Phil Nelson

Regarding Linda Minor's statement that "Very little is know about LBJ's younger brother Sam Houston, though it has been reported that he was in O.S.S. during WWII" a few weeks ago, I stumbled across a couple of newspaper clippings while browsing in the LBJ Mausoleum (Library) last year. Here's the first, having to do with passing bad checks in Myrtle Beach, I think it was in Oct. 1966

Email from an anti-conspiracist journalist:

I note that you have highlighted Dick Russell’s book on your main page and so I wanted to pass on this tidbit. When i was interviewing Sam Papich, the FBI liaison officer to the CIA, about the FBI’s probe into the JFK assassination, several times he stopped the interview and referred me to that book. It was very strange, as if he was trying to tell me something. I’m not sure what, but he just kept saying it was an “interesting” account of events. Knowing Sam as I came to, I have been left with the impression that he regarded certain threads in that book has worthy of further exploration, but thought that journalists had not picked up on those threads.

He also mentioned in those interviews that the thing that bothered him most about the Warren report was that “this would have been very fancy shooting even for the best marksmen in the FBI. But everything we had on Oswald indicated that he was a crappy shot.”

You can use this information however you like, but please don’t attribute it to me....

It sounds as though he has a few doubts in his "non-conspiracy" beliefs. I would bet that the reason for issues "worthy of further exploration" had to do with these subjects chiefly, among others:

1.The story of Col. Bishop, who stated that he had met Lee Harvey Oswald, Richard Case Nagell and Rolando Masferrer in the exile training camp north of Lake Pontchartrain. He claimed that Oswald was in the camp, trying to get involved with the Cuban exiles, sent there by Clay Shaw. Basic conspiracy stuff.

2. His similar reports tying Shaw to Ferrie, et. al., the totality of which may be the clearest description of the linkage of Oswald to the conspiracy brewing all summer in New Orleans, a subject perfunctorily treated by the Warren Commission Report, before it cut off all leads in this direction.

3. The book's reports (pg. 523) dealing with LBJ's nefarious activities with Bobby Baker and a string of hoodlums connected to Johnson through Jack Halfen, Carlos Marcello's man in Dallas, to many others, and his help in the Senate in blocking anti-racketeering legislation in exchange for payoffs. That must have, incidentally, put him in direct conflict with RFK and JFK and makes Kennedy's decision to offer him the VP-ship. all the more bizarre (except as a means of getting him out of congress and possibly more under his own control)

Some excerpts from Manchester's book:

P. 263: The Presidential party's rear echelon at the airport didn't know what had happened at the hospital, and the best informed among them had only the haziest notion of the motorcade's movements after 12:30 P.M. The last transmissions the aircraft had received from downtown Dallas had been Kellerman's alarm and Robert's 'Have Dagger cover Volunteer". Then the plane's Charlie set had gone dead. Swindal had gathered that there was an emergency of some sort, but he could only speculate.......Because of theCharlie blackout, and because the Signalmen who could operate the more complex equipment were all in the terminal restaurant (no one aboard remembered the UPI and AP teletype machines) Swindal had turned to the stateroom television set.....

P. 266: In 26000's communications hack Johns made a discovery which was to grow in importance over the next hour. Jerry Behn, thanks to Colonel McNally's electronic sorcery, was now in direct telephone communication with the plane through the Signal Corps switchboards in the Sheraton-Dallas and Hotel Texas. The link meant that the government in the capital needn't be a slave to television. Furthermore, the splice between the White House and the plane made two-way conversations possible.

P. 267: ...Learning from the agents of the Vice Presidential detail that the communications shack was in contact with Washington, he eagerly looked around for telephones. The closest one hung from a hook on the other side of the aisle. He ignored it. Possbily he could not yet bring himself to sit at Kennedy's stateroom desk, though the more plausible explanation is that he wanted solitude. In any event,...

P. 268: ..the instrument he did use was on another, smaller Presidential desk,in Kennedy's quarters.

It goes on to explain that though communications were restored, none of the conversations while the plane was still on the tarmac were recorded because that gear didn't work unless the engines were running. They were not recorded until 2:47 pm.

Hope this helps.

Phil:

Here is the quote....and link......

The Senator who Suspected a JFK Conspiracy

Yarborough's Suspicion of Lyndon Johnson

"...There is the well-publicized story of Agent Rufus Youngblood, who reportedly threw himself on top of Vice President Johnson after the shooting began in Dealey Plaza.... Johnson, in a statement to the Warren Commission, mentioned the incident:

I was startled by a sharp report or explosion, but I had no time to speculate as to its origin because Agent Youngblood turned in a flash, immediately after the first explosion, hitting me on the shoulder, and shouted to all of us in the back seat to get down. I was pushed down by Agent Youngblood. Almost in the same moment in which he hit or pushed me, he vaulted over the back seat and sat on me. I was bent over under the weight of Agent Youngblood's body, toward Mrs. Johnson and Senator Yarborough....

However, former Texas senator Ralph Yarborough, who was sitting beside Johnson that day, told this author: 'It just didn't happen.... It was a small car, Johnson was a big man, tall. His knees were up against his chin as it was. There was no room for that to happen.' Yarborough recalled that both Johnson and Youngblood ducked down as the shooting began and that Youngblood never left the front seat. Yarborough said Youngblood held a small walkie-talkie over the back of the car's seat and that he and Johnson both put their ears to the device. He added: 'They had it turned down real low. I couldn't hear what they were listening to.'"

--Jim Marrs, Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy

http://www.geocities.com/senatoryarborough/

In the V.P car..

a rented 1964 Lincoln 4 door Convertible...Driver Hurchel Jacks

a Texas Hghwy Patrol Officer.....

SS Rufus Youngblood..

Back seat..LBJ.......Lady Bird Johnson......Senator Ralph Yarborough

Here is a bown up crop from the Altgens photo....showing the VP car after the first shot had

been sounded....

Note : Do you notice the man behind on the right with what appears could be, a walkie

talkie to his mouth.....??

B..........

Thanks Bernice...

I've been staring at that for some time but, while I see Lady Bird and Sen. Yarborough, where LBJ should be I can't make out anything but a big blur. Anything you can do to help me see this would be appreciated...i.e. is there a particular way to look at it using one spot for context (his ear, nose, etc.?)

Thanks for those two photos, not so suspicious looking ones after all.

I'm interested in finding out whether there is any truth to either of these assertions:

1. That LBJ ducked down on his own before Youngblood allegedly shoved him down after the shots started; (according to Murder in Dealey Plaza, Sen. Yarborough disputed this account);

2. Again, per Murder in Dealey Plaza, Sen. Yarborough said they LBJ had a small walkie-talkie he was listening to during the whole episode.

Does anyone know if Yarborough actually wrote of these incidents or are these just anecdotes passed around without hard sources?

Does anyone have pictures of LBJ ducking down in his limo as he reached Dealey Plaza? The assertion by Jean Hill, as noted in this video, that he was practically on the floor before he reached Elm Street is interesting and I would like to know if it can be verified. Thanks all.

The august senior senator from Pennsylvania is beside himself about the wanton destruction of football "spying" tapes! Obviously this heinous incident was considerably more important than his previous involvement in the wholesale destruction of actual evidence, the fabrication of phony evidence and his own collusion with other government officials in obfuscating and obstructing the investigation of the "Crime of the Century". The transparency of his outrage is astounding, albeit not particularly unexpected for this particular politician.

Specter: "I think the integrity of football is very important"...."there's a credibility issue here", blah, blah, blah.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327528,00.html

Needed:

(1) Respected researcher (Prof McKnight perhaps if he would agree) to explain why the SBT is necessary to preclude two shooters.

(2) A man as close to JFK's height and weight as possible.

(3) A medical doctor or pathologist (Dr Wecht comes to mind of course).

(4) A model of the human skeletal system.

(5) Photographic enlargements of the following photos: (a) CE399; ( JFK's coat; and © a "bunching photo". As well as enlargements of Burkley's certificate of death and the autopsy face sheet.

(6) An excellent videographer.

Prof McKnight discuuses (briefly) the controversy over the placement of the nonfatal posterior wound and where Boswell first placed it as confirmed by Admiral Burkley.

Dr. Wecht shows on a skeletal model where C6 and C7 are.

Professor McKnight asks man to remove his suit coat. Discusses measurement of the hole in the suit coat. For dramatic effect, one could even shoot a hole in the coat either beforehand or on camera.

Man redons coat. McKnight and Wecht attempt to move coat up so the hole reaches C6.

The bunching issue is discussed with the best available photograph used by advocates of that theory.

Has any demonstration like this been performed? I suspect it would show that the suit coat would have to be bunched almost to JFK's ear for the hole to match Boswell's amended version of where the nonfatal posterior bullet hit JFK.

Final shot: large colored photo of JFK's coat.

McKnight (or whoever) (can get a bit emotional) Ladies and gentlenen, the bullet hole in the bloody coat worn by President Kennedy during that fateful motorcade proves beyond any reasonable doubt that a bullet hit President Kennedy just where the pathologist originally put it--far below the wound in his neck. This precludes any theory that that bullet exited the President's throat and went on to inflict (how many?) wounds on Governor Connally. The necessary corollary is that there were two shooters, at least, in Dealey Plaza.

With the correct participants and a carefully worded (and totally accurate script) would you agree that that could be a very powerful video to prove a conspiracy? Do any of you have any suggestions? Criticisms of the idea? How long should it run? Ten minutes or less? Thoughts? Thanks.

That not only sounds like a great project for some volunteers here to conduct, along with your suggested star players, but the pièce de résistance would be to have a debate as to the merits of the production with notable LNT and CT representatives . Maybe it could be sold to, or be a joint venture, with a TV network??

To Phil:

It is certainly possible an individual agent, the obvious candidate being David Morales, was involved in the assassination itself. The question is what would constitute involvement by the Agency as an institution? I would think one would need approval of and encouragement of the plot (presumably through money and/or equipment) by several high-ranking officers of the CIA. I do not believe Helms was involved but assume for the sake of argument that the plot was carried out by Helms, Hunt and Morales without the knowledge or consent of anyone else. Would that constitute institutional involvement? I don't think so. Had McCone approved, that would be a different story.

I think the CIA's involvement in the cover-up began almost immediately after the assassination. Whether or not Castro forces played a role is immaterial to whether the CIA should have immediately informed the investigators of its involvement in plots to kill Castro, both with organized crime and with Cuban exiles.

And what if as many think Oswald was involved in some capacity with either the CIA or another US intelligence service? If the CIA had notice of such involvement and failed to disclose it, that would also be part of a cover-up.

What to make of the fairly recent disclosure that the CIA's monthly officer reports on the DRE are missing for the period leading up to the assassination and that the DRE was on the list of the HSCA as an exile group worthy of investigation? Unless the disappearence of the records is a mere happenstance, one would think the sensitive information therein was of at least possible relevance to the assassination and should have been revealed. Should the CIA have provided information on all snipers it had trained from at least early 1962 through Dallas to the investigators? One would think so. And one can go on and on about information the CIA either had or probably had that should have been disclosed immediately to the investigators.

It seems to be a "given" that McCone was "out of the loop" on many/most/all of the extra-legal things going on in the CIA, evidently becasue there was a fear that, as a JFK appointee, he would put a stop to anything outside the legal mandates of their existence. Even though he was the designated chief, most of those under him, including Angleton and Helms specifically, did not reveal their black bag operations and mafia connections, and therefore the various Castro elimination plots. So, by your hypothesis above, that eliminates the possibility of his involvement and with it any per se "institutional" involvement. Which, I contend for the purpose of this discussion, allows for the possibility - rather, the likelihood - of the individual involvement of those you mentioned, plus a few others like Angleton, Phillips and Cord Meyers, as conspirators acting not in the technical construct of the official institution, but in concert as individuals - albeit using official resources.

When you put together all the things that are now 'missing', from CIA reports and FBI records, to evidence ranging from JFK's brain and tissue samples and further to such things as statements of original witnesses who were never deposed because their story was not congruent with the Johnson-Hoover orders to concoct the Lone Nut Theory (etc. ad infinitum) it should be clear to anyone that there was direct "institutional" involvement in the cover-up from day #1. Once that is (has been) established, it isn't a great leap of logic to connect post-assassination conspiracy to pre-assassination knowledge and/or execution, is it?

If so, isn't the question of "institutional" involvement, or not, a "distinction without a difference?"

At the risk of offending my friend Bill Kelly the recent CIA news raises this question in my mind: if the CIA could not keep its destruction of waterboarding tapes secret for more than--what, two or three years--how could it keep its institutional involvement in the Kennedy assassination a secret for forty-four years?

I am not conflicted, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. I am convinced the CIA is hiding SOMETHING about Joannides and/or the DRE and/or LHO, and that someone no doubt destroyed those monthly reports, but I am convinced that what is being concealed is not the CIA's institutional role in the assassination since in my opinion it had none.

Are you saying that the CIA's only "institutional" involvement was in the secondary (mid-1970's) cover-up, and they had no such role in the assassination or the initial cover-up and neither did any of their agents or operatives, whether acting 'institutionally' or individually. Or, do you agree that the last part of that statement, in italics, does not apply and should be deleted in the interest of advancing the truth?

Fred Thompson served as Republican staff counsel for the Watergate Committee.

In February of 1974 members of the WC interviewed Johnny Rosselli. I have not yet been able to determine if Fred and Hilary were present for the interview, but as counsel they may very well have been.

So it is possible if not probable that both Hilary Clinton and Fred Thompson met Rosselli in Feb of 1974.

It must be somewhat chilling to meet someone who is subsequently murdered.

In Hillary's case, I don't think that was the only time she experienced that ;-)

Sorry I didn't check back earlier, I did remember about Fred Thompson's involvement too.

Well, Hilary is indeed a correct choice and she might very well have met Felix who might have been a conspirator.

Good work, Gary.

But she also most likely met someone else more widely recognized as a probable conspirator. And hint hint she was not the only candidate who most likely met this conspirator.

Might it have anything to do with Watergate, she was on the congressional staff that investigated I believe, and might have bumped up against E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, et. al. who were, incidentally, ex-CIA, maybe even still on a secret payroll. But then, that would be contrary to your thesis, wouldn't it? ;-)

FINAL DRAFT I INTEND TO SUBMIT TO WSJ. MAIN CHANGES ARE TO PAR 3

In "The Culture of Conspiracy" (WSJ, November 24, 1963), James Piereson states that "the evidence against [Oswald as the sole assassin] of JFK was overwhelming." His proof?

1. Oswald's "rifle fired the shots that killed the president." It is probable that one or more of the shots that hit JFK came from a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle sent to Oswald's post office box. (The post office was never able to confirm that Oswald signed for the package.) But recent study of the paraffin tests conducted on Oswald shortly after his arrest offers clear and convincing evidence that Oswald had not shot a rifle on November 22, 1963 (the same test indicated he MAY have fired a handgun).

2. "Spent shells from the rifle were found in the building where [Oswald] worked." Well, so was the rifle itself but as indicated above there is now compelling evidence that Oswald did not fire a rifle that fateful afternoon in Dallas.

3. "He was seen in the area before the shooting." Only one person, Howard Givens, claimed he saw Oswald on the sixth floor--and that was at noon, a half hour before the shooting. Moreover, Givens' testimony was contradicted by two other TSBD employees, one of whom, William Shelley, was Oswald's immediate supervisor, each of whom testified they saw Oswald on a lower floor at around noon. There is no question that Oswald was encountered on the second floor by a policeman and the TSBD building manager only 90 seconds after the shooting, and he was not out of breath. It is barely possible that he could have completed the shooting, hid the rifle, and made it down four flights of stairs within that period. The timing and circumstance of his first sighting after the assassination suggests, however, that he was not the shooter.

4. "Witnesses on the street saw a man firing from a sixth floor window." Mr. Piereson is to be commended for his precision here; there was no credible eyewitness testimony identifying Oswald as the sixth floor shooter.

5. "Based on a description, a policeman stopped Oswald while he was walking in another section of the city." There is no evidence that Tippit stopped Oswald based on a description of the man who shot Kennedy, and logic suggests that if Tippit was stopping a man he suspected of being the presidential assassin he would have been more cautious.. A recent book suggests Tippit stopped Oswald because Oswald turned direction after spotting the police car. Of course why Tippit stopped Oswald has no relevance to whether Oswald shot the president,

6. "Oswald shot the policeman [probably he did, but if in fact he was a framed "patsy" he could have shot Tippit in a desperate attempt to escape the frame he saw closing around him; Oswald's murder of Tippit could as easily be the work of a fleeing patsy as the work of a fleeing assassin] then fled to a movie theatre where he was captured [true].

Piereson concludes: "For those who weigh the evidence, there can be little doubt that Oswald was the assassin." This must rank as one of the most preposterous statements ever published by the Wall Street Journal. There are many brilliant minds who have studied the evidence (probably at far greater length than Mr. Piereson) who doubt that Oswald was the assassin. As noted above, the paraffin test conducted on Oswald the afternoon of the assassination and the neutron activation analysis of Oswald's paraffin casts strongly suggest that Oswald did not fire a rifle on November 22, 1963.

Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry told interviewer Tom Johnson that he was not convinced that Oswald had killed Kennedy, stating: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the riflle [as noted the evidence strongly suggests he had NOT], and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand." Given the statement of the man who sat through the two-day interrogation of Oswald, and who was intimately familiar with the evidence collected by his officers, how can Mr. Piereson state in good faith that no one who has studied the evidence can doubt the guilt of Oswald?

Tim, I applaud your initiative in responding to this rather perfunctory review of the events "implicating" Oswald, even though a persuasive rebuttal would take more than a simple letter. Anyway, the biggest "issues" I see are with respect to paragraphs #4 and #6.

Regarding #4, did any witnesses actually see a man firing a rifle? If so, who? My understanding that all those who claimed to having seen a man with a rifle were referring to the period just before the assassination, and attributed it to police or secret service men and no one actually saw the gun being fired.

As to #6, I have difficulty in even allowing for your caveat, "probably". Maybe "possibly", but, there is so much contradictory evidence, including by the more credible witnesses (ignored by the WC, of course) that it's arguable that he wasn't even there, or if he was, he was only one of two or three involved in killing Tippit.

But, it's your letter, so it should reflect your views naturally.

I think the "Harper fragment" can be seen in this version of the Zapruder film, replayed several times about 1:00 to 1:15 on the Youtube stopwatch. It may be the missile going upwards and slightly to the right.

All of this can be explained under the GK theory: The fragile, brittle skull was exploded upward as the bullet hit, while the blood and brain debris (more liquidity) being carried backwards, out of the fist-sized hole in the back of his head, in the same direction his head had jerked from the GK bullet, almost simultaneously. Or, a case could be made for simultaneous shots from the front and back. But NOT, from a single shot from the back.

If you were Clark wouldn't you be shocked if someone accused the POTUS (and presumably a friend of yours or at a minimum your political sponsor) of bloody treason (As Twyman put it)?

Not if the "someone" was a local DA that looked like, or was simultaneously being portrayed to look like, a crackpot loose cannon in charge of a runaway train. I would be shocked, however, if it seemed to be a credible U.S. congressman who also happened to have been a member of the famed WC.

Phil, what was incredible to Boggs was that Garrison was actually going to suggest LBJ involvement.

Remember it says Boggs had wanted to denounce Garrison.

Had Boggs believed Garrison's theory, he would not have gone to Marv Watson, for heaven's sake!

I mean, he might as well have gone to Jack Valenti and told him, "I think your boss did it"!

It is as clear as the nose on my face (and it's a pretty big nose) that Boggs backed LBJ not Garrison.

Of course whether or not Boggs believed Garrison is irrelevant to whether or not LBJ actually did it. Of course Garrison had no evidence against LBJ so Boggs had no "insider's knowledge." AND--since Garrison had no evidence, why would Boggs believe him?

I think we are getting bogged down in this.

How do you explain Ramsey Clark's reaction, which pretty clearly indicates he was shocked?

Tim, I understand how you're reading that. It is a bit circular, but I don't see any indication that Boggs was doubting the essence of Garrison's reasoning either. In fact, the way the clip is worded, "As fantastic as this rumor sounds, its source is credible. It comes via Representative Hale Boggs", and "Boggs' story", etc. seems to suggest that Boggs not only doesn't disagree but perhaps even endorses Garrison's theory despite the fact he doesn't like Garrison. Apparently, Ramsey Clark had the same opinion on that since he was clearly bothered by the implication, more so than LBJ even.

Peter, I think that over the years, Cokie Roberts, like so many others in DC, has accepted the conventional wisdom that the Warren Commission was right despite all the questions that surrounded it and that to question its basic premise is tantamount to instantly losing one's professional credibility as a journalist. Which is to say, unfortunately, that, according to the CW, it is more important to adopt the LN theory and not to be perceived as a CT at any cost, even finding out the truth of your own father's demise.

It is interesting that something I came across in the book "The Kennedy Assassination Tapes" pp389-394 (Max Holland, 2004) has not been mentioned in this thread. Here are the key parts:

In a conversation between (acting) Attorney General Ramsey Clark and LBJ on Feb 20, 1967, regarding the investigation that New Orleans DA Jim Garrison had launched, the following appears:

"Still, Clark is already discomfited by one 'nutty' aspect of the story, namely the rumor that Garrison is allegedly linking Johnson with the conspiracy. As fantastic as this rumor sounds, its source is credible. It comes via Representative Hale Boggs, whose district encompasses much of New Orleans, putting him in a position to know whereof he speaks. Boggs, of course, was also on the Warren Commission, which puts him in a bit of a dilemma. Whereas he might be inclined to speak out against Garrison (whom he apparently dislikes) and denounce the DA's probe, it is risky to attack a prosecutor who shares the same jurisdiction. To Clark, any allegation about Johnson's involvement is an early indicator that Garrison might be deranged.

"It perhaps comes as a surprise to Clark that Johnson treats the whole matter with considerable equanimity, not even swearing or muttering to himself when Clark brings up Bogg's story. The president's reaction is in marked contrast to his response last October when the insinuation first surfaced. As it turns out, the news from New Orleans is far from the wildest story making the rounds. Johnson asks Clark if he has heard about an even more fantastic rumor in Washington, one that was conveyed personally to the president by syndicated columnist Drew Pearson, considered something of a renegade by his Washington peers. The story, which Johnson heard a month earlier, is that after the 1961 Bay of Pigs debacle the CIA sent men into Cuba to assassinate Fidel Castro, who then retaliated. And as if the implications of that weren't staggering enough, Pearson also says that Robert Kennedy concocted the plots against Castro, as they occurred in the days when he was 'riding herd' on the agency for his brother.

......

Clark: ....I had heard that Hale Boggs was sayin' that he - Garrison - was sayin' that...or privately around town [was saying] that it [the assassination] could be traced back [to you]...or that you could be found in it some place, which...I can't believe he's been sayin' that. the bureau says they haven't heard any such thing, and they['ve] got lots of eyes and ears. 'Course, that was a [credible] fella like Hale Boggs. But Hale gets pretty emotional about people that he really doesn't like, and people who have fought him and been against him, and I would be more inclined to attritube it to that. Either that, or this guy Garrison [is] just completely off his rocker.

Johnson: "Who did Hale tell this to?

Clark: [somewhat in disbelief] Apparently Marvin [Watson]

Johnson: [aside to Watson] [Did] Hale tell you that - Hale Boggs - that this fella [Garrison, this] district attorney down there, said that this is traced to me or somethin'?

Watson: Privately he [Garrison] was usin' your name as having known about it [the assassination]. I said [to Boggs], Will you give this information to Barefoot Sanders? Ramsey was out of town, this was Saturday night. He [boggs] said, I sure will. So I asked the operator to get Barefoot and Ramsey together, and they did.

After that exchange, the course of the conversation turned to the even more 'fantastic rumor' about the assassination attempts on Castro.

I think that Johnson's reaction to this news speaks volumes. And the fact that these comments were coming from one of the members of the WC, a highly respected congressman, is particularly insightful. His death by plane crash in a desolate part of Alaska a few years later, and one year after his lambasting of Hoover, and the disappearance of many of his records from Tulane after that, only adds to the mystery of what he really knew.

Could we agree that if Oswald exited DP in a vehicle driven by another that would be fairly persuasive evidence of a conspiracy?

Hi Tim, I'll chime in here to say, YES, you have identified 14 individual items that would all point to a conspiracy. Unfortunately, there are probably several hundreds / thousands of others, mostly on an "IF true" basis, would do the same, so I (and most likely others are similarly lamenting): "I Wouldn't Know Where to Start"!

Think how the WC ignored many witness/evidence that didn't fit their scheme; even how Warren himself wouldn't let Dr. Humes, who had done the autopsy, review his own records and photos before preparing his testimony, and the anomalies in those photos and records. Consider Odio, Martino, (and about a hundred other Cuban exiles); Trafficante, Giancana, (and how many other mafia types); Billy Sol Estes, Factor, Files, statements; And Ferrie, De Mohrenscheildt, Kilgallen, Nagel, Mary Meyers involvements and their own demise, Magic Bullet, numerous Oswald impersonations and on and on ad nauseum. Some of these are more tangential than your list might allow, but the point is there are so many individual pieces that point to CT that is seems to me one would have to be a LN to even believe the LN Theory.

In any event, if this thread makes it through the test of time, I suspect it will collect enough notes to be the mother lode for researchers looking for a list of "bullets" (no pun intended :-)

.................." he knew he'd been hung out to dry by Bush and Cheney to hide the FACT that they knew the intelligence for WMDs was far from conclusive, and had used it as a precept to do what they'd already decided to do. This was a major factor in Tenet's decision to leave the agency.

Pardon my interjection on your argument, but I beg to disagree..........the FACT is/was, the worldwide "intelligence community" had agreed that there were WMDs, even France and Germany, despite the fact that they didn't want U.N. involvement because their under the table "food for oil" (read: illegal furnishing of weapons, ammo, etc.) might be discovered. How do you explain 17 resolutions (which of course were never intended to be enforced) passed the U.N.? You may even remember that Colin Powell agreed they were there and made his very forceful (albeit unfortunately erroneous) presentation to the U.N. Further, many Senate Dems agreed, and voted for invasion, who had access to the same intelligence that Bush et. al. had. Of course it was easy for them to change their minds after the fact, not so easy for the CIC.

Its also easy for armchair pontificators to make unsubstantiated comments as you have made, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

Given that there were other shooters in Dealey Plaza, my guess is that someone on the GK or in the western end of the TSBD might have misshot and hit Connally, as he turned around after looking backwards.

Jack Ruby probably figured he could sneak through practically any time he wanted to given his police connections so he wasn't initially in a hurry to hit LHO, the first incident was simply to prove that to himself and give LHO a clear visual warning to keep it zipped. He had a few things to deal with before returning with a gun, knowing he would be captured and jailed.

I have an idea which I believe could add a little more "spark" to the initiative: Instead of simply calling for the opening of a new investigation, how about calling on Congress to "Posthumously Censure LBJ".

You have to admit that would get a little more attention than the mundane "reopen the investigation" request.

People often ask us (at least they do me, including my own wife), "why do you care now, its been over 40 years, its history now, get over it". They have a point, you know, as the debate is currently framed: "JFK died on 11/22/63, one way or the other, what happened since, HAPPENED. Com'on....let's move on." (Or, something along those lines).

But if we re-framed the debate, to call instead for an immediate reinvestigation for the purpose of determining whether LBJ should be "indicted" for his actions in participating in - at the very least, and possibly more - a criminal cover-up that has shaken the foundations of the American culture. It did change the course of our history so fundamentally that we really still are trying to recover. People have a much more jaded opinion of our government as a result of his orchestration of lies, distortion, destruction of evidence, fabrication of evidence and "stacking the deck" (his unilateral appointments of the WC) that it is likely there will never be a complete recovery of "our innocence".

You talk about the creation of a "Movement", I guarantee you that could mount such pressure on Congress that they could not, politically, resist taking such historic action.

But one ad, or one symposium, wouldn't do it. I'd say 5-10 years before it becomes reality, but I think it could be done.

JMHO

Phil

Although I am admittedly a neophyte at this, I agree with Tim's and John's posts above. If the charges made are too provocative, and cannot be reasonably substantiated, such an ad - or book, or whatever - loses credibility and becomes fodder for the lone nutters.

We can all agree that the assassination changed the course of history, in a big way. Clearly the 58K deaths in Viet Nam would not have occurred for instance because there never would have been an LBJ presidency, nor the reactions to it, such as Nixon winning in '68, therefore no Watergate. But "fascism in '07"??? Count me out of that one.

And this defines the problem.....what is said in such an ad must be palatable to everyone asked to contribute towards it. It must be attention getting without being susceptible to charges of reactionary or hollow assertions. I like John's idea of a symposium, where each presenter "makes a case", which would "compartmentalize" their assertions into their own levels of credibility so if anyone goes too far into unproven grounds it doesn't necessarily reflect adversely on the others. There is certainly a rationale for an ad in this scenario, but it would be used primarily to promote the symposium.

JMHO

Phil

I just received this copy of a letter Mr. Kuntzler wrote to the Washington Post. I'm not sure if its the same thing as the ad he put in the NYT, but assume so, since that what I had requested and what he indicated he would have sent to me.

_______________________________________

MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

STEPHEN BRENT MILLER

FOUNDING PRESIDENT, 1980-2004

PAUL KUNTZLER, PRESIDENT

COURT REPORTERS

TRANSCRIBERS

Established 1960

735 8th Street, SE

Washington, DC 20003

July 27, 2007

Mr. Donald E. Graham

Chairman of the Board

The Washington Post

1515 15Th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20071

Dear Mr. Graham:

As you know, I wrote to you on April 4, 2006 about the conclusive evidence that there was a government-wide conspiracy resulting in the murder of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on Friday, November 22, 1963. You thanked me on April 7, 2006 for sending you my letter about the Kennedy assassination and told me that you would pass on the material to Leonard Downie Jr., The Post’s Executive Editor.

My communications with the The Post began on January 12, 2006 when Milton Coleman, The Post’s Deputy Managing Editor arranged for me to meet with Michelle Garcia, Post reporter. During my meeting I gave Ms.Garcia various materials related to the assassination, including the two censored videos, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, The Final Chapter, Volumes 1 and 2.

Subsequently, I began having conversations with The Washington Post’s New York bureau. On March 30, 2006, I had a meeting in the New York office on West 57th Street.

But later, The Washington Post after repeated requests had never returned the Kennedy assassination material. I then had to ask my Washington attorney, Roy Kaufmann of Jackson & Campbell, P.C. to write to The Post requesting the return of my property. After repeated requests, I then had to retain the services of John J. Janiec, an attorney with offices in The Empire State Building. It was not until Mr. Janiec filed summons against The Washington Post in the Supreme Court of the State of New York did The Post finally relent and returned most of my property during November 2006.

But The Post has still not returned the important video, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, The Final Chapter, Volume 1.

The Post’s actions are symptomatic of how the American newsmedia has worked to keep the truth from the public about the most atrocious crime in U.S. history.

With a few exceptions such as journalists Helen Thomas and Robert McNeil, the media—both individually and collectively --- have safeguarded the government’s false version of what happened on that terrible day in November 1963.

Indeed, David Talbot in his new book, Brothers, wrote that in 1965 “the press was rushing to close the case on the assassination of President Kennedy.”

The media, including The New York Times, allowed themselves to be infiltrated by the CIA. Talbot reported that “the CIA alone had over four hundred American journalists on its payroll.”

The best example is Gerald Posner. His 1993 book, Case Closed, was written for an elite audience, primarily journalists, predisposed to believe the government’s false version of events. In my opinion, Posner’s book is full of inaccuracies. Random House editor Robert Loomis solicited Posner to write this book with the promise of full CIA cooperation.

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was murdered by Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson in a widespread, incredibly complex and brilliantly planned conspiracy that involved the Federal Bureau of Investigations directed by J. Edgar Hoover, the CIA directed by David Atlee Phillips, the Secret Service, elements of the United States Air Force, including General Curtis LeMay of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the United States Army, the United States Navy, Henry R. Luce’s LIFE Magazine, the Ford Motor Company, the Dallas Police, including Dallas Mayor Earle Cabel, big Oil of Midland, Texas, the Texas political establishment, the mafia, the anti – Castro Cubans, Southern racists, including retired General Edwin Walker, and others. President Richard M. Nixon was also involved.

Miller Reporting Company did the reporting for the Assassination Records Review Board. Congress created the John F. Kennedy Records Act in 1992 that created a five-civilian member board entrusted with the responsibility to review and declassify documents held by the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, etc. President Bill Clinton made the appointments to the board.

On Monday, November 9, 1998, the National Archives released to the public all the working files of the Assassination Records Review Board and its staff covering the recently completed 4-year effort of that independent Federal agency to find and release government records related to the Kennedy assassination. Among the internal records released that day was a 32-page research paper, written by AARB’s Chief Analyst for Military Records, which provide compelling evidence that there were two different brain specimens examined following the autopsy on the body of JFK—President Kennedy’s brain, as was expected, and a fraudulent, substituted brain specimen at a later date—and that the brain photographs in the National Archives today in the so-called “autopsy collection” are not images of President Kennedy’s brain, but are images of someone else’s. All photographic records of President Kennedy’s brain have disappeared, since its pattern of damage was consistent with being shot from the front; the images of the substituted specimen show damage generally consistent with the official version of what happened of being shot from above and behind.

The final shot that killed President Kennedy came from the front from an assassin in the storm sewer to the right of the limousine, entered his right temple and exited from the back causing a massive hole in the back of Kennedy’s head. The assassin used an explosive bullet that flattens out and doesn’t leave a trace. This explains the massive hole in the back of Kennedy’s head. The small hole in the right temple was covered up, and in the forged photographs, a soft-matte insert was put in its place to cover up the massive hole in the back of his head.

The reasons why President Kennedy was murdered were varied: First of all, as President Dwight Eisenhower warned about at the end of his administration was the military-industrial complex. On October 11, 1963 Kennedy issued White House Directive NSAM 263. Kennedy planned to withdraw 1,000 military advisors from Vietnam by the end of 1963 and the balance of 15,000 military advisers would be withdrawn by late 1965. There would have been no Vietnam War.

Secondly, Kennedy planned to get rid of J. Edgar Hoover in his second term. He also planned to scale back the CIA to the manner that President Harry Truman envisioned the agency: as an intelligence agency---not one that sponsors wars and assassinations.

It was also known that Kennedy thought that the oil depletion allowance was too generous. He planned to lower it thus angering the oil people. The anti-Castro Cubans were enraged because of Kennedy’s refusal to invade Cuba. Southern racists were bitter because Kennedy supported civil rights. The mafia were out to destroy Kennedy because John and Robert Kennedy had targeted the mafia.

Then there was Vice President Lyndon Johnson who was exceedingly corrupt, possessed an overpowering ambition to be president, and would stop at nothing to obtain his goal.

Robert A. Caro, the renowned biographer of Lyndon Johnson has already published three of his four volumes of The Years of Lyndon Johnson. Caro published this paragraph in the introduction to his first volume, The Path to Power. The introduction is called “Patterns.”

The dark thread was still present after college. It would be present throughout his life. The Path to Power, the first of three volumes that will constitute The Years of Lyndon Johnson, ends in 1941, when Johnson is only thirty-two years old. But by 1941, the first major stage of his life is over. A young man—desperately poor, possessed of an education mediocre at best, from one of the most isolated and backward areas of the United States--- has attained the national power he craved. He has won not only a seat in Congress but influence that reaches far beyond his district’s borders. And by 1941, also, the major patterns of his life are established and clear. In attaining this influence, he has displayed a genius for discerning a path to power, an utter ruthlessness in destroying obstacles in that path, and a seemingly bottomless capacity for deceit, deception and betrayal in moving along it. In every election in which he ran---only in college, but thereafter—he displayed a willingness to do whatever was necessary to win: a willingness so complete that even in the generous terms of political morality, it amounted to amorality.

After Lee Harvey Oswald was shot, President Lyndon Baines Johnson called Parkland Hospital. Phyllis Barlett, Chief Telephone Operator for Parkland Hospital remembers the call: “The call came in and said “hold the line for the President,” and for a second I was still thinking Kennedy, and I didn’t... I was kind of taken aback for a minute and a few seconds. It was just a matter of a second, that’s when he came on in a loud voice and said: “This is Lyndon Johnson. Connect me to the accused assassin’s doctor.” It sounded the same as it had been on newcasts when I would hear him speak.”

Ms. Barlett then put the President through to an office adjoining the operating room, where Dr. Charles Crenshaw was urgently called to answer the phone. He recalls: “I picked up the phone and it was there that I heard this voice like thunder that stated: “This is President Lyndon B. Johnson.” And he asked: “How is the accused assassin doing?” I was so startled the only thing that I could say was: “He is holding his own. He has lost a lot of blood.” He said: “Would you take a message to the chief operating surgeon?” It was more of an order than a question. “There is a man in the room, I would like for him to take a deathbed confession.” And all of a sudden the phone went off. I returned to the operating room, I tapped Dr. Shires on the shoulder, he looked at me like “What are you talking about?” Everyone was working feverishly in the operating room trying to correct the wounds there. I said: “Guess who I have been talking to? The President of the United States called and he wants that man over there to take a deathbed confession.” And Shires looked at me like I was crazy. And we both realized that Lee Harvey Oswald, had he survived, would not have been able to give any testimony until two or three days after the procedure. But still in all, the President had called and I did relay the message.”

The Assassination Records Review Board obtained a 14-page document from the Russians on March 6, 1995. The document was once a top-secret KGB intelligence report. On page 9 of the report is this statement:

“On September 16, 1965, this same source reported that the KGB residence in New York City received instructions from KGB headquarters in Moscow to develop all possible information concerning President Lyndon B. Johnson’s character, background, personal friends, and family and from which quarters he derives his support in his position as President of the United States. Our source added that “now” the KBG was in possession of data purporting to indicate President Johnson was responsible for the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy.”

Turning now to President Richard M. Nixon. Nixon authorized the break-in at the Watergate Complex during the night of June 16-17, 1972 because Nixon was fearful that National Chairman Larry O’Brien might have documents in his files indicating that Nixon was involved in the Kennedy murder—he was. Richard Nixon had been at the party of Clint Murchison’s, the Dallas oil billionaire, and he had gone into the private meeting with J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, Edward Clark, Johnson’s attorney (and the secret boss of Texas) in the early morning hours of Friday, November 22, 1963, about eleven hours before President Kennedy was murdered.

On page 21 Ira David Wood III wrote in his chronology in Murder in Dealey Plaza (edited by James H. Fetzer) the following:

“Later that morning, Nixon flew out of Dallas Love Field at 9:05 a.m. on American Airlines Flight 82. He was then legal counsel for Pepsi-Cola and was allegedly in Dallas to attend a company meeting.

CIA agent Russell Bintliff will tell The Washington Star in 1976 that Pepsi-Cola had set up a bottling plant in Laos in the early 1960’s... One of the immediate consequences of the JFK assassination will be the escalation of American involvement in Vietnam, in theory providing the alleged Pepsi-Cola plant with a great deal more business”.

LIFE Magazine played a major role in The Conspiracy beginning with the photograph of President Kennedy’s limousine. LIFE cropped the photograph on page 23 of the November 29, 1963 issue so that the bullet hole in the left windshield is not visible.

In this same issue (written during Saturday and Sunday, November 23 and 24, 1963) Thomas Thompson wrote a long story about Lee Harvey Oswald which may have deceived the American people:

Thompson wrote the following:

“But slowly, methodically, the police were building their case. (They were not.) ---connecting Oswald with the mail-order purchase of a rifle like the one that fired the bullet (Oswald never owned a rifle.) placing him on the scene with a long parcel the size and shape of a rifle (It wasn’t. The package was only two-thirds that size and contained curtain rods.) comparing his palm-marks with the one found on the murder weapon.” This is Thompson’s most appalling lie. The FBI flew the cheap Italian carbine rifle to Washington and then flew it back to Dallas. On Monday morning, November 25, agents took the rifle to the Dallas funeral home where Oswald’s dead body was. Paul Grudie, the funeral home director, reported that agents asked to have the preparation room to themselves. Afterwards, Grudie had to clean the ink from Oswald’s dead hand. The FBI then announced that they had found Oswald’s palm print on the rifle!

In the subsequent issue, December 6, 1963, Thompson continued his lies. In the February 21, 1964 issue, LIFE magazine published on its front cover the fraudulent photograph showing Oswald’s head superimposed on someone else’s body holding the cheap Italian carbine rifle.

Regarding the Ford Motor Company’s involvement, Henry Ford II and LBJ were friends. The Secret Service secretly flew Kennedy’s limousine to Detroit’s Willow Run Airport on Sunday, November 24, 1963 and took it to the Ford River Rouge Plant. On Monday morning, November 25, the windshield with its hole was stripped from the car and replaced with a new windshield. The limousine was then secretly flown back to Washington and returned to the White House garage. Detailed information about the Ford Motor Company’s involvement can be found in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, The Final Chapter, Volume 1, as well as from numerous other sources.

Evidence of the Secret Service’s involvement in The Conspiracy is clearly demonstrated in the film of Kennedy’s motorcade at Dallas Love Field. Secret Service Agent, Emory P. Roberts, in the limousine in front of Kennedy’s car, waves away the Secret Service agent Henry J. Rybka from Kennedy’s limousine. Rybka throws up his arms in astonishment with the implied message: “This is not what I was trained to do!”

David Talbot writes about LBJ’s distrust of the Secret Service: “Just honestly, Mike,” LBJ told Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield in a September 1964 phone conversation recorded by the president’s Oval Office taping system,--“ and I wouldn’t have this repeated this to anyone—my judgment is that they’re more likely to get me killed than they are to protect me.”

In the opening and lead story by journalist Tom Wicker in the Saturday, November 23, 1963 edition of The New York Times is conclusive evidence of The Conspiracy. On page 2 Wicker reports Acting White House Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff’s press conference at Parkland Hospital at 1:30 p.m. (Central Standard Time). Kilduff said: “President John F. Kennedy died at approximately one o’clock Central Standard Time here in Dallas. He died of a gunshot to the brain, Dr. Burkley told me.” (Burkley was Kennedy’s personal physician) “It was a simple matter at the time of a bullet right through the head.” (Kilduff raised his right arm and used his right index finger to point to the entrance wound in the right temple.)

In the second column on page 2, Wicker wrote this: “Later in the afternoon, Dr. Malcolm Perry, an attending surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark, Chief of neurosurgery at Parkland Hospital gave more details:

Mr. Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam’s apple, they said. This wound had the appearance of a bullet’s entry.

Mr. Kennedy also had a massive, gaping wound in the back and one on the side of the head. However, the doctors said it was impossible to determine immediately, whether the wounds had been caused by one bullet or two.”

Oliver Stone’s film, JFK, which is about 98% accurate, shows a superb frame-by-frame analysis of the Zapruder film showing the six shots. Two of the eight assassins were in the lower part of the Dal-Tex Building. Another two assassins were on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository Building. One of the assassins was Malcolm Wallace. His finger print was found on one of the boxes in the sniper’s nest. Another assassin was on the fourth or fifth floor of the Texas Book Depository Building.

The CIA had the mafia hire three killers from Marseilles, France. Two of those killers were behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll. The third assassin was in the storm sewer to the right of the limousine. The first shot came from an assassin on the left side of the Stemmons Freeway, crashed through the front windshield and hit Kennedy in the neck. The second shot came from behind from an assassin in the Dal-Tex Building and hit Kennedy in the back. The third shot came from behind from the fourth or fifth floor of the Texas Book Depository Building and hit Governor John Connolly. The fourth shot came from an assassin in the Dal-Tex Building and flew over the motorcade and hit cement. A concrete fragment hit by-stander James T. Tague in the cheek. The fifth shot came from an assassin in the Texas Book Depository Building and hit Kennedy in the side of the head. And the sixth and final shot came from the assassin in the storm sewer; hit Kennedy in the right temple, blasting out from the back of his head killing the President.

Both the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations were cover-ups. Allen W. Dulles was an active member of The Conspiracy as well as the cover-up. Gerald Ford was a forceful member of the cover-up and acted as an FBI informant regarding some of the secret proceedings of the Warren Commission. Senator Richard Russell privately knew that the Warren Commission’s findings were absurd, but Congressman Hale Boggs had his papers eviscerated by the FBI and he was murdered by the CIA, as were dozens of others during the 1960’s and 1970’s in the ongoing effort to cover-up The Conspiracy.

Connie Kritzberg was a reporter for the Dallas Times Herald. She conducted a telephone interview a couple of hours after Kennedy’s death with the two principal doctors among the 16 doctors who attended Kennedy at Parkland Hospital. Both doctors, as did all 14 other doctors and four nurses reported that he was shot twice from the front, first in the neck and finally in the right temple.

Kritzberg talked to Dr.Williams Kemp Clark, head of neurosurgery, and Dr. Malcolm Perry. She asked the two doctors how many wounds there were in Kennedy’s body. Dr. Clark told Kritzberg that he was working on the gaping hole in the head, and Dr. Perry said he was working on the entrance wound in the neck. Kritzberg said that Dr. Perry said three times that “there was an entrance wound from the front.”

Connie Kritzberg then said she wrote “a simple story, only about 12 inches long, titled “Neck Wound Brings Death” and turned it in.”

The next morning, Saturday, November 23, Kitzberg found that the story she filed had been changed. She found in the story “an unprofessional sentence” in the third paragraph. It said, “A doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound.”

“I was very upset,” Kritzberg said. “I called the city desk and talked one of the assistant city editors. I asked him ‘Who changed my story?’ Kritzberg said. “He knew immediately what I meant,” She asked him, “ Who put in that sentence?” The assistant city editor said, “The FBI.”

Arlen Specter, now Senator Specter, who was a lawyer on the Warren Commission, invented the single bullet theory known as the “magic bullet.” Kenneth O’Donnell, JFK’s special assistant, recalls Specter’s effort at another deception:

“I distinctly remember that when Johnson and I talked at the hospital there was no mention of which of the two planes he should use. Nor was there any mention that he was considering waiting for Jackie and the President’s casket to be on the same plane with him before he left Dallas. Later as a lawyer for the Warren Commission, Arlen Specter, pointed out to me that according to Johnson’s testimony, I had told him to board Air Force One, Specter asked me, to my amazement, if I would change my testimony so that it would agree with the President’s. Was I under oath?’ I asked Specter, as, of course, I was. Certainly I wouldn’t change anything I said under oath.”

President George Herbert Walker Bush, as a former director of the CIA, continues to this day to be intensely involved in the cover-up of the murder of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. President Bush strenuously opposed passage of the J.F.K. Records Act and refused to make the appointments to the five civilian-member board. The appointments had to wait until Bill Clinton became President. Indeed, at the funeral for President Gerald Ford on January 2, 2007, Bush falsely charged that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy.

There are many reasons why the Kennedys remained quiet all these years. David Talbot wrote in Brothers that Robert Kennedy in 1965 told an old family friend: “If the American people knew the truth about Dallas, there would be blood in the streets.” Robert Kennedy was also concerned about his own personal safety. He also shared a sense of guilt about his brother’s death. Kennedy set up in his office an operation to assassinate Castro, but the government took over that operation to kill his brother. RFK also intended to break open the case once he became president, but he was assassinated on June 5, 1968.

Lee Harvey Oswald was working for the FBI at the time of the assassination making $200 a month. He was also working for the CIA. On or about Tuesday, November 12, 1963, Oswald delivered a note to his FBI supervisor, James P. Hosty, Jr., warning him that the assassination was about to take place. Hosty sent out a wire on November 17, 1963 to all FBI Offices. The wire read: “Bureau has determined that a militant revolutionary group may attempt to assassinate President Kennedy in his proposed trip to Dallas, Texas, November 22, Nineteen Sixty-Three.” After the assassination, all the wires were destroyed except the one in the New Orleans Office. The Warren commission, whose members were appointed by LBJ, held an emergency, executive session on Saturday morning, January 22, 1964 to discuss Oswald’s FBI number and FBI salary. While the two assassins on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository Building were shooting the president, Oswald was in the second floor lunch room. He briefly stepped out on the steps of the Texas Book Depository Building and was photographed. Oswald was already in the Texas Theater before Officer Jefferson Davis Tippitt was killed.

In a very real sense, Lee Harvey Oswald was an American hero. At great personal danger to himself, Oswald entered into The Conspiracy in an effort to prevent President Kennedy’s murder. Jack Ruby who was a member of The Conspiracy then murdered him. Oswald was then made a villain and the self-serving and deceptive American news media has perpetuated this lie for now for than 43 years.

In Brothers Benjamin Bradlee, Executive Editor of The Washington Post acknowledged to David Talbot that he didn’t do more to investigate the assassination because he was concerned that further reporting might harm his career.

Sincerely,

Paul Kuntzler

President

For more information write to:

619 G Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20024

Or call 202-484-0330

John, the number given in the ad is 202- 484-0330 I will try calling later. No reason why many people can't call.

Nathaniel, I hope I didn't spoil your plan to call, but I went ahead and called the number referenced and was fortunate enough to get right through to Mr. Kuntzler. He said he has been deluged with calls (a stack of 26 call backs on his desk) and had just finished an interview with Jay Severn (Boston) and is scheduled to do a few more TV interviews soon.

I invited him to join the forum and gave him the info to find the website and he agreed to contact John, however he was short on time....it was about 4:10 and he said he had to call in to another radio show at 4:30 for another interview.

He said he only has a hardcopy of the ad, but he is to have his publicist send me a copy via email, which I will post as soon as I receive it.

Incidentally, he said that the NYT made a mistake (possibly deliberately in his favor) and included the ad in the national edition of the paper, including Canada when he had only paid to have it in the DC area edition.