Gene Kelly

So who indeed is this self-published author? From Virginia (Langley)...? Interesting enough to get some attention, with a semi-plausible story-line that has aspects of truth... like a limited-hangout. Disinformation or tease?

Jim: Your work in connecting the 'dots' of Hurt, signals intelligence, McCloy and Walker is fascinating. All of these powerful military folks surrounding the orbit of Oswald is compelling. The one individual that doesn't fit (for me) is Maxwell Taylor... wasn't he a close friend of the Kennedy family (a pallbearer at RFK's funeral) and a trusted member of JFK's staff? Its difficult to believe that he'd be a part of this intrigue...leading to the assassination. Also, I have always been confused by the legend of the Walker shooting, and its meaning with respect to Dealey Plaza. Could you share your thoughts on what that event meant, and why it occurred? I do agree that Walker was not the simple JBS right-wing nut that he's portrayed to be... and both his motives and actions with regard to seeing JFK out of office are highly suspect. I am also convinced that McCloy is one of the high level sponsors/conspirators that we all strive to identify so as to understand the big questions about the murder of John Kennedy. Gene

This is an absurd thing to post... it should be removed. Such conversations are of no interest to anyone with sense.

Dick: Your work is great... can't wait to get your book and read it.

Sounds like Lansdale is not a"good guy"... if indeed he orchestrated something like an elaborate con or Psyops drama in Dealey, you'd think there would be some 'footprints' left. But if he was the true professional, then he'd also artfully cover his tracks. But either way, its hard for me to put an angelic face on him, or even remotely admire his political views regarding Viet Nam. The last part - about his obsession with umbrellas - seems like an obvious trademark on the kill zone.

I disagree. There is no evidence that Lansdale was involved in the assassination of JFK. Nor did he have a motive. JFK was influenced by Lansdale’s views on Vietnam. That is why he would have pulled out the troops if he had won the 1964 election. Lansdale was not sacked by JFK (although he did not intervene in the matter). It was Maxwell Taylor who arranged for Lansdale to have “early retirement”. The two men clashed about what should be done in Vietnam. Taylor took the view, as did virtually all the military top brass, that the war could be won by military power. Taylor and the Joint Chief of Staffs told JFK in the summer of 1963 that 40,000 US troops could clean up the Viet Cong threat in Vietnam and another 120,000 would be sufficient to cope with any possible North Vietnamese or Chinese intervention. His advice on Cuba was that the CIA should work closely with exiles, particularly those with middle-class professions, who had opposed Batista and had then become disillusioned with Castro because of his betrayal of the democratic process. Lansdale was also opposed to the Bay of Pigs operation because he knew that it would not trigger a popular uprising against Castro. Although JFK was highly suspicious of the CIA, as a result of the quality of Lansdale’s advice, he selected him to become project leader of Operation Mongoose. Lansdale had spent years studying the way Mao had taken power in China. He often quoted Mao of telling his guerrillas: “Buy and sell fairly. Return everything borrowed. Indemnify everything damaged. Do not bathe in view of women. Do not rob personal belongings of captives.” The purpose of such rules, according to Mao, was to create a good relationship between the army and its people. This was a strategy that had been adopted by the NLF. Lansdale believed that the US Army should adopt a similar approach. As Cecil B. Currey, the author of “Edward Lansdale: The Unquiet American” pointed out: “Lansdale was a dedicated anticommunist, conservative in his thoughts. Many people of like persuasion were neither as willing to study their enemy nor as open to adopting communist ideas to use a countervailing force. If for no other reason, the fact makes Lansdale stand out in bold relief to the majority of fellow military men who struggled on behalf of America in those intense years of the cold war.” He argued against the overthrow of Diem. He told Robert McNamara that: “There’s a constitution in place… Please don’t destroy that when you’re trying to change the government. Remember there’s a vice president (Nguyen Ngoc Tho) who’s been elected and is now holding office. If anything happens to the president, he should replace him. Try to keep something sustained.” It was these views that got him removed from office. The pressure to remove Lansdale came from General Curtis LeMay and General Victor Krulak and other senior members of the military. As a result it was decided to abolish his post as assistant to the secretary of defence. He was not too upset because for some time McNamara had not been listening to Lansdale’s advice. His approach to foreign policy at once appealed to Kennedy and horrified the Joint Chiefs of Staff and politicians such as Dean Rusk. It is true that Lansdale was strongly anti-communist, but he was not a right-winger. In fact, although he was a conservative on some issues, he was liberal on others. Unlike most of the military leaders in Vietnam, he was not a racist. He had a deep respect for the Vietnamese culture and realised that you could not win by imposing American rule on the country. His second wife, Patrocinio Yapcinco, was from the Philippines. Out of office he continued to argue against LBJ’s decision to try and use military power to win the Vietnam War. When General William Westmoreland argued that: “We’re going to out-guerrilla the guerrilla and out-ambush the ambush… because we’re smarter, we have greater mobility and fire-power, we have more endurance and more to fight for… And we’ve got more guts.” Lansdale replied: “All actions in the war should be devised to attract and then make firm the allegiance of the people.” He added “we label our fight as helping the Vietnamese maintain their freedom” but when “we bomb their villages, with horrendous collateral damage in terms of both civilian property and lives… it might well provoke a man of good will to ask, just what freedom of what Vietnamese are we helping to maintain?” Lansdale quoted Robert Taber (The War of the Flea): “There is only one means of defeating an insurgent people who will not surrender, and that is extermination. There is only one way to control a territory that harbours resistance, and that is to turn it into a desert. Where these means cannot, for whatever reason, be used, the war is lost.” Lansdale thought this was the situation in Vietnam and wrote to a friend that if the solution was to “kill every last person in the enemy ranks” then he was “not only morally opposed” to this strategy but knew it was “humanly impossible”. Lansdale added “No idea can be bombed or beaten to death. Military action alone is never enough.” He pointed out that since 1945 the Viet Minh had been willing to fight against the strength of both France and the United States in order to ensure success of their own. “Without a better idea, rebels will eventually win, for ideas are defeated only by better ideas.” Lansdale was anti-communist because he really believed in democracy. Lansdale had been arguing since 1956 that the best way of dealing with the Viet Cong was to introduce free elections that included the rights of Chams, Khmers, Montagnards and other minorities to participate in voting. Lansdale said that he went into Vietnam as Tom Paine would have done. He was found of quoting Paine as saying: “Where liberty dwells not, there is my country.” He also distanced himself from the Freedom Studies Center of the Institute for American Strategy when he discovered it was being run by the John Birch Society. He told a friend: “I refused to have anything more to do with it… That isn’t what our country is all about.” Lansdale considered himself a “conservative moderate” who was tolerant of all minorities. Lansdale continued to advocate a non-military solution to Vietnam and in 1965, under orders from Lyndon Johnson, Henry Cabot Lodge, the new US ambassador in Saigon, put Lansdale in charge of the “pacification program” in the country. As Newsweek reported: “Lansdale is expected to push hard for a greater effort on the political and economic fronts of the war, while opposing the recent trend bombing and the burning of villages.” One of those who served under him in this job was Daniel Ellsberg. The two men remained friends until the death of Lansdale. Ellsberg liked Lansdale because of his commitment to democracy. Ellsberg also agreed with Lansdale that the pacification program should be run by the Vietnamese. He argued that unless it was a Vietnam project it would never work. Lansdale knew that there was a deep xenophobia among Vietnamese. However, as he pointed out, he believed “Lyndon Johnson would have been just as xenophobic if Canadians or British or the French moved in force into the United States and took charge of his dreams for a great Society, told him what to do, and spread out by thousands throughout the nation to see that it got done.” In February 1966 Lansdale was removed from his position in control of the pacification program. However, instead of giving the job to a Vietnamese, William Porter, was given the post. Lansdale was now appointed as a senior liaison officer, with no specific responsibilities. Unlike most Americans in Vietnam, Lansdale believed it was essential for Vietnamese leaders to claim credit for any changes and reforms. His attitude aroused antagonism in the hearts of many within the U.S. bureaucracy who didn’t like the idea of allowing others to receive credit for successful programs – although they did not object to blaming Vietnamese leaders for projects that failed. Most importantly, Lansdale thought that the military should be careful to avoid causing civilian casualties. As his biographer, Cecil Currey pointed out: “Lansdale was primarily concerned about the welfare of people. Such a stance made him anathema to those more concerned about search and destroy missions, agent orange, free fire zones, harassing and interdicting fires, and body counts.” According to Lansdale “we lost the war at the Tet offensive”. The reason for this was that after this defeat American commanders lost the ability to discriminate between friend and foe. All Vietnamese were now “gooks”. Lansdale complained that commanders resorted more and more on artillery barrages that killed thousands of civilians. He told a friend that: “I don’t believe this is a government that can win the hearts and minds of the people.” Lansdale resigned and returned to the United States in June 1968. Lansdale argued that the current strategy in Vietnam was not working. “I’m afraid that we’re being taught some savage lessons about a type of warfare that the next generation or so of Americans will have to face up to on other continents as on this one.” This is why he was very critical of US involvement in El Salvador in the 1980s and if he had been alive today, would have opposed the invasion of Iraq and the sending of troops into Afghanistan. John: Thank you for that perspective on Lansdale; he was a unique warrior. But he was still CIA, and his affiliations cause me to be suspicious. Perhaps I'm influenced by Prouty's allegations. I think it was Dean Rusk who mistrusted Lansdale, and influenced his unsuccessful ambassador quest. My instincts still don't allow me to paint him as a friend or ally of JFK. And his specialty (in PsyOps) was the elaborate drama and scripted misdirection, such as we see occur in Dealey Plaza. So, he remains on my short list... Gene

Greg: It's simply speculation. I know little about these occult groups. Bryant is a tantalizing character... one that links all of the popular 'boogie men' (CIA, MKULTRA, Birch right-wing extremists, the David ferries of the world). So, like many readers, I'm drawn to his legend and all the possible links. Your comment that you had picked up on the 'whiff of a specific group' had my interest. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful (with leads or sources). Gene

Don: Reading your post puzzles me... can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by this C+H = Hunt equation, and the comment of doing the math? I for one am confused about a credible explanation of the tramp photos, who they were (or might have been), why they were in the train car, and what this anecdote really means. Many prominent researchers appear divided on this subject, with no clear consensus. You seem to have insight and knowledge regarding the tramp story, and I'd appreciate any further explanation you could offer. Gene

The facts bear out that Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach (and by extension LBJ) was prompted by Washington Post columnist Joe Alsop on the weekend of the murder. The people trying to shape the investigatory process were Dean Acheson and Eugene Rostow , who were instrumental in influencing the creation of a commission. Eugene Rostow was Dean of Yale Law School, and Dean Acheson was one of the elder statesmen of the Cold War. Trace who was behind these people (e.g. McCloy, Rockefellers, Dulles) and the Big fish" become more evident. The WC was not LBJ's idea, nor did he want such a blue ribbon panel... neither did Hoover. Donald Gibson's analysis of the formation/creative drive behind the WC gives us one of the best and most important pieces of the puzzle. Also telling is the later rationalization/spin by the HSCA when contrast with Nicholas Katzenbach's testimony. If you could apply truth serum to Bill Moyers and Katzenbach, you'd have the unvarnished truth. The Rostow brothers were traitors in JFK's 'camp' and at the root of his administration's conflict with Wall Street, The Council on Foreign Relations and the true power structure of the country.

Greg: If the OTO is the 'vehicle' for Sirhan's programming (and the sex as carrot theme is their specialty), then that seems to point towards good old Dr Bryan... "Big daddy" himself. I assume the DJ who was murdered knew something dangerous, that got him silenced. Sirhan was running with an odd and dangerous crowd... but one presumably that he was introduced into (not that he sought on his own). But who really pulled the strings? Who was Bryan's puppet master? Gene

Sterling: Excellent posting... Lansdale is still a prime suspect (regarding JFK) in my book. His disappointment with not getting the promised posting in Vietnam (ambassador), the bungled Mongoose operation, the crazy Northwoods schemes and his intelligence affiliations with the Far east contingent of OSS/CIA are prime indicators of motive and means. Plus Prouty's allegations, especially that Lansdale's specialty was setting up elaborate psychological operations such as Dealey Plaza represented. Do you have some perspective about what Lansdale was doing in 1963 (purportedly retired) , and his Dallas logistics? He does seem to be the classic "ugly American". Gene Kelly

Robert: I am digging into McCloy and Dulles... quite an eye-opener, leading to the elite oil money and Rockefellers. Can you provide me the source of the Dulles interview and quote that "Kennedy thought he was a little god"? I have read it previously, but can't find the context of the statement, and who recorded it. Thanks, Gene

Robert: Are there more details about Dulles visit to Dallas? James... can you find pictures of Dulles with LBJ? This would be an amazing link to the bigger fish. Gene

Greg: Any further insights on that cult group?

Greg: Any truth to the rumors that he told prostitutes that the CIA had him brainwash Sirhan? Interesting that both he and David Ferrie had a 'fetish' for the Old Roman priesthood role. And didn't the late Phil Melanson confirm with some credible (and more professional) psychiatrists that mind control was at play in the Sirhan case, although Bryan's role was diminished in that regard? What about that anecdote that -after Arthur Bremer shot Gov. Wallace - Bryan's secretary said he got a frantic call from Maryland? While somewhat loose, there's an awful lot of dots being connected with Bryan. Great work here, on a fascinating and roguish character. Given the litany of crimes, fraud, and illicit behavior he portrayed, it says volumes about his lack of character... so, I could easily envision him adding CIA MKULTRA controller to that list of 'skills' for hire. One last interesting thought... it seems the Sinatra Jr. kidnapping occurred right after JFK's murder, and served as a potential distraction for the Warren proceedings and investigation. Gene

Great picture, Shane. I wonder why we never hear much about Wayne after this night? You'd think - if handcuffed and in essence arrested - that the crowd would react to him in a fashion similar to the hostility towards Sirhan. Wayne/Wien... why the alias? Wasn't he allegedly up in RFK's hotel suite earlier, getting the poster autographed? Campaign paraphernalia collector... pretty good cover assignment. Worked in a bookstore in nearby Pasadena... how long? Hung out with Khanbar Khan... possibly seen in presence of Sirhan and Khan (openly displaying weapons) at RFK campaign headquarters. in prior weeks. I'm trying to see the resemblance to Sirhan, and its somewhat there, but its not popping out as such, although he looks pretty stressed in the picture. A bit of a middle-eastern look, and short... possible double. Maybe he expertly ditched the weapon, or passed it on professionally to a 'break-down' partner. Just strange that -unlike a lot of persons of interest in this case- he drops off the face of the earth after the shooting... no interviews, trial appearances, later intrigue, subsequent investigator contacts (e.g. Ted Caratch/second gun). No acquaintances ever found or quoted... just a guy that nobody knew? An Israeli from Britain with an alias... mighty suspicious.

Thanks James: It seems curious to me that - of all the persons of interest and involvement in the RFK case - Wayne and Khan have the least amount of 'publicity' and investigative information. No pictures, no LAPD interviews, no leaked anecdotes or legends, no first-hand accounts or observations by witnesses, and in essence very little known about their lives (either before or after the murder). Its like they faded into oblivion, after a brief notoriety. I am no detective nor an experienced operative, but these two characters intuitively feel central to a plot... something very fishy about these individuals. The 'dots' that occur to me are British intelligence (e.g. Khan was raised by an English couple named 'Smiley'... shades of John Le Carre), Israel and James Angleton... who was forever faithful to Dulles and Rockefeller. What a tangled web of pure oil interest. Pictures of Wayne and khan would be important starts towards the deeper intrigue behind the Ambassador Hotel... and the notable void and difficulty of getting such pictures speaks volumes to me. Gene

Greg/Shane: I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this case with true investigators like yourselves, and ones who I believe on the right tracks. I am now on that same learning curve about RFK, but ideas and connections are being stimulated by your work. First, I know you didn't pursue the Michael Wayne story, but he seems of interest and I've asked James Richards if he has access to a photo. His real name was allegedly Wien, supposedly an Israeli from Britain, and may have been a Sirhan 'double', or in cahoots with the Polka Dot Girl. Wayne (Wien) allegedly had a rolled up tube (presumably a signed poster of RFK) and was noticeably fleeing the scene when some individuals chased him, and he was detained, because they thought he had a gun. Other accounts have him working in an antiques store in LA, and a 'collector'. Still others link him with Kanbar Khan, an Iranian who had penetrated RFK's campaign team in the week before the assassination, but made himself pretty conspicuous (another deliberate distraction?). Given the dubious motive ascribed to Sirhan (anti-Israel, Phantom jets, Palestine) pointing disingenuously towards the Middle East, and some of the allegations about Mossad/Iran involvement, Wayne/Wien is - for me - an interesting character. If I were to think hard about connecting the dots (Mossad, Khan and his connection to British Intelligence), it comes back to a central player in both JFK and RFK lore who wears a 'black hat' as far as I'm concerned... none other than James Angelton. But that's inductive reasoning and speculation. Second, the interviews with David Rabern in your book seem either "fishy" or (at the other end of the spectrum) an amazing observation. He speaks of operatives all over the Hotel, and in a meeting at a bank building, and specifically of seeing the Morales figure in the presence of the Bullova guy/ Campbell. I assume that, because you quote his story and interview, that you consider his account credible. If what he says is true, then the intelligence operational presence is a fact. Regards, Gene

James: Given your access to photographs, do you have one of Michael Wayne (real name Wien, supposedly an Israeli from Britain)? He's an individual spotted in the pantry at the Ambassador hotel who may have been a Sirhan 'double', or in cahoots with the Polka Dot Girl. Wayne (Wien) allegedly had a rolled up tube (presumably a signed poster of RFK) and was noticeably fleeing the scene when some individuals chased him, and he was detained, because they thought he had a gun. Other accounts have him working in an antiques store in LA, and a 'collector'. Still others link him with Kanbar Khan, an Iranian who had penetrated RFK's campaign team in the week before the assassination, but made himself pretty conspicuous. Given the dubious motive ascribed to Sirhan (anti-Israel, Phantom jets, Palestine/Middle East), and some of the allegations about Mossad/Iran involvement, Wayne/Wien is - for me - an interesting character. If I were to think hard about connecting the dots (Mossad, Khan and his connection to British Intelligence), it comes back to a central player in both JFK and RFK lore... none other than James Angelton. But i digress. I've never seen a photo of Michael Wayne/Wien, and it would be great if you could come up with one. Regards, Gene

Shane: Gardner's suicide a year later is very troubling; seems like a strong cuase/effect, way too much of a coincidence to be unrelated. If anyone had the wherewithall to arrange for insiders, strategic ACE guard placement, advance logistics, coverage of certain doors and rooms, access for several shooter teams, egress for post-event escape, then it was most certainly Mr. Gardner. Yet there's nothing much written about him, nor did LAPD inteview him... and he's the man in charge of hotel security! I would love to study his background, and his 'movements/life in the years prior to and after the murder. I think I read somewhere (maybe Larry's 6-part piece) that another detective in charge of LAPD dignitary protection was "cruising the area" and had a 'premonition' that something would happen (as a lame pretext for being at the hotel). Then he reappears 20 years later with an apparent sting on Teeter and Lynn Mangan and then an offer to tell what 'really happened' for a $20k fee. I have also formed an opinion that the polka dot girl was obviously real, but way too obvious, and as such was an intentional distraction (along with her alleged accomplices) for the real professionals to do their lethal work... do you share that view? What additonal followup do you have planned, and who would you continue to hone in on (besides Morales) as a person of interest? This RFK case now holds as much inerest for me as JFK, maybe more, thanks to your book. Regards - gene

Shane: I'm intrigued by what seasoned operatives have to say about a how such an event would be designed, especially luring RFK into the pantry. The interaction of Cesar with Gardner is of interest. Gardner's suicide a year or so later is sinister. The Polka Dot girl almost seems too contrived... another obvious distraction, being intentionally seen (and heard) by many witnesses, both before and after. As Larry Hancock has surmised, hardly the behavior of a professional. There had to have been several teams in place that night, contingencies for the possible paths Bobby would take after the speech. The scene was secured quickly, and evidence was controlled... similar to Dealey Plaza five years earlier. Another impression I have from reading your work is that LA was picked for many reasons (in advance) with pre-staged police accomplices, attorneys and investigators, phony coroner assistants etc. The entire response, investigation and trial were rigged comprehensively from the start. And within one year, key volumes of evidence were destroyed well in advance of any appeals. I have a number of strong impressions I want to share with you, now that I've finished your book, including the strange behavior of Sirhan's brothers (who must have known what he was doing in the preceding months) with the authorities... I'd think Sirhan's whereabouts in the previous year would be cataloged in brute detail (like Oswald). Curious that all we get is the simple 'white fog" excuse. Tom Rathke, Jerry Owen and Dr. Bryan seemed to disappear from public scrutiny after 1975. Also, Sirhan's ranting/ravings in captivity remind one of Jack Ruby... spontaneous tears at the mention of Israel and bombers, strong anti-semitic overtones (that don't really fit the mild-mannered Christian Sirhan), suggestion of the hero role... essentially painting him with a persona that mirrors the phony motive. Your book is excellent work and a nice read. Gene

Shane: I'm intrigued by what seasoned operatives have to say about a how such an event would be designed, especially luring RFK into the pantry. The interaction of Cesar with Gardner is of interest. The Polka Dot girl almost seems too contrived... another obvious distraction, being intentionally seen (and heard) by many witnesses, both before and after. As Larry Hancock has surmised, hardly the behavior of a professional. There had to have been several teams in place that night, contingencies for the possible paths Bobby would take after the speech. The scene was secured quickly, and evidence was controlled... similar to Dealey Plaza five years earlier. Another impression I have from reading your work is that LA was picked for many reasons (in advance) with pre-staged police accomplices, attorneys and investigators, phony coroner assistants etc. The entire response, investigation and trial were rigged comprehensively from the start. And within one year, key volumes of evidence were destroyed well in advance of any appeals. I have a number of strong impressions I want to share with you, now that I've finished your book, including the strange behavior of Sirhan's brothers (who must have known what he was doing in the preceeding months) with the authorities... I'd think Sirhan's whereabouts in the previous year would be catalogued in brute detail (like Oswald). Curious that all we get is the simple 'white fog" excuse. Tom Rathke, Jerry Owen and Dr. Bryan seemed to disappear from public scrutiny after 1975. Also, Sirhan's ranting/ravings in captivity remind one of Jack Ruby... spontaneous tears at the mention of Israel and bombers, strong anti-semetic overtones (that don't really fit the mild-mannered christian Sirhan), suggestion of the hero role... essentially painting him with a persona that mirrors the phony motive. Your book is excellent work and a nice read. Gene

Too many bullets that night for one gun. Autopsy shows a Sirhan shot would not have killed RFK. Blatant LAPD complicity and coverup. Witnesses were intimidated and stage-managed, using flimsy lie-detector trickery. Film and useful pictures were destroyed. The trial was disgraceful. Conspirators and accomplices were evident, and observed by many. Records withheld from public for 20 years. Cutouts, subterfuge and distractive head-fakes employed. Motive was flimsy and half-baked. Gardner (Hotel security chief and former LAPD) set up the kill zone (and killed himself the following year). Sirhan was a young enigmatic alien, with a manufactured Diary... possibly shooting blanks (a smoking gun) for distraction, far too 'pat' for an open & shut case. He doesn't fit the mold of a killer, or even violent... all of the hoopla about mind control, hypnotism, right-wing terrorists and polka dot dresses appears to be diversion and sleight-of-hand for the real professionals to get in and out. Half-baked investigation never explored key questions, like Sirhan's activities in the previous 3-6 months, ballistic details, and stalking observed in the weeks prior. Accomplices (like Jerry Owen and Thane Cesar) were shielded and protected (by the court, no less) from later inquiries. Classic plausible deniability. Guess who...?

Shane: Your book is excellent... it gave me some new (fresh) investigative insights that are not common knowledge, plus good food for critical thought. I am 2/3rds through it, and its very informative building on past work by Melanson, Klaber, Kaiser et al. I am struck by the role of Ambassador security (especially Gardner and his interaction with ACE security) as well as the hypnotic exams given to Sirhan in jail. You spur interest in a key question... how was RFK led into the 'killing zone" by a last-minute change in exit route, and were there 'insiders' or traitors associated with the Kennedy camp. Your treatment of the compromised Sirhan defense team was thoughtful, and I appreciated additonal expose of the biased (and Agency-influenced) LAPD Pena and Hernandez. I recognize its tough to tread into the necessary (but difficult) black waters of Morales, and his possible presence at the Ambassador... but in spite of the conflicting opinions and observations of the film, I remain convinced that the hand of Morales is present (literally). It will be interesting to compare your work with what Larry Hancock is doing on the Mary Ferrell website. Well done! - gene kelly