Douglas Caddy

Pat: At the invitation of a professional video maker I spent yesterday in Austin giving an oral history of my life. I had prepared an extensive outline beforehand and only after the taping was over did I realize I had inadvertently left out some events that I desired to be included. While the taping was done at a TV station, the air conditioning in the small adjacent studio being used for the taping was not working for some reason, so this may have affected my recall ability. The video maker also took still photographs of a number of my documents that he plans to intersperse in the video. After the editing is done over the coming weeks it will be posted YouTube. Doug

From the posting: “In 1959, a New Orleans man, Richard C. Bell, in conjunction with a Chicago group, organized a group of students to attend the 1959 World Youth Conference in Vienna. His plans attracted opposition from the local American Legion, especially Kent Courtney, Festus Brown and James Pfister. The Legion organized a Free Enterprise Seminar "to alert local college students to the dangers involved in attending the communist-sponsored World Youth Festival in Vienna." Speakers at the seminar include Guy Banister, Medford Evans and Douglas Caddy. Bell and his group did make it to Vienna.” https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/7fKgzfeYtpI http://www.jfk-online.com/jpskentchsca.html

In my essay I failed to note that in August 1956 Kent Countney asked me to accompany him to the Democratic Convention in Chicago where we with the assistance of a few other persons mounted a publicity effort in behalf of states rights. It received some notice but was generally lost in the jubilation of the convention crowd that nominated Adlai Stevenson for President and Estes Kefauver for Vice President.

Stephen: Thanks for the correction as to the spelling of Guy Banister's last name. The Spartacus link included in my essay at its end spells his last name as "bannister", although the article that is pulled up spells as "Banister." I should have caught the discrepancy. I am going to correct the spelling of his last name in the article although I have no control over now as to how it is spelled in the title. Doug

Lee Harvey Oswald, Guy Banister and I in New Orleans 1955-1956 I attended Alcee Fortier High School in New Orleans from September 1954 until June 1956, when I was graduated. In late 1954 Kent and Phoebe Courtney announced that they were holding a public meeting in a pavilion in Audubon Park to enlist citizens who opposed the censure of Senator Joseph McCarthy pending before the U.S. Senate. My parents’ residence was only a few blocks from Audubon Park and Tulane University so I decided to attend as our family admired McCarthy’s fighting spirit against communism. An enthusiastic crowd of about 40 persons attended the Courtneys’ meeting and assignments were handed out. My assignment was to set up a card table in the plaza in front of St. Louis Cathedral in the French Quarter to collect signatures on petitions that opposed the censure as part of a national petition drive headed by General Bonner Fellers. I had little difficulty in collecting signatures as Catholics regularly attended services at the Cathedral and McCarthy was a prominent Catholic. A few months later Kent and Phoebe announced they were starting a monthly conservative publication, Free Men Speak, which subsequently became The Independent America. I volunteered to work on the publication after high school. As a result Kent started taking me to meetings, such as Toastmasters International and to a radio station where he had a weekly radio show. Several times during the period of 1955-1956, while still in a high school student, I would accompany Kent to meetings in the office of Guy Banister, a former FBI agent who was a prominent public figure in New Orleans. The topic at these meetings was the extent of organized crime in the city and more particularly the efforts of the Metropolitan Crime Commission of New Orleans headed by Aaron Kohn to combat it. So where does Lee Harvey Oswald fit into the picture during this period? Why he was living with his mother in the Vieux Carre section of the French Quarter, less than a 10 minute walk from Banister’s office. Oswald was then about 16 years old. Eight years later John Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. Oswald would be branded the alleged assassination, Banister would gain fame as someone who had interacted in a mysterious way with Oswald in New Orleans in the period before the assassination, and I many years later would end up representing Howard Hunt, a self-confessed bench warmer in the assassination who claimed LBJ was at the top of the pyramid conspiracy, and also Billie Sol Estes, LBJ’s bagman who maintained to his death that LBJ killed JFK. Oswald, Banister and I in 1955-1956 had no inkling what fate had in store for us and for the world. I departed New Orleans permanently in September 1956 to enroll in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Only after I arrived did I learn that Father Walsh had been one of Senator McCarthy’s closest advisers. So while the Big Easy was no longer a part of my life, the public presence of Senator McCarthy was. http://scholarworks.uno.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2737&context=td http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Courtney http://www.auduboninstitute.org/visit/audubon-park/favorites/history V. OSWALD'S EARLY LIFE: NEW ORLEANS AND ORGANIZED CRIME Contents Residence in the French Quarter: 126 Exchange Alley RESIDENCE IN THE FRENCH QUARTER: 126 EXCHANGE ALLEY During his early childhood and adolescence in New Orleans, Lee Oswald lived with his divorced mother at a number of different locations, usually in small rented houses or apartments in a moderate to-lower-income section of the city. (1) While the record of residences is not complete, one address was 126 Exchange Alley. (2) During her testimony before the Warren Commission, Mrs. Marguerite Oswald indicated that she and her son lived there when Oswald was about to 16 years old, roughly the years 1955-56. (3) They were "living at 126 Exchange Place, which is the Vieux Carre section of the French Quarter of New Orleans." (4) During her testimony, Mrs. Oswald noted that "the papers said we lived over a saloon at that particular address * * * that is just the French part of town. It looks like the devil. Of course I didn't have a fabulous apartment. But very wealthy people and very fine citizens live in that part of town. * * .. (5) While Mrs. Oswald correctly noted that "wealthy" citizens resided in some sections of the French Quarter, Exchange Alley was well known as the location of other elements; it was an area notorious for illicit activities. As the managing director of the Metropolitan Crime Commission of New Orleans, Aaron Kohn recalled, "Exchange Alley, specifically that little block that Oswald lived on, was literally the hub of some of the most notorious underworld joints in the city." (6). He noted further that Exchange Alley was the location of various gambling operations affiliated with the Marcello organization. (7) Noting the openness with which such activities were conducted there, (8) Kohn said, "you couldn't walk down the block without literally being exposed to two or three separate forms of illicit activities and underworld operations." (9) http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/jfk9/hscv9b.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbannister.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcaddyD.htm

New book by one of Billie Sol Estes’ attorneys http://www.scribd.com/doc/213136345/TREASON-TREACHERY-DECEIT

Fletcher Prouty on LBJ and the JFK assassination http://vimeo.com/92414935

"SHRUGGING" SECRET SERVICE AGENT AT LOVE FIELD IS IDENTIFIED http://www.c-span.org/video/?c3997800/shrugging-secret-service-agent-love-field-identified

Ron Ecker asked yesterday in another topic in this forum: “On the general subject of proving that a known CIA person was in Dallas, can someone refresh my memory about Helms or Angleton saying (either in an alleged conversation or memo) that they may have to explain someday what E. Howard Hunt was doing in Dallas at the time of the assassination?” http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21151

British Pathe put entire back catalogue of 85,000 films online for free http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608356/Memory-Lane-goes-digital-Film-makers-British-Pathe-entire-catalogue-85-000-films-covering-70-years-20th-century-news-Hiroshima-Battle-Somme-online.html

Let me see if I get this straight. You and Hemming believe Hunt was washed up as an agent at the time of the JFK assassination. But Hunt was the confidante ghost-writer of Allen Dulles’ widely acclaimed book, The Craft of Intelligence, which was published in 1963, the year of the assassination. Many researchers have linked Dulles to having prior knowledge of the assassination. He was also appointed a member of the Warren Commission by LBJ even though he had been cashiered by JFK after the Bay of Pigs debacle in 1961. Hunt had known Dulles for many years. Did not Marita Morenz testify that she saw Hunt in Dallas at a safe-house the evening before the assassination? Richard Helms as director of the CIA displayed copies of Hunt’s book in his office. Helms placed Hunt in the Mullen Company, a CIA front entity, in 1969. In April 1972 Hunt invited me to join him and CIA legal counsel (and an original CIA founder) Lawrence Houston for drinks at a restaurant for the alleged reason of seeing if I would be interested in joining the CIA. I have concluded since that there was another, primary reason for the meeting. Hunt in 1971-72 regularly used CIA resources in carrying out his sensitive White House assignments. In light of these historical facts it is hard to accept the allegation of Hunt being a washed up agent at the time of the assassination or thereafter. http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Craft_of_Intelligence.html?id=mH3qdHK6_EsC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQjbiHTeQp8

The Astounding Conspiracy Theories of Wall Street Genius Mark Gorton http://gawker.com/the-astounding-conspiracy-theories-of-wall-street-geniu-1561427624

Watergate: 784 Days That Changed America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gJjPDxHiRY

Guest Post: Russia Is Dominated By Global Banks, Too Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/03/2014 18:26 -0400 www.zarohedge.com http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-03/guest-post-russia-dominated-global-banks-too Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market blog, Numerous cultures have had holidays dedicated to the celebration of pulling the wool over the eyes of others, from the ancient Romans, to early Muslims, to medieval Christians, to Americans and Europeans today. As April begins, we once again turn a mischievous eye to the concept of the fool and, as always, each person seeks to be the prankster and never the victim. Unfortunately, even the most vigilant of Americans can sometimes be led astray by a clever ruse, and I believe this is taking place today in the Liberty Movement’s perception of the rising “tensions” between Russia and the West. In my article Ukraine Crisis: Just Another Globalist-Engineered Powder Keg, I outlined the history of false paradigms and engineered conflicts between numerous nations, including how these conflicts are exploited by global money interests to consolidate and centralize social and political power. The birth of communist Russia, in particular, was directly funded by Western banks and supported with arms and military aid from the U.S. government itself. These sorts of startling facts are not taught in schools and universities exactly because the continued dominance of the money elite relies on continued misrepresentations of legitimate history. Many in the Liberty Movement have studied and are well aware of the central banking cabal and its stranglehold on the U.S. and Europe. But strangely, some people refuse to acknowledge the substantial possibility that global bankers are also in control of Russia and are playing both sides of the burgeoning economic war. As the Ukrainian crisis festers and other dangers in the Pacific and the Mideast grow, an odd consensus among alternative analysts is taking hold — namely the belief that President Vladimir Putin and Russia represent some kind of opposition to globalization and the rule of corporate financiers. Perhaps moments in Putin’s rhetoric and the existence of media outlets like RT have seduced elements of the Liberty Movement into assuming that Russia is a “victim” in the grand schemes of Western oligarchy and that Russia is truly the "white knight", the underdog willing to stand up against the New World Order. I’m sorry to say that nothing could be further from the truth. Russia is just as much a tool of the global elite today as it was after the Bolshevik Revolution, and Vladimir Putin is just as much a socialist puppet as Barack Obama. Let’s start from the beginning of the rebirth of Russia as a regional federation in the 1990s after the fall of the Warsaw Pact. Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader largely credited with the ultimate dismantling of the Soviet Union and the rise of the “new” Russia, has long been a proponent of the “New World Order” (his words) and centralized global government. In an address entitled “Perspectives On Global Change” to the students of Lafayette College in Easton, Penn., Gorbachev argued that such a solution was necessary to safeguard “freedom.” “The opportunities that existed after the end of the Cold War… were not used properly. At that same time, we saw that the entire world situation did not develop positively. We saw deterioration where there should have been positive movement toward a new world order.” He continued: “But we still are facing the problem of building such a world order. We have crises: we are facing problems of the environment, of backwardness and poverty, of food shortages. All of these problems are because we do not have a system of global governance.” When asked in 1995 by San Francisco Weekly what Gorbachev meant by the phrase “New World Order,” Jim Garrison, the executive director of the Gorbachev Foundation stated, bluntly that Gorbachev wanted nothing less than global government. "Over the next 20 to 30 years, we are going to end up with world government. … It’s inevitable. It will happen and become just as normal to have a relationship with the rest of the world as we now have, say, if you are a Californian and you go to Vermont." Take note that it has now been almost 20 years since the Garrison's assertion and the motions towards a global currency are picking up great speed. Gorbachev saw global government being achieved through international organizations like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But, is this vision of the New World Order limited only to Gorbachev and his inner circle? At the Gorbachev-led State of the World Forum in 1995, Council On Foreign Relations member Zbigniew Brzezinski had this to say: “We do not have a New World Order. … We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. … In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.” In Zbigniew K. Brzezinski’s book Between Two Ages: America’s Role In The Technetronic Era, he elaborates on the ideology behind what brand of government the New World Order would be: "The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty… More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken." "National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept… Marxism represents a further vital and creative state in the maturing of man’s universal vision. Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief…" Brzezinski seems to be in total agreement with Gorbachev, but why should anyone care what Brzezinski thinks about the future of American sovereignty? Perhaps it’s because he is a close and influential foreign policy adviser to Obama. So we have now established that political interests on both sides since the 1990s have called for a New World Order and global government taking a decidedly socialist or Marxist form. Some people might applaud this kind of future, or they might despise it; but the fact remains that this plan is indeed being openly promoted and implemented by government officials and elitists in the East and the West. It is undeniable. From its very inception, the new Russia was designed to become a catalyst for global governance, but global governance by whom? As they say, always follow the money. Russia is more beholden to international bankers than perhaps any nation on the planet. After the collapse of the Russian economy and the dissolution of the old Soviet Union, the country was in dire straits. From 1992 to 1996, the IMF intervened in the Russian economy, offering more than $22 billion in aid (officially). This first loan package was presented as a failure when Russia defaulted on its debts, and loans from the IMF restarted through the late ’90s until this very day. Many people are aware of the IMF involvement in Russia, but few know about the scandal surrounding where those IMF funds specifically went. In 1999, information was made public on the diversion of IMF cash into the coffers of Russian corporate elites, politicians, and even mobsters. This money was supposed to go toward the rebuilding of Russian infrastructure and economy. Instead, the aristocracy and criminal underworld were receiving a large cut of the funds. The money was diverted and laundered through the Bank of New York, an institution founded in 1784 by none other than internationalist agent and central bank promoter Alexander Hamilton. The bank changed ownership through merger in 2007 and is now called The Bank Of New York Mellon. The IMF’s first response to the scandal was to divert blame, stating that it had no control over the cash once it was in the hands of the Central Bank of Russia (CBR). After continued revelations on funds being misused or disappearing altogether, the IMF commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to audit the CBR. The results of that audit have never been made public. However, in 1999 the Russian government admitted that it had hidden more than $50 billion offshore in a subsidiary bank in the Channel Islands. Part of this money came from IMF bailouts. The former chairman of the CBR, Sergey Dubinin, insisted that the IMF was fully aware of who the funds were going to. Numerous officials from the chief state auditor to the minister of internal security to the prosecutor general of Russia had come forward with information that corroborated evidence that IMF money was being distributed to the wrong people. The chairman of the Duma Committee on Security stated that some of the IMF loans never made it to Russia. Rather, the money was pumped into the secret foreign accounts of Russia’s highest officials. Despite all of the admissions and evidence, IMF auditors refused to cite any corruption or malfeasance during their investigations. One would think that they would do everything in their power to find out where their funds went and why. The reason for the cover-up is obvious: The IMF knew exactly who the money was going to. The first bailouts of Russia were designed to buy the cooperation of the Russian political and corporate elite and ensure that the future direction of the nation would follow the globalist plan. Fast-forward to the present. Putin continues the subversive relationship between Russia and the IMF. In 2009, Putin called for the creation of a “super reserve currency” under the control of the IMF and using the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights basket as a foundation. Why would Putin, a supposedly anti-globalist nationalist leader, want the IMF, a supposedly U.S.-controlled institution, to be the global purveyor and overlord of the world economy? It’s because the IMF is not a U.S.-controlled institution; it is a banker-controlled institution. And Putin is a globalist, not a nationalist. The recent break of Crimea from Ukraine and secession to Russia was partly instigated by the vast concessions required by the IMF if loans to Ukraine were to move forward. One of these concessions included the handing over of Ukrainian gas pipelines to America’s Chevron. Crimean leaders accused Kiev politicians of selling out Ukraine to the global bankers. However, it was actually Russia’s finance minister and Putin who first pushed for the IMF bailout of Ukraine. It was, in fact, Putin who wanted Ukraine to “sell out” to Western financiers. Russia’s central bank is also a member of the Bank of International Settlements, the good-old-boys club of the international banking world. The BIS was founded in 1930 and served as the focal point of globalization until after World War II, when evidence arose that the organization had helped the Nazis by funding the German war machine, laundering money for Gestapo officials and hiding funds looted from Europe by the Third Reich. Due to the scandal, the BIS took a back seat to the IMF and World Bank; but it still exists today. Carroll Quigley, Council on Foreign Relations member, elitist insider and mentor to Bill Clinton, had this to say about the BIS in his book Tragedy And Hope: "The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world." Putin has been elevated to heroic status in much of the mainstream media over the years. TIME magazine, a long-running globalist publication, recently published a front-page article with this tagline: “America’s weak and waffling. Russia’s rich and resurgent — and its leader doesn’t care what anybody thinks of him.” This cover was used by TIME in every country in which it is distributed, except the United States. The Times of Britain named Putin “Man Of The Year” in 2013. In Liberty Movement circles, Putin worship has been growing to disturbing levels. I would say at least half of our movement truly believes Putin and Russia to be a guiding light in the fight against globalization and the New World Order. Unfortunately, many people look for heroes to save them when they should be looking to themselves. Putin’s nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize for his “intervention” in the Syrian crisis is celebrated by many freedom fighters here in America, when, in reality, the Obama Administration’s failure to achieve a war footing in the region had nothing to do with the actions of Russia. Remember, Russia and the U.S. are nothing but false champions dueling in a fake gladiator match paid for by the IMF. The war against Syria was thwarted because the elites were unable to garner enough public support from the American people to make the action viable. Every engineered war needs a gullible percentage of the population to give it momentum. Why didn’t they get their following from the public? It was because of the tireless efforts of the alternative media. It was the Liberty Movement that exposed the lies behind the Syrian insurgency; the consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya; the CIA’s involvement with al-Qaida in Damascus, etc. It is the Liberty Movement that deserves the credit for disrupting the globalist plan to use Syria as a trigger event for a false confrontation between the U.S. and Russia. Yet many are cheering the elitist puppet Putin while he takes credit for our accomplishments. The most frightening aspect of the false paradigm between East and West is the potential it creates for the co-option of liberty proponents here in America. If we allow ourselves to be suckered into cheerleading for Russia, or any controlled government for that matter, then we have lost. We will be swallowed up in the tides of war, while supporting false prophets and artificial protagonists. Our mission, the mission for a truly free and sovereign America, will be lost in the confusion and chaos of the global chess game. It is time to accept that the fate of this country and perhaps the future of human freedom rest solely on the shoulders of the resistance here at home. There is no nation out there in the ether of central banking that is going to help us. The sooner we come to terms with the reality that we are on our own, the stronger we will be when the fight begins.

President Obama appears to be taking an increasingly cavalier attitude towards killing people: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2486809/New-book-claims-President-Obama-bragged-aides-using-drone-strikes.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xd1wuXrVPjo LBJ talks about "others who could have been involved" besides Oswald and why we shall probably never know the full story.

Daniel Sheehan and Alternative Theories of the JFK Assassination

The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination w/ Dr. Walt Brown

Bob Wilson Interview with Shane O'Sullivan March 24, 2014 New York, NY http://garyrevel.com/jfk/shane.html Shane O'Sullivan has shared the benefit of his insights into the murders of both John and Bobby Kennedy. Shane has given us the book 'Who Killed Bobby' (Union Square Press, 2008), and the accompanying documentary R.F.K. MUST DIE (E2 Films, 2007). Now Shane takes an in depth look into Lee Harvey Oswald, in his new documentary OSWALD MUST DIE' (E2 Films 2013). The documentary offers interviews with some of the most important investigators into the topic covered. John Newman, David Kaiser, Dick Russell, Joan Mellen, and archival footage with Oswald confidante George DeMohrenschildt are voices that cannot be left unheard in gauging the events in question. O'Sullivan has brought them all together in one film that no concerned citizen can afford to ignore. Shane was kind enough to take the time to answer some questions we had regarding his overall work, and KILLING OSWALD. (Note: 'Killing Oswald' can be seen as a stream online at the VIMEO site). #1. Care to comment on District Attorney Henry Wade responding to the press that concerns about Oswald's safety will be handled with special precautions just before he was assassinated? I think you mean Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry. His interviews that weekend are very interesting. He seems genuinely bewildered by what is happening and lets it slip early on that the FBI had been tracking Oswald. His later interview with Peter Dale Scott in 1977 suggests he felt there was a conspiracy and was never satisfied with the WC conclusion. #2. Oswald worked as a Marine with the U2 flights, and worked after returning from defecting to the Soviet Union at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall. Please comment what "Jaggars" did, and on how Oswald was living basically around intelligence matters most of his adult life. Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall specialised in typographic services. They added type to maps for the Department of Defence and some of this work involved classified maps of Cuba. Oswald seems to have used the photographic equipment at work to make some of his ID cards and possibly print copies of the famous backyard photos. Oswald was a very odd choice for the job given his background as a Soviet defector. #3. When Oswald defected to Russia, John Newman said he may have been on a mission to ferret out a "mole". Can you tell us about that, and also on how easily Oswald returned to America after defecting? The CIA knew there was a mole in the U2 program and may have used Oswald's defection as a "dangle" to find out who the mole was. Oswald actually had to wait a long time for the Soviets and the US Embassy in Moscow to process the papers for his return with Marina and their baby daughter. But the way Oswald was treated on his return to the U.S. s a defector was very unusual. The CIA claims they never debriefed him and the FBI only showed brief and belated interest, suggesting they knew he was not really a communist subversive but something else. #4. The footage you had with George DeMohrenschildt was fascinating. Who was DeMohrenschildt, and was he a likely companion for someone fitting the description of who the Warren Commission said Oswald was supposed to be? I had access to a six-hour audio interview De Mohrenschildt gave Dutch journalist Willem Oltmans in 1968 and I found that fascinating. I think he was a source of intelligence on Oswald for the CIA through J. Walton Moore and seemed to work for a number of intelligence agencies. Ultimately, though, he moved to Haiti in May 1963, so he was out of the picture when the assassination plot got going. He knew Oswald was a patsy and that he'd played some part in his downfall. #5. Someone seemed to be impersonating Oswald at the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City. John Newman seems to believe this is the key to the cover-up. Please tell us about that, and what kind of shock waves that would cause after President Kennedy's assassination? At least two telephone calls were made to the Soviet embassy by an Oswald impersonator after Oswald's visits to the Russian and Cuban embassies. In one of those calls, Silvia Duran was also impersonated. I agree that whoever was behind those impersonations was likely involved in the assassination as the transcripts of these calls create the legend of Oswald the Marxist contacting these Communist embassies and meeting a Soviet assassinations expert in the months before Dallas. #6. Please tell us a bit about Antonio Veciana, and his recent revelations. The footage of him in the film with him speaking so candidly was enlightening, and 'worth the price of admission'. When I met Veciana in November 2006, he was refreshingly open about his life and efforts against Castro and also quite sure that the plot against JFK came from within and was partly directed by CIA. He said he would keep his promise to Maurice Bishop not to reveal his true identity until the day he died but thankfully, Gaeton Fonzi's widow Marie helped convince him to recently out David Atlee Phillips as the man he met with Oswald in Dallas. #7. Can you tell us about the life of David Atlee Phillips, and what role he seems to have played in the assassination? The film includes never-before-seen footage of Phillips at the wedding of Win Scott, the CIA's station chief in Mexico City at the time of the assassination as well as declassified audio from Phillips' HSCA testimony on the Mexico City tapes. If a CIA officer had a hand in the assassination, he is the most likely candidate and he hinted as much in his unpublished outline for a novel, The AMLASH Legacy. Phillips' son told me his father was in Mexico City on November 22, 1963 but the impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City, CIA operations targeting Fair Play for Cuba, the DRE tangle with Oswald in New Orleans and the Oswald-was-working-for-Castro propaganda campaign after the assassination all point in the direction of Phillips. #8. Joan Mellon and others mention a 'J.Walton Moore' a few times in the film. Perhaps you could fill those who have not heard of him before onto who he is, and his link to George DeMohrenschildt. Moore was in charge of the CIA's Domestic Contacts office in Dallas and asked De Mohrenschildt to check Oswald out. #9. Did you have to edit anything for the sake of time that you may want to tell us about here? For instance, did you think of mentioning the way that George DeMohrenschildt died? Yes, that was one subject I didn't have time for as I really didn't want the film to go beyond two hours for the casual viewer. I'm not convinced De Mohrenschildt was murdered as he does seem to have been hounded by Willem Oltmans in the months before his death. I visited the Oltmans archives in Holland and he was a very eccentric individual who could have pushed De Mohrenschildt towards despair. He had split from his wife and was now facing the prospect of having to go through a round of HSCA testimony after very traumatic Warren Commission testimony. In interviews after his death, his daughter said he was very mentally fragile before he died, exhausted. #10. Oswald was said to have taken a shot at General Edwin Walker. Can you tell us who he was, and your perceptions on his appearance in these events? General Walker resigned his army commission after being disciplined by JFK and Robert McNamara for indoctrinating his troops with anti-Communist propaganda. The idea that Oswald shot at both Walker and JFK, at opposite ends of the political spectrum, doesn't make any sense to me. Oswald's political writings certainly suggest Walker could have been a target of his and I tend to believe that Oswald did shoot at Walker, making it highly unlikely that Oswald then shot at JFK. Walker was a major supporter of the anti-Castro cause and I find his connections to Cuban exiles like Loran Hall fascinating. I think Walker may have known the anti-Castro Cubans who set up Oswald. #11. One of the most fascinating players in this story is Richard case Nagell. I think he alone may someday be worthy of a documentary. Can you tell us about Nagell, and Dick Russell's role in researching him? Dick Russell's The Man Who Knew Too Much is probably my favourite book on the JFK assassination. Although there is little hard evidence for Nagell's story - the photo and tape of Oswald have never been found - I find the scenario Nagell gave Dick Russell the most convincing explanation for how Oswald was framed. Namely, that Oswald was a sincere pro-Castro Marxist framed by anti-Castro Cubans pretending to be on his side. This also fits with what John Martino said just before he died about Oswald being set up as a patsy. #12. David Kaiser receives a lot of camera time in your film. Can you tell us about his background in JFK research, and how you came to ask him to participate? I found myself going back to his book a lot because we were interested in the same figures - John Martino, Loran Hall, George De Mohrenschildt. I think he's unfairly dismissed by a lot of researchers because he thinks Oswald was the shooter in a Mob-organised conspiracy. But if you accept the confession of John Martino, the Mob obviously were involved to some extent even if the plot was masterminded by CIA officers and/or anti-Castro Cubans. David Kaiser's research is meticulous and he presents it very clearly. I don't agree with him on everything but he was able to get key points of a very complicated story across concisely. #13. Not many realize that the HSCA ruled in the late 1970's that therevwas a 'likely conspiracy' in both the JFK and MLK murders. that is not often mentioned in the major media. Can you tell us about their efforts? While the HSCA investigation was compromised by G. Robert Blakey's preconceived idea of Mafia involvement, some terrific work was done on Oswald in Mexico City by Ed Lopez and Dan Hardway, and Gaeton Fonzi worked with Antonio Veciana to tease out the whole Maurice Bishop scenario. Of course, those called to testify before the HSCA began to drop like flies but the most important legacy of the investigation are the HSCA files, which were released in the nineties under the JFK Records Act. #14. You have done an excellent book and documentary on the RFK murder as well. Can you tell us if you have found any new information on RFK since those projects? And is anything going on in that case today? Sirhan's attorneys Bill Pepper and Laurie Dusek are still waiting for a ruling on Sirhan's Habeas Corpus Petition. The evidence of 13 shots on the Pruszynski recording and the testimony of Dr. Dan Brown on Sirhan as Manchurian Candidate make for a very strong case, I think. I also have a lead on the girl in the polka-dot dress I'm pursuing. Bob Wilson Bob is an investigative journalist and prolific writer of articles related to music artists and assassinations.

Rendezvous with Death - Why John F. Kennedy Had to Die от: OlegKramskiChannel Published: November20, 2011 http://rutube.ru/video/99c6e922689c87eaf7367c893d418417/

Pat, Here’s some additional detail: WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2010 Robert S. Strauss: In His Own Words http://dailstrug.blogspot.com/2010/07/robert-s-strauss-in-his-own-words.html How did Lyndon Johnson handle this shocking development? Robert Strauss: He called my law partner, Irving Goldberg, who was very close to Johnson and Mrs. Johnson. As a matter of fact, I think he was their lawyer, and Irving had been on his staff for a while. Johnson called him from the plane, and he asked Irv, "What do I do about being sworn in? Should I do it here or there or wait until I get to Washington?" And Irv was wise enough to say, "You don't need to be sworn in. You are president, but you ought to be sworn in in a very public way, where the world will see you, see the power changing, because they need to know there is continuity here." And Johnson said, "I agree. Who should do it?" And Irv said, "I'll get Barefoot." Barefoot Sanders had an Indian name, but he had also just been appointed U.S. Attorney by Johnson, "He'll locate Judge Sarah Hughes," who was also a Johnson appointee. Luckily, they found the right people, and that's how that all happened. Johnson said to him, "You get out here for this swearing in," but when he got to the airport they said, "Oh, you can't go in there." Irv was too shy, and he didn't throw his weight around or say, "Call the plane, you'll find out." So he just stayed out and went on back home. That's the story. A day I'll never forget.

CNN’s Don Lemon: ‘Is It Preposterous’ to Think a Black Hole Caused Flight 370 to Go Missing? by Josh Feldman | 11:31 pm, March 19th, 2014 http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-don-lemon-is-it-preposterous-to-think-a-black-hole-caused-flight-370-to-go-missing/ [it looks like CNN has joined the wackos with this latest]

NoW offered hacking reporter 'crude' deal to keep job by not spreading blame Former royal editor told he would only be sacked if he said others were involved in phone hacking, Old Bailey told By Lisa O'Carroll theguardian.com, Wednesday 19 March 2014 12.34 EDT The News of the World's former royal editor accused a company lawyer of offering a "crude carrot and stick" deal which would see him keep his job if he did not allege others were involved in phone hacking, the Old Bailey has heard. Clive Goodman, testifying in the phone-hacking trial on Wednesday, also accused the News International lawyer of trying to "dictate lines of defence" following his arrest on suspicion of phone hacking in 2006. Goodman said he found the lawyer's actions "inappropriate and just a bit shocking" and more "threatening" than the prosecution case lined up against him. He claimed the News International lawyer had effectively ambushed him in a private legal meeting, telling him he would only be sacked if he said others on the paper were involved or knew about phone hacking. Goodman produced a previously unseen email between himself and his lawyer, Henri Brandman, complaining about a News International lawyer who had gatecrashed a meeting he had had with his barrister in December 2006. The meeting between Goodman and his lawyers – Brandman and counsel John Kelsy Fry, QC – had been arranged to discuss the case and the mitigation defence ahead of a meeting with the probation service and sentencing. Goodman had pleaded guilty on 29 November to hacking the phones of members of the royal household but had specifically said the News International lawyer was only to be present at part of the meeting. He told jurors that the News International lawyer arrived early and sat in on a discussion he had not been invited to. "We got to the part of the meeting where I said I fully expected to be sacked by News of the World. At that point he interrupted and said that was not the case," Goodman said. "Again, he said it would only happen if you blame others, if you do that, you can't really expect Andy [Coulson, the editor] to take you back." Following the meeting on 12 December 2006, Goodman fired off a letter to Brandman protesting at the News International lawyer's, behaviour describing his presence as "most unhelpful". "He arrived while we were in full flow to deliver a fairly crude carrot and stick from the NoW," he wrote. "As the newspaper has no voice at our mitigation/sentencing hearing on January 26 I found the attempt to dictate lines of our defence highly inappropriate and just a bit shocking." He continued: "I do not wish to see any NoW representative at future meetings or for them to receive updates on the progress of the case, or for them to sit with us on the day. "I felt more threatened by the message he was asked to deliver today than I have been by much of the prosecution case." Previously jurors heard that Kelsy Fry had advised Goodman that a judge might take "a positive view of someone standing up and taking responsibility for their actions". Goodman said this "echoed" advice he had been given by Brandman. Goodman in the event pleaded guilty and did not implicate any others in his mitigation statement used ahead of sentencing. He was sentenced to four months in prison on 26 January 2007. On 5 February that year he was sacked by the News of the World. "I learned of it in a phone call from my wife," he said. He was released on a tag in late February and in March launched an appeal against his dismissal citing five reasons as to why it was unfair. Among them was a claim that others on the paper had been hacking phones and had not been sacked, and that the editor and a News International lawyer had "promised on a number of occasions that I could come back to the newspaper if I did not implicate any other staff". Goodman had an internal appeal hearing on 20 March 2007. He did not have legal representation but said there were "47 inaccuracies" in the notes taken of the meeting by News International and distributed to various parties. Some were so bad as to "reverse the truth" Goodman told jurors. Little more than a week later he was invited to meet Rebekah Brooks, who was then editor of the Sun. She offered him a six-month contract to work on "bookzines" – glossy supplements on subjects including the 10th anniversary of Princess Diana's death. He was offered £12,500 for the work but felt it was not a "serious job offer". Goodman told the jury of a second internal hearing on 10 May with the company's human resources chief Daniel Cloke and the News of the World's new editor, Colin Myler. Again, he did not have legal representation but recorded the meeting covertly. On 30 May 2007, he was formally notified that his appeal against his dismissal was rejected. He then discussed his situation with an employment specialist lawyer Tony Lorenzo, at Lewis Silkin. Goodman settled with News International later in 2007 after being offered £140,000. Four years later he was arrested again but told jurors that he gave a no comment interview because of leaks to the Guardian. He read about his pending arrest the night before. "It did not come as a great surprise to me that the police would be turning up the next day at dawn to arrest me." He said when he was at the police station, he learned during a break that the Guardian had more details of the "green books", the royal telephone directories he was suspected of paying for and the amount he had supposedly paid for them. "That doubly encouraged me not to give any kind of comment," said Goodman. Goodman said he initially felt "very sore" about the way he had been treated by Coulson, who was his friend, but that he no longer felt hostile towards him. He said his negative feelings towards him faded in prison which he described as "a good place to think". Goodman has not been charged with hacking offences but denies two other charges that he paid public officials to obtain royal telephone directories. The trial continues

Why has the U.S. targeted Malaysia for retribution, leading to speculation about the role of the U.S. in the missing Malaysian plane? Because of the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur_War_Crimes_Commission In November 2011 the tribunal purportedly exercised universal jurisdiction to try in absentia former US President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, convicting both for crimes against peace because of what the tribunal concluded was the unlawful invasion of Iraq.[7][8][9] In May 2012 after hearing testimony for a week from victims of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the tribunal unanimously convicted in absentia former President Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense SecretaryDonald Rumsfeld, former Deputy Assistant Attorneys General John Yoo and Jay Bybee, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former counselors David Addington and William Haynes II of conspiracy to commit war crimes, specifically torture.[10] The tribunal referred their findings to the chief prosecutor at the International Court of Justice in the Hague.[11] In November 2013, the tribunal convicted State of Israel guilty of genocide of the Palestinian people and convicted former Israeli general Amos Yaron for crimes against humanity and genocide for his involvement in the Sabra and Shatila massacre. [12]