Paul Rigby

Speaking of "business cover", Paul Helliwell was also hired by Walt Disney in the mid-1960s to set up dummy real estate companies for purchase of the land that would become Walt Disney World. Disney wanted to avoid paying a Disney premium for land parcels needed for the huge project, so Helliwell and his associates started buying up the parcels without reference to Disney. There is a chapter in the book Married to the Mouse devoted to this.

Online, you just typically see him referred to in this history as a "Miami lawyer":

http://www.orlandose...tility-regional

http://www.mouseplan...?art=mg040609mg

Rex

How the CIA Helped Disney Conquer Florida

http://www.thedailyb...atsheet_morning

Apr 14, 2013 4:45 AM EDT

With advice from former CIA operatives and lawyers, Disney bought up the land for Florida’s Disney World and orchestrated a unique legal situation—and set up an unconstitutional form of government. An excerpt from TD Allman’s Finding Florida (528 pages. Atlantic Monthly Press. $27.50.)

Starting in the mid-1960s when Disney set out to establish the Disney World Theme Park, they were determined to get land at below market prices and Disney operatives engaged in a far-ranging conspiracy to make sure sellers had no idea who was buying their Central Florida property. By resorting to such tactics Disney acquired more than 40 square miles of land for less than $200 an acre, but how to maintain control once Disney's empire had been acquired? The solution turned out to be cartoon-simple, thanks to the CIA.

Disney's key contact was the consummate cloak-and-dagger operator, William "Wild Bill" Donovan. Sometimes called the "Father of the C.I.A," he was also the founding partner of Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, a New York law firm whose attorneys included future C.I.A. director William Casey. Donovan’s attorneys provided fake identities for Disney agents; they also set up a secret communications center, and orchestrated a disinformation campaign. In order to maintain "control over the overall development," Disney and his advisers realized, “the company would have to find a way to limit the voting power of the private residents" even though, they acknowledged, their efforts "violated the Equal Protection Clause" of the U.S. Constitution. Here again the CIA was there to help. Disney's principal legal strategist for Florida was a senior clandestine operative named Paul Helliwell. Having helped launch the C.I.A. secret war in Indochina, Helliwell relocated to Miami in 1960 in order to coordinate dirty tricks against Castro. At a secret "seminar" Disney convened in May 1965 Helliwell came up with the approach that to this day allows the Disney organization to avoid taxation and environmental regulation as well as maintain immunity from the U.S. Constitution. It was the same strategy the C.I.A. pursued in the foreign countries. Set up a puppet government; then use that regime to do your bidding.

Though no one lived there, Helliwell advised Disney to establish at least two phantom "cities,” then use these fake governments to control land use and make sure the public monies the theme park generated stayed in Disney's private hands. On paper Disney World's "cities" would be regular American home towns—except their only official residents would be the handful of hand-picked Disney loyalists who periodically "elected" the officials who, in turn, ceded complete control to Disney executives.

In early 1967, the Florida legislature created Hallowell’s two "cities,” both named for the artificial reservoirs Disney engineers created by obstructing the area's natural water flow. When you visit Disney's Magic Kingdom, you are visiting the City of Bay Lake, Florida. The other was the City of Lake Buena Vista. In both “cities,” in violation of both the U.S. and Florida Constitutions the Disney-engineered legislation established a property qualification for holding elective office, requiring that each candidate for office there "must be the owner, either directly or as a trustee, of real property situated in the City" in order "to be eligible to hold the office of councilman."

Though enacted by the legislature, this and other crucial pieces of Disney-enabling legislation, which would reshape central Florida and affect the lives of tens of millions of people, was written by teams of Disney lawyers working in New York at the Donovan firm, and in Miami at Helliwell's offices. Disney lawyers in California signed off on the text before it was flown to Tallahassee where, without changing a word, Florida’s compliant legislators enacted it into law. “No one thought of reading it,” one ex-lawmaker later remarked. Later, after the houses there were sold, compliant legislatures excluded all the residents of Celebration from Disney’s domain, to prevent them from voting.

Those who were there never forgot the day Disney inaugurated what truly would be a magic kingdom in Florida – magically above the law. The Governor and his Cabinet came down from Tallahassee. TV crews were in attendance, along with Florida's most eminent civic leaders. Right on schedule, the curtains parted. On the screen, Walt Disney gave his much beloved, self-deprecating smile, then announced that in Florida he was going to create a new kind of America, not just a theme park.

There would "be no landowners, and therefore no voter control," Disney responded, when asked how he planned to maintain control.

If Florida, among all the many melodramas of the last 500 years, could be said to have had only one defining moment, this was it because in this place, at this particular time, the distinction between reality and fantasy—nature and names—vanished entirely. Walt Disney was dead when he made this presentation. A chronic smoker, he had died of lung cancer seven weeks earlier. As the lips of the dead Disney moved, people in the audience murmured their agreement. As his hands gestured, they nodded their approval. The posthumous Walt Disney, like the mechanical Andrew Jackson in the Hall of the Presidents, had joined Mickey, Donald, and the Sorcerer's Apprentice in that special world where it doesn't matter whether you're real or not.

Altgens was a pro who no doubt shot many times prefocused. Doing so with a moving subject REQUIRES tracking the subject in the viewfinder until the come into the zone of focus. This is news and sports photography 101.

A brilliantly plausible explanation for why Kennedy was nowhere near the center of Altgens #6, as readers can judge for themselves here: http://img26.imagesh...satevepost1.jpg

ROFLMAO!

The CENTER of the photo? ROFLMAO!

Oh wait it is Paul Rigby. Photo analyst extraordinaire. [/sarcasm] Who just failed photo composition 101. Imagine that.

http://photoinf.com/..._the_Don'ts.htm

http://www.dpreview....-left-of-center

And the list goes on and one and one.

What a silly statement by Rigby, surprise surprise.

I'm delighted to see that elementary comprehension remains your strong point.

Or should that be your "101"?

Altgens was a pro who no doubt shot many times prefocused. Doing so with a moving subject REQUIRES tracking the subject in the viewfinder until the come into the zone of focus. This is news and sports photography 101.

A brilliantly plausible explanation for why Kennedy was nowhere near the center of Altgens #6, as readers can judge for themselves here: http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/2439/satevepost1.jpg

Rare thing to see the truth about Kennedy's presidency on the Guardian's website. Take a bow, you patriot, you.

do these examples remind people of George Bush... or any other Senator during the 1950s?

By studying the last president who tried to swim upsteam and what subsequently happened to his head one can learn a lot about the river, and its big media minders. One can also learn a lot about how a Fake Foundation Funded "left" (not really left) played a key role in making the today's left politically irrelevant. This knowledge offers lots of clues about how to fix this situation: one can learn a lot about the river, and its big media minders.

*http://www.amazon.co...rts and letters

**http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/1620870568

***http://www.amazon.co...tmm_hrd_title_0

Very good, indeed, Nate; and the element of DiEugenio's work for which I have the most respect.

Let me for once reverse roles - why not sign on at the Grauniad and post (most of) the above?

You'll find at least one supporter there, a mysterious character by the name of Anotherevertonian.

A sound chap, it would appear, arguing along much the same lines.

Beyond military intervention: a 'wacko birds' manifesto for US foreign policy

Never mind John McCain's jibe at those who challenge the consensus on American 'might is right', the US needs this debate

Stephen Kinzer

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 March 2013 11.30 GMT

Every American president since the second world war has embraced the muscular, interventionist security paradigm that holds Washington in its grip. Its results can be seen in the wreckage of wars and covert operations from Central America to Central Asia, from Indochina to the Middle East.

Americans who reject this paradigm are rebelling against the "liberal internationalism" promoted by John F Kennedy and George HW Bush, and also against the "neo-conservatism" of Dick Cheney and George W Bush.

The Guardian: the finest British liberal daily CIA could (and did) buy.

What are our most basic early sources on C.D. Jackson's involvement with the Zapruder film. Is there some chronology of early references that could be established?

From the thread: Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963?

Post #115, 4 May 2008

C.D. Jackson’s papers at the Eisenhower Library in Kansas do not contain a detailed diary covering late November 1963, but they do offer a trip and speech log; and a desk calendar on which Jackson noted forthcoming meetings and appointments, things to be done, birthdays, etc. The film made such a profound impression on Jackson that neither contain any reference to an alleged viewing on either Monday, 25 November, or the previous day, Sunday, 24 November. Yet the desk calendar does contain clear evidence of Jackson noting changes to his plans as a consequence of Kennedy’s murder. No wonder Stolley changed his story on Jackson’s role!

http://educationforu...105#entry144363

The claim that Jackson was central to the process of suppressing the first version of the Z-fake looks to me, absent evidence to the contrary, a retrospective fiction promulgated to get the CIA off the hook.

Plausibly, you understand.

As a wise American nearly remarked, a research community that is afraid to let its members judge truth and falsehood in an open market is not engaged in research and is most definitely not a community. It is, rather, an instrument of, and accessory to, the cover-up.

Or as John F. Kennedy put it:

“Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.”

Hi Ralph,

Yes, I'm happy to, but you'll have to give me time to pull all the diverse bits and pieces I collected - and which led me to the conclusions summarised above - into coherent form. I should be finished, "redecoration issues" with my teenage daughter permitting, within ten days or so.

Paul

PS Fascinating find with respect to the Benton Harbor News-Palladium's final edition of November 22, 1963: well done!

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/01/18/jfk-an-open-letter-to-robert-f-kennedy-jr/

Itches scratched simultaneously by the Bay of Pigs:

1. Lanced boil of Guatemalan-style paramilitary counter-revolution
   
2. Entrenched Fidel Castro in power
   
3. Opened way to Red Army penetration of the island
   
4. Discredited Kennedy (“soft” on Communism)
   
5. Misdirected attention (real move against De Gaulle)
   
6. Transformed the Dulles succession (Bissell’s chances of succeeding to Directorship of Central Intelligence ended)
   

5. The Dulles succession

Richard Cumings. The Pied Piper: Allard K. Lowenstein and the Liberal Dream (NY: Grove Press, 1985), 159

Richard Bissell, the CIA’s chief of Clandestine Services, who had, at one point, favoured using covert agency operatives in support of the anti-Communist Left and the ‘progressive political forces.’

Michael Holzman. James Jesus Angleton, The CIA, & the Craft of Counterintelligence (Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press, 2008), 186-187

When Angleton returned to Washington in the spring of 1961 he had found the new Administration preoccupied with what would become known as the Bay of Pigs...an adventure which President Kennedy only half-heartedly supported...The CIA was split on the Cuban invasion scheme. Richard Bissell...had been made head of Clandestine Services after Frank Wisner’s collapse. He allied himself with Wisner’s old group of covert warriors, including Tracy Barnes and Desmond Fitzgerald...The intelligence collection specialists, who looked to Richard Helms, now chief of operations for the Clandestine Service under Bissell, were once again more sceptical, Helms famously withdrawing from conversations about Cuba (when not already excluded from those discussions by Bissell)...The OSS group around Helms not only quietly withheld their support from Bissell; they made sure that those seconded to the Cuban effort were not the most capable members of their staffs…The suppressed CIA inspector general’s report on the Bay of Pigs noted this simultaneous passive opposition by one group…and specifically listed lack of active involvement of the Counterintelligence Staff as a significant factor…

We know that Bissell met with Jacques Soustelle in Washington in December 1960. All together less well-known is the location of James Angleton in the summer of 1960. Confined to a sanitarium due to a “tubercular ailment,” the FBI reported: climbing mountains in the Languedoc region – in between excursions to Cathar ruins, it was claimed - of France, postcarded his wife, Cicely. As Holzman remarked, with quite admirable restraint, “It does seem remarkable he was able to go mountain climbing…so soon after leaving the hospital.”

Cuban Smoke and the French Connection: why the CIA installed Fidel Castro

I recently rediscovered the following piece. It's tongue-in-cheek, deadly serious, and thought-provoking - not a bad combo. Enjoy!

Fidel Castro - Supermole by Servando González

http://www.amigospai...rg/oagsg022.php

A rare airing for the above:

FIDEL CASTRO OF THE CIA

http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/fidel-castro-of-cia.html

"Castro's road to power was conveniently paved by the American government and media..."

Dan Rather described the Zapruder film THREE separate times on CBS-TV Monday 11/25/63. The final report was televised at approximately 8:26PM EST.

Ken,

What is your source for the above timing? And does the source give the precise times for the two Rather descriptions for which I have provided transcripts? If there were three, as you have stated, I take it there was no version offered at the time specified by Dunkel?

Paul

Dan Rather, CBS Radio interview, 25 November 1963:

"I…have just returned from seeing a…a movie…the President's open black automobile…made a turn, a left turn off of Houston Street in Dallas onto Elm Street…as the car completed the turn…,"

Richard Trask. Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the assassination of President Kennedy (Danvers, Ma: Yeoman Press, 1994), pp.86-87.

As US television coverage of President Kennedy’s funeral demonstrated beyond peradventure, few things are more injurious to rational enquiry than a scheme of state mourning (1). Or, for that matter, more tedious: By the conclusion of CBS’s live-feed from the country’s capitol, official mourning’s staples – in no particular order, sententiousness, pedantry, and lugubriousness, to name but three - had not merely triumphed, but taken human shape, by name George Herman, to whom fell the thankless task of commentating on the arrival of the country-delegations at the White House, via the North West Gate, there to pay respects to the widow within (2). Even the shadowy, fleeting shots of Pennsylvania Avenue traffic were more interesting.

Like all bad things, mercifully, this coverage came to an end, and viewers were, in an instant of casual television magic, once more back in a New York studio and in the marginally less bromidic presence of Walter Cronkite. Here, things swiftly took an unexpected turn for the more interesting, as I recently discovered when viewing, not before time, some mislaid DVDs I bought a couple of years ago, each of them containing an extended segment of CBS television’s output on Monday, November 25, 1963. The DVD coverage extends to, rough guess (3), no later than about 1630hrs (EST), but it nevertheless proved sufficient to shed revealing light on the heroic labours of both Larry Dunkel (for the uninitiated, aka “Gary Mack,” the curator of Dallas’ Sixth Floor Museum), and Richard B. Trask, two stalwarts of the anti-alterationist camp.

Dunkel, it will be recalled, had, in a late August 1980 edition of Penn Jones’ probing organ, The Continuing Inquiry, damned Dan Rather with a manuscript of the latter’s only television description of the Zapruder film, “aired at 6:30pm (EST)” in the course of “CBS Evening News,” on November 25. Dunkel knew it was the only such television description as a direct consequence, presumably, of his “studies,” about which he about he boasted in the paragraph preceding the transcript, and which were of such a comprehensive and vigilant nature as to compel a scathing denunciation of the CBS man’s efforts. “There are,” Dunkel boomed, “at least eight significant errors in Rather’s description” (4). So many, perish the heretical thought, that it was almost as if Rather had viewed a different, and earlier, version of the Zapruder film.

One man similarly determined to banish all such non-conformist nonsense, albeit a quarter of a century later, was Richard B. Trask, whose National Nightmare on six feet of film: Mr. Zapruder’s home movie and the murder of President Kennedy (Danvers, Mass: Yeomen Press, 2005) sought not to belabour Rather but instead, somewhat ambitiously, to reintegrate Rather’s multiple faux-pas into a all-new meta-narrative of authenticity, in part by the addition of another Rather transcript, that of the reporter’s earlier radio description of the Zapruder film, as furnished to Hughes Rudd and Richard C. Hotelett (5). This transcript was sourced to the papers of another indefatigable upholder of the authenticity of assassination films and stills, Richard E. Sprague (6).

There was, it should be noted, an interesting, if unacknowledged, shift in accounting from Dunkel to Trask. Where Dunkel insisted upon one Rather television description, but permitted the possibility of more than one radio version (7), Trask acknowledged he wasn’t sure how many descriptions had been offered – but then proceeded as if there was one and only one description on each medium (8). The truth proved more Trask, than Dunkel, but neither emerge with any credit, as will become clear.

In fact, as I established from the vantage point of a desk several thousand miles away, unfettered by the meagre resources of the Sixth Floor Museum, Rather had not one, but two goes at summarizing the film within 25 minutes of the cessation of CBS’ funeral coverage, with less than 9 minutes separating the attempts. The effect of such rapid quasi-repetition was dizzying - and profoundly suspicious. Indeed, one man who appears to have found it both was Walter Cronkite: In apparent response to a piece of paper landing on his desk instructing him of the imminent return to Dallas for Rather’s second shy at the target, he became notably discombobulated as he read the news item immediately preceding the reprise.

So to the text of Rather’s first televised description of the Zapruder film. It occurred sometime between 3:45pm and 4:15pm (EST), occupied just under 6 minutes of air-time, and comprised a tad over 700 words:

Walter Cronkite: Let’s go to Dallas now for developments there today.

Dan Rather: We have just returned from seeing a complete motion picture of the moments preceding, and the moments of, President Kennedy’s assassination and the shooting of Texas Governor John Connally. Here is what the motion picture shows.

The automobile, the black Lincoln convertible, with the top down - carrying, in the front seat, two secret service agents; in the middle, or jump seat, the Governor and Mrs. Connally; and, in the rear seat, President and Mrs. Kennedy – made a turn off of Houston Street, on to Elm Street. This was a left turn and was made right in front of the building from which the assassin’s bullet was fired.

After making the turn, and going about 35 yards from the corner of the building – six stories up in which the assassin had a window open – and keep in mind here that President Kennedy and Governor Connally are seated on, both on the same side of the car, on the side facing the building: Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally are on the side of the car away from the assassin.

About 35 yards from the base of the building, President Kennedy, in the film, put his hand up to the right side of his face, the side facing the assassin. He seemingly wanted to brush back his hair, or perhaps rub his eyebrow. Mrs. Kennedy at this moment was looking away, or looking straight ahead. She was not looking at her husband.

At that moment, when the President had his right hand up to this side of his face (gestures), he lurched just a bit forward. It was obvious that the shot had hit him. Mrs. Kennedy was not looking at him, nor did she appear to know at that instant that her husband had been hit.

Governor Connally, in the seat immediately in front of the President, apparently either heard the shot or sensed that something was wrong because, Governor Connally, with his coat open, his button was undone, turned in this manner (turns back to his right with right arm extended), his hand outstretched, back toward the President; and the Governor had a look on his face that would indicate he perhaps was saying “What’s wrong?” or “What happened?” or “Can I help?” or something. But as Governor Connally was turned this way, his white shirt front exposed well to the view of the assassin, the Governor was obviously hit by a bullet, and he fell over to the side.

Governor Connally’s wife, immediately, seemingly instantaneously, placed herself over her husband in a protective position, it appeared; and as Governor Connally fell back, President Kennedy was still leaned over. At that moment another bullet obviously hit the head of the President. The President’s head went forward, violently, in this manner (gestures). Mrs. Kennedy, at that instant, seemed to be looking right-square at her husband. She stood up. The President slumped over to the side and, I believe, brushed against Mrs. Kennedy’s dress.

Mrs. Kennedy immediately turned and flung herself on the trunk of the automobile, face-down on the trunk, almost on all-fours. The First Lady appeared to be either frantically trying to get the secret service man who was riding on the bumper of the car - the single secret service man riding on that bumper - to come into the car or to tell him what had happened; or perhaps, from the picture, it appeared she might have been trying to get out of the car some way.

The car never stopped. The secret service man in the front seat had a telephone in his hand. The car…its acceleration increased rapidly and it disappeared under an underpass. Three shots - the first one hitting President Kennedy, the second one hitting Governor Connally, the third one hitting the President – consume, possibly, five seconds. Not much more than that, if any.

That is the scene shown in about twenty seconds of film that the FBI has in its possession. The film was taken by an amateur photographer who was in a very advantageous position, and who had his camera trained on the President’s car from the time it made the turn in front of the assassin until it disappeared on its way to the hospital.

This is Dan Rather in Dallas.

Walter Cronkite: A most remarkable story.

Quite; and about to get a little more remarkable.

So to Rather’s second take, offered, as noted above, a full less-than-nine-minutes later. This was a superficially pithier affair, markedly so in time (5 minutes 20 seconds, give or take), less so in word-count (688). The shift in emphasis is most obvious at the end. Repeat after me: the limousine never stopped...

Walter Cronkite: Let’s go Back now to Dallas and Dan Rather.

Dan Rather: We have just returned from seeing a complete motion picture of the moments immediately preceding, and the moments of, President Kennedy’s assassination.

The motion picture shows the limousine carrying: in the front seat, two secret service men; in the middle, or jump seat, Governor and Mrs. Connally; and, in the rear seat, President and Mrs. Kennedy; a single secret service man standing on the back bumper; the top of the black Lincoln convertible down.

The car made a turn, a left turn, off of Houston Street, on to Elm Street, on the fringe of Dallas’ down-town area; that turn made directly below the sixth floor window from which the assassin’s bullets came.

After the left turn was completed, the automobile, with only one car in front of it - a secret service car immediately in front – the President’s car proceeded about 35 yards from the base of the building in which the assassin was.

President Kennedy and Governor Connally were seated on the same side of the open car, the side facing the building: Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally on the side of the car opposite the assassin.

President Kennedy is clearly shown to put his right hand up to the side of his face as if to either brush back his hair, or perhaps rub his eyebrow. Mrs. Kennedy at that instant is looking away, and is not looking at the President.

At almost that instant, when the President has his hand up to this side of his face (gestures), he lurches forward something in this manner (gestures): The first shot had hit him. Mrs. Kennedy appeared not to notice. Governor Connally, in the seat right in front of the President – by the way, the Governor had his suit coat open, his suit was not buttoned – perhaps either heard the shot or somehow he knew something was wrong because the picture shows just after that first shot hit the President, the Governor turned in something this manner, with his right arm stretched back toward the President, as if to say “What’s wrong?” or “What happened?” or say something. It exposed the entire white front shirt of the Governor to the full view of the assassin’s window; and as the Governor was in this position, and President Kennedy behind him was slumped slightly over, a shot clearly hit the front of Governor Connally; and the Governor fell back over towards his wife.

Mrs. Connally immediately put herself over her husband in a protective position, and as she did so, in the back seat, this time with Mrs. Kennedy’s eyes apparently right on her husband, the second shot – the third shot in all – the second shot hit the President’s head. His head went forward, in a violent motion, pushing it down like this (leans forward, lowering his head as he does so). Mrs. Kennedy was on her feet immediately. The President fell over in this direction (leans to his left). It appeared his head probably brushed or hit against Mrs. Kennedy’s legs.

The First Lady almost immediately tried to crawl on – did crawl on - to the trunk of the car, face-down, her whole body almost was on that trunk, in something of an all-fours position. She appeared to be either trying to desperately get the attention of the secret service man on the back bumper, or perhaps she was stretching out toward him to grab him to try get him in. Perhaps even trying to get herself out of the car.

The car was moving all the time, the car never stopped.

The secret service man on the back bumper leaned way over and put his hands on Mrs. Kennedy’s shoulders – she appeared to be in some danger of falling or rolling off that trunk lid. He pushed her back into the back seat of the car.

In the front seat, a secret service man with a phone in his hand.

The car speeded up and sped away. It never stopped, the car never paused.

That’s what the film of the assassination showed. The film was taken by an amateur photographer who had placed himself in an advantageous position: eight millimeter color film.

This is Dan Rather in Dallas.

Walter Cronkite: Throughout Texas there were memorial services today…

So what on earth was going on here? Why the manifestly hasty and crass second attempt? Well, one obvious potential explanation is that Rather’s director(s) felt it imperative to get the interpretative prism just right for viewers before the film itself was shown later that evening on CBS. Is there any evidence for such wild and irresponsible heresy? Not for the first time in this thread, it would appear so, at least, according to an intriguing passage from the Black Op Radio appearance of John Barbour, producer of the Garrison Tapes documentary (8), just over three years ago:

Oh, I have a lot of footage. I have some stunning footage. I got, I got a piece of footage that I would have loved to have put in there, and I could never get it in there. And it’s footage of Dan Rather.

You know Dan Rather was just a local reporter in Dallas at the time. Now how is it that Dan Rather, a local reporter, gets to go on CBS News to describe the Zapruder film - the Zapruder film which is in the hands of the Federal Government - and then goes on the air to lie about it? And the lie I’m telling you about is this.

I have him in a kinescope on television. He’s on CBS evening news and you see the motor vehicle moving and he’s describing everything that Jackie Kennedy’s wearing, the little pea-pod hat, the little pink outfit, the little roses on her lapel, describing what Kennedy’s wearing, describing everything that Connally has, got a little hat in his hand, describing everything, and he’s absolutely right in what he’s describing.

Then it comes to the time of the fatal shot. And he stops the Zapruder film and he looks into the camera. And he says: “This is too gruesome for you to see so I just have to describe what is happening. There is a gunshot. John Kennedy is struck in the back of the head and thrown violently forward.” Now I’ll tell you how I came across this film.

I was a lecturer at a university and some students got a hold of this film. Then they got a hold of the Zapruder film, and they ran Dan Rather’s audio over the Zapruder film, so you can see the man is obviously lying, because the gunshot hits him in the right temple, he’s thrown violently backwards, half of the skull is thrown out the left rear and on to a motorcycle cop, part of the skull is in the back and Jackie jumps out to grab it to bring it to the hospital in hopes she can repair her husband’s shattered head. And the College students, eighteen or nineteen years of age, start hooting and hollering that Dan Rather is a xxxx. You never saw that on the news. You never saw anybody report about how this guy lied; and nobody ever confronted him.

I never got that into the documentary. It would have made it too long. Because I was trying to tell Jim’s story and that’s a different story. If I ever get round to part II, part II will be about the extensive media cover-up…(10)

If Barbour was - is - right, and Rather did appear on CBS Evening News on Monday, November 25, 1963, accompanied by some or all of the Zapruder film, the orthodox history of the film and its chain of possession is, irrespective of the version shown, a corpse, and its advocates discredited.

But was it the same version? The enduring, systematic suppression of the full number and nature of Rather’s television appearances describing the Zapruder film on Monday, November 25, 1963, strongly suggests not.

Endnotes:

(1) For a British example of this universal truth, see the funeral of the assassinated Diana, Princess of Wales.

(2) For an early description of Jacqueline Kennedy’s post-funeral meetings at the White House, see William Manchester. Death of a President: November 20-November 25, 1963 (London: Michael Joseph, 1967), 689-696.

(3) In the absence of on-air time checks, or a detailed CBS log for the day, I rely based this guess on a combination of Manchester’s Death of President, NBC’s There was a President (New York: The Ridge Press, 1966), 152, in particular, and on the evidence contained within the DVD in question.

(4) Gary Mack, ‘The $8,000,000 Man,’ Continuing Enquiry, Vol 5 No 1, (August 22, 1980), 3-4.

http://digitalcollec...o-jones/id/1181

(5) Richard B. Trask. National Nightmare on six feet of film: Mr. Zapruder’s home movie and the murder of President Kennedy (Danvers, Mass: Yeoman Press, 2005), 138-142.

(6) Ibid., 360, Endnote 73: “’CBS Radio Description of Zapruder Film by Dan Rather,’ from a transcript from the Richard Sprague Papers, Special Collections Division , Georgetown University Library, Washington D.C. , p.[1-3].”

(7) Mack, ‘The $8,000,000 Man,’ 3: “He [Rather] apparently did one or two versions for the CBS Radio Network, and another for CBS television.”

(8) Trask. National Nightmare on six feet of film, 137: “How many times Rather described the viewing of the Zapruder film on Monday is unclear.”

(9) John Barbour (Dir.). The JFK Assassination: The Jim Garrison Tapes (1992) 96 min: http://www.johnbarbo...m/garrison.html

(10) Black Op radio, show #435, August 6, 2009, 44:40 until 47:36.

It used to be available, but is no longer, at this link:

http://www.blackopra...chives2009.html

The show in question is still obtainable, though on disc only, at the following:

http://www.blackopra...m/products.html

All BBC employees had a personnel file which included their basic personal details and work record. But there was also a second file. This included ‘security information' collected by Special Branch and MI5, who have always kept political surveillance on ‘subversives in the media’. If a staff member was shortlisted for a job this second file was handed to the department head, who had to sign for it. The file was a buff folder with a round red sticker, stamped with the legend SECRET and a symbol which looked like a Christmas tree. On the basis of information in this file, the Personnel Office recommended whether the person in question should be given the job or not. A former senior BBC executive recalls seeing one journalist’s security file, stamped with a Christmas tree symbol: 'For about twelve years it had recorded notes such as "has subscription to Daily Worker” or “our friends say he associates with communists and CND activists." It is fair to say that there were contemporary memos from personnel officials adding they thought this was ridiculous. But it was still on file.‘

The names of outside job applicants were submitted directly to C Branch of M5. They were then passed on to the F Branch ‘domestic subversion', whose F7 section looks at political ‘extremists', MP’s, lawyers, teachers and journalists. After consulting the registry of files, the names were fed into MI5’s computer, which contains the identities of about a million ‘subversives'.

Once MI5 had vetted an applicant their decision was given in writing to the BBC’s Personnel Office. MI5 never gave reasons for their recommendations. But, quite often, if they said a person was a ‘security risk', that was enough to blacklist him or her permanently. Members of board interviews were advised not to ask questions. And it was only when an executive or editor put pressure on the Personnel Department that MI5's decision was overruled.

Extract from:

Blacklist: The Inside Story of Political Vetting by Mark Hollingsworth and Richard Norton-Taylor

London: The Hogarth Press, 1988

ISBN 0 7012 0811 2

A row greeted with much cynicism at the time:

The Washington Daily News, 15 January 1962, p.21

Political Hams Confuse Row at Cosmos

By Richard Starnes

The Cosmos Club, where the well-bred murmur of occluding arteries is generally the loudest noise you’ll hear, is in the midst of a controversy because its admissions committee has excluded a Negro candidate from membership.

Tonight’s annual general meeting is expected to be the biggest ever held, and loud speakers have been set up, I am told, and maybe even the whole clubhouse at 2121 Massachusetts-av nw won’t be big enough to contain it.

Some members, with expressions of public piety usually reserved to congressmen voting for conscription, have resigned in great indignation. President Kennedy in effect withdrew his own application for membership, thus relieving club officials of the burden of deciding whether they would admit this particular Chief Executive.

It is difficult to write about this matter because if one cocks a critical eyebrow, one immediately becomes suspect of all manner of dark and benighted prejudices.

Nevertheless, the Cosmos Club badly needs honest investigation because it has been made a public issue by certain professedly aggrieved members of it, despite the fact that this is a private club.

I am not defending at this point the Cosmos Club’s membership criteria. I am simply stating the patent truth (which clamorous “right-thinkers” have uniformly ignored) that the membership committee was only doing what it was appointed to do. As all such gimlet-eyed groups do, it has rejected candidates for all manner of reasons. Intellectual attainment is the principal qualification for Cosmos Club membership, but does this mean the Cosmos Club should admit a brainy wife-beater, or a brilliant bankrupt, or a savant who chews with his mouth open? My point is that certain other standards are implicit in any worthwhile social club, and whether they are reasonable or capricious, it is the membership committee’s job to enforce them.

It is stated that Carl T. Rowan, the would-be member whose rejection precipitated the quarrel, is a certified intellectual, and a journalist of great circumstance. Could be. His defenders insist the only reason he was denied membership is that he is a Negro.

This also could very well be true, but no one knows for sure, and no one could say that it was the only reason for the decision without being privy to the files of the membership committee, if then. I haven’t access to them, and neither have Mr. Rowan’s sponsors. The vote was secret and anonymous as is usual in all such clubs.

Therefore, one must ask the noisy champions of rectitude who say they are quitting the Cosmos Club over this dispute, if it is possible they did not know when they became members that they were joining a club which had no Negro communicants? Is it possible that such perceptive people as John Kenneth Galbraith, Bruce Gatton, James Warburg, and Harland Cleveland, ordained intellectuals to a man, were not aware that no Negro had ever held membership in the Cosmos Club?

I belong to two clubs which I believe will make this point clear. One has no Negro members, and the other does have Negro members. In each case I knew the nature of the operating prejudices before I joined. It would be blatant hypocrisy for me now to quit Club A because it refused to admit a Negro, just as it would for me to leave Club B because it continued to admit Negroes.

Some of my best friends are cynics and each would be justified in suspecting that my latter-day convictions were the product of some base motive, such as running for public office or getting my name in the papers in order to help sell my wares, whether they were newspaper pieces, historical novels on the Civil War or paid speeches on the social scene.

One does not propose a President, or anyone else, for membership in a club without first obtaining the candidate’s permission. If President Kennedy felt it was an indecency for the Cosmos Club to exclude Negroes, why did he not say so when Mr. Galbraith proposed him for membership?

If I were a Negro, I would be sick and resentful over the morally bankrupt political corn-shucking that is being done over the Rowan case.

Race prejudice has many faces, and none of them is pretty. But among the most unlovely is the one that finds self-serving politicians exploiting agonizingly difficult private problems in race relations for squalid political gain.

There was a controversy regarding Fowler Hamilton's appointment as a potential successor to Allen Dulles, but if you accept Robert Kennedy's explanation, it is probably not for the reason you might think. In the interview with John Bartlow Martin, after mentioning JFK's desire for Bobby to head the CIA, which was determined to be too controversial, they take the point up.

In Robert F. Kennedy - In His Own Words p. 253 (Milo) Fowler Hamilton.....

MARTIN: Fowler Hamilton became head of AID.

RFK: It centered on Fowler Hamilton. I spoke to him tentatively about becoming head of CIA. Everybody had spoken

well of him and thought that he had gotten very high marks. Then we found in some papers that had been uncovered- -

he'd worked in the Second World War in some capacity -- in a code that had been broken in the Second World War,

that there was a Russian spy, somebody working in the same department as he, who was delivering important

information to the Communists, He was close enough to Fowler Hamilton that at least one person on the British side

had thought that the information had come from Fowler Hamilton. Actually, investigating and looking into it deeply,

I was convinced that it had not. He wasn't involved at all. But the British had the information. If there was somebody

over there in an important position who thought so and they had to work closely together, it might even infect the relationship.

Robert: Anyone who knows about the spy versus spy world of counterintelligence knows of James (Jesus) Angleton

and the whole paranoid era, would realize that not only the British aspect would have been an issue but James Angleton

himself would have been another fly in the ointment to deal with, and he already was scandalized by JFK's policies

regarding the dynamic of the Kennedy Administration's foreign policy with regards to Italy;

David C. Martin quoted Tom McCoy, [William] Colby's deputy in Rome as stating. "We were supporting and engaged in operations with some left-wing elements that Angleton held highly suspect because his police [carabinieri] friends held them suspect"

see Wilderness of Mirrors p 184.

McCoy went on to state that Angleton considered Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the Soviet mole who tipped off the Soviets

about the Bay of Pigs.

Outstanding, Robert, precisely the kind of material I’d long hoped to find, and despaired of ever doing.

So now we know: JFK's first choice to supplant AWD was scuppered by a classic Angletonian sliming.

I wonder (aloud) how the scupper-Hamilton-for-DCI operation ran? Was Ray Rocca hastily dispatched to unearth anything remotely useful in his voluminous Rote Kapelle notes? Were the Venona decrypts interrogated in search of a link, no matter how tenuous? The Amerasia archives thrown open in the desperate hunt for a usable morsel?

Or was something simply invented & fed to Golitsyn, for conveyance to MI5’s Arthur Martin, who would in turn contact MI6’s Dick White with his non-discovery “discovery,” all amidst dark mutterings of a potential breakdown in the “special relationship”? And then, via the appalling White, to the FO, re-landing on US shores in the private bag of Ormsby-Gore?

This is, after all, how the clique worked, not least in Dallas in late November 1963.

Sincere thanks again - and keep it coming.

In an Oral History Interview, Dylan S Myer gave some of his back story on events leading up to the appointment of Hamilton to AID Director.

....During August and September we began to hear rumors that some of the White House young men who President Kennedy had brought in were feeding out material to some of the columnists to the effect that Harry Labouisse was not tough enough and that a Republican banker should head the (AID) program. It was evident there was an attempt on the part of some of the smart young men to run the program from the White House rather than leaving it in the hands of the director.

Harry Labouisse was appointed as (AID) Director in February and was almost immediately made chairman of a task force. This required practically all of his time and he never did get a chance really to serve as the head administrative officer. Dr. Dennis Fitzgerald carried most of the job during that period.

The upshot of all of this was that Harry Labouisse resigned effective October first and they soon announced that George Wood, a Republican banker from the First Boston Corporation, would replace him. It so happened however that the Washington Post published a story relating to Wood's opposition to the T. V. A. and to cooperatives generally and played the story in the middle of the front page. As a result so much controversy developed regarding Mr. Wood's place in the picture that his name was withdrawn and another name presented. The name of Mr. Fowler Hamilton was hurriedly submitted to the senate and he took over in December. Of course all of this meant that my appointment into a key spot in the new program went out the window. Possibly the bright young men in the new regime felt that anyone seventy years of age or older was no longer useful. I did continue to serve in the personnel review program until late in December.

During this period I had lunch with Harry Labouisse and learned that he had taken a bundle of the clippings of the various columns that had appeared, many of which appeared in overseas editions, to President Kennedy, who said that he had not known about them and that he was very sorry. Harry Labouisse told the President, according to his statement, that the pressures were such that he felt that it would be better if he resigned. Which he did. He then told me that Secretary Rusk had called him in and obviously had tried to convey his regret about the whole thing. After a nervous and agitated discussion on Rusk's part he produced a map to show where there were openings or probable openings in embassies throughout the world and practically said "Take your choice." Harry selected Greece and in the early part of 1962 he became the Ambassador to Greece. After serving in that spot for a term or more, he took on the job as Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF in New York, and that is where he is today.

See page 385: http://www.trumanlib...myerds4.htm#385

From the thread Arrogant CIA Disobeys Orders in South Vietnam:

http://educationforu...=75#entry112048

Kennedy’s decision to back Lodge and recall Richardson was not the first time he had sided with an ambassador at war with his CIA station-chief, as Andreas Papandreou revealed in Democracy at Gunpoint: The Greek Front (London: Andre Deutsch, 1971), p.80:

“Ellis Briggs, the career diplomat who was ambassador at the time” was a “rather straight-laced man” who “had no patience with ‘democratic excesses’ in Greece…during the summer of 1963, it was disclosed that Briggs, testifying before the Senate Security Committee, had admitted that while in Greece he did not have control over the American services. The CIA had bypassed him and, at the request of Queen Frederika, had undertaken a series of projects which it financed by drawing in its secret funds.

“When I read Briggs’ Christmas message I decided to fly to the United States, and protest this unbelievable performance of the American services in Greece. I had hopes that I could be accorded a fair hearing and that President Kennedy would respond to my appeal. But he was in Florida when I reached in Washington. I saw Carl Kaysen…We spent a night talking about the electoral coup [October 29, 1961 – PR], the role of the Embassy, the role of the CIA’s Laughlin Campbell…Not long after my visit, Laughlin Campbell was removed from Athens.”

It is a measure of the CIA’s contempt for Kennedy that Campbell was transferred to Paris (1), a capital in which conviction that the CIA had prompted the Challe putsch was matched only by the belief that Langley was now sponsoring OAS terrorism. Shades of Langley’s decision to send William Harvey to Rome at the height of the Kennedy-backed “opening to the left.”

Writing of the same period in Greece, Peter Murtagh emphasises the clash between Ambassador Henry Labouisse, a Kennedy-appointee, and Agency man Campbell. Labouisse had attempted to preside over honest elections; and it was this unprecedented commitment to free and fair elections by a US Ambassador that permitted Papandreou’s Centre Union “to win not one but two elections” (2). Murtagh goes on to note: “Not long before the second general election, a number of Army generals approached the Ambassador. They asked him how the US would react to a coup to forestall a Papandreou victory. Labouisse said the US would be against such a move and cabled Washington with a copy of his answer. The State Department supported his position” (3).

(1) August 1962 – see Peter Murtagh. The Rape of Greece: The King, the Colonels and the Resistance (London: Simon & Schuster, 1994), p.71.

(2) Ibid.

(3) Ibid.

Fowler Hamilton had already served in as many as ten positions in the Federal Government during and just after WWII. If low compensation was his true concern, he certainly would not have accepted the DCI position at $25,000 annual salary expecting to stay at CIA for only a year. He may have anticipated he would feel trapped in that job for several years at

what he considered low pay.

It's unquestionably one possible answer, Tom, but I have to observe, not the most likely or convincing. I wouldn't mind seeing one of your google harvests on Hamilton's background and social connections. I wonder who was his patron? Harriman? Friends of Dulles?

The switch from Hamilton to McCone surprised contemporary observers...

Not least McCone himself, according to this interview posted by Deborah Conway a couple of years ago:

http://www.jfklancer...85949&mode=full

Reflections on a life in Government Service, Conversations with John A. McCone, former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley Fall 1987, Spring 1988

On how JFK offered him the job:

It seemed to have relieved him a great deal. He said, "What I would like you to do is to come into my administration as director of Central Intelligence."

This surprised me. I had no idea that he had any such thought in his mind. And I said: "Well, I'm deeply honored that you'd think of me in that distinguished capacity. Let me think about it, and I will see whether I can disassociate myself from some of my business activities and still take care of my organization and, most importantly, discuss the subject with my wife." So he gave me ten days or so to do that, ... and he said a very interesting thing. (I don't know whether I should put this on the record or not.) He said: "Now there are only four people besides Allen Dulles that know that we are having this discussion: Bob McNamara and his deputy Roswell Gilpatric, and Secretary Dean Rusk, and Senator Clinton Anderson." And he said, "I don't want anybody else to know about it, because if these liberal s.o.b.'s that work in the basement of this building hear that I am talking to you about this, they'd destroy you before I can get you confirmed." It is quite interesting. So I didn't talk to anybody. I came out and talked to my wife about it, and we decided to go ahead and call him on the telephone.

None of which, of course, advances us an inch in the search to establish why Hamilton was suddenly ditched after nearly two months of preparation for the role.

The cited August 7 Newsweek issue had an interesting cover: http://www.collectics.com/z050.jpg

Journalist (and personal friend of President Kennedy) Max Freedman wrote that the job had been offered and was being considered:

"The position of chief intelligence director has been offered to Mr. Fowler Hamilton, a lawyer in New York, who is considering the appointment on condition that his lines of authority in Washington both to the President and the various intelligence agencies, are clearly established beyond any effective challenge."

http://news.google.c...4,4765299&hl=en

Very interesting, particularly that Freedman post. Thanks for both.

Yes, interesting post Paul.

According to author Lawrence Kaplan, Fowler Hamilton was a member of the elite Special Group (CI) in 1962.

http://books.google....ton cia&f=false

Hamilton's 1964 Oral History Interview is at the John F Kennedy Presidential Library.

http://www.jfklibrar...KOH-MFH-01.aspx

Gratefully received. The first link would suggest that Hamilton wasn't considered a security risk, but begs the question: why confine the man you originally selected to replace Dulles to a consultative body when you could have had him directing matters?

I still find this baffling.

Interesting stuff, Paul. I look forward to hearing more, although I have nothing new or additional to offer myself.

This is an old itch, Mark, and I can’t seem to scratch it, chiefly due to the apparent dearth of source material.

I should explain that the Dulles succession intrigues me for two main reasons.

First, this was an appointment of profound significance for Kennedy and his new diplomacy: If he couldn’t establish control over the Agency, what hope for his reassertion of the primacy of the diplomatic over the paramilitary, of détente over cold (and hot) war? I stress that this isn’t an example of retrospective imposition. The issue of the CIA’s behaviour was a matter of deep concern to the White House at the time.

Second, the late shuffling of the deck which resulted in the appointment of McCone, not Hamilton, is eerily reminiscent of what happened in the senior ranks of the Secret Service at much the same time.

If I had to place money on one hypothesis before the rest, it would be this: A late and sustained intervention by such as Acheson et al, perhaps supplemented by the emergence of a classic Angletonian smear. But this is pure guess-work and fit only for testing against the evidence.

I just wish I could find some.

Lets talk about the Hesters for a minute, since Duncan was kind enough to identify them as being inside the pergola doorway.

This map shows where the Hesters were actually located before the murder, where they were less than a minute after the murder and where they told the FBI they were located before the murder.

Not according to Mrs. Hester:

Mrs CHARLES HESTER, 2619 Keyhold Street, Irving, Texas, advised that sometime around 12:30 p.m., on November 22, 1963, she and her husband were standing along the street at a place immediately preceding the underpass on Elm Street, where President Kennedy was shot. Mrs HESTER advised she heard two loud noises which sounded like gunshots, and she saw President KENNEDY slump in the seat of the car he was riding in. Her husband grabbed then grabbed her and shoved her to the ground. Shortly thereafter they went across to the north side of the street on an embankment in an attempt to gain shelter. She stated that she believes she and her husband actually had been in the direct line of fire. She did not see anyone with a gun when the shots were fired and stated she could not furnish any information as to exactly where the shots came from. After the President’s car had pulled away from the scene, she and her husband proceeded to their car and left the area as she was very upset,” 24H523

A rare chance to see some good quality photos of Fowler Hamilton, the man originally intended by JFK to replace Allen Dulles, courtesy of eBay. Here’s one from a batch currently available:

http://www.ebay.com/...=item3a76d72bcf

The accompanying caption reads:

(NY10) New York, July 31 – MAY HEAD CIA – Fowler Hamilton, 50, New York lawyer, reported in line to succeed Allen Dulles as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, is shown in his office on New York’s Wall Street today. Hamilton, a Democrat, has been in and out of government service for the past 20 years. (APWirephoto) (See AP Wire Story) (jdc21320ac) 1961

The following day, this AP story ran:

AP, "Retirement of CIA Chief Announced," Washington Post, (Tuesday), 1 August 1961, p.A2: Salinger yesterday announced retirement of Allen Dulles, claiming retirement in November 1961 had been Dulles' intention when accepted JFK's offer to stay on. Salinger declined to answer questions concerning Fowler Hamilton. Hamilton, according to forthcoming issue of Newsweek (August 7), due to succeed Dulles in October "after several months of working with Dulles".

Other sources confirm:

Helen Fuller. Year of Trial: Kennedy’s Crucial Decisions (NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1962), p. 271: “A New York lawyer, Fowler Hamilton, with considerable experience behind him, had been brought to Washington and installed at the CIA with the general expectation that he would succeed Allen Dulles…”

Question: what happened to Kennedy’s original intention to replace Dulles with Hamilton? That that intention was no mere whim can be seen from the AP piece of 1 August – working with the outgoing Dulles for “several months” represented serious intent.

So what went wrong, or caused Kennedy to change his mind? Was there a behind-the-scenes campaign of which we know little, even today? If so, who waged it and how? The switch from Hamilton to McCone surprised contemporary observers:

http://www.time.com/...,895689,00.html

Foreign Aid: First AID

Time, Friday, Sept. 29, 1961

A couple of weeks ago, Administration insiders leaked the news that Fowler Hamilton, an international lawyer and an old Government hand, would soon be appointed director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, succeeding Allen Dulles. Later, the word came that Wall Street Banker George Woods would soon be named head of the new Agency for International Development. But under the New Frontier, such predictions are often unsafe until the actual swearing-in ceremonies. When President Kennedy last week announced the appointment of Fowler Hamilton, it was not to the CIA but to the AID job....

http://www.bibliotec...ecretgov_5f.htm

Extract from: The Invisible Government by David Wise and Thomas B. Ross (1964)

from AmericanBuddha Website

There had been some thought that the Attorney General might take the job himself, but this inevitably would have provoked Republican charges that the Kennedys were creating a dynasty. And it probably would have stirred up new demands for tighter Congressional control of the CIA -- a prospect which the President did not relish.

Serious consideration was given to the possibility of offering the job to Clark Clifford, who had impressed Kennedy mightily when he directed the change-over in the White House staff between administrations. But the handsome and prosperous Washington lawyer was not interested.

The President then turned to Fowler Hamilton, a Wall Street lawyer and close friend of Senator Symington. The White House was on the verge of announcing Hamilton's appointment when Kennedy encountered a series of difficulties in finding a director for the Agency for International Development (AID).

The foreign-aid job had been scheduled to go to George D. Woods, the board chairman of the First Boston Company. But Woods felt compelled to withdraw his name because of renewed talk about First Boston's implication in the Dixon Yates scandal. Kennedy then tried to fill the AID opening with Thomas J. Watson. Jr., the president of the International Business Machines Corporation. But Watson said no and the President named Hamilton as the AID director.

It was then that Kennedy decided upon McCone as Director of Central Intelligence. The decision, announced on September 27, 1961, shocked official Washington. The members of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board were stunned that Kennedy had not asked their advice in advance of the appointment; and there were further grumblings over the Caltech incident and McCone's close ties with the Republican Party. "I think," a board member was heard to comment, "that the President should have got a Kennedy man."

One pointer that there is more to this story than meets the eye is this rank piece of disinfo from Victor Lasky, in a work first published in 1963:

“The Liberals had hoped that CIA would be given to one of their own…there had been pressure on Kennedy to appoint someone like New York attorney Telford Taylor…,” JFK: The Man and the Myth (NY: Dell, 1977), p. 672.

Did Lasky really believe JFK intended to replace Dulles with Telford Taylor? I very much doubt it. So what was this Taylor nonsense about

During the course of the conversation the US ambassador put forth a plan for the neutralization of South and North Vietnam, emphasizing that he is laying out his own point of view, although it is based on the opinion of US President Kennedy, which is well known to him. According to Galbraith’s own words, Kennedy and part of the administration do not want Vietnam to turn into a second Korea and stand for the quick withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam leaving Vietnam for the Vietnamese.

Poland and Vietnam, 1963: New Evidence on Secret Communist Diplomacy and the "Maneli Affair"

By Margaret K. Gnoinska, The George Washington University

Cold War International History Project, Working Paper 45

Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars

March 2005

http://www.wilsoncen...WIHP_WP_45b.pdf