Cliff Varnell

Bingo! The throat wound is the key to the case. They removed the brain. They removed the lungs. But they were ordered not to remove the neck organs for dissection. The throat wound was off limits. Why? Because the round that entered the throat left an air pocket and no round? A reasonable question, I think.

Comic relief over. Agreed, but that has nothing to do with my point. I'm here to defend the credibility of the FBI autopsy report, not defend Lifton or Horne. Pre-autopsy surgery to the head, recorded as "apparent" in the FBI report, cannot be dismissed simply because Humes denied it. After that, Lifton and Horne are on their own. Lemme put it to you this way: Doug Horne and I started researching the JFK assassination at roughly the same time, around 1991. He produced five volumes. I produced five words: properly prepared evidence trumps improper. That's it. If evidence is properly maintained, recorded, and gathered according to the proper protocols -- then the evidence is credible. If the evidence is not prepared according to the proper protocols then it is to be dismissed. In the case of JFK we can regard the clothing as having a chain of custody from the Parkland staff to Greer who took it to Bethesda and then on the White House and then to the FBI who eventually turned it over to the National Archives. Credible evidence. The JFK autopsy photos were not produced according to proper military autopsy protocols, and there is no chain of possession. Not credible. The FBI autopsy report was prepared according to proper FBI investigative protocols. Credible evidence. Because pre-autopsy surgery was noted in the FBI report, all the head wound evidence is cast in doubt. The witness testimony conflicts with the head x-rays. Therefore, the head x-rays are not credible. The final autopsy report was not prepared according to proper military autopsy protocol. Not credible. The neck x-ray was taken according to proper protocol. The information in the neck x-ray is consistent with many other evidentiary threads. Credible evidence. That portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, according to proper military autopsy: credible. The portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pen, a violation of proper military autopsy protocol: not credible. Burkley's death certificate listed the back wound by the vertebral level about T3, according to proper military autopsy protocol: credible. The contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors re the throat entrance wound: credible. Throw out the head wound evidence and the credible evidence is consistent: throat entrance wound; the round nicked the trachea, bruised the lung tip, left a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and a subcutaneous air pocket overlaying C7 and T1. No exit. No round was recovered. The back wound about the level of T3 was shallow, did not exit, and no round was recovered. Those are facts in the case of the John F. Kennedy assassination. Lifton and Horne explain this with body alteration scenarios. I don't buy it. I cite the "general feeling" of the autopsists the night of the autopsy. From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit: From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit: Let's furnish that information by all means: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt Otherwise, how do we explain two entrance wounds, no exits, and no bullets recovered?

Please note, gentle reader, that Craig does not deny that he identified "not much" elevation of the jacket 10 seconds prior to Betzner. Please note that he makes no attempt to explain how 3 inches of JFK's jacket and another 3 inches of his shirt hiked up his back in 10 seconds. Where is the intellectual honesty in that?

There is no horizontal fold on the top of JFK's left shoulder. You have a very active imagination. Of course there is a horizontal fold...you simply can't see with all that intellectual dishonestly clouding your eyes. Apparently you can't tell the difference between horizontal and vertical. When are you going to show us what 3+ inches of elevated shirt and jacket fabric look like?

There is no horizontal fold on the top of JFK's left shoulder. You have a very active imagination.

Craig cares very deeply about the SBT. Originally, when he thought it only required 2 inches of bunched fabric, Craig claimed that there were 2 inches of bunched fabric on the right shoulder. When Craig found out that the SBT requires 3+ inches, he claimed that it was a 3+ inch fold. Unfortunately for this deeply held true belief of his, he lost track of his own claims when he moved the fold to the left shoulder, instead of the right. Craig will provide no end of amusement of the subject... Here's the Towner photo which Craig admitted shows "not much" in the way of bunch:

What is unimpeachable is that right-wing ideologues are cognitively impaired. According to Craig Lamson's own study there was a vertical/diagonal fold in the jacket at the left base of JFK's neck. You've got a lot of splainin' to do, Lucy. For instance, according to Craig's 2008 analysis of the Towner photo, taken 10 seconds before Betzner, there was "not much" in the way of elevated fabric. How did the shirt and jacket go from "not much" bunch to a massive fold 6 times larger than the visible shirt collar in Betzner -- all in ten seconds? Craig insists he doesn't have to explain it, because he can't. Craig can't show us what such a fold would look like because he's found it impossible to replicate. So the jacket was pushed up into a massive vertical/diagonal fold? Absurd. When fabric bunches up on a vertical plane the fold in the fabric is horizontal, or horizontal/diagonal. Craig could use a bright-eyed five year old to demonstrate this for him, although I'd hate to think what the kid would get on him when Craig's head explodes. Craig can't explain how it got there in ten seconds. Craig can't point out the side of the fold because it isn't there. Craig is trying to leverage his expertise as as photographer to blow smoke over a crucial issue which he cares very deeply about, but won't admit it due to his over-weening intellectual corruption. The last refuge of the disingenuous -- prove it isn't there! Of course, Craig can't prove it is there, he simply repeats his assertions over and over again. Craig cares a great deal. It's part of his Teabag Party world-view. What's hilarious is that Craig claimed to Pat Speer that the fold was "TO THE LEFT OF JFK'S MIDLINE" (Craig's emphasis), and since the bullet holes were TO THE RIGHT OF JFK'S MIDLINE (my emphasis), Craig has unwittingly debunked the SBT with his own BS. Thank you, Craig. Keep it up. We haven't had much comic relief around here since Judyth Baker went away.

This is an egregious mis-statement of fact which you cannot defend to save your life, Pat. Show us where JFK's clothing was elevated 2 inches on Elm St. Show us the witness statements placing the wound that high. Show us the properly prepared medical evidence of a wound that high. All you've got are Richard Lipsey and Thornton Boswell; improperly recorded measurements on the autopsy face sheet; and some autopsy photos the HSCA concluded were prima facie inadmissible in court, and which the ARRB discovered have no chain of possession. This nonsense you spew about the back wound is the worst form of "CT" pet theorizing. Hold on there, Cliff. Read what I wrote again. I indicated that LNs who REFUSE to acknowledge that the back wound was at the same level or LOWER than the throat wound were in denial. In other words, I am claiming that it is obvious that the back wound is at the same level or lower than the throat wound. How is this any different than what you've been claiming? The distinction is of utmost importance. One cannot properly interpret the neck x-ray unless one realizes that the back wound was where the holes in the clothes, more than a dozen witnesses, and the properly prepared contemporaneous documents place it. Many LNers and SBT defenders have embraced that location of yours. I don't divide the world into CTs and LNs. I divide the world into those who acknowledge the prima facie evidence of conspiracy, and those who don't. The T3 back wound is prima facie evidence of conspiracy. Any attempts to muddy this deserve a measure of push-back.

Betzner...which is unimpeachable as you well know. Not that you have the intellectual honesty to admit it. Pat doesn't buy your intellectually corrupt nonsense, Craig. I put the question to Pat.

This is an egregious mis-statement of fact which you cannot defend to save your life, Pat. Show us where JFK's clothing was elevated 2 inches on Elm St. Show us the witness statements placing the wound that high. Show us the properly prepared medical evidence of a wound that high. All you've got are Richard Lipsey and Thornton Boswell; improperly recorded measurements on the autopsy face sheet; and some autopsy photos the HSCA concluded were prima facie inadmissible in court, and which the ARRB discovered have no chain of possession. This nonsense you spew about the back wound is the worst form of "CT" pet theorizing.

Jim, I question whether this is a "classic" example of hearsay given the cover-up in which Humes clearly took part. It's hard to see how Humes could have any credibility post-autopsy. Given the conflicting nature of the JFK head wound evidence, doesn't the pre-autopsy surgery to the head scenario at least rise to the level of "reasonable doubt"? Don't the conflicts between the witness testimonies, the x-rays, and the autopsy photos re JFK's head injuries give weight to such a possibility? I cite the back wound as a prime example of the credibility of the FBI autopsy report, and the consistency of the credible back wound evidence. The FBI autopsy report corroborates physical evidence (bullet holes in the clothing), witness testimony, and other properly prepared contemporaneous documents such as Burkley's death certificate and the autopsy face sheet diagram. Compare that with the head wound evidence, which features contradictions between witness testimony and the x-rays, and even inconsistencies between autopsy photos. Horne's two-brain-exam scenario muddles the picture further. A study of the back wound is a look at how JFK was killed. A study of the head wound(s) is a look at how JFK's killing was covered up. I question the value of the head wound evidence for anything more than that.

I'm curious where you got the 13mph calculation. The Muchmore film shows the wind coming from the southwest. But up on the corner of Elm and Houston DPD officer Marrion Baker was almost knocked over on his motorcycle by wind which came from the north. Clearly the wind in Dealey Plaza was swirling. Care to explain how this 5 grain fragment -- less than a third of a gram! -- maintained a straight-line trajectory into the teeth of a hard swirling wind for 85 yards? Where do these values come from?

David, For one it has no exit, which clearly, in soft tissue of the neck, it certainly would have. Not if JFK were hit with an unconventional round -- which is what the autopsists suspected and the neck x-ray confirms. Factually incorrect. Black Dog Man at Z190. Witness Rosemary Willis described this individual as a "conspicuous" person who "disappeared the next instant." A HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo reported a "very distinct straight-line feature" in the "region of his hands," consistent with a shooter. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm The SBT is physically impossible given JFK's proven T3 back wound. The Tague Frag Theory is impossible given the fact that a bullet fragment needed to travel 85 yards on a straight-line trajectory into the teeth of a hard swirling wind and still retain an impact velocity sufficient to shatter concrete and wound a man standing several yards away. I love that one! It never loses its humor! I think the Tague Frag theory is hilarious. Care to demonstrate how a bullet fragment maintains a straight-line trajectory into the teeth of a hard swirling wind?

Hi Jim. Welcome to the Ed Forum. In your review of IARRB you wrote: I'm curious as to why you dismiss the FBI autopsy report as "hearsay." Was it not a properly prepared investigative document? Hasn't the other key finding in the report -- the location of the back wound -- been borne out by physical evidence (the holes in the clothes), other properly prepared contemporaneous documents (Burkley's death cert., the autopsy face sheet diagram), and the witness statements of over a dozen people? Could Humes have been mistaken about pre-autopsy surgery? Of course. Could Sibert and O'Neill have been mistaken as to what Humes said? Of course. But on what basis do we dismiss the possibility that Humes was correct, and that subsequent denials on his part carry less weight since, after all, this was a crime that was covered up at the highest levels of the US gov't?

David, For one it has no exit, which clearly, in soft tissue of the neck, it certainly would have. Not if JFK were hit with an unconventional round -- which is what the autopsists suspected and the neck x-ray confirms. Factually incorrect. Black Dog Man at Z190. Witness Rosemary Willis described this individual as a "conspicuous" person who "disappeared the next instant." A HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo reported a "very distinct straight-line feature" in the "region of his hands," consistent with a shooter. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm The SBT is physically impossible given JFK's proven T3 back wound. The Tague Frag Theory is impossible given the fact that a bullet fragment needed to travel 85 yards on a straight-line trajectory into the teeth of a hard swirling wind and still retain an impact velocity sufficient to shatter concrete and wound a man standing several yards away.

My comments in burgandy Well, after a decade we better make it a good show... So far so good... I tend to believe that no one was more in shock that Diem was assassinated than JFK. We know that a series of cables were exchanged over the weekend between the WH and Ambassador Lodge in Saigon. We know that these were "ill advised" cables since several of those in Washington, who should have been in "the loop" were away, ostensibly, for the weekend. This led, as incredibly as it may sound, to a "rough draft" actually being sent. Because these cables contained communications whose meaning could be stretched enough to be interpreted as support for an immediate coup, which was the course to which Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge was already inclined, US support for same was communicated to General Big Minh and his co-conspirators in Saigon--and it was off to the races. This is hardly evidence of JFK's complicity, JFK's acquiescence to a Harriman plan against Diem (although Harriman clearly supported such a plan on behalf of the State Department), or a JFK "order" to eliminate Diem. Gareth Porter, The Perils of Dominace, pg. 178 (emphasis added): (quote on) Kennedy's withdrawal strategy was based...on the premise that the Diem regime would not be overthrown by a military coup, and that its repressive character and political weakness probably would provide a convenient rationale for early withdrawal. Immediately after Kennedy had achieved the objective of legitimizing the withdrawal plan (contained in the 10/2/63 McNamara-Taylor Report-cv), the CIA reported on Oct. 5 that Saigon generals were now moving ahead with a coup plan. Kennedy was reluctant to oppose a coup plan that had already been set in motion. Instead, he tried to tread a fine line between not "thwarting" a coup and encouraging such a coup. Once the United State decided to establish liaison with the coup plotters, however, this line was meaningless. Even though Kennedy tried to insist shortly before the coup that Lodge discourage the generals unless it was certain to succeed, the administration was irrevocably compromised by such contacts. (quote off) What I gather from the above is that JFK placed the withdrawal plan at the top of his priorities. Prior to the Oct. 5 CIA report on the So. Vietnam coup moves, JFK had been happy to let his top advisers McNamara and Taylor carry his water for a phased withdrawal. After Oct. 5 JFK "went along" with Harriman and State on the Diem coup -- maintaining a hands-off "fine line" -- in order to more aggressively push for the phased withdrawal. And in pursuit of that, NSAM 263 was issued on Oct. 11. As for back channel talks with Castro...I agree that JFK and Harriman both agreed same was desirable for US interests and "business" interests, respectively. I might add, same was also desirable in the eyes of Kruschev who was fighting his own battles with Soviet hard liners in his own country. If Castro and Kennedy could find a way to rapproachment Kruschev would no longer be faced with the bleak prospect of another "showdown" with the west, which could potentially force another choice between political defeat or global thermo-nuclear war. Agreed. IMO: the main entity that viewed themselves as "losing" from a policy that sought to disengage from further entanglement in Vietnam was the US Military. The main entity that viewed themselves as "losing" from a policy of seeking rapproachment with Cuba was the US Military. The coup in Vietnam, therefore, was designed to "upset" the planned withdrawal of US support from that region. Agreed. But Kennedy looked at the coup as a means to establish a withdrawal timetable as official US policy. IMO: it was an Operation Northwoods type action that suffered from a public relations guffaw. It was never credibly "blamed" on the North--in fact, no such credible attempt was ever made. However, had JFK survived Dallas, it would have been packaged that way. Note that as soon as JFK was dead, CUBA was no longer even a small concern for the military. Not for lack of trying to make Cuba of supreme importance on 11/22/63! I'm convinced the killers of JFK fully intended to blame the assassination on agents of Fidel Castro, one of whom would have been Lee Harvey Oswald had he not been captured. There is your measure of spook incompetence, Monk -- they failed to kill the patsy who'd carefully been sheep-dipped as a pro-Castro Commie. It was ALL Vietnam, which was a much preferred "theater" of action than was Cuba. And LBJ was their perfect little "Pork Chop" to go along with the program. The assassination was a failure in regards to Cuba, the ultimate target. But, IT DID HAPPEN! The first 1,000 troops that JFK ordered out of Vietnam by the end of 1963 were, in fact, withdrawn. This was AFTER LBJ had signed NSAM 273--the 1,000 were STILL withdrawn. But these troop movements did not occur in the context of a phased withdrawal, but happened in the midst of renewed US escalation, and thus did not present a political problem going into the 1964 election campaign. I disagree. I think this is backwards from the way that things actually work. I don't see the State Department as cynically as others do, perhaps. The Secretry of State "serves at the pleasure" of the POTUS. Unlike many of the "old guard" in the Intelligence Community (DULLES, BISSEL, ANGLETON--even HOOVER), who were all "in place" before JFK took office, the Cabinet members, including Rusk at State and Bobby in the Justice Department, were selected because they were his own personal preferences. JFK's withdrawal policy (NSAM 263 of October 11, 1963) went into place BEFORE the Diem's were assassinated (3 weeks later on November 1, 1963). But as we see inThe Perils of Dominance NSAM 263 was issued after the rebel generals had begun to make their move toward coup. Kennedy tried to keep a distance from the push for the coup but he did in fact "go along" with the US support for the Diem overthrow. I agree with this part. But even though Diem was negotiating with the North on his own, again: JFK's withdrawal policy (NSAM 263 of October 11, 1963) went into place BEFORE the Diem's were assassinated (3 weeks later on November 1, 1963). So, there was NO NEED to assassinate Diem since JFK had already enacted the policy BEFORE Diem requested it! I think the record is clear that Kennedy didn't expect Diem to be assassinated in the overthrow. Harriman and the hawks felt the need to get rid of Diem because his talks with the North had certain "anti-American" implications Kennedy was willing to ignore. Moreover, I am not convinced that this "evidence" proves that JFK ordered, approved, or caved into pressure--to have Diem murdered. Quite the contrary. I believe it was a message being sent to JFK: "We will have our war in Vietnam with or without Diem, his brother, or you--or else..." I believe the view of Harriman was this: "On November 2, 1963, one of two guys is going to be dead: Ngo Dinh Diem in Saigon, or John F. Kennedy in Chicago." I think the view of Kennedy's killers was this: "We're going to have an invasion of Cuba and an end to Vietnam withdrawal by killing two birds with one ambush." And they were going to perform this task with or without Harriman. Now, Cliff, there you go being "entertaining" again! The toilet paper story is the funniest thing I've ever heard about that--indeed about ANY--NSAM in my life! Which pooch, Barney or Miss Beazley? I shouldn't need to ask, but I've heard rumors he was... But, seriously, I have real trouble with this concept of "abort teams" being placed. By whom? In my view the ruling elites and the institutions and agencies they control are not monolithic entities. The military high command and the people running the CIA were/are not all of like mind. They serve different masters. In that context I cite the following by Tosh Plumlee: (quote on -- 'William Plumlee' date='Feb 25 2010, 04:37 PM) As I have said, I was never at the level, or in the loop to really know the planning stages of the Abort Team and how or who put it together. However, the following are my thoughts and calculated assumptions based on the connections I had from the JM/WAVE, CIA Miami Station and the Pentagon in Washington D.C., at the time. I believe a group operating out of the Pentagon intercepted Intel information from south Florida concerning a hit to be made on the President around November 17 th. The Special Group (not the 5412th) working MI, then took this information and started their own independent investigations. This was not a CIA, per say team or investigation; nor did the CIA dispatch this team. At the last minute they (Military Intell, Pentagon) put together a "specialized", top secret.., (undercover) team to be dispatched to Dallas. The Secret Service knew of this team but did not work with them, because they (MI) did not have enough information to support their evidence. (quote off) A pro-Kennedy and/or pro-Harriman faction within military intel dispatched Tosh Plumlee's abort team. By those who are going to relay a "pardon" at the last minute that was granted by the "top" co-conspirator? Bush was Harriman's man in Texas. Under what POSSIBLE conditions would such a "stop" order be issued? The Chicago plot was aborted, after all. The plots in Tampa and Miami fell through. There was the teletype to FBI HQ warning of a plot to kill JFK in Dallas. There were all those hot and heavy rumors in Houston that Kennedy was definitely going to be killed in Dallas...All of this activity on behalf of saving Kennedy's life is largely over-looked, imo. I really don't think the following (invented) scenario or any similar version is likely: "Before JFK left AF 1 at Love Field he sent a memo to McGeorge Bundy reversing his withdrawal from Vietnam policy. We intercepted the communication and have, therefore, "changed our minds" about killing him. Get this abort order to George H W Bush who is on the ground in Dallas immediately." I really think this scenario is likely: Harriman: "We have everything going for us in Vietnam (Diem out), in Laos (the commies have the Ho Trail and we've got the opium fields), and in Cuba (our back-channel to Castro will enable us to cut our own dope smuggling deals.) If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Our reach extends to Chicago, Tampa, Miami and Los Angeles. Dallas is a problem." Nah... I really don't think so. If it was true, then the military/intelligence/National Security apparatus was already in control of the executive branch of the government even BEFORE Dallas. Since the end of WW2, more than likely. All Presidents are ultimately hired hands. Those who forget this are shot or set up in third-rate burglaries and removed. If JFK had caved in on Vietnam before the assassination to save himself, then he was never (or no longer) the commander-in-chief, and thus there would have been NO NEED to assassinate him. Agreed! Which is why I argue that the ultimate goal of the plot was to provide a rationale for the invasion of Cuba. But they did. I don't buy the idea that it wouldn't have happened but for a "failed abort" signal. For the Yankee blue-bloods it was a contingency plan that they attempted to postpone. For the Texas boys and their military allies it was the last shot at Castro. Cowboys killed JFK, and their Yankee accessories covered it up.

Thank you, Monk. I've been looking forward to having a discussion with you like this for a decade...Waiting for the right subject matter. Like what that black Parisian coke dealer with the patrois said to Harrison Ford in Polanski's Frantic: "Much better, mon...Much much better!" Let's delve into these first two sentences of yours here for a post or four. I'm gonna take your second statement first for this post. I think it is grossly inaccurate to frame the demise of Diem and his brother in terms suggesting that JFK "went along" with the overthrow (a euphamism for assassination) of the Diem brothers. Check out Gareth Porter's The Perils of Dominance pgs 153 - 179. In 1963 Kennedy sought to engrave in official policy a pull-out of 'Nam by the end of 1965. The military/foreign policy establishment -- alarmed by the concession of the Ho Chi Minh Trail to N. Vietnam as part of the Geneva '62 neutralization accords -- was pushing the domino/bandwagon fright stories of Communism spreading throughout East Asia if a stand wasn't made in 'Nam. Democratic Presidents can never afford to look like pussies on National Security, not without the right-wing noise machine of the day screaming bloody murder. Kennedy used Sec of Def Robert McNamara and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Maxwell Taylor as stalking horses for a two stage withdrawal while Kennedy appeared distant from the policy. Looks to me as if JFK went along with the Diem coup in exchange for the establishment hawks accepting a withdrawal plan on paper as official policy. In October of 1963 he issued NSAM 263 and a two stage withdrawal plan with 1,000 troops out by the end of 1963 and all troops out by 1965. The 1,000 troop withdrawal at the end of '63 would have given the Republicans a campaign issue in '64 -- it was never going to happen -- but it was a bargaining chip to set the end of '65 date in stone in exchange for Kennedy going along with the Diem coup. In short: Kennedy made a political trade with the State Department foreign policy establishment so they got their damn coup and Kennedy got NSAM 263 and a withdrawal time-table as official US policy. Harriman got his way with the over-throw of the Ngo brothers. Diem was negotiating with the North on his own, and Harriman feared Diem would ask the Americans out because that was something Kennedy would have accepted, Buddhist repression be damned. Harriman had no reason to have Kennedy shot at that time, post-Diem coup. Harriman was okay with the end of '65 pull-out date because Gulf of Tonkins are difficult -- but not impossible -- to produce. Two years gave Harriman plenty of time, just like in Iran and the Shah's two year wait for Mossadegh to be overthrown. Around the Harriman house-hold they called for NSAM 263 every time they ran out of toilet paper. I'll go one of those "angles" better, Monk. Looks to me possible that George H. W. Bush was assigned to help abort the assassination and he screwed the pooch. On the dust cover of Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked is the quote from Marty Underwood, Democratic National Committee Political Advance Man in Houston. "We were getting all sorts of rumors that the President was going to be assassinated in Dallas: there were no if's, and's, or but's about it." George H. W. Bush was in a unique position to spread a heavy volume of rumors in Houston from his position as the glad-handling head of the local GOP. Tosh Plumlee said his abort team got bum information. The young George H. W. Bush of the C.I.A. was just the kind of dweeb the killers would keep in the dark at arms length and then feed xxxx.

Back in burgandy... I'll argue going forward that the inter-locking Harriman/Rockefeller dynasties were/are "the Management." CV: DJ: Let's take a look at a couple of items, one to gauge where Bundy was coming from, and one to illustrate the position of the US military in the soon-to-be hot War in 'Nam. This is from Peter Dale Scott: http://www.history-matters.com/pds/DP3_Chapter5.htm#_ftn41 (quote on) As early as January 4, 1963, Bundy proposed to President Kennedy that the possibility of communicating with Castro be explored. (Memorandum, Bundy to the President, 1/4/63). Bundy's memorandum on "Cuba Alternatives" of April 23 [sic, i.e. April 21], 1963, also listed the "gradual development of some form of accommodation with Castro" among policy alternatives. (Bundy memorandum, 4/21/63) At a meeting on June 3, 1963, the Special Group agreed it would be a "useful endeavour" to explore "various possibilities of establishing channels of communication to Castro." (Memorandum of Special Group meeting, 6/6/63). (quote off) If one of the major beefs the US military had with Kennedy was his alleged weakness in the Cold War -- and if McGeorge Bundy's loyalties were with the US military above all else -- how was it that Bundy was proposing accommodation with Castro? Isn't there an inherent contradiction in that construction? And what to we make of the following Richard Starnes dispatch? (emphasis added): (quote on) The Washington Daily News, Wednesday, October 2, 1963, p.3 'SPOOKS' MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE 'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam SAIGON, Oct.2 - The story of the Central Intelligence Agency's role in South Viet Nam is a dismal chronicle of bureaucratic arrogance, obstinate disregard of orders, and unrestrained thirst for power. Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, according to a high United States source here. In one of these instances the CIA frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought with him from Washington because the agency disagreed with it. This led to a dramatic confrontation between Mr. Lodge and John Richardson, chief of the huge CIA apparatus here. Mr. Lodge failed to move Mr. Richardson, and the dispute was bucked back to Washington. Secretary of State Dean Rusk and CIA Chief John A. McCone were unable to resolve the conflict, and the matter is now reported to be awaiting settlement by President Kennedy. It is one of the developments expected to be covered in Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's report to Mr. Kennedy. Others Critical, Too Other American agencies here are incredibly bitter about the CIA. "If the United States ever experiences a 'Seven Days in May' it will come from the CIA, and not from the Pentagon," one U.S. official commented caustically. ("Seven Days in May" is a fictional account of an attempted military coup to take over the U.S. Government.) CIA "spooks" (a universal term for secret agents here) have penetrated every branch of the American community in Saigon, until non-spook Americans here almost seem to be suffering a CIA psychosis. An American field officer with a distinguished combat career speaks angrily about "that man at headquarters in Saigon wearing a colonel's uniform." He means the man is a CIA agent, and he can't understand what he is doing at U.S. military headquarters here, unless it is spying on other Americans. Another American officer, talking about the CIA, acidly commented: "You'd think they'd have learned something from Cuba but apparently they didn't." Few Know CIA Strength Few people other than Mr. Richardson and his close aides know the actual CIA strength here, but a widely used figure is 600. Many are clandestine agents known only to a few of their fellow spooks. Even Mr. Richardson is a man about whom it is difficult to learn much in Saigon. He is said to be a former OSS officer, and to have served with distinction in the CIA in the Philippines. A surprising number of the spooks are known to be involved in their ghostly trade and some make no secret of it. "There are a number of spooks in the U.S. Information Service, in the U.S. Operations mission, in every aspect of American official and commercial life here, " one official - presumably a non-spook - said. "They represent a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone," he added. (quote off) I don't think this jibes with an "all-powerful" US military calling the shots. The above reference to "that man...wearing a colonel's uniform" undoubtedly referred to Col. Lucien Conein, a notorious CIA operator who happened to be in the military. I think these two citations illustrate the factional nature of the US power elite in 1963, and argues against the notion of monolithic military control. DJ: Do we know who else was in the WH Sitroom that might have passed him this information to convey to AF1 and the Cabinet Plane? Good question. We do know that it was Harriman who let the Soviets off the hook mere hours after the assassination. And Pentagon aide Col. William Corson related the view of at least one Kennedy insider that McGeorge Bundy was more loyal to his Skull & Bones brother Harriman than to JFK. I can see that left to the military alone, blaming the Soviets and pushing for a BIG war might have been the tact… the less world-devastating local “Wars” remain profitable and lets everyone keep playing the Cold War game while still engaging in a Hot ones. According to this site Bundy did serve…. I stand corrected. McGeorge Bundy http://www.answers.com/topic/mcgeorge-bundy Deemed unfit for military service because of nearsightedness, he memorized the eye chart in order to join the army as a private and rose to become a captain by the end of World War II. {I’d say he was a very dedicated military man who understood the chain of command, and how to circumvent it ….) I'd argue that, like millions of Americans who served in WW2, Bundy returned to civilian life and resumed his primary loyalties to his family and his peers. I see there are some different thoughts on Mr. Harriman…: I agree with your assessment of the man yet I feel that most in the LBJ government did not want to “publically” find Soviet fingerprints on the assassination. They wanted to fight the Soviets piece-meal, one country at a time and Vietnam was just the place to start. Can’t imagine the Soviets wanted to risk an all out nuclear war either – and given what I’ve read from Golitsyn the longer term plan was to deceive and encourage the depletion of resources of the US, not engage in assassination and mutual annihilation. "Well, what [Lyndon] Johnson did was, he did one thing before he expanded the war [in Vietnam] and that is he got rid of one way or another all the people [in the Kennedy administration] who had opposed making it an American war. Averell Harriman, he was Under Secretary of State, he made him roving ambassador for Africa so he'd have nothing to do with Vietnam.... He found out that I'd spent part of my childhood in the Philippines, and he tried to persuade me to become ambassador to the Philippines.... Johnson was a very clever man.... He knew who were the hawks and who were the doves. He systematically rid the top layers of the American government of the doves...." --Roger Hilsman, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs under President Kennedy, interviewed on CNN.com/ColdWar, 8 June 1996 By 1965 the die was cast in Vietnam and Harriman had everything he wanted: a de-militarized Laos and a heavily militarized Vietnam. Johnson wasn't through with Harriman, of course, as the blue-blood was brought back for the Paris peace negotiations in '68. "The in-house coalition of conservatives who opposed the Nixon-Kissinger moves toward detente in 1972 was similar to the one which opposed the Kennedy-Harriman detente initiatives in 1963. It still included [counterintelligence chief] James Angleton in the CIA, who in the 1960s had suspected Harriman of being a Soviet spy, and who in the 1970s reportedly 'objectively' believed Kissinger to be a Soviet spy.'" Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK Angleton was a real piece of work. Harriman was an untouchable. As a protege of the Rockefellers, Kissinger was also an untouchable. Harriman, W. (illiam) Averell http://www.answers.com/topic/w-averell-harriman (1891-1986) businessman and public official, born in New York City. Harriman held a variety of positions during Democratic administrations from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Lyndon B. Johnson. Harriman was Roosevelt's special representative (”defense expediter”) to Britain for the government program that provided material support to U.S. allies (1941-43). As the number-two man in the Economic Cooperation Administration, he was largely responsible for division of Marshall Plan aid among the nations of western Europe (1948-50). In 1950, early in the Korean War, he served briefly as a special assistant to President Harry S. Truman. As director of the Mutual Security Administration (1951-53), Harriman supervised the rearmament of America's allies in Europe, dispensing billions in military assistance. In 1961 he joined President John F. Kennedy's administration as assistant secretary of state for Far Eastern affairs and undersecretary of state for political affairs; in 1963 he negotiated and signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty. In the role of ambassador-at-large during the Johnson administration (1965-68), Harriman began negotiations for peace in Vietnam. Between his early and later Washington assignments, Harriman served a single term as governor of New York (1955-59). A highly sanitized bio of the man. Left out the parts wherein Harriman helped develop the Soviet oil industry in Baku, which became one of the main targets of the German war machine, also primarily financed by Harriman interests. Hopefully I can get to more tonight... DJ A thoroughly enjoyable exchange, David! I look forward to further discussion with you on this thread, and with Monk and Bill as well.

Hey Bill, That's not my argument, actually. It seems certain to me that Harriman sat in the Driver's Seat in Washington DC after the capture of Oswald in regards to framing LHO as the lone assassin, instead of the agent-of-Fidel frame Hoover and the CIA were pushing almost immediately after the assassination. I think the historical record is clear on that matter. What I'm speculating is that Harriman/Rockefeller et al used Allen Dulles to organize assassination plots in Chicago, Tampa, Miami, Dallas and Los Angeles as a contingency plan as a way to establish a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba, and in case Kennedy got the idea he could pull out of Vietnam. When Kennedy went along with Harriman and the overthrow of Diem, and the back channel talks with Castro, the plug was pulled on the Chicago, Tampa and Miami plots. There was a concerted effort to stop the Dallas plot -- but those efforts came to naught for the simple reason the Dallas boys didn't give a damn what Harriman wanted and had the juice to buy the guns and All-Pro coup makers like David Atlee Phillips (of Fort Worth) and David Morales. The guys who occupied the Driver's Seat in Dealey Plaza were literally the guys who owned the Driver's Seat -- Clint Murchison, H.L Hunt and the Dal-Tex Building. But someone screwed the pooch and Oswald was captured alive. The killers of Kennedy lost control of the cover-up, which reverted to the blue-bloods at the levers of power in Washington. I think it was initially sponsored as an inside job, and facilitated by people in the US government who wanted to spark an invasion of Cuba. I think Harriman would have been fine with that outcome if not for the capture of Oswald. In that sense the operation failed. I mean, if the idea was merely to remove Kennedy they could have more readily killed him in his sleep, imo. The ultimate target was Castro, not Kennedy. Harriman sought a neutralized Laos, a militarized Vietnam, and a friendlier-or-ousted Castro. He got 2 out of 3. You bet. E.H Harriman of the Union Pacific Railroad. Robber baron deluxe. He helped John D. Rockefeller take monopoly control of the US oil industry and John D. Rockefeller helped Harriman take monopoly control of the US railroads. The Dulles brothers, the Bush family, the Clintons, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski are all creatures of the Harriman/Rockefeller alliance. I'd suggest the progeny of robber barons own both the killers and the politicians. Even the visible puppet masters have strings attached.

I once asked Colonel Prouty about his reference to the "Power Elite" -- I said, "Will you name one?" He replied, "Averell Harriman" 1988. George H. W. Bush, the son of Harriman protege Prescott Bush, elected President. 1992. Bill Clinton, a protege of Harriman's wife Pamela Churchill Harriman, elected President. http://www.anusha.com/pamela-h.htm 1996. Clinton re-elected. 2000. George W. Bush, grandson of Harriman protege Prescott Bush, elected President. 2004. Bush re-elected. W. Averell Harriman died in 1986 and ran the country from beyond the grave for another 20+ years!

Did Harriman take over the government of the USA? No, he was already as much in command as any single person could be -- before and after the assassination -- at least as far as US policies in SE Asia and Cuba were concerned. JFK didn't keep them from overthrowing Diem, did he? Listen to the tape of JFK I posted up-thread, recorded on November 4, '63...Against the coup: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, head of the CIA, Sec of Defense, Attorney General. For the coup: State, led by Harriman... Where was Kennedy in all of that? Kennedy had lost control of American foreign policy in 1963! Read Gareth Porter's The Perils of Dominance -- Kennedy wanted to find a way to neutralize South Vietnam and he was defeated, in large part because of Harriman. Dallas Yahoos didn't set up ambushes in Chicago, Tampa, or Miami. And yet those plots existed and were aborted/avoided. I agree with Jack that Allen Dulles was at the apex of the over-all assassination planning, which probably included a plot in Los Angeles. There was one city in the country where blue-bloods couldn't reach: Dallas. I think you have the operational agenda in reverse: the designated patsy was to be characterized as an agent of Fidel Castro, but once he was captured the blue-bloods who occupy actual power in this country pulled the plug within two hours after his capture and designated him a deranged lone nutcase. Had Oswald been killed instead of captured on 11/22 we'd all have found something else fascinating to occupy our lives. Maybe we'd have jobs at the Havana Disneyland? It wasn't up to him. He followed orders. Kennedy also followed orders and allowed the over-throw of Diem against the advice of his closest advisor, RFK. Harriman/Bundy and all the power of the Harriman/Walker/Bush crime family in cahoots with longtime Harriman allies the Rockefellers. McGeorge Bundy was calling the shots in the White House Situation Room and informed LBJ on AF1 that the lone assassin was in custody. Lyndon barely had a chance to take off his coat in his new digs at 1600 Penn. Ave before W. Averell Harriman busted in and informed him that the Soviets had nothing to do with it. The only way he could know that was if he knew who did it. I think there was a team in the TSBD, one in the Dal-Tex, one on the GK, and one at the South Knoll. Bought and paid for by Clint Murchison, Jr. -- but originally organized by Allen Dulles at the behest of his blue-blood masters. That's how I see it, fwiw...

The Dulles brothers were life-long employees of the inter-locking Rockefeller/Harriman dynasties. It was Rockefeller (and Kennedy) money that the Brown Brothers Harriman bank invested in the Nazis (as well as his own and others). When W. Averell Harriman ran against Nelson Rockefeller for governor of New York in 1958 it was strictly an intramural contest. I'd put W. Averell Harriman at the head of the apex of American power. That said, I'd argue that in November of 1963 Harriman had no reason to assassinate Kennedy -- but he wanted to keep the plotting alive as a contingency plan. If Kennedy had prevented the overthrow of Diem in Vietnam -- I speculate -- his demise would have preceded Diem's, not the other way around, and it would have taken place in Chicago on November 2. Keep in mind that there was an active effort to prevent Kennedy's assassination, all after the overthrow of Diem on November 1, '63. Plots were aborted/prevented in Chicago, Tampa and Miami. There was the famous FBI teletype warning of a plot in Dallas. There's Tosh Plumlee's convincing (to me at least) account of an abort mission in Dealey Plaza. There's this bit from Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked: Who was in a position to spread those kind of rumors in Houston? Perhaps it's just a co-incidence, but the head the Republican Party in Houston at the time was...(drumroll)...Harriman protege George H. W. Bush. Tosh Plumlee has said that the abort team was given bum information. Someone screwed the pooch. I'd speculate that that someone was George H. W. Bush. So if Harriman was at the apex of contingency plans to kill Kennedy, but didn't need to have JFK killed at that time since Harriman was already getting his way in both Vietnam policy and the back-door talks with Castro, who then was at the apex of the Dallas assassination? I speculate that it was homegrown: Clint Murchison Jr, co-owner of the Dal-Tex Building, from which at least one shot was fired and which was not searched by Dallas police. Murchison was in bed with notorious drug traffickers Vito Genovese, Myer Lansky and Carlos Marcello. Dallas was one town out of the reach of blue-bloods like Harriman. Or so my reading of the case has led me to believe, up to now...

My comments in burgandy. from Salandria "Tale of Two Tapes" Despite the evidence of conspiracy of which Dealey Plaza reeked, the White House Situation Room had informed President Johnson and the other occupants of Air Force One that, notwithstanding what they may have smelled, seen and felt in Dealey Plaza which spoke of a conspiratorial crossfire, Oswald was to be designated as the lone assassin. Who do you suppose was in the WH Situation room telling them this? How many non-military people are even allowed in the WH Situation room? David, keep reading your Salandria citation... (quote on) McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending that fateful afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who was calling from Air Force One when the lone-assassin myth was prematurely given birth. (Bishop, Jim, The Day Kennedy Was Shot, New York & Funk Wagnalls, 1968, p. 154). McGeorge Bundy as the quintessential WASP establishmentarian did not take his orders from the Mafia and/or renegade elements. (quote off) McGeorge Bundy didn't take orders from military officers, either. Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, pg 334-5 (emphasis added): (quote on) Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York, W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960, President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate “with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to [Pentagon aide William R.] Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting the president or the attorney general.” The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president. He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.” (quote off) Are you speaking of Bundy? McCone? Logged meetings/Calls or not? please explain, thanks Glad you asked! I was hoping someone would follow through on this! Max Holland's The Assassination Tapes, pg 57: (quote on) At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald [in Russia]...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during WWII, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. government's top Kremlinologists. None of them believe the Soviets have a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association. (quote off) The "U.S. government's top Krelimologists" were one helluva crack team of investigators, as they absolved the Soviets even before the Commie patsy had been charged with the crime! Harriman was "the top Krelimologist." He was merely quoting himself. Seems clear to me that the cover-up of the Kennedy assassination was dictated by Skull & Bones blue-bloods, not the military. (Harriman, S&B 1913; Bundy, S&B 1940). I guess it depends on how you look at it... If guns and drugs are being run in and out of the country then those who would have the authority to order Ruby to kill Oswald may have done so at the insistence of the military who was in essence overseeing those operations... or at least turning a blind - and very well paid - eye. Now we're getting into the good stuff, David! Have US military personnel been involved in drug running? You bet. http://www.pr-inside.com/former-drug-kingp...es-r1866336.htm Have people connected to the CIA run drugs? Of course. http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLIT...ES_OF_MENA.html The Sicilian-American Mafia? Obviously. Requires no citation. How about Yankee blue-bloods? Less obvious, but open to reasonable speculation given the historic role of blue-blood families in the 19th century opium trade. http://www.voxfux.com/features/scull_bones_opium.html George Herbert Walker, Jr (S&B 1927)., the son of W. Averell Harriman's business partner George Herbert Walker, was the lead investor in George H. W. Bush's Zapata Off-Shore company, which some researchers suspect was involved in drug running through its moveable oil drilling platforms -- a reasonable suspicion given G. H. W. Bush's involvement with the Contra cocaine smuggling network in the '80's. http://www.finalcall.com/features/bush-cia.html US military/CIA/Mafia/banker-elites -- this is what I mean by "pan-organizational." Powerful, well-placed people with a variety of backgrounds and affiliations united in one common goal: the development and control of the world's narcotics markets. For most involved in the trade, narcotics are all about the untraceable money -- lots and lots of it. I speculate, however, that for elites like the Walkers, the Harrimans, and the Bushes it was about the money, as well, but it was also about their interest in eugenics: culling the human herd of undesirables. These people financed the Nazis and, eventually, the Holocaust. I submit that the heroin/cocaine scourges that infected the US and other countries after WW2 were facilitated by financial elites as another effort to cull the human herd of undesirables -- a Holocaust by another means. What did that fat Mafia character in "The Godfather" say? "In my city we would keep the traffic in the dark people, the coloreds. They're animals anyway so let them lose their souls." I think that basically sums up the historical attitude of the Harriman/Walker/Bush crime family. I made the argument before that in 1963 EVERYONE had been in the military in one form or another... everyone given any real responsibility at least. I must respectfully disagree, David. Neither W. Averell Harriman nor McGeorge Bundy served in the military. In the '20's and '30s Harriman was a primary financier for both the development of the Soviet oil industry in Baku and for the development of the Nazi war machine in Germany. I'd argue that he was more responsible for the outbreak of WW2 than any other single individual -- all while serving in FDR's administration in the '30s and '40s! And who did Truman put in charge of implementing the Marshall Plan after WW2? W. Averell Harriman. By the age of 18 you were registered, drafted and indoctrinated to the military way of things... the "pan-organization" you speak of is ultimately controlled by the military establishment... no? Not according to my reading of Cold War history, no. For instance, in 1961-62 the US military/foreign-policy establishment pressed JFK to send US troops into Laos and South Vietnam. But Kennedy sought the "neutralization" of both Laos and So. Vietnam. JFK's diplomatic point man on SE Asia policy was our old friend W. Averell Harriman. Kennedy and Harriman bucked the military/foreign-policy establishment hawks and negotiated the "neutralization" of Laos at the Geneva Conference in 1962 (the hawks called it "Ave's Cave"). Harriman then turned around and bucked Kennedy by sabotaging the President's efforts to feel out Ho Chi Minh for peace talks. (See Gareth Porter's The Perils of Dominance, pgs 153-164). In November of 1963 the Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Maxwell Taylor opposed the overthrow of Diem in South Vietnam. The primary supporter of the coup was...(drumroll)...W. Averell Harriman. http://www.whitehousetapes.net/clips/1963_...tnam_memoir.swf Here is a telling passage from "William Colby, the Hmong and the CIA," by Amoun Vang Sayaovong: (quote on) American desire to adhere to the spirit of the Geneva Accords deemed it necessary that the Hmong serve as a clandestine force which could harass the North Vietnamese without being directly linked to the United States. The Hmong were prohibited from taking any offensive actions as that could lead to an escalation in the war on the part of the North Vietnamese. Increased fighting also had the potential to expose the American support of the Hmong and could possibly lead to a complete annulment of the Geneva Accords. Colby - then CIA Deputy Director - was instructed by Assistant Secretary W. Averell Harriman of the State Department to keep the effort in Laos purely defensive in nature. "'Okay, one hundred guns but no attacks, only for defense,' " Colby said of Harriman's orders. "Don't get the Hmong to do any attack against the North Vietnamese. We don't want to escalate this thing any more than possible, " explained Colby of the American policy in the 1960s. "We would just like to dampen it down where it is ... where we don't let it get any further but we don't try to win any victories there [Laos]." (quote off) Who set the rules of engagement for the CIA and its allies in Laos? Not the CIA. Not the US military. W. Averell Harriman was running his own game in SE Asia (and in Cuba, I'd argue), President Kennedy and the US military be damned. Business caters to them, countries are used for their resources by them, and they are intimately connected (and in most cases direct the activities of) the military and security forces of these other countries... a standing military force is one of the founding principle of the US government - been around since the early 1700's. They have the most money, loyalty, organization, reach, men/women and power. No matter where you were... CIA, NSA, Congress, Legal, etc... you came out of the military and you followed your orders, regardless of whether you were inside or out... or else. During the Kennedy administration ultimate power was found elsewhere. Because there were plenty of other countries in central and south american to control... Cuba had limited land mass, hostile environment and was too close.. Vietnam was the issue not Cuba and the military/CIA/Henry Cabot Lodge knew it. Billions in drugs and weapons and no one looking over your shoulder... that's why. Again, I must respectfully disagree. The Western Hemisphere had been subject to American hegemony since the Monroe Doctrine. Castro's surge to power threatened that hegemony, for one thing, and the US military was anxious to be rid of him (see James Bamford's Body of Secrets). I don't think Cuban policy under Kennedy was seperate from Vietnam policy. There were the same people who worked on both -- W. Averell Harriman, McGeorge Bundy, and, of course, Gen. Edward Lansdale. And others... From "Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used In the JFK Conspiracy" by Richard Bartholomew: http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sh...ghlight=rambler The following is cited from: Unpublished Transcript: John M. Newman with Gus Russo, "Unscheduled Workshop on Major General Edward G. Lansdale, Colonel Howard L. Burris and Air Force Intelligence Connections to the Kennedy Assassination," Second Annual Assassination Symposium on John F. Kennedy, Hyatt Regency Hotel at Reunion Square, Dallas, Tx., Oct. 24, 1992. (quote on) By February 1963 Lansdale had no position in Cuban policy and was focusing on Latin America. He was traveling to countries like Bolivia and elsewhere. The U.S. had a lot of personnel in South America under Kennedy. And a lot of them ended up going to Vietnam. According to Newman there is a blind spot as to exactly what they were doing and how many people the U.S. had in Latin America. (pg 5) "I can tell you," Newman said, "that in the collateral research that I did, names that I came across, I found a correlation between -- I don't say this is definitive but I got a lot of hits -- the same names of the guys that were running around in Latin America, particularly in Cuban policy, end up in the Far East Division. Very strange coincidence. There were three -- it wasn't just one -- there were several. A neat nexus between the Southeast Asian guys and Cuban guys." (pg 27) (quote off) Another strange, or not-so-strange, co-incidence: in the 50's Havana was the major hub for international narcotics trafficking; in the 60's and early 70's the Golden Triangle of SE Asia was the major source for opium. If not all stemming from and thru the military, then we have LBJ, the Cabinet and Congress... the 25th Amendment with the express cooperation of the Joint Chiefs I'm very interested in your explanation of the "pan-organizational" entity... thanks DJ I'd speculate that various persons with various backgrounds including military intel people, CIA, FBI, Sicilian-American Mafia, Corsican Mafia, anti-Castro Cubans, Texas oil, Dallas law enforcement...and Yankee blue-bloods...had a hand in the Kennedy assassination. But it wasn't any one of those entities or organizations. It was a bunch of guys who wanted to establish and control a Laos-to-US heroin pipeline thru So. Vietnam and Havana. The primary goal of the JFK assassination was to establish a pre-text for the invasion of Cuba, and on that basis the operation must be declared a failure. That's my take on it, fwiw...Thanks for asking, David!

Big Jim sez: Was it "the military" who called Air Force One 3 or 4 hours after the assassination to inform the new President that the lone assassin had been captured? Was it "the military" who met with LBJ in the White House mere minutes after his arrival the evening of 11/22/63 to inform him definitively that the Soviets were not involved in the assassination? Was it "the military" who coerced Jack Ruby into silencing the patsy? The answer to all three questions is -- "No." If "the military" killed JFK because he was a weakling in the Cold War why would they drop their desire to invade Cuba after only a few hours? Was their desire to invade so flimsy that they suddenly became as "weak" on Castro as Kennedy had been? Of course not. To pin the assassination on "the military" is as fruitless as blaming "the CIA" or "the Mob," imo. My reading of the evidence has convinced me that the assassination was pan-organizational and cannot be attributed to a single entity or institution.

Mike, you have two problems with this analysis: 1) It ignores the throat wound, which the Parkland staff described as a wound of entrance, and which the Zapruder film shows having occurred well before the head shots(s). The statements of close-proximity witnesses Nellie Connally, Jackie Kennedy, Linda Willis, Roy Kellerman, and Clint Hill corroborate what we see in the Zapruder film: JFK was reacting to the throat shot well before the head shot. 2) The Muchmore film shows a stiff wind from the southwest billowing in the coats of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman. At the time of the head shot the concrete curb damaged by the Tague shot was 85 yards southwest of the limo. The wind in Dealey Plaza was swirling at 12:30pm on 11/22/63. At the corner of Houston and Elm DP officer Marrion Baker was almost knocked over by a wind gust from the north. On Houston St. Jackie's pink pill box hat was almost blown off by a wind gust from the north. How could a bullet fragment travel 85 yards into the teeth of a hard swirling wind on a straight-line trajectory and retain enough impact velocity to shatter concrete and wound a man standing 16 feet away? Not given JFK's T3 back wound. The holes in JFK's clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of his clothing collars -- well below the location required for the SBT. The physical facts of the case debunk your argument. Not only are the holes in the clothes too low, but 15 people described the wound in the vicinity of T3 and two pieces of properly prepared contemporaneous medical evidence put the wound in the vicinity of T3. I propose to you that there was absolutely no way a 3 gram (approximate) fragment could travel on a straight-line trajectory 85 yards into the teeth of a hard, swirling wind -- much less retain enough impact velocity to do the damage we see with the Tague wounding. I accept.