Robert Howard

I would like to follow in Bill's footsteps, with a few things I have learned in my 47 years. As a lifelong resident of Dallas, Texas I believe, along with the fact that I have always had an intense interest in history, as well as being an avid reader, (my library has over 500 books, only 75 are on the JFK Assassination) those factors give me an advantage to being committed to resolve the last remains of the hidden history of the JFK assassination, as I call it. Historian's generally agree that history goes in cycles, one of the most constant cycles in American history is assassinations, whereas European culture having almost a 1000 more years of 'history' to experience the gamut of political reality, tends to take a more 'real world' view of events than in the comparitively younger United States. Thus, when America in the 1960's went through the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK Jr., and RFK' they had a perspective free of the shackles of media control, saw the events in the context of politics, money and power and in many individuals minds when combined with the unbelievably poor attempt of government and officialdom to properly investigate, drew the realist view, if it walks, talk's, think's, act's and behaves like a duck, there IS more than a chance 'it is a duck.' But, to the point at hand. Thoroughout my life I can literally say that when I speak to individuals in Big D (Dallas) regarding the JFK assassination it is unanimously agreed to be a conspiracy, but as they say, that and $ 2.71 will get you a coffee at Starbuck's. The esential point: In 1941 it has been proven that FDR through the auspices of ONI, British intelligence and the codebreakers, knew that the Japanese Combined Fleet was on it's way to attack Pearl Harbor, nothing was done to alert Admiral's Kimmel and General Short at Pearl, they were humiliated in a much publicized hearing and American's were informed via the print media, that their neglect was the cause of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Compounding the validity of the assertions of historians that Roosevelt had foreknowledge is the fact thaat his military advisors were telling him that the US Oil embargo on Japan, in retaliation for the invasion of French Indochina, would be considered by the military junta of Hidieki Tojo as a provocation, a causus belli, if you will for war. Why is Roosevelt not considered a 'bad President', morally as well as in terms of leadership? (He ostensibly led America into a war that quote 'wasn't what America wanted at the time,' as society in the 1940's still had memories of the sinking of the Lusitania (that also was rightly, controversial and was more responsive to the ideals of the Founding Father's injunction of staying free of 'foreign entanglements,' 'an idea obsolescent?' and thus, was to a great degree isolationist in it's outlook.) The Answer? Firstly his foreknowledge was not a known fact until for the most part, decades later, a generation of people die (the one's who would have been the most scandalized) Secondly, historians consider the 'situation/scenario;' Roosevelt displayed courage and resiliency, saved Western culture from a world controlled by the Axis Power's of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan. Two very generalized answers, albeit but they are very relevant to the concepts being argued in this thread. So? Who is right, who is wrong. The answer in my estimation is that a de facto 'consensus' is somewhat problematic, and largely irrelevant, it is now history, for better or worse. Does this mean I am condoning President Roosevelt's actions, No. Does it prove or disprove that there was a 'conspiracy to draw America into War?' The answer to that question lies within the reader of this post to answer the question, apply the same dynamics to the assassination of JFK, and you may have a 'clearer picture' of why 43 years after 1963, there will not be any cooperation from the government to answer, the question we all want to know the answer to. If there is one aspect of the saga of the JFK Assassination that thoroughly displays the fact that 'the winners write history,' it is that without exception every lecherous individual associated with the assassination cover-up went on to infinitely better things, the concept that someone like (Mister Single Bullet Theory) Sen. Arlen Specter has lived to tell his Senate compatriots that it is 'not necessary' to swear in Atty. General Gonzalez was a little more more than ironic to me.

Has the JFK case ever actually driven a researcher crazy? It seems to have the potential. I keep hoping it will drive Posner and McAdams crazy, but I'm not holding my breath. Welcome to the Forum Richard!

I have been meaning to post this for a while, but have been having trouble finding the Warren Commission Document, mainly becaues of the incredibly screwed up indexing of the Warren Comm. Documents themselves. They were/are so bad that one of the first JFK Researchers Sylvia Meagher compiled an index of the Warren Commission documents, as a help to the research community. Which was a very noble thing to do. Anyway, as far as this thread goes, I direct your attention to Warren Commission Document 206, it was not de-classified until 1976, and I can see why. First, and this is my own perception. I believe that the Commission took a fairly large group of interviews, documents and memo's that didn't exactly fit the Oswald did it, three shots yada, yada, yada - scenario and put those items in CD 206. Included, in this section is a memo (I saw this just for a moment) of an individual who was at the Tippet murder scene who spoke of seeing or hearing of a 'Cuban' who was in the area. I apologize that I do not have the 'pertinent information.' regarding this. Commission Document 206 is 410 pages long, my impression is that there are 'excerpts' of it in the actual Warren Report that one encounters while going thru the 26 Volumes but that the actual complete document is not in the Report, but I may be mistaken. There are other items in 206 that are also fascinating such as Reports concerning Terrel State Mental Hospital, which has some type of connection to Sylvia Odio, either there was a Doctor there she knew at one time, I am not exactly sure. But Warren Commission Doc 206 I believe can be purchased on JFK Lancer, which I am planning on doing. The reason I am sketchy on the above info, is that my focus was on research that had nothing to do with the above. I will try to find the info, and post it to this thread, normally I would have already done that. But I have already been 'burning it at both ends.'

It appears Harper's Magazine has 'stepped up to the plate,' the March 2006 Issue features a cover story 10 page essay by Lewis Lapham, entitled: The Case For Impeachment Why We Can No Longer afford George W. Bush. The article in my estimation is both succinct and very well articulated. Lapham's piece is what political journalism is supposed to be a representation of 'the conscience of a nation' as well as a check and balance to corrupt politics. Although I am sure the individuals on the particular thread are knowledgeable about the Conyer's Report, it is my view that in thumbing his nose at certain institutions 'within the government' today, as well as an assortment of controversial issues too numerous to cite, I will say that 2006 may be to George Bush, what 1974 was to Richard Nixon.

Ken Rahn teaches a class at URI. Here is a link to his class: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Critical_thin...l_thinking.html John McAdams teaches a course at Marquette University. Here is the syllabus of his course: http://www.google.com/u/marquette?hq=&site...nation&x=14&y=5 As we all know, Professors Rahn and McAdams believe that Oswald acted alone. It would be interesting to learn what think the students who graduate their courses. I spoke to one, he said he was going to further his education/career by working as as 'eavesdropper' in the new Police State coming to a city near you.

First, let me congratulate you on your positing that Walker concievably could have been 'Andy Anderson,' I believe that any significant discoveries regarding 'establishing' a link between Walker and any other 'intelligence related' figures and/or agencies [such as (individuals) Allen Dulles, James Angleton, D.A. Phillips, E.H. Hunt, Ed Coyle, James Powell and (agencies) Army Intelligence specifically 112th MIG, CIA-DDP and CI/G.] is beyond 'very important' as far as clarification purposes, re: assassination related matters. Even though many express outrage and disdain that Gerry Hemming is 'listened to' and even 'asked about' material pertinent to 11/22/63 events and the before and after period, he makes it clear that the idea that the 'assassination attempt on Walker' has a few holes in it (i.e. the official version). I would go as far to say that not only is he right but that other less controversial personages have made the same observation, Lamar Waldron [ultimate Sacrifice p. 466-467] for one. George DeMohrenschildt, told Edward Epstein that he 'spoke to the CIA both before and afterwward' with regards to the Walker shooting and discovery of the 'backyard photograph.' My main comment is that if one matter is beyond doubt regarding the CIA Mexico City Station personel, it is the use of pseudonyms when circumstances make it comfortable and/or logical to do so. For years the identity of John Scelso was (some would say 'is') a mystery, but logic validates the conclusion reached by one researcher that Scelso was indeed, John Whitten. (Whitten's 'leaving' the Agency and moving to another country eventually) had more than just a little to do with his encounters with Richard Helms, DDP during said time frame. In closing I would mention that there is another perspective regarding the Dallas T-1. It has been postulated that the Dallas T-1 'was a postal official.' If that is true (and I am not submitting it is or isn't) I know what my first guess 'might' be. But that's another story. PS John Newman's 'Oswald and The CIA,' 'What Jane Roman Said' and the Lopez Report are must reads to appreciate the duplicity regarding their 'input' into resolving the 'Crime of the Century' "I am signing off on something I know isn't true." - Well Duh, Imagine that

In an effort to keep this thread alive and as a 'heads up' to all interested parties, John Heard, and John Hurt's names are mentioned on the current thread concerning Abraham Bolden http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...topic=6064&st=0

In an effort to keep this thread alive and as a 'heads up' to all interested parties, John Heard, and John Hurt's names are mentioned on the current thread concerning Abraham Bolden http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...topic=6064&st=0

According to Bernard Fensterwald's memo from his interview with Mr.Bolden, "Martineau called in all men in his charge in Chicago and told them of Rowley's call. He also informed them of the following as to this matter, (1) There were to be no written reports: any information was to be given to Martineau orally.. (2) Nothing was to be sent by TWX (inter-office teletype): He ( Martineau )was to report only by phone to Rowley , personally. (3) No file number was to be given to this case .All Secret Service agents in Chicago ( including Bolden) were shown four photos of the men allegedly involved in the plot (of the four, Bolden remembers two names Bradley and Gonzalez." (Memo dated 3/29/68 via AARC: Bolden letter to Congressman Louis Stokes, 1/26/92 (obtained by the author from Bolden). I have always felt that Bolden was another individual 'in the way' none of the information on this thread even remotely surprises me, I read of Abraham Bolden's being place in a cell next to Richard Case Nagell in the early 1990's, even though the identity of the shooters is not, nor should be the main focus, I would mention the first two names that came to mind when I read the above photgraph, Virgilio Gonzales and Edgar Eugene Bradley. While I am not stating or implying that the two names I have mentioned were/are the same individuals (and I am more than aware of the acrimonius debate concerning Edgar Eugene Bradley, and whether or not his 'connection' to the JFK Assassination was simply a diversionary tactic) I thought they should be mentioned.

This is a request to fellow forum members, after being unable to locate a interview, or memo concerning Mrs. A.L. Durden, and noticing her name did not appear in the Warren Commission Index, I discovered that Warren Commission Document 206 is 400 pages long, and not included in the 26 Volumes! (Isn't that nice.) Does anyone have a link or access to CD 206 page 73?

I think this is pretty compelling, in Roger Craig's description of the Nash Rambler in front of the TSBD was there ever a time established for when the aforementioned took place?

Thanks for clarification, my only response is this part of the story is so central to the assassination, but it never has been given scrutiny, not only by the 'investigative bodies' but Bartholomew's article is the only one I have seen written by a researcher. I don't suggest no one has ever written about it but I couldn't tell you of any book that gives more than a cursory re-counting of it. I haven't read EVERY book about the JFK Assassination there is, but still. As Far as George Wing, he could have loaned it to someone, especially if he knew no attempt would be made to follow it.

I remember much, much, later after 9/11, 'hearing the stories' about very strange goings on, from the confession of a 'pilot' who claimed to shoot down Flight 93, to the well documented oddities, the ones that the 9/11 Commission failed to address. Prior to the formation of the 9/11 Commission, around the time that Henry Kissinger's name was withdrawn from consideration over the 'conflict of interest' issue, I emailed a nationally syndicated columnist, expressing my concerns that the Commission 'might be to our era what the Warren Commission Report was to the 1960's.' While he acknowledged that there were certainly some very troubling aspects to the whole event, he expressed confidence in the abilities of Messrs Hamilton and Kean to conducy a thorough and concise investigation, most assuredly, I might add. Afterwards I read that either Kean or Hamilton has ties to the President, that should have been noted when the selection process for the panel was underway. Im sure, as they say that it was 'duly noted.' While I have not followed the research as closely as I would like, I have heard very bad thing's about the results of said investigation. Then, just two days ago, I saw the headline concerning '9-11 Scholars for Truth,' and what I have thought for quite some time was even more reinforced, this is just the proverbial status quo, with a chilling difference; the Warren Commission dissenting views, championed by Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, and Bertrand Russell were given a voice by local and international media, I cannot speak for overseas, but I have heard nothing about the dissenting voices in academia getting a mention in American media outlets, but I am not surprised. As far as I am concerned the Fox News Network more or less is synonymous with 'State-Run Television,' if you have watched 'Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism' or even if you haven't I am sure the comparison has merit. Comparing the two decades is even more unsettling, similarities Two President's, both Texan's with links to the 'oil interests,' two companies what Brown & Root was to Vietnam, Halliburton is to Iraq. William Bennet's - The Death of Outrage conjures up a completely different imagery for me than the one he no doubt intended. Some might question why I am so vocal about what is happening, and the answer is to live in a country where dissent is 'frowned on,' to not follow mass perception, as far as unanimity concerning the War Party and to be cowed and intimidated into silence........Thus conscience does make cowards of us all America has become a land where assassinations do not change the course of history, where people sleepwalk through history, the cycles of hate and prejudice that perpetuate the illogic of 'manifest destiny.' "Winston, tell me about how we can cut taxes for the rich, and cut benefits for the poor. That is only justice, right, Winston?" When Facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the Flag and Carrying a Cross. My consolation is in knowing that Christ and Ghandi were right.

I am reasonably sure that Richard Bartholomew's article is in reference to another Nash Rambler, which leads me to my next statement, I had attempted to contact Richard, in the hopes of inviting him to join the Education Forum, but never heard back from him, later I heard that he was no longer pursuing JFK related research. I always say never say never, but it would be an understatement to use the phrase 'bitterly disappointed' upon hearing the news. I think his article some 150 pages in all, I believe is some of the best info to come out in a while, maryferrell.org thinks so too, the article is linked under their articles section. I stipulate that IMO we have entering another era in the 'JFK Saga' Example The two most recent JFK related books, A Farewell to Justice - Joan Mellen and Ultimate Sacrifice - Lamar Waldron & Thom Hartmann, there has been 'more than the usual amount of 'controversy.' Thinking persons as we all are, I do not feel a need to rehash what those controversies were, nor is that the point. The point that I am trying to make is that 'the idea' or concept that 'a book' about the Kennedy assassination in this day and age can be published without a 'firestorm of controversy' is part of a new dynamic, that is in itself a continuation of the conspiracy vs Warren Commission, HSCA, AARB lone nut, hocus pocus. In the past, until the late 70's I would say, the 'market audience' for books about the JFK Assassination was primarily directed towards the generation that lived through the event and the succeeding generation. Anyone familiar with the Gallup polls taken over the last 40 years, realizes that a vast number of Americans agreement that there was a conspiracy, has been to the JFK Research community the 'great equalizer' with regards to the gov't shenanigans involving 'not going all the way involving key aspects that could have brought closure. (If one needs to be given examples you probably should not be on the Forum to begin with) Pardon my candor. I will only cite one of the most recent ones, the well documented request by researchers to have Michael and Ruth Paine testify before the Review Board. Tunheim vacillated uhm, aw we can't pay their air fare to bring them here, the hearings are almost over, yada, yada, yada. Poof, the 'dramatic finale' of the last public sojourn into the labyrinth ends without their testimony, a disgrace and I would add an 'intentional disgrace'. As a follow-up, a recently de-classified document stated that 'Ruth Paine had requested information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald as far back as 1957,' (do not ask me to find it, if you are sincerely interested the hard work will do you good, if your not sincere your wasting precious time) In other words with regards to the new Era, compare the present scenarion with when 'The Man Who Knew Too Much' which is filled with very controversial, information, but also dilligently researched, did not encounter (as far as I remember) the type of criticism compared to my two examples. Breach of Trust, is an exception, because it is researched dilligently, as is Someone Would Have Talked. Those two books are an example of the 'new high standard.' I couldn't help but notice that there are 22 pages of discussion on 'Final Judgment,' at the risk of being seen as a prevaricator, what does that have to do with JFK Research? Do not get me wrong, the book is anything but dull, I will not comment on it, because the Jewish cabal, anti-Semitism et cetera is more than enough to make me stay away, from a topic that is very conjectural to begin with. (I do think it shows flashes of great research, followed by page after page of advancing the 'argument' of his scenario, which is self-defeating. Anyway So, the new paradigm is simply that the new generations being raised in a culture where dissent is 'Un-American, and the Founding Fathers injuction that with regards to preserving democracy requires 'eternal vigilance' is an anachronism at best and not even emphasized in 'Outcome Based Education' probable. So the great equalizer, has lost its punch. The New Paradigm is 'just the fact's Mam.' Specualtion is at best, problematic. Let the Writer beware!

When he was arrested he produced a letter vouching for his character signed by Charles Willoughby. Yup, he was definitely nut's. But seriously James, this story reminds me of how problematic doing research is; I mean, it is like the CIA Related religious organizations ala The Tolstoy Foundation, David Ferrie's Old Catholic Church connection's see (Peter Levenda's The Sinister Connections Vol 1 & 2) when this aspect of JFK Assassination stuff hits 'today's mainstream' it put's the collective 'us' in the position of 'really out in left field' although it is IMO obviously pertinent subject matter. But getting back to your post when I saw the Nash Rambler comments it made me think of something I came across recently, 'Nancy Perrin Rich Testimony - WC' - 'another Nash Rambler of his own.' http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rich_n.htm "Mr. HUBERT. How did they accept your suggestion that you would bail out? Mrs. RICH. I don't know. We left. I wasn't going to wait around to find out. Mr. HUBERT. So you never did report it to the authorities. Mrs. RICH. No; I never did. Mr. HUBERT. Why? Mrs. RICH. Well, my husband got picked up in Dallas, and I will never know if this was true--he said it wasn't--the policeman said it was. My husband had a .45. It was not registered. Mr. HUBERT. You mean a pistol? Mrs. RICH. Yes; a service automatic. He had no right carrying it. He had it in the car. At that time he had a little old Nash Rambler station wagon of his own. This cop says when he picked my husband up my husband was standing in a little clearing beside the road there on the way out to Rayburn, brandishing a gun around saying he was going to kill somebody. He come to find out if it was a cop he was going to kill. I will never know to this day whether this was true or not. FWIW, I sincerely believe allegations that Nancy Perrin Rich was a 'habitual xxxx' were 'oh so much BS, she had bona fides, and the allegations were just that.

I find your comments concerning ONI as a back channel source very credible, the only comment I can make is that when it comes to history in books as opposed history as it happened, I occasionally get the feeling that the subject matter we all are delving into was pretty much 'a separate universe' of which only a fraction of has been surveyed, as many times as I have heard, 'that's what happens when a government doesent properly investigate the assassination of a President. Regarding Charles Willoughby, MacArthur's Little Fascist, he also wote a couple of books, one was, I think pretty much of the WW2/Pacific Theater variety, and the other a Cold War/Korea/China book focusing on intelligence matters, has anyone heard of them or better yet read them? I've always felt that Willoughby a/k/a Adolph Tscheppe-Weidenbach is it, ties in with Allen Dulles somehow. As a matter of fact: Willoughby formed an ultra rightist network whose most visible spokesman was a fire and brimstone preacher Billy James Hargis (who died recently by the way) and which included H.L. Hunt and CIA agent turned jounalist Edward Hunter (credited with inventing the term "brainwashing"). Willoughby stayed in close touch with Allen Dulles, director of the CIA later fired by Kennedy, and subsequently appointed to the Warren Commission to investigate the slaying of the President who had fired him. -From The 70 Greatest Conspiracies of All-Time. pages 551,552. Johnathan Vanken & John Whalen Although I don't think the book focuses on the ONI much, if at all, you should read 'The Ordeal of Otto Otepka' I am in the process of reading it and it seems to present some obscure revelations about a conspiracy, according to Otepka to clear out State Dept. officials for nefarious purposes, Oswald's name comes up quite a few times, but I am only just beginning it.

Jim, I am just trying to understand your perception of Edwin Walker. Are you saying that you believe that Walker's history (distributing John Birch literature to troops under him in W. Germany, assertions that both the US Government and the military were under Communist control and his resignation from the Army in 1961,) was an occasion of creating a 'legend' for a counter-intelligence assignment? If so do you believe that his assertion that Oswald was arrested after the Walker shooting and that the Kennedy's were responsible for his release is true? I am not being condescending, it's just that I haven't heard that premise presented before, (not that that means anything, negative in relation to your comments.) Actually, I believe it is obvious that there is still so much that is 'in question' specifically, of the 'what's behind the door variety.' For what it's worth I have a great deal of respect for your outlook, and have alway's felt the Raleigh Call is one of those aspects of the assassination that is a key in finding out what's behind the proverbial door. I believe that the 'stories, and rumours re: an association between Oswald and Ruby are on target, and ascertaining what the esence of that relationship was would help clarify matters significantly. Although it is just an opinion, if as much progress had been made in regards to the Oswald/Ruby connection as there has in other areas, I think we would have things tenuously albeit, close to resolution. My own view is that there are significant areas of the big picture that are not given a fair share od research, there seems to be an underlying attitude that the 'White Russian Community' is something of a dead end, whereas I feel the opposite is true, although I think his work is a little sloppy, Bruce Campell Adamson has written extensively about this area and the Texas Right Wing and Oil and Gas interests, which seems to be dismissed pretty much out of hand. I also believe John Armstrong's work is very important and a lot of researchers are not aware that he actually did his own investigating for his book, I don't accept the Harvey and Lee premise in toto, but I think it is a huge mistake to 'throw the baby out with the bath water.' That is to say, one can garner very credible IMO information from his work without accepting the Harvey and Lee view de facto. Anyway, I didn't mean to get off topic, but thought I might mention some of those items.

Stuck. If Worrell is the one mistaken for Oswald, it's still possible that he is the McWatter's transfer, and this just got baked in. Even if that is indeed the case, it doesn't explain the cab ride. Funny you would mention that, as indeed there are elements of the 'cab ride' that although have been 'explained away' still seem tenuous, at least to me. Have you ever heard the name of 'Daryl Click?' That was the name used by DA Henry Wade in reference to the 'cab driver,' who gave Oswald his 'ride to Oak Cliff.' He cited this name as late as Sunday November 24th, later inquiries revealed there was no such person registered as a Dallas Cab Driver. Although it seems the mystery was over concerning the cab driver, I have always wondered if there might have been more to it than that. Two day's after the event would seem to be plenty of time to get a name right? http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/..._Vol2_0029a.htm pages 49 and 50.

As Edwin Walker said in his last interview: "How do you younger people explain it? The policy was wrong. I couldn't prosecute a communist because he knew Khrushchev and because he knew Kennedy, and in my opinion Oswald was a ward of both states. You know bloomin' well he was a ward of the Kennedy state and a ward of the Khrushchev state." After more than ten years of study I believe strongly that Major General Edwin Anderson Walker was himself involved in military intelligence throughout his entire career. Jim, I completely agree with your perception about Walker, but as far as the above quote, do you think it is reliable as a factual statement on his part, or his own 'spin' on the Oswald lone nut scenario? Also, I have done some digging on my own and discovered some individuals in the government circa 1963 who had, at one time or another served in Army Intelligence, their names may surprise you. Dean Rusk and William Bundy! According to William Gill’s ‘The Ordeal of Otto Otepka’ Dean Rusk, who was a member of Pres. Kennedy’s Cabinet served beginning in 1940 “as a captain in the 3rd Infantry Division.” Some of his fellow officers were dispatched to the Philippines where they fought through Corregidor, suffered the death march from Bataan, and endured nearly four years in Japanese prison camps…..About this same time, he [Dean] was plucked out of the 3rd Division and ordered to Washington. He was assigned to G-2 (Army Intelligence) in the British Empire Section.” – page 73 According to the New York Times obituary of William P. Bundy (Douglas Martin – October 7, 2000) http://www.mishalov.com/Bundy.html “His father, Harvey Hollister Bundy, a lawyer who had been a clerk for Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, was an aide to Henry L. Stimson, President Herbert Hoover's secretary of state and President Franklin D. Roosevelt's secretary of war. His mother, the former Katherine Lawrence Putnam, was from the bedrock of Boston tradition. She was closely related to the Cabot’s, the Lowell’s and the Lawrence’s. His wife was the former Mary Eleanor Acheson, the daughter of the former secretary of state. The family was talkative and so intellectually animated that the father coined a family motto: "Don't talk while I'm interrupting." William and McGeorge were products of Groton, Yale and Harvard. Their friends and mentors included the journalists Walter Lippman and Joseph Alsop, Justice Felix Frankfurter and Judge Learned Hand, and officials such as Allen Dulles, director of central intelligence. He [William] earned a master's degree in history from Harvard in 1940 and then entered Harvard Law School. In 1941, he enlisted in the Army Signal Corps, working in Britain to decoded intelligence intercepts. He reflected on his work at Bletchley Park, the headquarters for the code breakers, in a 1999 BBC interview, saying "Although I have done many interesting things and known many interesting people, my work at Bletchley Park was the most satisfying of my career." He left the Army as a major, and was awarded the Legion of Merit and was made a member of the Order of the British Empire.After finishing his law degree in 1947, he worked for three years with the Washington firm of Covington and Burling, but became bored. The Korean War had begun, and he was considering returning to the Army when one of his Harvard professors called to ask if he was interested in joining the Central Intelligence Agency. He was, and quickly became chief of the staff preparing "national intelligence estimates," as efforts to judge situations and policies in other nations are called. He prepared and coordinated papers for meetings of President Dwight D. Eisenhower's National Security Council.In 1953, William was singled out by Senator Joseph McCarthy for having contributed $400 to the defense fund of Alger Hiss, who was being tried as a Soviet spy. William explained that a junior partner of his former law firm was David Hiss, Alger's brother, and that he wanted Alger to get a fair trial. Allen Dulles and Vice President Richard M. Nixon defended Mr. Bundy and the matter was dropped.” In citing this information it is not my intention to do so in an accusatory context, but merely to consider the backgrounds of individuals with regards to the central topic of the Forum, and should certainly be known to everyone in order to study matters with as many facts as one can rely on.

McWatters. One interesting aside - Sam Pate has stated that the KBOX-AM broadcast ['I repeat, something has happened on the motorcade route!'] was a recreation. It was not a genuine on air broadcast made that day. The sirens in the background were not heard for some time after the shooting. McWatters appears to confirm this also. It should be mentioned that another 'key point' in the Oswald 'setup' that was ostensibly 'staged' was the filming of the DPD's finding of the Mannlicher Carcano on the 6th floor, although I am not aware whether the followinng is cited in the Warren Report, in Robt. Groden's JFK The Case for Conspiracy, Groden mentions during display of the 'finding of the 'aforementioned Mannlicher-Carcano' that Billy Lovelady was present on the 6th floor and that he stated the rifle 'had already been found' and that the footage shot was also a 're-creation of the event.' Anyone even vaguely familiar with Helen Markham should realize that it would be stretching the truth to call her a credible witness, something that the McAdam's and Posner's of the world [conveniently] omit. someone attempted to kill Domingo Benevides' brother [by a shot to the head, which he managed to survive] many early researchers felt the person responsible thought the 'shooter' mistook Benavides for his brother. Not to mention the discrepancy over Joe Poe's 'identification of the spent shell's markings,' (chain of possesion evidence, wouldn't have held up in any court not beginning with the word Kangaroo) The biggest mistake students of the assassination make [especially those who are not familiar with the FBI's and DPD harrassment and intimidation of witnesses, is assuming that every investigation from the Warren Commission to present, involved a sincere attempt 'to solve the assassination,' while I am leaving myself open to the verbal broadsides of Warren defenders, [who are the real lone nuts] I stipulate that it is more accurate to describe the investigations as 'management of facts,' once that assertion is accepted as fact, the real work begins in sifting thru the material looking for the contradictions, [and believe me they are 'legion.'] and weighing and discerning the true facts, this thread is a good example of that. With all due respect to the dedicated followers of Warren apologist researchers, writing an opus supporting the official version of 11/22/63 has become part of the Curriculum Vitae of many researchers, whose pursuit of the truth rings very hollow, if one does not know of what I speak of read what Harold Weisberg had to say about Norman Mailer's Oswald epic, the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald is actually the Albert Dreyfuss of American history is a sad testament to 'truth in America'.

namebase.org listing for Meredith Gardner http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01?Na=Gardner%2C+Meredith namebase.org listing for Frank Rowlett http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01?Na=Rowlett%2C+Frank namebase.org listing for Gordon Blake http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb01?Na=Blake%2C+Gordon BLAKE GORDON AYLESWORTH Gordon Blake, a NSA Employee was also involved in the NSA/Oswald information/Warren Commission situation, as Gardner was I believe.

I wholeheartedly submit that the thesis is true, and that there are undercurrents of this aspect of the saga that pop up from time to time. Just scattershooting but I would bet that there is a connection as well between Ruby and Oswald in this regard, even though that is speculative, to be more specific check out WC Testimony concerning individuals in Muncie, Indiana rumors about Jack Ruby being a communist, as laughable as that may seem, (I am not a proponent of any theory in this regard) and a new bit of information (at least to me) regarding 'international calls being made from a pay phone on Zangs Blvd. in the timeframe of fall 1963. Hint: Lee Harvey Oswald not only has been cited as making pay phone calls, from time to time, but there was an Army Intelligence Agent who lived 'in the neighborhood, as well.' Jim Root should be applauded for his interest in the John Hurt connection, as I believe behind this element of unsolved history is one of the last pieces of the puzzle. Another hint: The topic being discussed cannot be resolved without concentrating on the 'White Russian' elements in Dallas, I submitted a post recently about this and could not believe the lack of interest that was displayed, but that is just my opinion.

The government is (rightly, I am afraid) assuming that the only mechanism that can prevent this from becoming a reality is 'an irate American public,' which begs the question, is there anything that can outrage the American public into gasp, protesting? The generation of the 1970's antiwar activists would look at our culture and probably think that 'we deserve whatever we get,' and I tend to agree.

Tim and Francesca, The mary ferrell website did not indicate the source of the information, I think the suggestion that Herbert Lee possibly indicating LHO is a hot potato, that I would not want to speculate about until I am able to learn a little more. Tim, I had also read the thread where Tosh referenced the 'house' behind 1026 N. Beckley. I take Tosh's assertions seriously and am glad he contributes to the Forum. I am going to look into all of this but am also juggling some other important stuff as well. But I will keep everyone posted, as soon as I have something to report.

from http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...owRec.do?id=943 Occupants of 1026 N. Beckley on 11/22/63: Bobby Joe Palmer, C. C. Lehmann, Roy Samuel Cleghorn, Floyd DeGraffenreid, Hugh Slough, Jack Cody, A. C. Johnson, George Gibboney, Donald Green, John Carter, James Watson, Herbert Lee. I recently encountered a woman who attemped to lease the actual duplex that Lee Harvey Oswald resided at - 1026 N Beckley, (I am not joking about this) she said that the woman who leases for the duplex, told her that she could not lease the room to her because there was only 1 main bathroom, which was shared by all the 'male' occupants. Could Jack Cody possibly have been related to a Dallas Police Officer?