Gene Kelly

Tom: Thanks for your response. Your work is fascinating, if not difficult to follow. I am not knowledgeable in decoding ciphers. It would seem that in using encryption, the challenge is to pass on the decoding mechanism or key to the intended recipient in a way in which it cannot be intercepted. Perhaps they were trying to protect themselves while reaching out to other unknown (but 'friendly') entities. Reading some of your work with "ICO", they used anagrams where the order of letters was rearranged to form a new word or phrase. They hid the message in plain sight, while being unlikely to be recognized as a code. I wonder who the message was intended for? You posit that one anagram was a metaphoric connection to Tracy Barnes, as a CIA confidante of Richard Nagell. Were they trying to alert the rest of the intelligence world? Cryptanalysis is the province of intelligence organizations (e.g. the NSA). So I'd think the message was intended for intelligence authorities... rather than posterity. It seems the "ICO" is a transposition cipher. If there were over 200 coded anagrams, one would think these "messages" would have been indeed recognized by knowledgeable persons (either in real time, or in subsequent years). They relate (literally) to many "cryptic" pieces of evidence such as the the Historic Diary, the Hidell alias, the backyard photos, the Odio incident, and the mail order revolver. The encrypted puzzle on the Undelivered Package was examined by the FBI; its strange that the Bureau (who had cryptologists) would not recognize the code hidden in plain sight. The fictitious Nassaus is not a word (nor a street name) but anagrams to “assassinate” and Guy Banister. No wonder Oswald was reaching out to John Hurt while briefly incarcerated. It's also quite curious that this Code clue has never surfaced publically - or been solved - before your threads. Do you have a view on the comments by driver Aubrey Rike who mentioned that the O'Neal ambulance switchboard had received a number of calls for ambulances to respond to bogus emergencies in various places around downtown Dallas in the days leading up to President Kennedy's visit? He suggested that the purpose of these calls may have been to determine the ambulance response times to various locations. Is there a clue as to this in the anagrams and ciphers? Since DPD Officer Smith is who responded to the incident and called for the ambulance, perhaps they (i.e. "ICO") wanted to ensure there would be enough time dispatch the ambulance to TSBD ... prior to the motorcade approaching Elm and Houston. In summary, I find the Belknap incident fascinating, and am strongly drawn to it as symbolic. I wonder why Jerry and his friend were left alive in the years that follow. I'd think they would be very dangerous to the plotters and ground crew. I'm now curious about the person you call "Gabby" who is still alive. Also, would you care to share some of your background? You seem quite proficient at cryptanalysis. Gene

David/Tom: There are many vignettes and incidents associated with the ambush and murder that draw one to the JFK story. However, none is so fascinating for me as the Belknap "seizure". Its timing and location are mighty suspicious. The ride in the ambulance to Parkland, and the lack of subsequent medical record, are intriguing. I've often thought (pure speculation) that it was intended as a diversion, drawing attention away from shooters (and others) and allowing them to get into place. Just as the alleged shooting from and activities at the TSBD are a diversion. It also serves as a signal of sorts ... letting the ambush teams know that's its almost time (i.e. a two-minute warning). Since many view the ambush as the act of experts - who were masters of such scenes (akin to magic with sleight of hand and sensory diversion) - I'm inclined to see Belknap as part of the plot. By taking him to Parkland, it perhaps alerted those who would be stationed and positioned at the hospital (as contingencies); somehow, it seems associated with clearing a path to the hospital. Was there not a story where the ambulance ride to Parkland was timed by the driver previously? I wonder what would be critical (to someone) about how long that ride takes? Belknap is germane to this thread, as it is somehow establishes the timing for events that follow. I've often wondered about what became of Jerry Belknap ... who he was, and how he fared. Not sure there's been much written about him. The seizure incident resonates strongly to me as no coincidence. Gene

Jon: I am not trained or experienced in intelligence matters. But I have investigation experience. I have read this thread with much interest; quite thoughtful. Its apparent (to me) that "Oswald" appeared to act on behalf of an intelligence service. As you have pointed out, there are many "red flags' that indicate Oswald fit a Covert Operational Personality profile. What I do think is that his legend was sheep-dipped very well. As you state, every CI-analyst in every country in the world recognized Oswald for what he was - a covert intelligence operator and an agent, asset or operative of some intelligence network. Perhaps that was purposeful. Oswald was also associated with a number of other covet operations; not just the Walker shooting or JFK murder ... as they say, it did not appear to be his first rodeo. But he was not apparently gathering information and passing it on to a case officer (either directly or via some intermediary) as a classic operative might. This implies that he was being used (as a "dangle") as opposed to a skilled operative. If he were such, he would not have allowed the operation planned and executed to be pinned on him. I also believe that there were other opportunities... other kill sites (and patsies) being developed, which are documented in the stories and literature. Chicago, Miami and Tampa to name a few. Oswald appears to be not the only game in town. Keeping that in mind, he was not the only choice. There were likely plenty of candidates who would fill the bill, fit the role. His use of the Hidell alias and the fake selective service card are suspicious, as are his Minox, use of trade-craft (particularly after the assassination), moving residences, library books, unexplained money, interrogation skills, and especially the paradox of his Russian speaking skills. His association with DeMohrenschildt and the Paines is suspect. All of these "markers" seem too obvious. I wish that I could add expertise and insight here, but it all seems either genuine or he was expertly sheep-dipped (the latter seems plausible). It seems intelligence (what little I know) is about using others, creating mis-direction, and making things appear as they are not. I don't think he was an "agent" (whatever that means) nor do I think he was an "officer" or acting in any official capacity ... he was simply being used, to be discarded or burned in a limited hangout at the right opportunity. A true enigma. Gene

Thanks to John from me as well. Hendrix figured prominently in the goings-on in Miami and Cuban intrigue at JMWave. He was clearly affiliated with intelligence and used to spread disinformation, particularly about Oswald. His passing marks the loss of a first-hand witnesses to the story of Kennedy's murder.

Brad: To add some fuel to this fire, I'm reminded that Officer Baker allegedly arrived very quickly at the TSBD steps. A world record for diagnosing the roots of a crime and responding. I've read some speculation that he was, in fact, dispatched to kill the patsy. It certyainly is a plausible explanation for why Oswald subsequently left the TSBD & armed himself. Along with Westbrook and Hill, Baker now becomes another DPD person of interest for me. I wonder what became of him, and whether he prospered in the aftermath? Gene

"Johnny's in the basement Mixing up the medicine I'm on the pavement Thinking about the government"

Jon: Not sure what you think of the Middle East topic (oil, nuclear weapons) as something JFK didn't overtly push, but LBJ did, and a solid reason for continuance today. I'd be interested in your feedback. I am not suggesting that LBJ orchestrated the murder, nor do I see Israel as complicit. The Liberty incident appears to be a failed False-flag operation, aborted in some way before the US attacked Egypt. Walter Whitman Rostow and his brother Eugene V. Rostow are quite another story. They are linked with Allen Dulles and John McCloy, Yale graduates, Oxford/Cambridge, former OSS affiliations, CFR confederates. They had well-known hawkish reputations, and were characterized as "anticommunist zealots." Both were instrumental in arms control but not necessarily strategic limitations. Walter Rostow later left government service "reviled by many" for his advocacy of the Viet Nam War. I believe they are representative of the high-level sponsors of the assassination so sought after. According to Donald Gibson, John Kennedy had "no interest in pursuing the economic domination of Third World countries. JFK had a similar dislike for the use of the United States' political and military power against backward and weaker nations". That ended when LBJ took the presidential helm. Oil control and nuclear proliferation ... endures today. Gene

Bill Shelley ... part of Oswald's "convoy" (as Garrison called it).

Jon: My intent was not to place suspicion upon Israel, nor do I think that they had a hand in the assassination. I had recently been accumulating information on LBJ. He is a fascinating (and troubling) personality, and I never realized how unbalanced and corrupt that he was. I always suspected something about him regarding the assassination -- for a variety of reasons -- but could not place him at the center of a conspiracy nor could I project him as a mastermind. He certainly had much to worry about in/about November 1963 as far as his political future, but he doesn't seem capable of all of the planning, execution and cover-up. Nor does he explain why the 'fog' of JFK's murder persists today. However, I encountered the USS Liberty story in the course of my research, and dug deeper into it ... the quotes that I shared in Post # 129 are from collective articles about the Liberty affair in June 1967. It reminds one of the Gulf of Tonkin incident (an alleged pretext for escalated conflict and a false flag operation)... it was certainly controversial and unresolved, even today. When you asked what LBJ was willing and able to do (that JFK was not), this story immediately came to mind... it was without any preconceived notion or thinking; it leap out at me. Kind of like the first answer that comes to mind in a test. I cannot explain how the attack may have been subverted or thwarted by US media; you seem to suggest something there. Please let us know if that's instructive. I'm not even sure that it/Liberty was his (LBJ's) plan. But there was surely something fishy about the entire story, and how it was down-played as a 'mistake'. A strange medal of honor "misdirection", silencing of witnesses, and a quick (Calley-like) trial. Perhaps it was another Northwoods plot, designed to induce a conflict. Many credible individuals protested the facts and justice afterwards. It was clearly a cold war intrigue. Digging deeper into the principals, one reference that I read states: "One of LBJ's closest advisors was a zealot, Walter W. Rostow, his then-Special Assistant for National Security Affairs... a sinister, Svengali-like figure. He was crucial in determining for LBJ which way the U.S. might respond to the threatened hostilities in the Middle East...Rostow was a hawk who believed in the Vietnam War". The article further states: " The Soviets actually engineered the conflict... they feared a nuclear Israel, and sought a pretext to intervene directly and bomb Israel's nuclear reactor in Dimona". Another quote states: "On June 7th Eugene Rostow called Avraham Harman to the State Department and warned him that the Israeli attack must stop immediately; he informed Harmon that the Americans knew about the 'cooking' of communications. Four hours later in Tel Aviv the Minister of Defense and the Commander of the air force's offices ordered surveillance of the American communications ship operating off Sinai. Four hours after that, the same sources ordered that the ship be sunk." Walter Rostow's brother, Eugene (Dean of Yale Law School) played an important role in the creation of the Warren Commission, along with Dean Acheson, an elder statesman of the Cold War. You ask, what did LBJ actually do - that JFK did not (or would not) - and what are the solid reasons for the cover-up, that continue to this day. James Angleton remains a sinister and complex character at the center of the entire JFK story (before, during and after), and had strong allegiances to Israel and their intelligence services. My logic tells me that the central issue was Middle East Oil and potential Soviet influence -- not necessarily Israel, which remains a means to an end -- its all about the oil reserves. LBJ was certainly in the pocket of Texas oil power brokers, and maintained the Oil Depletion Allowance ... in stark contrast to JFK. Middle East oil and the role of Israel in that region is a topic for which JFK apparently showed no strong interest or was opposed, which LBJ otherwise fostered or allowed. This was/is a matter of great concern necessarily... a matter warranting JFK's demise and LBJ's installation as President ... a matter that can be perceived from a study of LBJ's presidency... a solid reason for an ongoing cover-up. Gene

LBJ didn't oppose foreign aid to Israel. He allowed (turned a blind eye towards) a nuclear arms buildup for certain countries in the Middle East. Egypt and Nasser -- being armed by the Soviets -- posed a threat. A threat to oil reserves and regional dominance. We needed to keep the Soviets from gaining a foothold in the Midle east; we continue to want, their oil. A strong Israeli ally in the Middle east... continues to this day. The attack on the USS Liberty was a false flag operation fully approved by the Johnson administration (similar to Tonkin Gulf) to serve as a pretext to a nuclear attack on Egypt and a full takeover of Middle East oil. If not stopped, the Soviets would entrench themselves in the Middle East to the point that America’s access to the oil of that region would be directly jeopardized...the West would be conquered “without a shot being fired.” Israel’s deliberate attack on the USS Liberty was a false flag operation simply for the purpose of dragging an unwilling America into a Middle East war. Kennedy’s death eased the pressure on Israel, and Johnson chose to turn a blind eye on the activities at Dimona. John McCone, the CIA director appointed by Kennedy, resigned in 1965, complaining of Johnson’s lack of interest in the subject. Israel acquired its first bomb around 1967, without ever admitting it. Kennedy would not be remembered in Tel Aviv as a friend of Israel. In addition to his attacks against lobbying activities of Israel and its nuclear power ambitions, Kennedy defended the right of return of the 800,000 Palestinian refugees expelled from their neighborhoods and villages in 1947. On November 20, 1963, his delegation to the United Nations called for the implementation of Resolution 194 crafted for this purpose. Kennedy probably never got the chance to read Israel’s hysterical reactions in the newspapers. Johnson’s rise to power was greeted with relief in Israel. While Kennedy had cut down aid to Israel, Johnson increased it from $40 to 130 million the following year. While the Kennedy administration had authorized the sale of a limited number of defensive missile batteries to Israel, under Johnson more than 70% of the aid was earmarked for military equipment, including tanks and Skyhawk offensive aircraft. Conversely, by denying them U.S. aid, Johnson forced Egypt and Algeria to turn to the Soviet Union to maintain and upgrade their defense systems. LBJ was willing and able... These are the solid reasons for the coverup to continue ... 50 years later.

Interesting that a student critique from a 2012 class stated "Dr. McAdams knows what he's talking about, but if you're not an auditory learner then beware: his lectures are simply him talking for 75 straight mins - no visuals at all." That doesn't sound like free speech to me. I agree with an earlier comment from Larry Hancock about how difficult controlling students in the classroom can be. As an adjunct professor, I have had similar experiences with students and how they can make life very difficult for the instructor plus put university officials and administrators in a no-win middle-man position. Plus, there is likely a lot more to this story than is being printed in news accounts and blogs. I also suspect its not the first time for such a controversy. It seems the real issue is not necessarily the topic of gay marriage, free speech at a Jesuit university, or the novice instructor's actions. Professor McAdams attacked a colleague on his Blog ... worse, it appears that other faculty members have come forward to voice their discomfort of coming into his cross-hairs. I think that is where he has crossed the line.

Brad/Robert: Those who believe in more to the story, and visit Dealey Plaza, are moved by its small dimensions and unique layout. It is an ambush configuration and not a random location... it had to be specially selected. Many have since analyzed its strategic advantages. Shooters had a relatively easy ingress and egress. Photos were available but altered, and witnesses were quickly managed and intimidated. I can just imagine what it was like to actually be there, and the first (raw) impressions on the Knoll and in the railroad yards. The picture and vision that remains today is a diorama... it is staged, not real. Exaggerated and embellished. Gene

Vince: What's your take on the death (by heart attack) of SS limo driver Thomas Shipman at Camp David in October 1963? I know that Secret Service had destroyed the Presidential survey reports and travel logs pertaining to this matter in January 1995, at the same time ARRB was drafting a request for additional information. Since Greer becomes suspect for many reasons, and the key protective asset to subsequently compromise, you'd think there would be more investigative activity in Shipman's death. Do we know anyhting more than simply the protective records from Fall 1963 have been destroyed? Did anyone ever talk in more detail about Shipman? Gene

Greg: How much can you share about Hill? I have many thoughts and ideas, difficult to know where to begin. Things like, how long did he continue to work in DPD? What were his affiliations, and who were his mentors and contacts? Did cases and/or things he became involved in later (after the attack in Dealey Plaza) reflect on his connections and motives. Perhaps certain cryptic comments that he made. Any detail that you can share, or certain of his comments that you found were illuminating or sinister. In summary, what was it about Hill that raises your suspicions? Thanks, Gene

Greg: I would be interested in your impressions of Gerald Hill. He was at every key crime scene that day, and literally had his hands on most of the crucial evidence. It seems highly suspect that he could be involved by chance (at TSBD, Tippit scene, Texas Theatre) and his movements and transport appear suspect as well. Did he raise your suspicion at all? Gene

Paul: I follow your posts because you make interesting points. You really have got me thinking about General Walker... again, since JIm Root had the same impact previously. Your passion about his role is a good thing in my opinion. The dialogue between you and Ernie is a bit exhausting, but there are sharp insights in both arguments. I do echo Pat Speer's sentiments that you both keep it professional, so we can all focus better on the key information. As Larry Hancock has emphasized, in this JFK case there's room for many views. Regards, Gene

Paul: I appreciate your passion about Walker. I don't dismiss him, anymore than one can dsimiss anyhting in this morass of rabit holes called the JFK assassination. Walker is very close to may key events in the murder... before, during and after. Jim Root's tireless work to connect Walker dots in WWII, intelligence, Willoughby, Helms, Oswald and Maxell Taylor are quite interesting. Walker was pro-Blue (and anti-red) in an era where that was fashionable... and he was a general, so he deserves respect. I am keenly aware of his involvement in the "wanted for treason" posters and the earlier Stevenson incident. His behavior in the riots and other events is a discrace to his uniform ... in my opinion, the Kennedy's were justified in having him decommissioned, institutionalized and frankly prosecuted. No wonder they referred to it as "nut country" when they visited Texas. It's very hard for me to evaluate his role in retrospect, and I do so cautiously. He was a miltary man, and he didn't like JFK or his policies... so he is by definition on the list. He lived in Dallas near Hidell Hardware. Add in all of the radical causes and reactionaries floating around him, and you have a person of interest. The attempt on his life is one of those key enigmas that seem to be at the heart of the games being played. I also see his connection to Warren Reynolds (and the Tippit affair) as another strong link of suspicion. But I'm entitled to my assessment and opinion... and there's just something too obvious about him for my tastes. Many have branded him as an embarrassemnt to the military and government; others say he hated Earl Warren and wanted him impeached as well... a rationalization for his assertive interaction with the Warren Commission. He had aspirations to run for governor and even president, and he was an iconic figure at radical right rallies and conventions. But he had no official responsibilities or positions of power in 1963. He was not married, and there were overtones about deviant behaviour that later got him in trouble and (if my memory serves me) arrested. In his pictures and actions, he appears as an angry (and unhappy) man... a craeture of the times who seems pathetic in retrospect. That's how he lands upon me. So I simply can't reconcile him as a plotter or a big fish in the storyline. I view him as a convenient lightning rod to ground energy, and just another patsy (albeit a prominent one) in the murder case. Gene

Paul: I do respect your suspicions of Walker. He is an enigmatic character and figures prominently in the JFK story... before, during, and after. I would offer that he faded into obscurity in the next ten years. I do find him interesting but I think his profile is too 'bright' and he sought far too much public attention to be a plotter or planner. I don't think Garrison gave him much credence nor did the HSCA. And - other than his sinister associations and bitterness towards the government and Kennedys - nothing has surfaced in the last 50 years that is notable in so far as his complicity... other than the odd so-called attempt on his life. General Walker wrote a letter to the Warren Commission requesting that Warren Reynolds (a used car dealer and a witness to the Tippit shooting and fleeing killer) be formally interviewed. According to other Forum members, the Warren Commission stepped on egg-shells with the Warren Reynolds - Edwin Walker relationship. Reynolds was asked leading questions by the Commission, and his testimony was weak and inconclusive. Not sure why Walker would be so overt in his actions after November 1963. Allegedly, Jack Ruby’s role was to assemble a group of ‘witnesses’ to Tippit’s murder, who would testify that Oswald was the murderer... Reynolds was apparently one of those. Garrison stated that he believed Reynolds to be part of a "convoy" that was used to plant evidence and lead a trail from Tippit to the Texas Theater. Darrell Wayne Garner later allegedly shot Reynolds, and used Nancy Mooney (aka Betty MacDonald) as an alibi. Garner skipped town and Nancy was jailed and hung herself in prison. There are lots of dots to connect there. The attempt on Reynolds’s life appears melodramatic and staged (just like the Walker attempt earlier that year). Garner and the Reynolds brothers moved in circles of arms deals and paramilitary training grounds. One wonders what the older general had in common with a young used car salesman in Dallas ... probably a personal relationship and the Minute Men. I am very skeptical of what Reynolds testified to, and also find it suspicious that Loran Hall appears to be either protecting or somehow manipulating General Walker before, during and after the JFK assassination. Gene

Vince: Your work is valuable and courageous. Most folks don't give a darn, or are clueless about the realities of the real world. You have single-handedly opened up an important door to what went down in 1963... one of several key areas where things do not add up or make sense. Many will forever refuse to believe that an institution like the Secret Service could be compromised or complicit in such a heinous crime. Don't sweat the small stuff, and don't let the XXX's get you down. Kudos to you and your continued persistence. Gene

Ernie: I think you're applying logic, and trying to make it fit with LBJ as a better vehicle for the plotters. I agree with Paul (in an earlier statement) and think this murder was much simpler and less glamorous or strategic... revenge was central to the action. In the aftermath, we did not invade Cuba. Castro was never eliminated. A first strike against Russia never came close again. The Joint Chiefs and LeMay/Lemnitzer faded into oblivion. Atomic disaster was avoided. Communism failed 30 years later. The cold war eventually ended and Viet Nam was viewed as a dismal failure. Central America did not fall to foreign domination. The CIA was eventually splintered and neutralized. I do think that the Oil guys prospered. But Hoover faded away (some say eliminated by the plumbers)... so did Allen Dulles and his cronies. The JBS and radical right also faded into obscurity... no longer relevant after 1980. Fidel Castro ironically stayed in "power" for quite a long time after Dealey Plaza (although Nikita Khruschev did not). I simply don't see LBJ as the 'prize' in 1963, nor do I see Harry Dean's comrades as central or influential to what happened. It appears to be centered about pure revenge. Gene

Paul: Thanks for your reply...I enjoy the thoughtful challenge. These days, I'm personally trying to converge on the story. After so long, and so much written, the information borders on overwhelming. I'm primarily influenced by the works of Fonzi, Douglas, Hancock, Mellen and others. And there's "Harlot's Ghost" by Norman Mailer, which fixes Harvey in the center of the storm. The Tippit saga has also brought the story into focus for me, and I see strong parallels to RFK's murder five years later... Google the name Manuel Pena and you see how the CIA infiltrated the police, manipulated evidence and intimidated witnesses in both JFK and RFK. For me, it becomes the same principals, similar methods, and a common agenda. I feel guilty when becoming engrossed in an aspect of the JFK story... this thread is after all about Harry Dean's memoirs. So it’s easy to get side-tracked. I'm reminded that - in a brainstorm session - it doesn't matter what you label or title the topic because you will ultimately surface the issues that need discussion. I agree that many right-wing characters surface in this story. If the world today is half as chaotic as it was in Dallas in the 60's, then it is truly a scary place... countless determined people with lots of passionate causes. The names that I mention as ground crew are mainly shooters and spotters, mentioned because they figure prominently in the work of authors whom I find credible. The fact that they're all Cuban names is what it is... that's who was being used in those days, and it’s no surprise you see the same mix of nationalities in Watergate almost ten years later. It's no coincidence (imho) that most of the names are Cuban... there was a strategy in that selection. Cuba was a backdrop for the times, and part of the cover (and reason) for what happened, so those nationalities are not surprising. I do not however for a moment think it’s a complete list, and (while not expert in these things) such an operation likely had all sorts of logistics... transport, radio men, diversionaries, backup teams, photographers, and sweepers to clean up. A real team effort. This was no mafia shooting... and I can't conceive it being simply a right-wing action. It was a very public execution, and highly coordinated. I'm also struck by the strong parallels to the contemporaneous Phoenix Program in Viet Nam (hunter-killer teams), and the assassination methods used in that action ... such professionals would never be seen or detected, and their presence and fingerprints would have been effectively removed forever. My strong intuition is that many of the same people (the "Southeast Asia" group that Gary Underhill warned of) were involved in Dealey Plaza. So if they too comprised part of the ground crew, I fear we have little hope of uncovering their identities. I respect your intuition about the radical right and those organizations. They form a toxic mix (i.e. the "milieu") with mercenaries, mafia, Cubans and all sorts of intelligence types... hard to keep track of who's doing whom. After wrestling with Edwin Walker (a lunatic and deviant, who nonetheless rose to the rank of general) for some time, I've come to similar terms with his role and place in the story... a diversion and a scapegoat, meant to take us off of the true path of the assassins. The radicals you speak of are analogous to the 6th floor of the TSBD and the Mannlicher-Carcano ... they serve as a diversion or red herring. Respectfully, Gene

Paul: Clearly George Bush was CIA, and his affiliation with oil industry (Zapata Oil) and involvement in Bay of Pigs (Operation Zapata) is well documented. The two military transport ships that ferried the Cuban guerillas were named the "Barbara" and the "Houston". You don't go to Yale and then become Director of CIA (appointed by Gerry Ford) with no connections or experience. Bush was CIA Director for only one pivotal year (1976) because former director William Colby was allegedly revealing too much of the Agency's dirty secrets. In 1977, Jimmy Carter (not trusting Bush) forced his resignation. Between 1977 and 1979, Bush became the director of the Council on Foreign Relations foreign policy organization. Clearly, Bush was not on the side of the saints as far as the Kennedy's were concerned. Regarding his role in the JFK murder, I do struggle to make the leap of faith although Bush was a political enemy of JFK. McGeorge Bundy, the National Security Advisor and Henry Cabot Lodge, the insubordinate ambassador to Vietnam who Kennedy was planning to fire, also appear to be political enemies, as are William Pawley and John J. McCloy. And then there is Allen Dulles ("That little Kennedy... he thought he was a god"). Howard Baker once asked Nixon, “What do you know about the Kennedy assassination?” Nixon replied “You don’t want to know.” I have similar mixed feelings about LBJ, although many feel strongly about his complicity and he certainly had considerable motive given how derogatory the Kennedy's treated him, along with the Billie Sol Estes and Baker scandals. It is significant that after LBJ had withdrawn from the presidential race, he secretly supported Nelson Rockefeller for president, as he wanted someone who could stop Robert Kennedy. If one accepts the larger premise of a Yankee-Cowboy War that JFK (and RFK) were caught in the middle of, perhaps these larger dots are connectable ... funded by the shadow government of Texas oil barons and the Rockefellers. LBJ was a much more successful politician that GWB, and his character and political behavior are much more controversial and in keeping with extreme political maneuvers. I'm reminded of the saying that "assassination is politics by other means". As far as why the Bush connection doesn't get much traction on the Forum, I believe it's because this is too political (and too big) to wrap one's arms around. It's also simply not as interesting as the ground level speculations. There is certainly a political backdrop to JFK's murder, and this is the obvious reason for why, 50 years later, it's still considered unsolved. This is also a reason for why each administration since has been reticent to reopen the case, or dig into the truths. One of the very basic conundrums in the assassination is why our powerful government would not solve the case (once and for all) and release whatever key records are left. The answer to those questions is like the big elephant sitting in your family room. It is an answer that many Americans still have a very hard time accepting; it's just too big to imagine... and in Nixon's words, we don't want to know. Gene

Paul (and Paul): I too am intrigued by General Walker and his involvement. I've read the work of Jim Root who lays out Walker's connections, as well as seen the connection to the relationship with Warren Reynolds, a Tippit shooting witness. There are far too many coincidences with Walker's story and circumstances. As Vince Palamara recently pointed out, there was a place in Dallas called Hidell Hardware near General Walker's house, originally located on Travis Street, close to where Walker lived in 1963, just off the interstate and on a direct route that Oswald would have used. That's simply an amazing coincidence... and most who study this case are wary of coincidence. So Walker was somehow intertwined and he was certainly a controversial right-wing character, who disparaged the Kennedy's and had serious motive. However, I find his blatant right-wing connections to be too good to be true. I sense that he was being used as a distraction and was as much a patsy as Oswald was ... and he knew it, as evidenced by his theatric post-assassination behaviour and statements. Gene

Paul: I think the murder was planned, executed and vigorously protected afterwards by the same small cabal... one comprised of lower level professionals with an axe to grind (BOP, revenge, continuance of paramilitary initiatives) and a specific agenda (Cold War, Communists, Cuba, and national security). There's plenty of evidence to suggest William Harvey, David Morales and their JMWave cronies used tried/true methods to link Oswald to Russia (Mexico City) and to Cuba (New Orleans) along with a bogus rifle and other carefully planted evidence. Much of this is strongly evident in retrospect. These people were expert in black operations and espionage, and they did not simply kill the president; in John Newman’s words they "neutralized" law enforcement and intelligence agencies that would otherwise have performed their investigative duties competently. Organized crime and right wing radicals were used in certain actions and operations (as cut-outs, and typical for these kinds of things) could never have accomplished that feat. I think we see CIA, FBI and politicians covering their backsides in the aftermath of the crime. I also believe we do know the names of the ground level functionaries. Several of the Dallas participants were later sent into hostile territory on virtual suicide missions (to remove them from testimony). Tony Cuesta and Diaz Garcia are examples of likely Dealey Plaza ground crew participants, as are Felipe Vidal Santiago, Rolando Quintero and Nestor Izquierdo. Herminio Diaz Garcia was a hit man who was the head of security at the Havana Riviera hotel from 1959 to 1960, prior to Castro’s rise to power. He was also held in custody in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, like many other dissidents. He left Cuba in June 1963, and was seconded to counterintelligence specialists with CIA’s JMWAVE operation in Miami led by Morales. Diaz was killed in Cuban waters years later while on a mission to assassinate Castro. Gene

Paul: If as you say the Bush principals and the Republican Party are implicated by the key (withheld) records, then it's being suppressed to protect the images and reputations of living people and organizations. Perhaps it would be damaging to the country as a whole, in world eyes. The Northwoods schemes come to mind as extreme provocations which reflect poorly on agencies and officials. While I admire JFK greatly and miss his charismatic leadership (notably missing in subsequent presidents), he also had a certain recklessness to him. I'm not totally convinced that invading Cuba, removing Castro, and revenge from BOP were the sole motives of the plotters. While disappointing, deep down, there may have been some JFK risk-taking that was legitimately viewed as dangerous to the country. Although despicable, I also suspect that the higher level officials who enabled the murder truly thought that JFK was a security risk and therefore considered themselves as patriots. In that context, the withheld records (and fuller truth) could conceivably be to protect the Kennedy presidential image. However, I also believe that the same game plan and modus operandi were carried out (by some of the same plotters) against RFK five years later, so image protection as a genuine motive falls apart in that light. Now it relegates to a political civil war... after all, assassination is just politics by other means. Embracing the Armstrong thesis that the plotters were smart enough to blackmail the investigating agencies (Secret Service, FBI, CIA) into an embarrassed silence -- dim the switches -- with damming information, its conceivable that the damage to those agencies is what is being withheld for the common good. Gene