Tim Carroll

I believe Gerry Hemming said he was involved in security at the Miami airport. Tim, that is correct. He also mentioned that no one was armed in this endeavour. Do you put any stock in what Mr. Hemmings has to say I am interested in Mr. Hemming's information. He is clearly knowledgeable about the region of history that the JFK assassination involves. I am convinced, however, that he has disseminated false information at times, and that makes for difficulty discerning between wheat and chaff. Regarding Hemming's Miami Airport assertions, I find them interesting because that event ties to the topic of this thread. If a fake attempt was in the works, the Miami-Dallas axis of Cubans, CIA and Mafia is widely considered key to understanding the underworld plotting against Castro, which might well have been turned around against Kennedy. The particular issue of Hemming's group being suspicious about a possible set-up, to the point of deliberately attending the event without weapons, supports the concept that a false sponsor of a faked attempt was a cause for concern among some of the inhabitants of the anti-Castro underworld at that time - possibly for good reason. T.C.

I believe Gerry Hemming said he was involved in security at the Miami airport. T.C.

Eisenhower's farewell address warning against the unwarranted influence of the military industrial complex is one of the great modern presidential statements. But this statement came from what is called "retirement wisdom," which can speak to truth the way no active politician can afford to do. Eisenhower had built a massive nuclear arsenal while knowing from the U-2 flights that it was strategically unwarranted. His dream of cashing in with a beneficial peace through strength, to be codified at the Paris Summit, was betrayed and destroyed. In America, the historically entrenched perception that liberals are ill-equipped to wage war led directly to every Senate Democrat with presidential aspirations voting to authorize Bush's Iraq aggression. No "peace candidate" has been viable since Bobby Kennedy's murder, and liberals find themselves trapped by this framework. They constantly have to overcompensate to prove they are not soft. The Republicans have good reason to continue to hope that American voters will never ultimately elect a president who isn't a saber rattler. T.C.

As most interested people know very well, before the Texas trip Jackie had not campaigned with JFK since the 1960 primaries. Her participation in the Texas trip was unusual for her. If Ron's silly posting on this thread is an attempt to subject it to ridicule, he could come right out and state his opinion and leave it at that, without resorting to such juvenile distraction. T.C.

Ultimate Sacrifice is a treasure trove of information, but that is entirely and obviously separate from its interpretations and conclusions. There is nothing in that book that precludes the possibility that Chicago and Tampa were part of fake attempt plotting, as opposed to an operation actually intended to kill the president. Nevertheless, the premise that JFK stood in the limo as a profile in courage during the Tampa motorcade, believing that a legitimate attempt would be made, begs the issue of the improbability that he would have allowed Jackie to ride with him only four days later in Dallas. T.C.

This current bunch makes Nixon look like a bleeding heart liberal. Even Nancy Reagan can't abide these Neo-Confederates. The South Shall Rise Again, indeed.... T.C.

I would welcome an explanation from anyone asserting the authenticity of the supposed Chicago and Tampa plots and JFK's awareness of them, of how likely it would have been that JFK would have Jackie beside him in Dallas just four days after Tampa. The idea that JFK was aware of a pending fake attempt not only explains many things about Dallas, it especially explains Tampa and the manner in which the president stood in his limo through the motorcade, ostensibly aware of a plot against him that day. T.C.

Ultimate Sacrifice does indeed include references to a fake attempt planned for Dallas. On page 738, the book notes, "Bobby's suspicion could have been triggered by the way in which JFK was killed, by the link of Oswald (or Oswald's alias) to the crime, by some activity related to C-Day being staged in Dallas, or by all of those things." The H.L. Hunt memos provide material corroboration that there was foreknowledge among the wrong crowd of such an administration operation: I believe there was a concerted effort reaching the highest levels of Dallas powerbrokering to keep the right-wing quiet that day. This connects to the information that had been received by H. L. Hunt and presumably others that an administration "incident" was planned for Dallas that could be blamed on the right-wing:"The Hunts learned that President Kennedy's visit to Dallas might be greeted with violence nearly three weeks before the President crossed the state line. The warning came from the family's master intelligence man, Hunt Oil security chief Paul Rothermel. In a November 4, 1963, interoffice memo headlined 'POLITICS,' Rothermel informed his boss that there had been 'unconfirmed reports of possible violence during the parade' scheduled to take place when Kennedy arrived in town on November 22. Although Rothermel did not directly identify his sources, it was clear from his memo that he was sharing information the FBI and the Dallas Police Department were getting from informants placed in General Edwin Walker's right-wing political action groups in Dallas and on the campus of North Texas State University in Denton. 'The North Texas informant is reporting information that would indicate that that group may be planning an incident,' Rothermel wrote. 'There is another report from a left-wing group that an incident will occur with the knowledge of the President whereby the left-wingers will start the incident in hopes of dragging in any of the right side groups or individuals nearby and then withdrawing. The talk is that the incident involving Adlai Stevenson made the present administration hopeful in that if they could get the same thing to happen to Kennedy it could reassure his election....' As Rothermel pointed out in his memo to Hunt, 'If an incident were to occur, the true story of who perpetrated it would never come out.' Rothermel, however, had a solution to suggest. 'I have thought about the problem,' he wrote, 'and I am wondering if a few letters to the editor might not be a good way of pre-exposing this if, in fact, there is a planned incident.'" Hunt did write an editorial, not to expose the administration's scheme, but rather to discourage any right-wing demonstrations that could be exploited. We don't know what Dallas oilmen like H. L. Hunt, Clint Murchison and Sid Richardson really did about their inside information. There can be little doubt, however, that their information was based on quality intelligence. An example would be the assertions in the new book, Ultimate Sacrifice, about a planned invasion of Cuba. On pages 237-238: "In a provocative memo dated February 6, 1964, Rothermel informed Hunt that 'Lyndon B. Johnson is mortally afraid of being assassinated and does not trust the Secret Service to protect him. He has ordered the F.B.I. to be present everywhere he goes with no less than two men and more when there is any possibility that he will be exposed. Johnson has confidentially placed a direct telephone line from his office to J. Edgar Hoover's desk.' Four days after the report on LBJ, Rothermel brought his boss some even more stunning news. 'There is information that the CIA and the State Department are currently planning a second invasion of Cuba,' Rothermel wrote. 'A very reliable source reports that the Manuel Ray group, which is extremely left-wing, has been in touch with the CIA and has agreed to a second invasion. The right-wing Cubans are being pressured to join the invasion. The second invasion is being closely scrutinized by John Martino, leader of the right-wing groups, for fear it will be a second Bay of Pigs fiasco.'" Harry Hurt III, Texas Rich, (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1981), pp. 223-224. Ultimate Sacrifice notes on page 390 that the framework for fake operations contemplated to pretextualize an invasion of Cuba predated Operation Northwoods, going back to the pre-Bay of Pigs Eisenhower administration planning. There is a reference to "a joint effort with Naval Intelligence. It involved staging a fake attack on the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo, Cuba, using U.S.-supported exiles pretending to be Fidel's troops." Later, with regard to Ultimate Sacrifice's C-Day planning, Cyrus Vance asserted that "the U.S. does not contemplate ... a premeditated full-scale invasion of Cuba ... except in the case of Soviet intervention or the reintroduction of offensive weapons." In this concern about the Soviet presence in Cuba, Oswald's background can be seen to be potentially useful in his planned role as patsy for Castro's assassination, preceding a coup. However, Vance denied that any "contrivance or a provocation which could be used as a pretext for" an invasion continued to be a consideration [p.94]. T.C.

The mention of the role as a Texas financier is what previously led me to ask about a relationship between C. Osment Moody and the Galveston Moodys: T.C.

I was wondering if the Moodys of Galveston relate to the Moody who, according to Gerry Hemming, arranged for Oswald to be flown back into the U.S. from Merida. Where was Oswald on his way from when flown into Merida and what would the Hughes connection be to that?Howard "gomer" Hughes involved ?? Who the hell knows, the Op with the Lode-Star was set up by Moody. Others going to Cuba via slipping on board the Cubana de Aviacion bird refueling at Merida -- well one was Saul "Saggy" my wiiddle friend. T.C.

I would add the Novo brothers, Guillermo and Ignacio, to the list of candidates for Angel and Leopoldo. As for the identity of Leon, I tend to believe that Silvia Odio correctly recognized and identified Lee Harvey Oswald. T.C.

Is it somehow self-gratifying to continue to make that point under the aegis of a thread entitled, "Tim Gratz: Right-Wing Extremist?" T.C.

The meeting might have had "importance," had it happened. Bobby was at Hickory Hill until he had to leave for the Pentagon to catch a helicopter ride to Andrews with Taylor and McNamara to meet Air Force One. He communicated with a number of people during that brief time, both telephonically and personally. If RFK and McCone shared anything close to what would be termed a "meeting," it was in the midst of all of the other goings on at Kennedy's home. The time between all of the hub-bub about the swearing-in in Texas and RFK's arrival at Andrews was two hours, including travel time. What is the source for the assertion that "there is obviously some reason of importance for the length of the meeting?" What "length?" Certainly McCone and RFK did not spend "all day" together, and there was no important "meeting" lasting "several hours," as asserted by Tim Gratz. During the two hours between LBJ's oath and RFK's arrival at Andrews, photos were taken of Bobby spending time with his children, he had contact with many individuals, he was involved in the arrangements being made for the autopsy, he traveled to the Pentagon where he had a few more brief conversations, then helicoptered to Andrews. If a meeting lasting "several hours" was squeezed into all of that, Bobby really was Superman. T.C.

I respectfully suggest this thread be allowed to die out. T.C.

That was an interesting blog. I never heard the term "stop loss" until this Iraq business: We got, by estimates, close to forty-thousand plus Joes involuntarily extended, stop lossed they call it now, cause dropping INVOLUNTARILY extended day after day after day I suppose places too much emphasis on the fact that a whole buncha us got stuck in the xxxx INVOLUNTARILY... cause, for all you non-incarcerated types, the usual nomenclature for being stuck in the service beyond your time is--used to be--INVOLUNTARY extension. Cept they had to twist the rules all outta whack and xxxx to keep the machine all lubed and oiled and chugging and belching and churning out the mayhem, and somehow, rather mysteriously it seems to me at least, with all that good ol' troop lovin' sh*t goin' on back home they couldna find the 40K + dudes and dudettes to get us squared away and outta this mess. Thanks for the love yo. And I know I know, spare me the retort... "Dude, is what you signed up for." Right. I signed up for THIS. Sadist's circus. Marquis de Sade's Head-Chopping Ball-Blasting Brigade. Lemme assure you, if I had read some short-timer's Internet lament and that f***ker would've had the common decency to point out that the Army is more like a three-ring circus butcher-shop motor vehicles prison typa clustertastrophy I mighta thought twice before lending my body to the cause of someone else's mocracy-buildin' wet dreams. The blog goes on to describe the sense of incarceration many of today's trainees for tomorrow's civilian militia are feeling. In my day there were no recruiters, just the draft - the next step.... T.C. That was an interesting blog. I never heard the term "stop loss" until this Iraq business. The blog correctly characterizes it as a breach of contract, just as domestic spying is a breach of the constitution: We got, by estimates, close to forty-thousand plus Joes involuntarily extended, stop lossed they call it now, cause dropping INVOLUNTARILY extended day after day after day I suppose places too much emphasis on the fact that a whole buncha us got stuck in the xxxx INVOLUNTARILY... cause, for all you non-incarcerated types, the usual nomenclature for being stuck in the service beyond your time is--used to be--INVOLUNTARY extension. Cept they had to twist the rules all outta whack and xxxx to keep the machine all lubed and oiled and chugging and belching and churning out the mayhem, and somehow, rather mysteriously it seems to me at least, with all that good ol' troop lovin' sh*t goin' on back home they couldna find the 40K + dudes and dudettes to get us squared away and outta this mess. Thanks for the love yo. And I know I know, spare me the retort... "Dude, is what you signed up for." Right. I signed up for THIS. Sadist's circus. Marquis de Sade's Head-Chopping Ball-Blasting Brigade. Lemme assure you, if I had read some short-timer's Internet lament and that f***ker would've had the common decency to point out that the Army is more like a three-ring circus butcher-shop motor vehicles prison typa clustertastrophy I mighta thought twice before lending my body to the cause of someone else's mocracy-buildin' wet dreams. The blog goes on to describe the sense of incarceration many of today's trainees for tomorrow's civilian militia are feeling. In my day there were no recruiters, just the draft - the next step.... T.C.

This isn't a matter of spellcheck, it's a matter of the valuation of education, which is regularly demeaned by this warmonger who right here admits that his photo is cowardly and falsely youthful.In event you would like to check my GPA at Langston University, Langston, OK, let me know and perhaps I can make some arrangements for you to do so. Unresponsive to the Purv's unrelenting attacks on the value of education, the value of life, and the honor of dissent. T.C.

Given my participation in what may be construed as "off track" discourse, let me provide an example of the kind of post that I consider illustrative of the mindset that has brought us this domestic spying. Here's a direct response to John's originating post: When this thread was thusly taken "off track," I didn't touch it, repulsed though I was. It was when the Purv insistently trivialized the deaths of young people dying today in the interest of a goose-steppingly gooberish world view that anyone so unpatriotic as to be unsupportive of throwing the U.S. Constitution in the trash bin deserves to have their own family somehow victimized by the very thugs that only thugs like he and Hemming can protect us all, including the parasites on the other "part of the ocean," from, that I took exception. T.C.

Amazing, isn't it, that someone who has peddled varying stories for decades, now rants about "Library loads of re-run speculation, rumor, anonymous sources, and regurgitated 'quotes'?" History is a sacred bequeathment to future generations of our own children. That it has been hijacked by these mercenary wannabe smut-peddling barbarians is no source of pride for anyone. Gerry whines about the "gang of gullible squatters [he and Purvis (coincidentally the two oldest and most misleading avatar photos here)] are forced to endure on this Internet," when he still has his Soldier of Fortune magazine to curl up beside. Why can't people who actually care about history and education have their forum? He already left the field with his failure to perform. Someone stood up to him with facts and he withered like a piece of fruit. There may still be authors who are willing to use Gerry's stories to sell books (qualifying them as "metaphors"), but as a history forum, we can do better. T.C.

Bobby did not "spend all day 11-22-63 with RFK." He did have a conversation after the dirty deed was done. So what? T.C.

Gerry! My old buddy! Great to hear from you! "'John Kerry-band-aid-Purple-heart' expeditionary exploits" What does that mean? John Kerry's service wasn't honorable? Those "associates" to whom Gerry refers waged war against a peasant insurgency, leaving the bodies of nuns by the side of the road. One doesn't have to be a murdering swine to know that it's not a preferred course. As for Gerry stepping up to clarify his brother-in-arms' ridiculous statements about the primary benefit (not "secondary," as the new spinning would have it) of the current military conflicts (better trained civilian militias), this goes back to the Purv's explanation for why the Soviets lost in Afghanistan and why Gerry's associates lost in Central America. The bottom-line is that the fight for freedom and against external aggression will always prevail. Occupation forces, by definition, eventually lose. Mercenary occupation forces, such as Gerry's, are like old whores harkening back to the good old days. T.C.

There are plenty of us who have other names that could be used to promote some antecdote-based argument. The idiotic argument that we have to continue to pursue an irrational policy so that those who've died won't have done so in vain is a formula for more useless death - but more training. Cindy Sheehan's qualifications to speak were well-established, right? I know of no reputable publication, think tank or politician, liberal or conservative, that would agree with Purvis' glee over the excellent training being obtained, despite the cost. T.C.

This isn't a matter of spellcheck, it's a matter of the valuation of education, which is regularly demeaned by this warmonger who right here admits that his photo is cowardly and falsely youthful. Let's have some authenticity from this person who celebrates atop the graves of those who've been lost, dismisses those who have done the losing, and gleefully relishes killing as a precursor to the development of a well-trained civilian militia. Clearly there would be nothing on my resume that would be "appreciated" by Purv. He certainly wouldn't admit that any anti-war activities contributed to hastening the end of the Vietnam War. But educationally, something of which he is proudly not appreciative, my resume might include the book dedicated to me: "What If They Gave A Crisis And Nobody Came." For the purpose of this forum, someone who doesn't dismiss the value of education and the pursuit of knowledge might consider that my seminar on this very forum had almost twice the posts of any other. When I get into heated debate with my brother-in-law, currently a Colonel, about matters of international relations, he doesn't need to resort to the typical and unmanly questioning of one's service to deal with the matter at hand. He actually attends numerous academic seminars and wouldn't think to question the constitutional precept that war-making be a civilian decision. When I entered a private high school in 1968, I had to take a long bus ride past Black Panther headquarters in Oakland during the trial of Huey Newton. I found that even under circumstances most would enthusiastically avoid, civility and respectfulness was the best possible approach. The Purv wouldn't have lasted one day in that environment. Back to the giddy excitement about the wonderful training the U.S. National Guard is now being provided in Iraq that will staff some future civilian militia, the development of a force designed for the control of a civilian population was more of the My Lai type action. Calley's boys got great training. That is why the Founding Fathers explicitly forbade the use of the military domestically. But the true goal of the Neo-Confederates isn't a well-trained military. Otherwise they'd abide by the military guidelines of a 50:1 ratio for occupation forces and not be so irresponsibly endangering American boys in violation of standard military precepts. Their goal is a missile defense system, and lacking a viable superpower opponent, have begun a perpetual war against an amorphous concept of terrorism. T.C.

When the Iraq situation is ended, the long term advantages to the general american public will have many far reaching implications. Of those will be the first "true" and completely qualified "Civillian Militia". As a result of usage of our National Guard and Reserve Forces, we are now in the position that we have trained and experienced militia forces which are made up of civillians, and which will insure that our, as well as their rights are not abridged except as dictated necessary. Think about that one! Yuk Yuk Yuk, mmmm boy and howie! This Middle East training exercise sure will be a great thing in the "long term," preparing a "qualified 'Civillian [sic] Militia'" (assumedly full of half-literates who can't spell what they advocate). This argument sickens me! The Purv's fascistic warmongering nonsense demeans the value of life and liberty. We're back to the military training exercise argument for advocating the attrocities of Vietnam and Iraq. Some of us aren't so cavalier about the memories of those who've been lost. This guy's disgusting yammering has crossed the line, and at the very least, is distinctly un-American. Mussolini would have loved him. T.C.

The "Scales of Justice" will equally balance out any potential injustice to the individual which are a result of betterment for the society. There can be no checks and balances when the executive cedes itself unlimited secret war powers. The Rovian line is that Americans prefer security to liberty, given the hyped threat. Not this American. Mention of the values for which many have fought and died should include that it is these same values that are under attack from American protectors. Even Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus is now recognized as having been illegal, even in the context of a real war on American soil. If the constitution is to be rendered null and void, we should recognize that for what it is. If this not to be a nation of laws, then we shouldn't have impeached a president for lying about a BJ. The bottom-line: we are not at war. The framers were very specific about what constituted a "war," and this doesn't qualify. There hasn't been a declaration of war since December 8, 1941. This is directly attributable to the skirting of the law and promotion of unconstitutional aggression. Now the feds are squeezing Google to give up all of its records on people who access sexually-explicit websites so it can prosecute its war on smut. With wars on drugs, poverty, perversion, etc., how long before even discussions such as this will attract the prying eyes of the government? It's called a slippery slope, and the Founding Fathers wrote extensively and eloquently about it. Any reading of Thomas Jefferson clearly demonstrates that the threat comes from the government, not the piddling idiosyncracies of the country's inhabitants. T.C.

So the bottom-line is that the autopsy evidence (photos and x-rays), deemed authentic by Pat, shows that Kennedy was shot by two shooters firing from behind???"I don't claim that the evidence is authentic, only that it is probably authentic, as I can't figure out any reason the government would fake evidence to show a conspiracy, and then insist there was no conspiracy. If you can come up with any logical reason why they'd do this, I'm open-minded. Pat previously asserted a "strong likelihood that Kennedy was shot by two shooters from behind," and now illogically asks why "the government would fake evidence to show a conspiracy, and then insist there was no conspiracy." If Pat thinks the unaltered evidence shows two shooters, then no fakery was required to "show a conspiracy." By his own admission, the evidence of two shooters did "show a conspiracy." As for an open-ended pondering of "any reason the government would fake evidence to show a conspiracy," two reasons would be to eliminate the appearance of multiple shooters and elimate the appearance of a frontal shooter. I'm not saying I believe this is what happened, just that the explanation does not lie in a straightforward explication of the shooting scenario and head snap. It speaks for itself, even if one accepts Pat's two rear shooters conclusion, that the evidence and logic didn't determine the WC conclusion. The Dealey Plaza re-enactment, using the hairline location for the head wound, shows that the WC conclusion hadn't been in effect immediately following the autopsy, and not at the time of the re-enactment. The photos and x-rays are far too inconsistent to eliminate the possibility of evidentiary shenanigans. T.C.