW- another good book on Jewish gangsters is Rich Cohen's TOUGH JEWS- a great account of the Lower East side guys like Kid Twist Reles.

Scott,

Are you saying Lansky died poor? Didn't he offer the Israeli Government ten million bucks to allow him to emigrate in the 70's?

Lansky subservient to Genovese? Laughable. Genovese spent the last decade of his life in jail. Some believe Lansky helped put him there.

Politics of Heroin - I guess we could ask McCloy - he has Lansky being first to Havana. Trafficante 'assumed responsibility' for Lansky's interests in Havana and Miami.

I have never seen anything about Lansky being subservient to the Genovese family - would you mind sharing a reference?

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/mafia/luciano.html

Can't copy and paste from this site. Worth reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Anastasia

However, Genovese dared not move against Anastasia and his real target, Costello, because of Meyer Lansky, one of the highest ranking and most powerful members of the National Crime Syndicate. Lansky and Genovese were long-standing enemies, with disputes dating from the 1920s, and Genovese could not make a move for power without Lansky's support.

Anyone know the names of the Israeli journalists Ruby allegedly met with? Was Ruby a Zionist? If Ruby is really a hardcore Zionist, and I see no reason to believe otherwise, it would make a great deal of logical sense to me.

- lee

I think it's a safe bet he was fiercely Zionist. Cohen was and Jack looked up to him. To me it's obvious.

Good question re the journalists, Lee. It's a very hard topic to nail. Were they (if the story is true) "journalists". I wonder.

On the Genovese thing, I've always been under the impression that the 'big four'--Luciano, Lansky, Costello and Seigel--started out together. Two Italians and two Jews. I'm willing to be corrected but I've not read anything contradicting this. Luciano became leader of the New York mafia but didn't interefere in non competing jurisdictions, enhancing his underworld popularity. Genovese was Luciano's 2ic and from the beginning was disliked by the other three and Luciano himself, according to his bio. I can't see how the other three would accept Genovese as the boss once Luciano went to prison. It's daft.

Luciano ran only one of the five NY families. When Luciano was deported, Costello took over. After he was shot by Vincent GIgante, Costello retired and Genovese assumed control of the what is now called the Genovese family. You're right in that Costello and Lanksy hated Genovese, as did Carlo Gambino. Gambino had the most to gain from Genovese goign to prison and reportedly teamed with Lansky and COstello to pin those drug charges on Genovese.

I just re-read some of my posts and I don't think I'm conveying what I'm tryign to say. In a nutshell, Lansky had a low of power, but he was no overlord of the entire Mafia. Did he have more pull than say an Athony Giordano (St. Louis boss) or John LaRocca (Pittsburgh boss)? Yes, but he was not omniscent by any means.

Yes, but Scott, you stated that Lansky was "subservient to the Genovese family". That's ridiculous.

Lansky has stacks of money, power and connections. Just because he didn't covet fame and notoriety doesn't change that fact.

Final Judgment’s case in this regard is principally built on the key significance of Meyer Lansky as the real power player in American organized crime in the 1950s and 1960s, the superior of Giancana, Roselli, Marcello, Mickey Cohen, Mickey Weiner, Moe Dalitz, Frank Costello, and others previously mentioned as participants in the Kennedy conspiracy. quote]

Which is completely untrue. Lansky was subservient to the Genovese family. He was not the boss of Trafficante, and had a close confidant, Jimy Alo, look over Lansky's interests FOR the Genovese family.

THis comes from wiseguys' mouths not mine.

Also he did not die rich, nor did he die powerful. HIs 'power' in the underworld was being eclipsed by the 1960's.

BTW- another good book on Jewish gangsters is Rich Cohen's TOUGH JEWS- a great account of the Lower East side guys like Kid Twist Reles.

Scott,

Are you saying Lansky died poor? Didn't he offer the Israeli Government ten million bucks to allow him to emigrate in the 70's?

Lansky subservient to Genovese? Laughable. Genovese spent the last decade of his life in jail. Some believe Lansky helped put him there.

Politics of Heroin - I guess we could ask McCloy - he has Lansky being first to Havana. Trafficante 'assumed responsibility' for Lansky's interests in Havana and Miami.

I have never seen anything about Lansky being subservient to the Genovese family - would you mind sharing a reference?

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/mafia/luciano.html

Can't copy and paste from this site. Worth reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Anastasia

However, Genovese dared not move against Anastasia and his real target, Costello, because of Meyer Lansky, one of the highest ranking and most powerful members of the National Crime Syndicate. Lansky and Genovese were long-standing enemies, with disputes dating from the 1920s, and Genovese could not make a move for power without Lansky's support.

Anyone know the names of the Israeli journalists Ruby allegedly met with? Was Ruby a Zionist? If Ruby is really a hardcore Zionist, and I see no reason to believe otherwise, it would make a great deal of logical sense to me.

- lee

I think it's a safe bet he was fiercely Zionist. Cohen was and Jack looked up to him. To me it's obvious.

Good question re the journalists, Lee. It's a very hard topic to nail. Were they (if the story is true) "journalists". I wonder.

On the Genovese thing, I've always been under the impression that the 'big four'--Luciano, Lansky, Costello and Seigel--started out together. Two Italians and two Jews. I'm willing to be corrected but I've not read anything contradicting this. Luciano became leader of the New York mafia but didn't interefere in non competing jurisdictions, enhancing his underworld popularity. Genovese was Luciano's 2ic and from the beginning was disliked by the other three and Luciano himself, according to his bio. I can't see how the other three would accept Genovese as the boss once Luciano went to prison. It's daft.

I'm not familiar with all the details of the attack. I do recall reading that U.S. jet fighters were on their way to defend the ship, and LBJ ordered them to turn around and come back. If that's true, I guess LBJ figured that Israel, like Castro, is nobody to mess with.

I've never seen this particular allegation anywhere before. It sounds like another in the long line of myths which permeate anti-Israel propaganda. If someone can provide me with a citation or link, I'll look into it.

Try this one:

http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

There's no way it was mistaken identity. Survivors of the Liberty claim there's no way the ship could have been mistaken for an Egyptian fishing boat. Many sites show a comparison between the two--to mistake one for the other is not something the IDF would do. Also, the US flag was flying full mast, for heaven's sake. Why don't you tell the survivors and their families that it was a simple case of mistaken identity. You can reach them online at the above site. The LBJ story has been told before on the Forum and I believe it to be true.

No myths, just facts.

Final Judgment’s case in this regard is principally built on the key significance of Meyer Lansky as the real power player in American organized crime in the 1950s and 1960s, the superior of Giancana, Roselli, Marcello, Mickey Cohen, Mickey Weiner, Moe Dalitz, Frank Costello, and others previously mentioned as participants in the Kennedy conspiracy. quote]

Which is completely untrue. Lansky was subservient to the Genovese family. He was not the boss of Trafficante, and had a close confidant, Jimy Alo, look over Lansky's interests FOR the Genovese family.

THis comes from wiseguys' mouths not mine.

Also he did not die rich, nor did he die powerful. HIs 'power' in the underworld was being eclipsed by the 1960's.

BTW- another good book on Jewish gangsters is Rich Cohen's TOUGH JEWS- a great account of the Lower East side guys like Kid Twist Reles.

Scott,

Are you saying Lansky died poor? Didn't he offer the Israeli Government ten million bucks to allow him to emigrate in the 70's?

Lansky subservient to Genovese? Laughable. Genovese spent the last decade of his life in jail. Some believe Lansky helped put him there.

have you read it yet?

I haven't had time to read Piper's book yet. I haven't even finished Harvey and Lee.

The time line is another clincher, IMO. It's just too good to be true.

But the time line is another clincher, and too good to be true, in the case of LBJ too. Indeed LBJ was under a much tighter time constraint in terms of his political future and personal freedom than Israel was with its nuclear program. And it can be said that direct evidence exists against LBJ in the form of a Mac Wallace fingerprint, according to one fingerprint expert (Darby) and perhaps more (FBI experts who aren't talking).

Now LBJ, whether or not he used Wallace, didn't need the Mossad. OTOH I suppose letting the Mossad do it would be a good idea, since it would certainly give LBJ, CIA etc. plausible deniability. But it's not really that simple. Piper, according to what I read here, says that the Mossad worked through Permindex. The Torbitt document also puts Permindex at the center of things, but then so many people are involved under this umbrella, or in relation to it, that it eventually includes almost every suspect you can name, including LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover. It puts the Mossad behind the most massive conspiracy you can imagine. So I really don't know what to say, other than to continue wondering what those CIA agents were doing at Main and Houston.

Ron,

Who's to say the timelines of Israel and LBJ don't complement each other by design? Both were under pressure to change the US leadership. Mutual benefit exists here.

LBJ was the architect of America's foreign policy swing. All the stats regarding huge increases in military aid to Israel have been posted here before by Lee, myself and others. LBJ steadfastly lobbied against US sanctions during Israel's extended occupation during the Suez crisis. Israel knows a loyal ally when it sees one. Incidentally, there's a photograph in Piper's book of a monument in Israel dedicated "in memory of a dear friend, James J. Angleton 1917-1987". The author claims it has never before been published. It makes one wonder where Angleton's and LBJ's loyalties really lay.

Thanks guys for supplying some of the dots.

i'd like to qualify my original post... in late 1963 it was clear that a plot against JFK was in the works,the exposed Chicago and Miami assassination plans having been thwarted in the weeks before Dallas...looking back it's easy for us to say now,how in the hell could they let JFK ride in an open car under those conditions in the proximity of the Miami and Chicago plots? i think people in the know in 1963 would have asked the same key questions then as we can so easily answer now...threats all over the place,JFK needed extra security,not less......and this is where the unknown administrators come into play to coordinate the various players needed....at the very least,i would put the Mossad in a front row seat watching this all unfold and then using the first hand knowledge of the crime to bride and blackmail the relevant power figures in the investigation/cover up as well as future agendas when need be.......at the very most i would put the Mossad as chief co conspirator with the MIC in which they coordinated the various aspects and players as to leave the trail pointed in various directions excluding Israel and the MIC,such as the Mafia,CIA,big Oil,Castro,the Birch society, or Oswald...The Mossad has a ruthless reputation for getting the job done,it's my hunch that 11/22/63 has something to do with it....if it's true, they lay claim to killing the most powerful leader in the world,having wash investigations that point everywhere but to them,dominating the america media(see below) so any relevant evidence is totally ignored,and money / resources in hollywood to put false theories out regularly....who makes movies,who financed Stone's JFK? how about the movie Nixon?, what a bumbling, drunken, anti semite fool it made him out to be with again the insinuation being that Nixon had some knowledge or involvement via Hunt,Sturgis in the JFK assassination.

on a semi related note....today on Chris Matthew's Hardball,they discussed the Nixon tapes where Nixon and the reverand Billy Graham had a conservation where Nixon said the Jews dominated the media and Graham said the stranglehold must be broken or the country would go down the drain,a comment he later apologized for....These tapes were more than 30 years ago and less than 10 years from when JFK was killed.

Well I see it didn't take long for a plausible theory to denigrate into the usual "Jews control everything" diatribe.

And it didn't take long for the predictable "don't blame Israel for anything" apologists to spring out of the woodwork.

In case you're unaware, Scott, there's many people who believe the US media is run by those whose loyalty to Israel prevents them from objectivity in the analysis of Middle Eastern affairs. Myself included. How many stories on Fox or NBC are sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians? Do you think the Palestinians have been oppressed and dispossessed or is it just "poor leadership", as the Israeli lobby contemptuously suggests? Will the History channel be presenting an (objective) doco on the USS Liberty, an unresolved historical issue if ever there was one?

Incredibly, the US is seriously considering a strike on Iran, citing the possibility of an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel as one of the main reasons. Does this mean the US will pre-emptively strike any country who attempts to obtain a nuclear capability in proximity to one of its allies? If Indonesia, at times hostile to Australia, announces it intends to produce a nuclear capability for security reasons, as Israel did in the 50's and 60's, will America pre-emptively strike Indonesia? After all, Australia is a close ally of the US.

If you seroiusly believe that US Middle Eastern policy isn't run by the Israeli lobby, and zealously supported through the US media, then you don't know what you're talking about. And the overriding influence of that lobby on US foreign policy dates back to (surprise, surprise), 1963.

I don't see Mark Wilson's post as a "diatribe" at all. It's a very informative post, actually.

So not to divert the 'Michel Mertz' thread, I thought the exploration of whether or not Lee Oswald was in Montreal in the summer of 1963 might be worthwhile.

An FBI file was generated regarding this as were several photographs showing members of the Committee for Non Violent Action. This image below is one of them. It should be noted that over the many years this question has been raised, the FBI have thwarted efforts to get the document and photographs released, or to release the names of those involved. Photocopies of the photographs and the document now appear on the BLOG mentioned in the 'Michel Mertz' thread.

The CNVA did have an archive of photographs of this and other events they were associated with which were stored in a barn in rural Connecticut. The barn was burned down by Minutemen in 1967 destroying everything.

It is my opinion that the 'Oswald in Montreal' episode was an infiltration operation and designed to help paint the picture of Oswald as a pro-Cuba supporter. I also do not think the Oswald in Montreal was the Oswald that was shot by Jack Ruby. I have no idea why this piece of the puzzle was not introduced into the final structure of the Oswald frame.

The people in the photograph below include some interesting folk. On the left we have Bruce Henderson, Erica Enzer, (FNU) Seeling, Brad Lyttle, Fred Moore, unknown, unknown, unknown, Dennis Jamieson and Russell McLarry.

McLarry was arrested in Dallas just after the assassination for making threats against the President. He was eventually no billed but his presence in Canada has not been fully explained.

I also believe it was Erica Enza and McLarry who befriended the Oswald impersonator who quite possibly was Fred Moore. After the CNVA Ottawa-Washington-Guantanamo march, he moved to the Polaris Action Farm in Connecticut and married Suzi Williams. They had a baby, split and Moore moved to San Francisco. He married again and in 1997 while driving with his new family, was killed in a car crash.

It is also interesting to note that in October of 1961, thirty marchers including thirteen Americans walked into Moscow. This was a peace march that began in San Francisco. Two of the organizers were CNVA members Brad Lyttle and Scott Herrick. This was a very active group back in the early 1960's.

FWIW.

James

James, your knowledge of minutia surrounding these matters boggles the mind. Great stuff.

Bernice, thanks for the info and links.

While it can certainly be argued that the Mossad had means, motive, and opportunity, there is no evidence of which I'm aware that puts any Mossad operative in Dallas on 11/22/63.

There is evidence of CIA presence in Dealey Plaza, in the form of photographic spitting images of Robertson, Conein, and Hunt. There is likewise Latino presence in DP including the spitting image of a No Name Key trainee. There is evidence of organized crime presence in DP in the arrested personage of Jim Braden, and the accused assassin was conspicuously murdered by a Mob flunky. (Meyer Lansky was Jewish, but even if he was involved in the plot, what evidence is there that he was involved on behalf of the Mossad instead of on behalf of his RFK-hounded Mob associates?) There is military presence in DP with intelligence officers Powell and Whitmeyer, and with a suspicious man IDed by Prouty as Lansdale but who looks more like Maxwell Taylor.

Now maybe there was also a Mossad presence, but lacking any idea of what any Mossad agents looked like, there is no way to know, hence there is no known evidence.

Jack Ruby was Jewish, but that hardly ties him to the Mossad. Rabin was in Dallas only hours before the assassination, on the last leg of a U.S. tour. I wonder if that might have given Taylor an excuse to stop in Dallas, to visit with his Israeli counterpart, on his way home from the Honolulu Conference. But there is no way to prove that Taylor was not at the Pentagon that day as he claimed.

We do know that the Mossad played no role in the immediate cover-up, which has continued for 43 years, in terms of controlling the body, autopsy, and autopsy materials. Its role would have been confined to the executive action in Dallas. But where is the evidence of that?

Ron,

I think your post is an honest attempt to play devil's advocate, but you've actually built quite a persuasive argument to support Mark's post.

You've still pulled your punches a little, IMO. For example, Ruby's ties to Mossad might be hard to establish but his links with the Lansky crime syndicate aren't. Ruby considered Mickey Cohen an idol and Cohen and Lansky were much more aggressively pro-Israel than many think. There's evidence suggesting Lansky flushed rackets proceeds through Tibor Rosenbaum's BCI. According to Piper's "Final Judgement", Rosenbaum was formerly Mossad's Director-General for finance and supply so a Mossad/Lansky (thence to Ruby) link appears highly possible, probable maybe. Also, I don't necessarily agree that Mossad played no role in the coverup. Powerful Americans sympathetic to Israel did. Eugene Rostow is credited with suggesting the WC idea to LBJ and then impudently sung its praises in the Washington Post when the Report was released. I'm about two thirds through Piper's book and there's quite a bit of stuff in it that's new to me. I want to post the major relevant points together with a summary but work and other commitments and the size of the book it might hold me up till Christmas. BTW, have you read it yet?

Mark, I think your post encapsulates where I stand on the assassination at this time. I'm in full agreement. I believe Mossad involvement is a lay down misere and I don't rule them out of involvement in RFK too--although I know much less about that case. The time line is another clincher, IMO. It's just too good to be true.

Can't help you with your question, Scott but that's an interesting blog Lee and Steve have posted. Was LHO in Montreal in mid-63? The Montreal link again. Will Bloomfield's diaries be made public? Very interesting indeed.

Hey Mark - I think there is already another thread - Oswald in Montreal. If I saw that on another Forum - excuse my error - one should be opened here. I'll look around. It's an interesting topic - I know there have been posts made about it peripherally - in the Dallas arrest record, on the thread about suspicious vehicles. Speaking of which - there is an interesting bit on vehicles and Connecticut on his Blog. I am hopeful that the author will be providing an update to the names of the characters in the photo he has posted - and what the game was with respect to 'Oswald.' Still would appear on the surface that Wolcott was 'on the money' - if you'll pardon the pun.

- lee

Hi Lee,

I don't think the "Ossie in Montreal" issue has been covered here on the Forum. If it has I must have missed it. Another thing I noticed was a reference to Jules Rocco Kimble, who was mentioned in Garrison's book as stating that he accompanied Ferrie and Shaw on a Cessna flight to Montreal in "late '61 or early '62", returning with an extra passenger of Cuban or Mexican appearance. I haven't read anywhere else that Kimble was CIA. There's something significant in all this but I don't know what it is, although Montreal was Bloomfield's base.

Can't help you with your question, Scott but that's an interesting blog Lee and Steve have posted. Was LHO in Montreal in mid-63? The Montreal link again. Will Bloomfield's diaries be made public? Very interesting indeed.

For those Aussies interested:

The Secret KGB: JFK Assassination Files

Time: 11.15

Channel: 10

Duration: 110 Minutes

The KGB was, for 50 years, the most effective intelligence agency the world had ever seen. Was the KGB involved in the shooting of John F. Kennedy? Hosted by Roger Moore.

Adam,

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately I read it too late to catch the show. It doesn't sound like a genuine attempt to find the answer. The chances of the KGB assassinating JFK and successfully covering it up are about the same as Roger Moore being the grassy knoll gunman.

Lee, John et al,

Thanks for the heads up. Both those films seem like they're worth a look, though I'm surprised "The Package" only gets a 6.2 on IMDb. (nearly--but not always--an infallible indicator).

My favorite in the American film noir genre is "Sweet Smell of Success" (1957), supposedly based on the career of one Walter Winchell. The performances of Lancaster and Curtis override the somewhat dated argot. It's a gem, IMO. It didn't score any gongs at the Oscars that year. I suspect influence was exerted.

When I was a kid, a b/w anthology called the "Outer Limits" used to scare me regularly. The second episode broadcast in the first series was called "The Hundred Days of the Dragon". Written by Allan Balter and Robert Mintz, it tells of an Asian empire which has pioneered a serum which makes human flesh pliable, putty-like and easily changed. A physical double, who also has an identical voice to the US President, is injected with the drug and after a special metal template is pressed onto his face, he assumes identical facial features to that of the US President. They then manage to assassinate the newly elected US President and install their doppleganger as President. They have designs on the VP, Secretary of State etc. in order to complete the takeover. If you disregard the story's main flaws i.e. the lack of security surrounding the US leadership and the unbelievable properties of the serum, it is excellent film noir. The reflection of the trees on the walls, light reflected through venetian blinds and a very eerie score from composer Dominic Frontiere--it's got atmosphere.

The newly installed "President" starts talking about negotiations and treaties, pulling troops out of the "Ling Valley" etc, much to the horror of the (real) VP. At one point the VP reminds the "President" of the commitments he made--while campaigning in Dallas. Watching it now, it's all too bizarre and full of scary coincidences. It was first broadcast on September 23, 1963--sixty days prior to the assassination. Worth a look.

Don,

Interesting post. Connally always seemed OK to me. That photo of him and LBJ looking on as JFK gave his final speech in Fort Worth showed a man unaware of what was soon to transpire, IMO. A picture tells a thousand words and all that.

As for LBJ, as time passes and more information seeps into the public domain, things just look worse and worse. Although this story would be considered heresay and not evidence, most snippets of gossip, memoirs etc, all seem to reinforce the suspicion that LBJ the prime player in setting up his boss. Add to this all the revelations about his background and rise in politics and you have a rocksolid case for conspiracy to murder. Ladybird, Jack Valenti and others who want the issue to remain undisturbed will have to accept that the truth will emerge and, importantly, the public will discover the truth.

Don - thanks for sharing that. In may cases, I don't believe some folks had it within their means to share what they knew - in Connally's case, for example, even after death the family apparently refused to allow the final fragments to be removed from his body.

Mark - Have you ever watched Four Days in November? Pay close attention to the body language of Ladybird and Johnson.

Another unrelated bit that would go well with what you've posted is the case of Emmett Louis Till. There is footage of the reaction of Roy Bryant and J.W Milam when it was announced that they were acquitted. 'Telling,' I guess is the word. Apparently they later confessed to the crime in a magazine interview.

Even recently, I watched Joran van der Sloot giving an interview. Well....I'm no expert. I wonder what an expert would have made of his eyes batting maddenly every time he responded to a difficult question.

I've posted this one before - I think it's a great shot.

- lee

Hey Lee,

Great photo. I agree with Ron that it looks like LBJ is fantasizing about a six shooter. It's a bit comical, really. Unfortunately I haven't seen 'Four days in November' yet but I'll watch out for it.

Don,

Interesting post. Connally always seemed OK to me. That photo of him and LBJ looking on as JFK gave his final speech in Fort Worth showed a man unaware of what was soon to transpire, IMO. A picture tells a thousand words and all that.

As for LBJ, as time passes and more information seeps into the public domain, things just look worse and worse. Although this story would be considered heresay and not evidence, most snippets of gossip, memoirs etc, all seem to reinforce the suspicion that LBJ the prime player in setting up his boss. Add to this all the revelations about his background and rise in politics and you have a rocksolid case for conspiracy to murder. Ladybird, Jack Valenti and others who want the issue to remain undisturbed will have to accept that the truth will emerge and, importantly, the public will discover the truth.

5. Who hated the Kennedy's more than Wasserman and co?

Lansky, LBJ, the CIA, the Israeli Government, and the JCS for starters.

Tony,

Welcome to the Forum. Good post.

Docos giving us the "true story" are being regularly churned out these days. Notice the similarity with the Warren Report in that the viewer/reader is treated to a lengthy life story of LHO. Even 43 years later, they still think the public are idiots. Trouble is............

(1) In 1972, Cord Meyer, a senior official in the CIA became aware of your manuscript and made efforts to have the book withheld from publication. Could you tell us more about this story?

This entire story of the CIA's attempted suppression of the book was documented in an article that I did for the "New York Review of Books" in late 1972 and recounted, in brief, in a biography of Cord Meyer, Jr. by Merle Miller in "The New York Sunday Times Magazine." In brief, Meyer, then head of covert operations for the CIA, somehow learned of the book's contents while it was in press at Harper & Row in New York. He called on the company's publisher, a friend from New York social circles, to persuade him to suppress the book. Though the publisher refused that request, the company did agree, over my strenuous objections, to grant the Agency prior review, a dangerous transgression of constitutional protections. The US media reacted in rage and the Agency back off, producing a weak 14 page critique of the ms. and the book was published unaltered.

(2) According to the Frank Church report (Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) published in 1976, the CIA arranged for books critical of the agency to receive bad reviews in the media. Did this happen to The Politics of Heroin?

This did not happen to the book. While I was in Laos doing the research, CIA mercenaries made an assassination attempt on my research team. Even though I was a lowly graduate student at Yale University, I had an FBI phone tap, an IRS audit, an investigation of my federal fellowship by the US Department of Education, and, I believe, pressure my university to dismiss me from the graduate program. Once the book was published, the Agency threatened my sources in Laos to repudiate information they had given me. In sum, the Agency tugged at every thread in the threadbare life of an American graduate student. After the book was published and I finished my Ph.D., I found no academic employment in the US and migrated to Australia where I taught for 12 years.

(3) On 12th December, 1986, Daniel Sheehan submitted to the court an affidavit detailing the involvement of a small group of CIA operatives that included Theodore Shackley, Thomas Clines and Richard Secord (they were called the Secret Team) in the drug trade.

Since the courts have ruled, this is not a subject that I wish to comment on.

Alfred,

I'm currently reading Michael Collins Piper's "Final Judgement" and the author mentions your book(s) on the history of the global drug trade. It's a fascinating subject and I will be purchasing your aforementioned book and reading it after I've read Final Judgement.

Regarding heroin, it's always amazed me that a drug can be so reviled, yet is still used in British hospitals today (as diamorphine). It is widely regarded as the most effective painkiller known to science with a multitude of clinical uses, but its power has been used instead to help create a global criminal empire. The machinery of prohibition drains vast resources from many nations which, in light of the legality of other dangerous drugs, seems quite pointless and irrational. I suspect this is by design.

I congratulate you on showing such courage and I look forward to reading your book. Just the fact that the CIA went to such lengths to suppress it is recommendation enough for me.

Duke,

It's all very confusing. I have the feeling that Worrell may have invented the Love Field story just to give the reporter something to write about--he's a young kid, now famous, on his way to Washington. It's not like he's obstructing the authorities from relentlessly searching for the assassin--the Government and the press has already played the role of judge and jury. The only other explanation might be that he got confused and hitchhiked from Love Field, not to Love Field. A longshot, but there's no other way he could have made it, IMO.

On the question of what was seen in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, it's hard to go past James Romack's unequivocal statement that no-one ran from behind the TSDB in the first five minutes. Worrell's statements to the contrary may be another invention, IMO. I just can't see the team in the TSBD screaming out the back entrance straight after the assassination. It's too unsophisticated and obvious and they had no way of knowing who might see them. They would have departed in a more unobtrusive fashion. Just speculating, of course.

The kicker would be if any of these cars sported a "Goldwater for President" sticker. Bowers claimed the '59 Oldsmobile and the Chevy with red mud up to its windows both had the sticker and had "the same type" of out of state plates.

Lee,

Lots of material to ponder. The Ronald Fischer description of the TSBD suspect in Lewis's report is close to the description of the gunman observed near the window by witnesses standing in DP prior to the assassination.

On the Belin/Brennan exchange, I don't know what they're talking about either. I thought Brennan had worked at Union Terminal for 20 years or so. At least that's what most if the books say.