John Bevilaqua

This posting is from Steve Rankin who might be related to former Congressman Rankin from Mississippi I think it was Apparently Medford Evans lost a Professorship because of his racial issues. Steve Rankin characterizes Evans as having the pallor and demeanor of a Funeral Director. His photo bears that out. Overall Medford Evans was a most reprehensible and despicable character. About Me NAME: STEVE RANKIN LOCATION: JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, UNITED STATES SUNDAY, DECEMBER 02, 2007 The Passing of William J. Simmons I was thinking about William J. Simmons not long ago and wondering if he was still living. Medford Evans (father of M. Stanton Evans) was another leader in the Citizens Councils. Medford Evans spoke at Mississippi College when I was a student there, but I don't remember what he talked about. I recall once seeing him-- he had the demeanor of an undertaker-- coming out of the Jackson Municipal Library with a big stack of books under his arm. (The library was then located at the corner of Yazoo and State streets, across from the present Eudora Welty Library.) Evans was once a college professor in Louisiana but lost his job because of his racial ideas. I remember when Simmons announced that the Citizens Councils were disbanding and he was going to run a bed and breakfast inn full time. He had a little controversy a few years ago when he wanted to expand the parking space for his inn, which was located in a residential area near Millsaps College. The Citizens Councils established a group of white-only schools, one of which was in a two-story building in the Fondren area of Jackson; it was on Downing Street just off State Street. I'm not sure what is in that building now, but I used to walk by there and see a sign that said "YANA." I was curious about what that meant, and I finally caught someone coming out of the building one evening and asked him. He said it was an organization that counseled alcoholics, and YANA stood for "You Are Not Alone." The building was later used for music lessons, and an assistant state attorney general, Giles Bryant, was mugged and murdered while he was waiting out front there to pick up his children. Another thing I remember about the Citizens Councils involved my friend Lawrence Abrams Sr., one of the owners of Cole's department store in Natchez. Mr. Abrams told me that the council pressured him to fire an older black man who had worked for him for a long time, but he refused to do so. At any rate, I wonder if Simmons ever gave any in-depth interviews. It would be interesting to know whether he changed his views on race. (If memory serves, he had a cameo appearance in 'Eyes on the Prize,' the PBS documentary about the civil rights movement.) The Associated Press | November 27, 2007

Warren was unable or unwilling to pursue Jack Ruby's statement that Edwin A. Walker of the Dallas John Birch Society was part of the group that ran things in Dallas and that Walker was Ruby's prime suspect in the Plot to Assassinate JFK.

Birchers like Medford B Evans blamed Johnson, the CIA and the left-wingers in The Establishment for the JFK hit just like Dr. Revilo P. Oliver did. And most of you would probably support their convoluted thesis about JFK's actual killers. Would you take the word of the murderers of JFK on how to solve the crime? Hardly. And certainly this is proof that Evans was NEVER part of the CIA or the FBI either. Certainly Evans was not PART OF The Establishment and certainly he knew who killed JFK... his friends from Draper's Mississippi Ghouls and Ghosts with the help of people like Ray S. Cline and James J. Angleton and even Boris Pash who only used the CIA as their Day Jobs. Both Tim Gratz and Ken Rahn cite Medford Evans as a person in the know about the real killer of JFK. Consider these sources. Coup d’Etat November 22, 1963 by Medford Evans AMERICAN OPINION, September 1967, pp. 73–100 This article is taken from the introductory chapter to Dr. Evans’ forthcoming book on the Johnson administration. [The Usurpers, Western Islands Press, Boston, 1968, 249 pp.—KAR] Medford, Evans, a former college professor and once Administrative officer on the U.S. atomic energy project (1944–1952), holds his Doctoral degree from Yale University. Dr. Evans’ work has appeared in Harper’s, Sewanee Review, Human Events, National Review, and elsewhere. He has long been an American Opinion Contributing Editor and regular correspondent. • Shriver…realized that Asia, Africa, and South America would assume that “whoever had killed President Kennedy would now be President.” —William Manchester, The Death of a President. The Johnson Administration began, of course, with the assassination of President Kennedy. There was no other way in which the former Vice President could have come to power. Had John Kennedy lived, not only would he have been automatically renominated in 1964, but Lyndon Johnson might well have been, as the inelegant political term has it, “dumped” for a running mate more personable, by Kennedy standards. At noon, November 22, 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson was a politician apparently on the way down and out. Three hours later he had been sworn in as President of the United States. The decision he had made in Los Angeles in 1960 to relinquish Majority Leadership of the Senate for the comparative obscurity of the Vice Presidency had at last, fatefully, paid off. Not only was Johnson now established in the highest office in the land, he was virtually certain of election in 1964 to a first four-year term. One year was just what he needed to reach a peak of popularity. No credible opposition could crystallize in that “honeymoon” period. He was heir to the Kennedy power, and death had cleared the legacy of political liabilities. Even disgruntled “right-wingers” would go with Lyndon in 1964—to prove (to themselves?) that they had not wanted Kennedy killed. Fate in the autumn of 1963, in the fall by rifle fire of a young President, had—again—given Lyndon Johnson victory from the jaws of defeat. The other time had been in 1948, when Abe Fortas and Hugo Black teamed to put Johnson, despite the legal record, into the Senate. Who put him into the White House in 1963 is not known. The Warren Commission says it was Lee Harvey Oswald. A variety of persons, from New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison to Left-leaning lawyer and author Mark Lane, have disagreed. Whoever it was—whoever killed John F. Kennedy—evidently wanted Lyndon Johnson to become President. Perhaps it was one of those whom William Manchester calls “knee-jerk absolutists” of the American tradition, one who wanted a cowhand type in the White House. Perhaps it was, as some “Liberals” would like to imply, an oilman who felt that the depletion allowance would be safer under Lyndon. Perhaps, even, it was Lee Harvey Oswald. In that case, a Communist made Lyndon Johnson President. This is not a controversial book. It deals simply with well established matters of fact and with certain rather obvious conjectures. Natural speculation is presented, but presented as speculation, not conclusion. Every man is responsible for his own conclusions. It is a matter of fact that L.B.J. failed of the nomination for President in 1960. It is a matter of reasonable conjecture that he afterward stood little chance of ever being nominated unless he were the incumbent, and the only way to achieve incumbency was through being Vice President when an elected President died in office. It is a matter of fact that in November 1963 he had been Vice President for what Rowland Evans and Robert Novak call “three trying years.” Evans and Novak quote an anonymous “White House official” who said of Lyndon: “The greatest tribute to him is that he had the self-discipline and patience to accept political impotency and stay out of trouble.” As it turned out, he could afford to be patient. One imagines, however, the strain. Since the President in whose shadow he served was nine years younger than he, the odds were great that he would never become President unless Kennedy were killed. Indeed, as we observed above, there was some prospect in November 1963—it was talked of—that Lyndon might not even continue to be Vice President, might exchange the relative obscurity of that office for the utter oblivion of being an ex-Vice President. William Manchester refers to “persistent reports” that Johnson “might be dumped from the ticket next year”; Arthur Schlesinger Jr., writing of Kennedy’s “first strategy meeting for 1964,” held November 12, 1963, says, “Johnson’s absence stimulated a curious story that the Kennedys intended, in the political idiom, to dump him…as Roosevelt had dumped John Nance Garner.” Schlesinger says the story was “wholly fanciful,” but recognizes the “psychological cost” to Johnson, and quotes Theodore White: “Chafing in inaction when his nature yearned to act, conscious of indignities real and imagined, Johnson went through three years of slow burn.” As of November 22, 1963, it is reasonable to conjecture, nothing could have brightened the outlook for Lyndon Johnson’s political career—except what actually happened. In reviewing facts and commonplace conjectures, I take it that additional speculation may be free, provided it is identified as speculation. For example, no one having the slightest acquaintance with the history of the Praetorian Guard in the latter days of the Roman Empire could fail to speculate inwardly on the possibility that the agency most directly responsible for the safety of the first man should be itself the one to do him in. Looking at contemporary history, students at Yale not too many years ago heard a professor intimate in a classroom lecture—possibly for mental stimulation—that the late Huey P. Long was not only gunned down September 8, 1935 by his own bodyguard (which also killed the ostensible assassin and fall guy, Dr. Carl Weiss) but the gunmen were suborned to the act because the Louisiana Kingfish had become the one and only possible rival of Franklin D. Roosevelt in demagogic appeal. So long as we make clear their conjectural character, such speculations would seem to be of the essence of academic freedom. Besides, they may serve for psychological catharsis. Since so many people can hardly avoid vagrant thoughts in this area, is it not better for all concerned to come right out with them and reveal the absurdity of anything, like, say, charging the murder of the President to the Secret Service itself? By the worst possible interpretation, Kennedy’s bodyguard, unlike Huey Long’s, could not have accounted for most of the gunfire. Even a coup de grâce shot in the back of the head—à la Darkness at Noon—could hardly have come from the immediate entourage of the young prince. Really. The Secret Service has not, of course, escaped criticism. Manchester writes: “President Johnson pinned the Treasury’s highest award on Rufe Youngblood [the agent who protected the Vice President, as Johnson was in the Dallas motorcade]…At Mrs. Kennedy’s insistence Secretary Dillon also decorated Clint Hill [assigned as Jackie’s bodyguard]…the ceremonies left an undercurrent of dissatisfaction in much of official Washington. The central fact was that the Secret Service had failed…” (pp. 630–631.) But that is all in the point of view, isn’t it? Manchester tells that nine Secret Service men were “out on the town” the night before the assassination, including “four agents who were to ride in the President’s follow-up car in Dallas, and whose alertness was vital to his safety.” He says further that when the shooting started, “the White House detail was confused and their “behavior” was “unresponsive.” Yet he reports that they were very prompt and efficient in rallying to protect the new President, that one of them at least “made a tough but necessary switch in allegiance while Kennedy’s heart was still beating.” Lyndon Johnson was to be criticized for allegedly moving too fast to get himself physically installed in the White House and the Kennedy survivors out; yet one Secret Service agent was so zealous for the new man that, according to Manchester, he urged Johnson to spend the very first night, November twenty-second, in the White House. This even Johnson would not do. Yet Manchester does not contend of course that the Secret Service executed the coup of November 22, 1963. After all, the analogy of the Praetorian Guard of ancient Rome is misleading to an extent. The Praetorians were something more than a small bodyguard. Comprising ten cohorts under a Prefect, they were more nearly analogous to our Pentagon. An example of even wilder speculation than the foregoing comes irrepressibly to mind as we read in The Death of a President how as Air Force One was approaching Washington (“very, very sick,” said Secret Service agent Clint Hill, “with a great deal of tension between the Kennedy people and the Johnson people”) a great and all but universal sense of urgency developed that Jacqueline Kennedy must now at last change her blood-stained dress, or if she would not—and she would not—then she ought when the plane landed to disembark in some way so that she would not be photographed and televised in her macabre disarray. But there was no such reserve in the widow. “We’ll go out the regular way,” she said. “I want them to see what they have done.” Them? They? Who were they? They were the great men of Washington. Secretary of Defense McNamara, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Senator Hubert Humphrey—everybody who was anybody, and who was not already part of the Presidential party, or was not in that other plane winging back from the Pacific with Secretary of State Rusk and other cabinet members—the power elite of America were waiting at Andrews Air Force Base that November night. Were these the men upon whose consciousness Jacqueline Kennedy wanted to impress the horror of what they had done? Jackie did not mean this. But what she said provokes such speculation. And in some sense perhaps she did mean it. Chief Justice Warren had issued a statement that afternoon that “a great and good President [had] suffered martyrdom as a result of the hatred and bitterness that [had] been injected into the life of our nation by bigots,” and of course no one had provoked the bigots quite so violently as Earl Warren. The Chief Justice reacted very rapidly that day, according to Manchester’s account (and this is from a portion of his book not, so far as I know, in dispute); he had not only judged at once that the blame fell upon (right-wing) “bigots” (he had hardly announced his judgement before left-winger Oswald was arrested), but Warren had also shown himself almost prescient in interpretation of the first news report from Dallas. Manchester writes: Mrs. Earl Warren…seen the [television] bulletin, on the Warrens’ set at the Sheraton-Park. She…phoned the office of her husband, whose secretary, Mrs. Dorothy McHugh, rapidly typed on a blank slip of paper: “There is a report that the President and Governor Connally have been shot in Dallas and taken to the hospital.” She gave the slip to a page, he rapped on the conference room door and handed it to Arthur Goldberg, and Goldberg gave the message to the Chief Justice, who rose, his eyes bright with tears, and read it aloud. (Page 205. Italics added.) Others who could not understand so shocking a message, or did not believe it when they first heard it, or believed the wound might not be fatal—waited to hear further if it were indeed serious. But such was the sensitivity of the Chief Justice that his prophetic soul furnished his eyes instant tears. Defense Secretary McNamara had more self-control. “Despite his deep feeling for the President—the emotional side of his personality had been overlooked by the press, but it was very much there—he kept his head,” reports Manchester, “and made all the right moves.” (Page 192.) These were the men waiting for Air Force One as it brought to the nation’s capital from Texas the body of the slain President, attended by his blood-stained widow, determined to keep the stains upon her that “they” might see what “they” had done. Jacqueline Kennedy did not know that Earl Warren and Robert McNamara would be there at Andrews Air Force Base to see the bloody defiance of her dress—but she knew that no one from Texas would be there. “They” who would see what “they” had done would be actors in the Washington scene. And they saw the dress, all right. Manchester writes: “Earl Warren saw ‘that brave girl, with her husband’s blood on her, and there was nothing I could do, nothing, nothing.’” (Page 388.) According to Jackie, he and all the rest who greeted her had already done it. These are wild speculations. Yet in the context of the Kennedy assassination what can seem wild? The best documented events in the drama are the most incredible—for example the televised shooting of Oswald by Jack Ruby. Just as incredible, psychologically, was Jackie’s insistence on wearing…it hardly bears explicit statement, and we have already stated it. How infinite and various are the permutations and combinations of the elements of human nature! Only one parallel occurs to the display of blood with which Mrs. John F. Kennedy shocked all who saw her at Andrew Air Force Base; all who saw her at Bethesda Naval Hospital, where, as Manchester describes it, a ghastly wake was held throughout the night, with Jackie talking compulsively to all who would listen (and no one could do otherwise), notably to McNamara (“She was in that suit with the bloody skirt and blood all over hr stockings, and it was fantastic, but she just wanted someone to talk to…It went on for hours…” The Death of a President, Page 417); all who saw her at the White House, where in the broad daylight of Saturday morning “Mrs. Kennedy…finally shed her stained clothing…the maid was overcome by the extent of the blood. Nothing she had seen or heard on the television reports had prepared her for this…” How opposite were the emotions of the traumatized widow and the political activists who, two thousand years before, furnished the only parallel for such an exhibition of blood! Brutus said: Stoop, Romans, stoop; And let us bathe our hands in Caesar’s blood Up to the elbows, and besmear our swords: Then walk we forth, even to the market-place, And waving our red weapons o’er our heads, Let’s all cry “Peace, freedom and liberty!” And Cassius added, Stoop then, and wash. How many ages hence Shall this our lofty scene be acted over In states unborn and accents yet unknown! Acted over, indeed. But with what a difference! There will be further speculative passages in this book—some, like the foregoing, in rather a stream-of-consciousness form, others more in the form of rational hypotheses. But all will be identified as speculations, not palmed off as facts or inescapable conclusions. Another guiding principle of this work will be to avoid judging the motives of individuals. At the same time there will be no pretense that certain actions do not normally imply certain intentions. Once we know that the Report of the Warren Commission is inherently incredible, we can hardly suppress speculation that someone on the Commission intended a deception. This, however, remains speculative, and possibly not susceptible of final resolution. Most people would settle for not punishing the Warren Commission—and not believing it. I am particularly anxious to avoid the argumentum ad hominem. I have spent too many years of my life respecting such men as Senator Richard Russell and F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover to find any pleasure in siding against them with the likes of Mark Lane and other overt Leftists. God help me, I hate to agree with (for example) Richard Rovere about anything—considering his detestable treatment of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy; but I do agree with much of Rovere’s Introduction to Edward Jay Epstein’s Inquest, with such apercus as: “…the Commission’s client was Lyndon B. Johnson…The day the Warren Report was issued, the American press should have begun to do what Mr. Epstein has done; it should have cast a very cool eye on the Report…” I do not, in a partisan sense, “side with” Leftists in overall interpretation of the assassination of President Kennedy. On the contrary—as I imagine will be abundantly evident from some of my more settled speculations hereinafter. I have, however, come to substantially the same conclusion as that of the Far Left concerning the credibility of the Near Left as represented by the Warren Commission. My conclusion is that anyone who will believe that Lee Harvey Oswald and he alone killed Jack Kennedy will believe anything. What is not controversial is that the death of John F. Kennedy effected a transfer of power. Every assassination of a chief of state is in effect a coup d’état. A coup d’état is not a revolution; it involves no change in ideology, it involves no change in the bureaucracy or professional police, except at the highest level. A coup d’état is normally accomplished by someone already near the highest level. If an assassin is too far beneath his victim in the established power structure, he cannot himself reap the fruit of his deed. The fruit will, however, be gathered. An assassin may not intend to seize power for himself; the power, nevertheless, will be seized. The assassin may not be thinking in terms of power at all; someone, however, will be thinking in such terms. Various intentions are possible in an act of assassination. Let us catalogue them, including first one of zero value: (1) The murder of a chief of state may be a piece of mindless violence, without any rational intention at all. (2) In close relation to such a random human explosion, there may be a hedonistic nihilism—a perverse pleasure in destruction for its own sake, an intense pleasure, presumably, in bringing down so prized and high an image as a “President.” This kind of delight in wickedness is part and parcel of those urges usually these days called sadomasochistic, and treated as sexual in nature, though as Professor Revilo Oliver has shrewdly observed it may be doubted whether they are in fact sexual in origin at all. The sadist rationalizes his cruelty by pretending it is sexual in nature, when in truth he is simply a mean s— of a b—, and ought to be killed himself. Whatever the precise character of this dark element in human nature, it is very obviously present in the murder of Jack Kennedy. (3) The killer might be motivated by personal hatred of the victim, growing out of some relationship in their private lives. Though this would not be political in origin, it would still have profound political effect. (4) The motive might be the personal ambition of the assassin, or of someone behind the assassin. (5) There may be an organizational reason for eliminating the chosen victim, such as: (a) Not being a member of the organization, he is to be replaced by someone who is. ( A member, he may have failed, or deviated, or somehow incurred liability to punishment from the organization. © Though in good standing, he may still be considered expendable if it is thought that by liquidating him the organization will be strengthened. There can, of course, be various combinations of the foregoing. In every case except the first, some advantage, material or psychological, accrues to the individual or group responsible for the killing. In every case without exception, advantage accrues to those who inherit the power, who may or may not be the same as the killers. Unlike a revolution, a coup d’état does not involve a large number of people; indeed, its success depends on the majority’s continuing to operate pretty much in their accustomed fashion. The pilot must be replaced with a little disturbance as possible to the passengers. The transfer of power form Kennedy to Johnson was in effect that of a coup d’état. If no one planned the murder of Kennedy, the effect of a coup was still there. If the murder was planned for personal—not political—reasons, the effect was still there. On reflection, most people will believe that such a murder—so difficult to execute, so dangerous to the murderer—must have been planned, and since the victim was President of the United States few will doubt that the planners were politically motivated. Americans in general, however, would not believe—as Sargent Shriver said the people of Asia, Africa, and Latin America would believe—that the political motivation was anything so logical as a bid for supreme power by the next in line. In the United States only weirdos like the author of MacBird and the editor of the Midlothian Mirror have suggested that the Vice President was trying to “catch the nearest way” to the White House. Most Americans would no more suspect Lyndon Johnson of complicity in the assassination of John Kennedy than they would suspect Andrew Johnson of complicity in the murder of Lincoln, or Theodore Roosevelt of complicity in the killing of William McKinley. It is an American tradition that Presidents are assassinated by wild eccentrics, not by members of a Praetorian Guard aiming at the imperial throne. Nevertheless, the possibility of political motivation cannot be dismissed, and those who accomplished the deed may well have intended the consequences. Many an American has thought this—but hardly dared to dwell upon the thought, much less speak out. The thought is repellent because people fear it leads to the conclusion suggested by William Manchester with his quotation from Sargent Shriver—that the new President must have had a hand in eliminating the old one, since he (the new one) appears to have been the chief beneficiary. Yet it is not necessarily true that Lyndon is the chief beneficiary of Lyndon’s being in the White House. Ambitious as we may suppose Lyndon to be, he is not necessarily his own man, not even if he sincerely believes that he is. He could somehow be more useful to others than to himself. He could be useful even to some who revile him. Applying the principle of cui bono? (Who gets something out of it?), we can see quickly that about the last group in the country to have had a reason for assassinating President Kennedy was the Conservative Right—not primarily because they were sure to be blamed by the Hysterical Left for the murder, but because Kennedy’s death resolved too many dilemmas then faced by the regime in power. To be sure, Johnson’s conduct in office would almost certainly generate new ones, but not in time to affect, say, the 1964 election. Politically, the man hurt the worst by the shooting in Dallas was Barry Goldwater. Bobby Kennedy was hurt too No question about that. Who was helped the most? Lyndon was helped the most obviously, but not necessarily the most substantially. No, the sure gainers were the men of the center—or what passes for the center—men to the right of Arthur Schlesinger Jr., to the left of Thomas Dodd (in all cases here I refer to surface position); men to the right of Ted Sorenson, to the left of Tom Clark. Typical Texans were not gainers. Indeed, Texas was dealt a crushing blow. The neurotically unfair attack on Dallas by the very types who would neurotically defend Walter Jenkins left the nation not too sure what a typical Texan was anyhow, but ready in any case to accept someone else instead. Lyndon’s own deportment has often seemed enough to neutralize the Alamo in history’s ledger account of Texas. The men who gained were Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara, Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, Walt Whitman Rostow—and Abe Fortas. The list is not exhaustive, not in any special order, but it illustrates. The Establishment gained—for Lyndon, not being identified with it, could not bring embarrassment upon it, while at the same time he could still be led to do what was expected. This is not to suggest that the Establishment contrived the assassination—though, to be sure, its principal representatives in government did have the best of scheduled alibis, being in the air winging west over the Pacific at the time of the shots in Dealey Plaza. I have so little confidence in my own ability to solve the murder of President Kennedy that I have no intention of suggesting who may have done it. But, historically, we can accept the fact that the coup of November 22, 1963 strengthened the hand of the Establishment, which was able—whoever did the murder—to turn it to advantage. It was—or could be considered—the Establishment’s second involvement in a murder case in the same month. On November first, exactly three weeks before the spectacular assassination in Dallas, President Diem of South Vietnam was killed in another coup d’état. That some degree of responsibility attaches to the U.S. Establishment for the murder of Diem is much more widely recognized than in the case of Kennedy. I know that the late Marguerite Higgins of the late New York Herald Tribune is (was) a controversial writer, but really there is little disagreement as to the essential accuracy of the following from her book Our Vietnam Nightmare (perhaps I should write her late book, it may be a non-book by now, but I have a copy): “In the post-coup era…at the Department of State the Diem-must-go group was heady with a sense of accomplishment. Their ebullience spilled out at various background briefings I attended. Mainly there seemed to be satisfaction that the deed was finally done, even though not quite as cleanly as everybody had hoped. “My first personal involvement in the repercussions of the Diem overthrow came late Saturday night, November 2…when Madame Nhu came on the line, she spoke first of her husband and brother-in-law. “ ‘Do you really believe they are dead?’ she asked. “ ‘I’m afraid so,’ I answered unhappily. “ ‘I could spit upon the world,’ Madame Nhu said bitterly. “Silence. What was there to say? “ ‘Are they going to kill my children too’ she asked. “ ‘It’s the last thing President Kennedy would want,’ I said in some agitation… “ ‘Then why doesn’t the United States government do something to help me get them out?’ said Madame Nhu.… “ ‘I’ll put the question to the State Department officer in charge of Vietnam,’ I promised.… “It was two A.M. I roused Assistant Secretary Hilsman out of a sound sleep. “ ‘Congratulations, Roger,’ I said. ‘How does it feel to have blood on your hands?’ “ ‘Oh, come on now, Maggie,’ said Roger. ‘Revolutions are rough. People get hurt.’ “ ‘What about Madame Nhu’s children?’ I asked. ‘Are they going to get hurt?’ “ ‘If you will find out from Madame Nhu where her children are,’ said Hilsman, ‘we will have General Harkins send his personal plane to get them.…The President [Kennedy] is deeply shocked over the death of Diem and Nhu. He will do anything he can to safeguard Madame Nhu’s children.’… “In the case of the children,” continues Miss Higgins, “the United States kept the promise made by Hilsman to the letter. Within days, Madame Nhu’s three children were duly deposited in Rome.” (pp. 224–225.) The United States can do in these affairs what it really wants to do. That is the meaning of power. American power in Vietnam, despite apparent fiascos, is not unappreciated by the indigenous population. The coup d’état in which Diem was killed was, according to Miss Higgins, “universally assumed by the washed and unwashed of Saigon to have been plotted in Washington.” (Page 221.) Elsewhere she writes: “The superstition-minded even found an eerie echo on the American side. President Kennedy’s death before the month was out was wholly unrelated, of course, to Diem’s downfall. [Of course!] But the distraught Madame Nhu, in bitterness and wrath, was moved shockingly to liken her feelings to those of the slain President’s family.” (Page 220.) Isn’t it shocking that the Asian woman should compare her own feelings to those…I’m too shocked to finish the sentence! And yet—there were similarities. Coincidence (1): They were both—Diem and Kennedy—Catholics in countries not wholly Catholic. Coincidence (2): Both had initially enjoyed the support of the U.S. Establishment. Coincidence (3): Both were shot in the back of the head—a standard Communist procedure of execution. We do not know who killed Diem; we have been assured that Kennedy was indeed killed by a Communist. Mrs. Kennedy, heartbroken, told her mother: “He didn’t even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights…It’s—it had to be some silly Communist.” (Manchester, Page 407.) Madame Nhu employs a different rhetoric, but in her own Oriental way we may be sure that she too was distressed by the killing of her husband and her brother-in-law. I think she ought to be forgiven for presuming to compare herself with one of us great Americans. There is another coincidence about the Kennedy and Diem affairs. That is that in the aftermath of each the U.S. Establishment labored to dissociate itself from the event. In the case of Diem the disavowal of any connection could be open, for there had been so much of rumor emanating from Saigon to the effect that Americans were responsible for Diem’s overthrow and murder that a specific protestation of innocence was in order. “It is important to state clearly,” writes Arthur Schlesinger Jr., “that the coup of November 1, 1963, was entirely planned and carried out by the Vietnamese. Neither the American Embassy nor the CIA were involved in instigation or execution.” (A Thousand Days, Page 829.) The coup of November 22, 1963 could not be dealt with quite so clearly, for it was impossible to admit that anyone had even suggested that the U.S. Establishment was on that day conducting a purge at the summit. Nevertheless, what could not be admitted to have been said still had to be denied—and denied with whatever emphasis was necessary. That is why the Warren Commission was established. “In his earliest hours as President,” write Evans and Novak, “Johnson, assisted by Abe Fortas and other counselors, conceived his plan for a blue-ribbon commission composed of the nation’s most prominent citizens to make a painstaking investigation of the tragic events of November 22 and exorcise the demons of conspiracy.” William Manchester’s account is a bit different, but not seriously contradictory. He involves Fortas in the decision, though somewhat ambiguously, but he gives the role of chief promoter to Nicholas deB. Katzenbach. Oddly enough, neither Manchester nor Evans and Novak mention the fact that the Midweek Edition of the Communist Worker, dated November twenty-sixth, said in a front-page editorial: “We believe that President Johnson on the one hand and Congress on the other should act at once to appoint respective Extraordinary Investigation Commissions with full powers to conduct a searching inquiry into all the circumstances around the assassination of the President and the murder of the suspect [Oswald].…Such an investigating committee, headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, should be composed of citizens and experts who enjoy the confidence of the nation.” Congress was laggard, but President Johnson moved promptly to do exactly what the Communist Worker had suggested. On November twenty-ninth he appointed just such a commission, “headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.” Of course I do not mean that he did it because the Worker recommended it. It must have been just another coincidence. On the surface, the Warren Commission Report was to backfire in the Worker’s face, for it was to pin the guilt on Lee Harvey Oswald, that “silly little Communist.” Still, that was better from many points of view than pinning it on a serious big Communist. Lyndon sort of put it that way to Earl Warren, after the Chief Justice had turned down the first request, which was put to him by Nick Katzenbach, to head the Commission. Lyndon Johnson called Earl Warren over to the White House. Manchester says these are Warren’s words about the visit: I saw McGeorge Bundy first. He took me in, and the President told me how serious the situation was. He said there had been wild rumors, and that there was the international situation to think of. He said he had just talked to Dean Rusk, who was concerned, and he also mentioned the head of the Atomic Energy Commission, who had told him how many millions of people would be killed in an atomic war…He said that if the public became aroused against Castro and Khrushchev there might be war. (Page 630.) So the Warren Commission’s first and overriding objective was to clear Castro and Khrushchev: If it could clear Lyndon into the bargain, that would be nice, too. As Evans and Novak have said, “Inevitably, irresponsible demagogues of the left and right spread the notion that not one assassin but a conspiracy had killed John Kennedy. That it occurred in Johnson’s own state on a political mission urgently requested and promoted by Johnson only embellished rancid conspiratorial theories. If he were to gain the confidence of the people, the ghost of Dallas must be shrugged off.” (Page 337.) It was damned embarrassing that Oswald had a Communist record. Maybe he wasn’t really a Communist at all. Bobby Kennedy told Jackie Friday night at Bethesda, “They think they’ve found the man who did it. He says he’s a Communist.” Now in those circumstances would a Communist say he was a Communist? Reminds you of the puzzle about the free men and the slaves. Maybe Oswald was a Rightist trying to make the Party look bad. Maybe he really worked for the F.B.I. or the C.I.A., and had flipped. (Of course he was not carrying out instructions!) Actually, it didn’t much matter what he was, provided that he could be isolated. Communist, anti-Communist (married to Marina?), Left, Right—all that really counted was to count no further than ONE. He did it by himself! That damned Jack Ruby coming in there was another embarrassment, of course. And yet if Ruby had not done what he did, the case would have come to trial. In Texas! With a jury! God knows what would have happened then—what with all those rednecks and Birchers. If it had come to trial, Oswald’s being thought to be a Communist would have helped. A Dallas County jury would have convicted him. Otherwise it might have returned a verdict of justifiable homicide. (Oh, come on, even an Easterner wouldn’t think that!) As for Ruby, he was a loner too—not socially; he was gregarious as the very devil. But psychologically. He was nuts. And oh so sentimental! Oswald was a dour psycho, Ruby a warm, Kennedy-loving psycho. Two men, each utterly alone with his thoughts, and no connection whatever with each other—it was just one of those things. You will every now and then lose a President like that, and there is just nothing you can do about it, except jump hard on anybody like Mark Lane or Jim Garrison who tries to reopen the case by suggesting that maybe it did, from somebody’s point of view, make sense. Maybe there was a purpose in killing John F. Kennedy. Maybe he was killed because somebody would get something out of it. That’s the kind of irresponsible talk and speculation we just can’t afford to have going on around here. Well, it goes on anyhow. In the public mind Castro is not cleared, Khrushchev is not cleared, Lyndon is not cleared. The case is wide open, and none of the networks, including the Communist network, can close it. The Warren Commission needed to make an airtight case. The failure of the Commission can be measured by the millions of dollars that N.B.C. and C.B.S. have had to invest in trying to backstop the Commission’s Report. And they, too, of course, have failed. N.B.C. seemed to think that an adequate smear of Garrison might do the job. C.B.S. banked on overpowering its viewers and listeners with an inexhaustible, exhausting plethora of tedious minutiae, trusting that the subject hypnotized before the screen would end by mumbling, O.K., Mr. Cronkite, have it your way! The Warren Commission was right. Everybody who disagrees is wrong. Lee Harvey Oswald did it by himself. I will not argue with you any more. How can I? I haven’t understood a word you’ve said for the past thirty minutes. You have bored me into submission. One senses, rightly or wrongly, that the necessity of clearing Castro, and certainly of clearing Khrushchev (who’s that?) has diminished since November 1963. On the other hand, the need (somebody’s need) to clear Lyndon is greater than ever. The damnable part is that where he needs acquittal is in the court of public opinion, where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court somehow doesn’t preside. That is why the networks, and the Associated Press, had to enter their amici curiae briefs in the case. The judgment here is inevitably political. It may once have been thought that Lyndon got his acquittal in 1964, but now it is plain that that was just a postponement. The case is now on the docket for 1968. Trouble is, there are so many other counts to the indictment that the verdict on this one may never be wholly clarified. Since MacBird—the offbeat, off-Broadway parody of Macbeth which implies that Johnson killed Kennedy as Macbeth killed Duncan—it has become commonplace to admit openly that Lyndon is suspect. The scandalous success of this scurrilous play, which certainly could never have been produced at all had it been written by anyone but a Leftist (in the corrupted intellectual currents of out time it is not what is said but who says it that counts)—the success of MacBird, far more than the cogency of the attacks on the Warren Commission’s Report (and they are cogent) demanded that the Warren Commission Report be defended to the death. Its defense has already involved a number of deaths. The reason why the issue is so serious is that there is a widespread tendency to assume that either Oswald did it, alone, as the Warren Commission insists—or else that Lyndon was involved in it, had it done if you like, since he appeared to be the chief beneficiary. We might reflect that, a priori, MacBird is fully as suspect as the Report of the Warren Commission. New Left or Old Left, what is there to choose? Neither is trustworthy. And of course the alternatives are not exhaustive. The dilemma is false. Actually, like the victim in a traditional mystery story, John F. Kennedy was a logical target for many persons, for many reasons. Yet the public, as it continues stubbornly to suspect the Warren Commission of inaccuracy and especially of incompleteness, by implication increasingly suspects Lyndon of something worse. Why do they doubt the Warren Commission? First, of course, on a priori grounds. Warren’s reputation is not good. Not good to start with, and the endorsement of the Worker didn’t’ help it any. There were men on the Commission with better reputations, but the public was not particularly conscious of them. And, tragically, in the credibility market “Warren” is a discount brand. Also a priori, it seems inherently improbable that so great an enterprise as killing a President would be undertaken by the average man alone. If nevertheless it were so undertaken, the case would be more unusual than a conspiracy to assassinate, and would require more explanation—more explanation than the Warren Commission has given, or than has been given in its behalf. The third a priori ground for skepticism is that the Commission had one well advertised political motive for fudging in favor of the lone-killer theory—i.e., the motive of maintaining good diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union—and, of course, that other political motive, not advertised but widely suspected to be even more compelling. All these reasons for suspicion might have been canceled had the Commission’s Report been unexceptionably valid. That it was not was abundantly demonstrated by the wealth of dissenting documents that did not even wait publication of the Report (did not have to, since conclusions of the Commission were rather steadily leaked, and, of course, were predetermined anyhow) to start pouring from the presses of Europe and America. Most of the dissent was from the Left—in spite of the fact that the Commission was itself obviously sympathetic to the Left and had as its first objective to pacify the Left as represented by the Soviet Union and Cuba. There is, however, never any satisfying the Left, which enjoyed the advantage of firing at a nominally American target which it could be sure would not vigorously strike back, and probably the further advantage of knowing that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. The Leftwing critics of the Commission, although totally ineffective in their insinuations as to who did conspire to murder Kennedy, were naturally highly successful in impairing the credibility of a Commission which was handicapped by its own political commitment. This is not the place to settle the detailed arguments on which millions of words have already been expended—nor is it necessary to settle all those arguments in order to be sure that the Warren Commission Report is unreliable. I would, however, like to mention one or two items of detail, more or less at random, which illustrate the kind of thing that destroys confidence in the Commission. I have not tried to become an expert in what has become a special field of study, and these items strike me because they happen to relate to part of my own life, or more or less accidentally came under my observation. Of course, if you find a couple of errors in a column of figures—if you find one—you don’t have to prove that you have found all the errors which may be there in order to reject the given sum total. The Warren Commission accepted as facts the conclusions of the autopsy performed at Bethesda Naval Hospital. In so doing the Commission, as Edward Epstein has pointed out in Inquest, rejected reports of the F.B.I. which in certain respects directly contradicted the autopsy as published by the Commission. (Epstein seems to impugn not the physicians who conducted the autopsy but the Commission’s reading and possible revision of the autopsy. Of course, a Rightwinger’s knowledge of contemporary history—of the deaths of Forrestal, Taft, McCarthy—breeds no more confidence in Bethesda than in Earl Warren.) The F.B.I.-Warren Commission contradiction which Epstein discusses concerns the first bullet to hit President Kennedy, and this bullet—“Commission Exhibit 399”—is also the crux of the controversy with other critics of the Commission, such as Mark Lane. The point at issue is whether “bullet 399” did or did not penetrate both Kennedy’s neck and, continuing, Governor Connally’s chest and wrist, to lodge in Connally’s thigh, whence eventually it fell out into a stretcher, from which it was ultimately recovered. That this did occur is what is called the “single bullet theory,” and incredible quantities of ink and video tape have been used in the dialogue over it. The importance of the discussion centers on a belief expressed by Epstein: “Either both men were hit by the same bullet, or there were two assassins.” A couple of A.P. newsfeature writers on the other side of the arguments virtually agree on the significance of the point: “If Lane, Epstein or [Harold] Weisberg can demonstrate that this report is at fault…out goes the theory—and along with it the case against Oswald as the lone assassin.” (Italics added.) It is tempting to get into this discussion of what Lane sarcastically calls “the magic bullet,” but if I have anything to contribute to this general kind of analysis, it is a question about the second bullet to strike the President—the lethal bullet which entered the lower right side of the back of his head and blew out the upper right side of his skull. Nobody survives a wound like that. Where did the bullet come from that did it? Oddly enough, in view of the ocean of words spilled over the first bullet, there has been almost no discussion of this second bullet. It is, however, highly discussible. Let’s begin with an undisputed fact: The bullet that killed President Kennedy entered the back of his head near the base of his skull and somewhat to the right of center. (“Laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance,” is the language of the autopsy report.) The bullet traveled, relative to the axes of the skull, forward, up, and to the right. The wound of entrance was clean-cut, but the tremendous energy of the high velocity bullet created an exit wound that left a hole some five inches in diameter. (Autopsy language: “a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions.”) Just where within this crater the bullet emerged cannot be definitely known, but any point chosen would still result in a trajectory that would be—repeat: relative to the axes of the skull, forward, up, and to the right. Why, then, did Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, who participated in the autopsy at Bethesda, testify: “President Kennedy was, in my opinion, shot from the rear. The bullet entered in the back of the head and went out the right side of his skull * * * he was shot from above and behind.”? Colonel Finck does not say so, but in context it seems plain that he means from above and behind and from the right, where Oswald was allegedly stationed in the Texas School Book Depository. There can be no question that the bullet came “from behind,” as Colonel Finck says, and traveled “forward,” as I say above. But how [to] explain the conflict between my “up and to the right” and his “from above” (equals down) and (by implication) from the right (equals to the left)? The answer is, of course, that if President Kennedy had been leaning far enough forward and to the left, then a line of flight which was up and to the right relative to his skull would have been down and to the left relative to the car in which he was riding. Whether Oswald, or anyone stationed where he is said to have been, could have shot Kennedy through the upper right side of his head, as he was shot, depends on the bodily position of the President at the time the shot was fired. This fact was emphasized by Commander James J. Humes, senior pathologist at the Naval Medical Center, in charge of the Kennedy autopsy at Bethesda November 22–23, 1963. Doctor Humes testified before the Warren Commission: “There are many variables under these circumstances. The most—the crucial point, I believe, to be the relative position of the President’s head in relation to the flight of the missile. Now this would be influenced by how far his head was bent, by the situation with regard to the level of the seat in the vehicle, off of the horizontal, and so forth.” (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. II, Page 358.) Commission member Allen Dulles asked, “Is the posture of the head of that figure there [indicating a drawing] roughly the inclination that you think the President’s head had at the time from the other photographs?” Commander Doctor Humes replied: “Yes, sir. From the photographs and based on the physical examination of this wound, yes, sir.” (Vol. II, Page 359. Italics added.) Notice the circular reasoning, the begging of the question of the origin of the bullet. Knowing, within limits, the trajectory of the bullet within the skull, you can determine the position of the skull when the bullet struck, if you know the origin of the shot; or you can determine the direction from which the bullet came, if you know the position of the skull. But you cannot determine both the line of flight of the bullet and the position of the skull simply from the path of the bullet through the skull. It seems evident that the autopsy physicians—Commander Humes, Commander J. Thornton Boswell, and Colonel Finck—were in effect given the window of the Book Depository building as the point of origin of the bullet and, of course, were given the approximate position of the Presidential automobile as the terminus, and, with these data and the wounds, they constructed the position of the skull at the moment of impact. It does not appear that they had independent knowledge of the position of the skull. Suppose there were positive knowledge that the President was not leaning far enough forward and to the left when he was hit by this bullet, for the shot to have come from the Book Depository window? We should then have to seek another point of origin of the shot. And the single-assassin theory would be invalidated. I do not claim to have such positive knowledge. But I think the question may be fairly asked: Was not the President actually in a more nearly upright position than Commander Humes and Colonel Finck supposed, and if so did not the second bullet—the lethal bullet—necessarily come “from behind,” yes, but not “from above” and not from the right, but from below and from the left? It is a serious matter to ask such a question, and I ask it not as a matter of fanciful speculation, but seriously. Evidence exists—not conclusive evidence such as would justify a positive statement: The position of the President’s body, together with the wounds in his skull, means that the trajectory of the lethal bullet was nearly horizontal—but probative evidence, demanding that one inquire further into this startling possibility. The possibility is indeed startling, for if Kennedy was shot from behind, but not from above, and not from the right but somewhat from his left, then the list of suspects, broadened indeed from the loner Oswald, yet remains shockingly narrow. Eliminating at once the widow, who was victimized almost as much as her husband and escaped just by inches being killed herself, there remain three groups of possible suspects—persons physically in position to have fired such a shot. These were: (1) spectators on the south side of Elm street near the point of assassination, (2) members of the Dallas police force, (3) members of the Secret Service. There were at this point so few spectators that none of them could possibly have shot the President with a rifle or even with a pistol without the virtual certainty of being seen. If a spectator did it, he had some sort of James Bond weapon; he could only have been a very advanced agent of the C.I.A. or of some corresponding foreign bureau. This possibility is almost negligible. The possibility that Kennedy was not killed with a rifle is by no means negligible, however, as we shall see in a moment. What evidence is there that the President was in a more nearly upright bodily position than the Oswald theory requires? I will mention four items: (1) the Moorman photograph in the Dallas Times Herald of Sunday November 24, 1963: (2) the Zapruder film photographs in Life magazine of November 29, 1963, together with an editorial comment by Life; (3) testimony of Secret Service agent Clinton J. Hill before the Warren Commission; (4) a passage from The Death of a President by William Manchester. On Page A-3 of the Dallas Times Herald of November 24, 1963 there is a picture four-columns wide by six-inches deep with the following cutline: “DYING PRESIDENT. This graphic photograph was taken by Mrs. Mary Moorman, of 2832 Ripplewood, who was standing on Elm street and snapped this Polaroid picture immediately after President John Kennedy was hit by an assassin’s bullet. Mrs. Kennedy is leaning over to catch her husband’s body as he falls, fatally wounded.” We now know or believe that the President was not yet fatally wounded, that this photograph was made after the first hit, from which he might well have recovered, and immediately before the second, which took off the top of his head. The interval for Mrs. Moorman to take the Polaroid picture and the interval for the executioner to take the second shot were about the same. This photograph is about as close as we shall come to seeing Jack Kennedy’s position when the lethal bullet hit him in the back of the head. Oddly enough, this picture seems not to have been used by the Warren Commission. What is the President’s bodily position? He is inclining forward and to the left—but by no means far enough for a bullet from the Book Depository sixth-floor to come out the top right side of his skull. It would, if this was the position when it hit, have come out his face. (There is abundant evidence that his face was not shattered.) Among the most extraordinary pictures of all time are the eight-millimeter color movies that one Abraham Zapruder, a dress manufacturer recently moved from New York to Dallas, took of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Life magazine gave him $25,000 for the film; he gave the money to charity. Mr. Zapruder happened to be positioned on the north side of Elm Street, west of the Book Depository, on an elevated abutment which gave him good command of the scene. His enjoyment of the motorcade was turned to agony when the gunfire began, but he kept on operating his camera. (All that keeps Mr. Zapruder’s feat from being historically unique is the fact that two days later the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby would be not only still-photographed but nationally televised.) The most remarkable scene in the Zapruder film is the one where Mrs. Kennedy, immediately after the second, lethal shot has struck her husband, climbs out on the trunk of the car toward the rear bumper just as Secret Service agent Clint Hill is jumping aboard the suddenly accelerating automobile by means of step and handrail there for such a purpose. Mrs. Kennedy, according to William Manchester and her own testimony before the Warren Commission, has no recollection of thus climbing out of the back seat where her husband had just been shot, and those who saw it might well not trust their own recollection if Zapruder had not taken the movie and Life had not published scenes fro it showing Jackie in a perilous position on her hands and knees, facing the rear of the car, atop the back seat and the lid of the trunk. Life notes in the text accompanying the photographs that in this position the slain man’s head was against the calf of the woman’s left leg, thus explaining the extraordinary amount of blood on her stocking. Now here is the point of all that: For a bullet from Oswald’s perch to have cut the path indicated through the President’s skull, he would have to have been already pitched so far forward and to the left into his wife’s lap that when she arose in shocked panic to climb out of the rear seat onto the trunk he would have fallen further forward to the floor of the car or against the jump seats in front of him. Evidently he was still far enough back so that his body rested on the back of the seat until Mrs. Kennedy was herself pushed back into the automobile by Clint Hill. Mr. Hill told the Warren Commission: “I simply just pushed and she moved—somewhat voluntarily—right back into the same seat she was in. The President—when she had attempted to get out onto the trunk of the car, his body apparently did not move too much, because when she got back into the car he was at that time, when I got on top of the car, face up in her lap.” (Vol. II, Page 140.) Clinton J. Hill was the Secret Service man specifically responsible for the safety of Mrs. Kennedy. He and Rufus W. Youngblood, who was in charge of the detail responsible for the then Vice President, were the only two Secret Service agents to emerge from the assassination weekend with any credit. Both were given medals, and Youngblood is now in charge of the White House detail. Hill’s testimony before the Warren Commission is of extraordinary interest: first, because of the passage quoted above, which implies that the President was not leaning extremely far forward or to the left before being hit in the head; second, because his description of just how much forward and leftward inclination there was coincides very well with what the Moorman photograph in the Times Herald shows, as will be seen in the quotation below; third, because Hill, who was nearer to the President than anyone else not actually in the same car, gives a unique account of the sound of the fatal shot. Here is Hill’s account of all the shooting. He was standing on the left running board of the Secret Service “followup” car just a few feet behind the Presidential open limousine. …as we came out of the curve, and began to straighten up, I was viewing the area which looked to be a park. There were people scattered throughout the entire park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to me seemed to be a firecracker. I immediately looked to my right, and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left…I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object—it seemed to have some kind of an echo. I put my right foot, I believe it was, on the left rear step of the automobile, and I had a hold of the handgrip with my hand, when the car lurched forward. I lost my footing and I had to run about three or four more steps before I could get back up in the car. Between the time I originally grabbed the handhold and until I was up on the car, Mrs. Kennedy—the second noise that I heard had removed a portion of the President’s head, and he had slumped noticeably to his left. Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the right bumper of the car, the right rear tail, when she noticed that I was trying to climb on the car. She turned toward me and I grabbed her and put her back in the back seat, crawled up on top of the back seat and lay there. * * * Mr. SPECTER [Warren Commission lawyer]. Was there any movement of the President’s head or shoulders immediately after the first shot, that you recollect? Mr. HILL. Yes, sir. Immediately when I saw him, he was like this, and going left and forward. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a little fall to the left front. Mr. HILL. Yes, sir. (Vol. II, pp. 138–139. Roman added.) Clint Hill’s testimony is entirely consistent, as can be seen, with the Moorman photograph—both indicate that the President was inclining forward and to the left, as would have been required for a bullet from the Book Depository to cut through his skull as was done, but not inclining anywhere near far enough to meet that requirement! It is also noteworthy that the acoustical peculiarity of the second shot as described by Hill does not accord too well with the theory that it came from rifle fire high in the rear. Clint Hill was regarded by Mrs. Kennedy, according to William Manchester, as “the brightest agent on the White House Detail.” (Page 350.) His conduct as reflected in the records of the tragic weekend supports the estimate. I would not dismiss his impression, which he repeated to the Commission. Mr. SPECTER…what was your reaction as to where the first shot came from, Mr. Hill? Mr. HILL. Right rear. Mr. SPECTER. And did you have a reaction or impression as to the source or point of origin of the second shot that you described? Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear, because when I mounted the car it was—it had a different sound, first of all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double sound—as though you were standing against something metal and firing into in, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it. (Vol. II, Page 144.) It does not seem to me that the Warren Commission was sufficiently interested in this bit of testimony. Except to ask whether any shots seemed to originate from the front of the car (Hill said no) there were no further questions of this expert witness who at the center of the action did not think the shot that killed President Kennedy sounded as if it came from a rifle on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository building. Hill’s testimony suffered for lack of cross-examination, and he was not cross-examined because there was no real legal adversary of the Commission’s obvious preconception that Oswald alone was guilty of the assassination. Hill’s description of Kennedy’s posture at the instant the lethal bullet struck is, of course, no more conclusive than is the Moorman photograph; yet both comport with the view that a bullet which entered the base of the brain and came out the right side and top of the President’s head would have had to originate lower and further toward the left than Oswald’s alleged position. The position of the wounded head is the key to the problem. Hill said the sound was from the right, but not necessarily from the rear. Well, it had to be from the rear of Kennedy. The bullet went in the back of his head. If it was not from the rear of Hill, it must have been from between the two—from the tail of the Presidential limousine or the front of the follow-up car—perhaps some kind of James Bond device again. That is too fantastic. (It is?*) Hill must have been mistaken. He was not necessarily mistaken abut the sound coming from the right. Kennedy could more easily have been leaning far enough to the left than far enough forward. Or the sound could have actually originated on Hill’s left and been heard on his right. The famous “grassy knoll” was on his right, also structures that could have caused an echo. The special echo that Hill dwelt upon in his description, by the way, fits the admittedly very far-out thought that the shot came from one of the automobiles. Let me suggest a very simple thing I did to clarify this problem in my own mind. I got from my wife a ball of knitting yarn and a knitting needle. Looking at a picture of Commission Exhibit 386, which shows the location of the wounds in the President’s skull, I put the needle through the ball of yarn to represent the approximate line of flight of the bullet. If you hold such a contrivance in front of you in what would be a face-forward, back-to-you, upright position of the simulated head, you will see that the needle slants down, perhaps forty-five degrees, and to your left, perhaps twenty degrees. You will now suppose that the window in the Texas School Book Depository is behind you, to your right, and six stories above you. In order to make the needle point that way you will have to rotate the ball of yarn quite far forward and to the left—so far that the area corresponding to a human face is now within thirty degrees of horizontal, looking down and somewhat to the left. It will cause you [to] wonder whether the President was actually leaning over that far when he was hit the second, and final, time. There is one more witness to call—William Manchester. No question he is an expert. I quote from the jacket of his book: “At the invitation of the Chief Justice, Mr. Manchester was a privileged observer of the Warren Commission inquiry. Meanwhile, however, he had developed his own sources of information. Operating out of headquarters in the National Archives, for two years he worked twelve to fifteen hours a day, conducting a major historical investigation throughout Texas and elsewhere, accumulating forty-five volumes and portfolios of transcribed tapes, shorthand, documents, and exhibits, all of which will be deposited in the Kennedy library.” It may be added that Mr. Manchester is a devout believer in the theory of Oswald’s unique guilt. He writes: Lee Oswald has been repeatedly identified here as the President’s slayer. He is never “alleged” or “suspected” or “supposed” or “surmised”; he is the culprit. Some, intimidated by the fiction that only judges may don the black cap and condemn, may disapprove. The managing editor of the New York Times apologized to his readers for a headline describing Oswald as the murderer, and four months after the appearance of the Warren Report the Washington Post continued to refer to him as “the presumed assassin.” But enough is enough. The evidence pointing to his guilt is far more incriminating that that against Booth, let alone Judas Iscariot. [You should have let that alone, Mr. Manchester.] He is the right man; there is nothing provisional about it. The mark of Cain was upon him. (Page 278.) Mr. Manchester is a literary artist who chose to cast his magnum opus into the form of a novel, and therefore he writes in the style of omniscience. And indeed his knowledge of the events of November 20–November 25, 1963 is tremendous. Nevertheless, he is not omniscient. If he were, it would be possible to refute completely his atypical paragraph above with one of his more typical narrative passages—with, indeed, the apogee of his narrative orbit: The First Lady, in her last act as First Lady, leaned solicitously toward the President. His face was quizzical. She had seen that expression so often when he was puzzling over a difficult press conference question. Now, in a gesture of infinite grace, he raised his right hand, as though to brush back his tousled chestnut hair. But the motion faltered. The hand fell back limply. He had been reaching for the top of his head. But it wasn’t there any more. (Page 158.) The actions of the President and his Lady which William Manchester here describes cannot be reconciled with the bodily position of a man tumbled so far forward into his wife’s lap that a bullet path thirty-five degrees upward relative to his skull will be fifteen degrees downward relative to the vehicle in which they are riding. Mrs. Kennedy could not have been looking into her husband’s face, the President could not have been lifting his hand “in a gesture of infinite grace” to brush back his tousled hair. Those motions of these actors in the tragedy imply at least a semi-upright attitude. The verdict of the Warren Commission precludes such a possibility. I am no partisan of Mr. Manchester. I find his book frequently distasteful and sometimes demonstrably inaccurate. Yet I believe he was far more conscientious historically and literarily than Chief Justice Earl Warren, I am willing to believe that he was better informed as to the kind of detail with which we are here concerned than was any member of the Warren Commission, and I suspect that his literary tour de force describes more accurately, after all, than the pedantry of the Warren Report the valedictory posture of the doomed President. As William Manchester has described it, Jack Kennedy had the top of his head blown off by somebody other than Lee Harvey Oswald. I have gone into this matter with great reluctance; for the thrust of my reasoning is to put the killer physically very close to the victim. Not that all the shots had such an origin. Shots could have come from the School Book Depository, as the Warren Commission insists, shots could have come from the “grassy knoll,” as Lane and other Commission critics protest. But the shot which Clint Hill heard as the second one was different—had a different sound, the sound of a pistol echoing on metal—and it came, I contend, from a different direction, from a direction in which where was no one to fire a shot except police, the Secret Service men, and a handful of spectators, any one of whom would have been instantaneously observed. Or so one supposes. Who saw Oswald? Howard Brennan, a pipefitter, saw him. Bob Jackson of the Dallas Morning News saw a rifle protruding from the window. Amos Lee Euins, a teenager, saw the second shot, as did Brennan. Oswald was captured on the basis of Brennan’s description. Others saw or heard what the Warren Commission accepted as Oswald’s deadly sharpshooting from the sixth-floor window. But no policeman or Secret Service agent saw anything. They are trained for their jobs, and their instructions were to watch carefully all tall buildings. A number of them looked toward the roof of the Book Depository, for on it was a Hertz advertising sign which included a clock. Secret Service agent Rufus Youngblood, in charge of Lyndon’s protection (he did a good job, got a medal and a promotion for it) looked at the sign at 12:30. The shooting began at 12:30. Youngblood, unlike all other agents except Emory Roberts, recognized the first shot as a shot. He promptly took action to push Lyndon down in the car and protect him with his own body. Except Clint Hill, he was the only agent to act immediately. Yet this superior individual among an elite group, looking just as the shooting began at the precise section of the building where the rifleman stood at the window, saw nothing. If anyone at all in authority knew or seriously thought the shots came from the Book Depository, why was not the building sealed off at once? If Oswald did what the Warren Commission concluded he did, then he was on the sixth floor, and the elevators were not working. He allegedly stopped on the second floor on the way downstairs and bought a Coke. A policeman saw him, and the building superintendent just said, Oh, he works here, or words to that effect. Oswald continued on his not unleisurely way out the building. And, of course, the F.B.I. knew that Oswald was working in this building, knew he had lived in Russia, had recently been to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, knew—God knows what they knew. There is general agreement that those charged with protection of the President in Dallas that day were on the borderline of criminal negligence. The only question is, on which side of the border? Someone has asked, Why didn’t the Dallas police or the Secret Service see that rifle out of the window at 12:30 P.M., November 22, 1963? And someone has answered, They did. But we don’t know that, most of us don’t even suspect it. What I do suspect is that it wasn’t that rifle that did the job anyhow. Whatever the malfeasance or nonmalfeasance of the Dallas police, the Secret Service, the F.B.I., they were all under orders from higher up. To be sure, the man supposedly highest up in their chain of command was the one that got killed. The crucially bad link was presumably somewhere between him and the working level. Or an outside force might break the chain, intrude into the chain, at any point. What is not credible is that anyone who could have done it could have had a personal motive to kill Kennedy. The motive of the man who fired the shot was undoubtedly obedience. The motive of the man who originated the order was to effect a coup d’état. Before proceeding to speculate as to who that may have been—for the thing is by no means so self-evident as MacBird buffs may suppose—let me make one further note about the credibility of the Warren Report, and of various government agencies if they are correctly represented by the Warren Report. In examining the question as to why the F.B.I. did not warn the Secret Service of Oswald’s possible presence along the motorcade route, the Report quotes J. Edgar Hoover to the effect that the Bureau, although it knew a good deal about Oswald, had no reason before the assassination to consider him dangerous, because the only thing in his record to show that he was dangerous was his attempt to kill General Edwin A. Walker the night of April 10, 1963, and the F.B.I. did not know anything about that until after the assassination. The Report says further, “Prior to November 22, 1963, no law enforcement agency had any information to connect Oswald with the attempted shooting of General Walker.” (Warren Report, New York Times edition, Page 419, italics added.) Elsewhere the Report says, “Until December 3, 1963, the Walker shooting remained unsolved.” (Ibid., Page 170.) It was on December second that Mrs. Ruth Paine, in whose home the Oswalds had lived, turned over to the police materials in which was found a note in Oswald’s handwriting which is construed as a virtual confession of planning to kill Walker. Marina Oswald said her husband had indicated to her that he was the one who shot at General Walker. The news was headlined in American papers of December 6, 1963. Yet on November 29, 1963 the Deutsche National Zeitung of Munich reportedly ran a story translated as follows: “THE STRANGE CASE OF OSWALD. The murderer of Kennedy made an attempt on U.S. General Walker’s life early in the summer when General Walker was sitting in his study. The bullet missed Walker’s head only by inches. Oswald was seized, but the following investigation—as it was reported to us—was stopped by U.S. General Attorney [sic], Robert Kennedy.” I cannot vouch for the authenticity of that gruesome suggestion that Bobby for some reason unwittingly proved the wisdom of the policy, “bear like the Turk no brother near the throne.” I do know this: that General Walker told me personally by long-distance telephone in June of 1967 that evidence is available to establish that Oswald was picked up between 9:00 P.M. and midnight, April 10, 1963 (the shooting occurred that night at 9:00) and was released. I have known General Walker six years. I worked for the Federal Government six years. I have never known General Walker to lie. I cannot say the same for the Government. I have to agree with the English Leftist Hugh Trevor-Roper, to whose side in general I am not at all inclined, that “the crux of the matter” is “a question of confidence,” and like him I must “admit that lack confidence in the evidence submitted to the [Warren] Commission and the Commission’s handling of it.” I must also admit, however, that I have no confidence in any positive construction of my own as to details of the crime and individuals personally involved. I consider the theory of Oswald as a lone-wolf assassin to be inherently incredible, circumstantially improbable, and politically useful to the real authors of the coup d’état. Thus I reject the Warren Report’s conclusion Number Eleven: “On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that Oswald acted alone.” I agree rather with the opinion attributed by Ramparts magazine to New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison that the assassination was the work of a “powerful domestic force.” I do not, let me say, agree with Garrison that John F. Kennedy was “one of the finest Presidents we ever had,” and I doubt whether Garrison has the conspiracy which effected the coup d’état completely and accurately figured out. It is unlikely that even a brave and gifted local prosecutor is going to penetrate the veil behind which that “powerful domestic force” operates. He is not going to get far enough behind the veil to explicate the plot in detail. And, of course, neither am I. What we can do is catch glimpses and discern broad outlines. We cannot identify the killer—meaning either the person who pulled the trigger or the person who instigated the operation—but we can determine the milieu in which the killer achieved his dreadful capability. Simply for illustration, and without waiving any of our foregoing arguments, suppose that on the literal level Oswald were the solitary killer—no accomplices in the deed itself. There remains the matter of motivation. What drove him to it? Something environmental. Oswald was young, sensitive, nervous—and conscious of being alone—which, naturally, he resented, which eventually he found unendurable, a torment. And from that torment I will free myself, Or hew my way out with a bloody axe, said Richard III. Blast out with a rifle, adaptation of Oswald, whom also “love forswore.” (“Mrs. Oswald told [a] friend…that Oswald ‘was not a man.’”—Warren Report, New York Times edition, Page 394.) Society made Oswald what he was—not society in general, some particular segment of society. Who can gauge the effect on this sensitive youth of association in Dallas with witty, sophisticated, cosmopolitan George de Mohrenschildt, an old friend of Jacqueline Kennedy’s mother? What maddening contrasts may not have presented themselves to the fevered imagination of the alienated, frustrated boy in his longings for love, for learning, for power! We live in an age, as John Kenneth Galbraith has pointed out, of collective responsibility. I adopt (for the time being) the philosophy of Earl Warren, who on first hearing of the assassination instantly blamed “bigots”—not a particular bigot, but bigots in general. And I adopt the “Liberal” creed which blames—DALLAS. Dallas killed Kennedy. No doubt about it. Let me tell you a little bit about Dallas. I’ve lived there twice, been in and out of it a hundred times—over a period of fifty years. I’ve lived in Fort Worth, too, and Waco, and Abilene. and Lufkin, and Kingsville. I’ve been around Texas a good deal, born there, relatives all around. I like Dallas. A lot of people don’t, but I do. Here is the thing about Dallas—it is in Texas and has lots of Texans in it—but it is not Texas. It is not Texas any more than New York is America. In fact, Dallas is New York. It is a metastatic phenomenon. Dallas is New York fifteen hundred miles away from Manhattan. It is more New York than Brooklyn is. Dallas is a money town, a skyscraper town, a clothes town, a promoter town, a culture-snob town, a get-up-and-go place. It is, to be sure, full of hicks and rednecks, but they are there mostly because they want to quit being that. And they do not run the town. The town is run from New York. You’re always hearing about H.L. Hunt. Mr. Hunt is a real loner. And he puts on his own kind of show. He is a subject of diverting conversation. He is incredibly rich. So is the Sheik of Kuwait. Mr. Hunt produces oil. He’s got to sell it. He sells lots of it to Jersey Standard. Mr. Hunt is a remarkable man, but he is not Dallas, and he is not influential in Dallas, compared to, say, Fred Florence of the Republic National Bank. The Republic National and the First National of Dallas are the only two banks in the South with deposits over a billion dollars (as of June 30, 1965). Dallas is a Federal Reserve town. The Wall Street Journal is published in Dallas. Dallas is the only original fashion center between New York and California. As for culture: I haven’t kept up, but till his death a few years ago E. De Golyer of Dallas owned the Saturday Review outright. (In Dallas and New York I suppose, they consider that culture.) Of course, a big part of the city floats on oil, and oil means Rockefeller. Modern Dallas is sort of a project of the Rockefellers’ Chase Manhattan Bank. When you say Dallas killed Kennedy, you are saying New York did it. Not all of New York, of course. Just the people who run it. They are the same people that run Dallas. They are the people that just abut run the country. This country. Of course they run several other countries much more completely. Venezuela, for example. Arab States. John F. Kennedy was not in the New York Establishment, and certainly not of it, but as President he was closely associated with it—too close for comfort. To the Establishment the President of the United States is either an invaluable servant or an intolerable nuisance. John F. Kennedy appeared in first one light and then the other. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. has told of the initial rapprochement between Kennedy and the Establishment, “the New York financial and legal community” of which the “household deities were Henry L. Stimson and Elihu Root; its present leaders, Robert A. Lovett and John J. McCloy; its front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations; its organs the New York Times and Foreign Affairs.” With the formidable entity Kennedy “was little acquainted,” says Schlesinger, and it in turn had looked on him “with some suspicion…mostly because of his father, whom it had long since blackballed as a maverick in finance and an isolationist in foreign policy.” But politics, as everyone knows, produces unexpected patterns of cohabitation. “Now that he was President…they were prepared to rally round; and, now that he was President, he was prepared to receive them…The chief agent in the negotiation was Lovett, a man of great subtlety, experience, and charm.” (A Thousand Days, Houghton, 1965, pp. 106–107.) It was Lovett who furnished for Kennedy’s Cabinet both Robert S. McNamara and Dean Rusk, both of whom have under Lyndon Johnson strengthened their own positions and refined the Establishment’s control of national policy. Lovett himself had first brought young Bob McNamara to the Pentagon during World War II and considered him, among a group of “management specialists” from Harvard Business School, “the prize of the lot.” Kennedy, unfortunately, was “impressed by Lovett’s recommendation.” The toughest problem of Cabinet formation, says Schlesinger, was deciding on a Secretary of State, the top-ranking officer. Adlai Stevenson, Chester Bowles, J. William Fulbright, David Bruce, and others were considered, but at a crucial point in the deliberations Lovett “began to argue vigorously for Dean Rusk.” And Mr. Rusk, alas, got the job. In the course of time the relationship between the President and these key Cabinet members began to be abrasive. There was talk that Rusk would have to go, Kennedy was so dissatisfied with his—Schlesinger calls it “inscrutability.” With McNamara the situation was otherwise; Kennedy was as impressed by the man as he had been by Lovett’s recommendation of him. It was McNamara, however, who got them all into a jam through his bullheaded and irrational insistence on giving the TFX airplane contract to Convair instead of Boeing, when the latter was low bidder and had the support of all the technical experts. The scandal latent in this affair could have ruined the whole Kennedy administration, which might have saved itself by jettisoning McNamara and Vice President Lyndon Johnson, who was widely though to have applied illegitimate pressure in favor of Forth Worth-based Convair as against Seattle-and-Wichita-based Boeing. It was at a press conference on October 31, 1963, three weeks and a day before his death, that Kennedy was put on the spot about the TFX contract. He defended it, but one may suppose that he did not relish having to do so. Still less could he have relished the prospect of campaigning within the year in the lurid reflection of scandals created by Lyndon’s other friends, Billie Sol Estes and Bobby Baker. As of November 1963, Kennedy was disenchanted with Secretary of State Rusk, he was critically embarrassed by Secretary of Defense McNamara, he was without doubt deeply disgusted with Vice President Lyndon Johnson. It would hardly have occurred to him that the simplest solution of this whole snarl of problems would be his own death. But the relationship between the Establishment and Kennedy was not going well at all. This President really thought, it seems, that business men were “sons-of-bitches.” They in turn lacked confidence in him. He was not dependable like their man Rusk, their man McNamara, not even like Lyndon Johnson, who could hardly be called their man, but was approachable by men like, say Robert Anderson, who were theirs. Perhaps no Irishman can belong to the Establishment. Not really. It isn’t that the establishment won’t have them, but simply that they won’t stay put. The Establishment will support people of charm and reckless valor, but it will not integrate with them. Kennedy said he wanted “power all the way.” And it had begun to look as though he meant it. Certainly he was taking his office too seriously. He was going out of control—on his own. Until Dallas.

It would take forever to compile such a list. Check out my Medford B. Evans and M. Stanton Evans postings though to find some of the major leads they failed to investigate: Boris Pash, Elmore Greaves and the James Angleton links and the H.L. Hunt Facts Forum associations through the John Birch Society into Robert Morris, Charles Willoughby and Edwin Walker and Leander Perez. Medford B. Evans had close contacts with just about every single one of Condon's Dirty Baker's Dozen of scoundrel's and villains.

Medford B. Evans turns out to be yet another missing link from the Ghosts of Mississippi like Elmore Graves, his boss at The Councillor of The Citizens Councils in Jackson, Mississippi to Boris Pash, James Angelton's favorite assassin, when both Evans and Pash worked together at the Atomic Energy Commission to H. L. Hunt (Willoughby's financial angel) whom he worked for at Facts Forum in Dallas, to his close fiends at The John Birch Society, Robert Morris, Edwin Walker and Charles Willoughby. Educated Mississippi based Racists, Eugenicists and White Supremacists, close to the Draper, Coon, Amoss and Greaves nexus of characters who later became John Birchers, after graduation from Yale who were also very active in The Citizens Councils movements are for me at least, prime candidates for major movers and shakers in the entire JFK assassination plot. When you add these facts to his relationship with William F. Buckley, Jr., the H. Smith Richardson Foundation, MKULTRA and a book written by his son about Boris Pash you have the perfect "Triple Troika" of culpability in my honest opinion. After the roles of Medford B. Evans and M. Stanton Evans sink in, you will probably join me and others in realizing that the Evans family fit the perfect paradigm of those who wanted JFK dead and gone. And they knew how to use MKULTRA and its blackmail value to make sure that no one would ever raise a stink about how JFK was eliminated. And they probably were utilized by or utilized both Boris Pash and James Angleton to help them murder Frank Olson, James Forrestal, JFK and perhaps even MLK and RFK. Certainly they used Draper money to snuff Medgar Evers, Jr., the Birmingham Choir Girls and the Freedom Riders in Mississippi. Greaves and Evans actually raised money to defend all 3 of the eventually convicted murderers in these cases after Wickliffe Draper sent funds through the Miss Sov Comm to pay for these assassinations. For an opening salvo here is a posting from Hunter Gray... The Evanses: Father & Son -- and Arizona and Mississippi Hunter Gray hunterbadbear at hunterbear.org Tue Nov 6 15:00:14 EST 2007 NOTE BY HUNTER BEAR: November 6 2007 A face slightly older in years than mine [and frankly looking much, much older in the physical sense] appeared briefly on MSNBC's "Morning Joe' program early today. That three hour stretch is hosted by the congenial, moderate, and somewhat conservative, Joe Scarborough, and, in addition to its interesting staff of several perspectives, brings in a fairly wide variety of mainline pundit views on numerous topics. After I returned from a very early morning trek, I poured more coffee and water, turned on the tube and who should I see on Morning Joe but beamed-in M. Stanton Evans. He's pushing his new book, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies. It draws, apparently, on much FBI material. Brought to mind some memories. Other times, other places. Back in my Springtime and for long thereafter, M. Stanton Evans was in the upper elevations of the far right -- a favorite of Young Americans for Freedom and related groups. Editor of the extremely conservative Indianapolis Star -- a Eugene Pulliam daily -- he pounded out that gospel for many years. He lacked the charm and wit of Bill Buckley but his fires blazed far and high. The Pulliam Press included a number of such poisonous figures -- and, down in Arizona, we all were burdened by one of Pulliam's worst combos, The Arizona Republic and the Phoenix Gazette. Those formed an early dislike of me, to put it mildly, and one of the Republic's columnists, Art Heenan, wrote venomously of "Young Mr. S., the head of the Arizona State Communist Party" -- at a point where I and others were not only engaged in our academic work at Arizona State University but also, in timely and productive fashion, spending much more effort raising miners' relief and union defense funds for Mine-Mill during the great copper strike of 1959-60 and the concurrent witch-hunting "Mine-Mill Conspiracy Trial" up in Denver. [Mine-Mill won the strike and, some years later, the Federal appellate court threw out all of the "conspiracy cases."] As a point of fact, there hadn't been a Communist Party in Arizona since I was a high school sophomore. Heenan, who had worked with the FBI in trying to derail our showings of Salt of the Earth [we persevered], was a Bircher in Bircher Paradise. Phoenix had numerous Birch branches and at least 100 kindred "Anti-Communist Leagues." Eventually, the Pulliam folks -- following the shrewd Goldwater perspective -- became uneasy about this burgeoning phenomenon and Heenan eventually joined a car dealer, Ev Meacham, in forming a most Birchy daily paper. But that folded, Heenan died of drink, Meacham made it to the governorship and was then soon impeached and removed. Salt of the Earth still continues and so do I and many others of that era. http://www.hunterbear.org/salt.htm As I cut my Trail into the Deep South, I always kept an eye on the many folks like M. Stanton Evans. But actually, I found the activities of his father, Medford Evans, more interesting. The elder Evans, Dr. Evans, became the education intellectual of the Citizens' Councils of America ["States Rights / Racial Integrity". ] That outfit, headquartered at Jackson, maintained a classically totalitarian hold on the Magnolia State and exerted considerable nefarious influence in much of the rest of the South. Medford Evans was certainly in the Council's top councils -- the inner/inner circle. In May, 1963, Evans paid a visit to a friend of ours, James W. Silver, then in History at Ole Miss, one of the few outspoken white critics of segregation in the state, and soon-to-be author of the classic, Mississippi: The Closed Society." This was in the aftermath of the Jim Meredith desegregation crisis at the University and, in one of the letters to his children published in his subsequent book, Jim remarks that Mrs Silver, learning that Evans was coming, feared the Seg Mogul would shoot Jim. Silver spoke at length with Dr Evans. In the letter to his children, Jim writes his impressions at length and I quote only the keynote: "This is a strange character. He taught English as an instructor here [Ole Miss] from 1928 to 1930. Taught in a good many small schools, including Chattanooga, the college in Natchitoches,La., was dean at McMurray College, etc. etc. During the war, he had a job having to do with security at Oak Ridge and here, apparently, he got the notion that most people were likely to be communists." In September, 1964, Dr Evans wrote a small manual for the Citizens' Council which was sniffing, however unhappily, change in the air. How To Start A Private School, done in a tightly written questions-and-answers format, outlines the key Retreat Option. I do give the Old Doc credit for good organization and writing -- and have a copy of How To in my collection of hate materials. In time, as desegregation proceeded, there were some Council schools but the idea, in the context of the fast moving South and Nation, didn't really catch fire under that sponsorship. Private "Christian Academies" -- now in many parts of the country and far more interested in theology than "racial integrity" and, indeed, sometimes more or less desegregated -- have had more success. M. Stanton Evans had only a few minutes on today's Morning Joe. As his now late father always did, he continued his own fervent defense of Joe McCarthy. Scarborough asked a few polite questions, one or two of which appeared at least implicitly critical of Senator Joe, and ended it. But I do have memories. Here attached, in an older post of mine, is a discussion of the twilight of the once-feared [White] Citizens Council, a mention of Dr Medford Evans, and some reflections on a [somewhat] Changing Dixie. COUNCIL OF CONSERVATIVE CITIZENS [AND THE OLD CITIZENS COUNCILS] AND ERLE JOHNSTON [HUNTER GRAY MAY 27, 2002] Note by Hunter Bear: I'm posting this -- with its new commentary by me -- on two or three lists where there might be some interest. In another discussional context, the matter of the St. Louis-based Council of Conservative Citizens has arisen. This outfit, which has claimed a national membership of 15,000 [a figure I strongly suspect is greatly inflated], is, however poisonous, of not much account compared to the genuinely dangerous adversaries confronting our Forces of Light. The CCC fighting agenda which includes Defense of the Stars & Bars and combating an ostensible PC attack on the Confederate Museum at New Orleans -- plus the usual sniping at Martin King -- frankly doesn't seem to me to be exactly what's going to take things swiftly and effectively back to 1861 -- or even 1961. The apparently all-male aging and portly leadership in their website photo wouldn't be able to follow me very far at all into the 'way back and super-high ridges that rise immediately behind our up-on-the-far-edge Idaho home and into which I go a few times each week in my Size 15 Vasque Mountain Boots, sometimes for five or six very steep miles. In late March, 1988, in the Deep South for several speaking engagements, I and my oldest son, John, had dinner one evening at an excellent restaurant on the outskirts of Jackson. Our host, Erle Johnston, a veteran newspaperman, a much older person than I, had been, in the Old Days, a shrewd, mortal and deadly adversary. A leading figure in the Ross Barnett administration - public relations director of the State Sovereignty Commission and then its head -- he came to see more clearly than anyone else in that whole camp the bloody abyss into which the Citizens Council movement was taking Mississippi. As early as 1962, calling himself "a practical segregationist," he resigned from the Citizens Councils and began to criticize the Council leadership as "extremist." And then, a bit later, in a truly extraordinary move given his surroundings, he proceeded in two significant steps to cut off a long-standing state government subsidy [interracial tax dollars] to the White Councils which had been regularly channeled through the Sovereignty Commission. The fiery national Council leader, Bill Simmons of Jackson, immediately called on Barnett to fire Johnston -- but Barnett, loyal to his old friend, refused. Johnston caught heavy flak but hung on. He was now calling Simmons "The Rajah of Race." Johnston, thus the very first moderate-of-sorts in the old Mississippi segregationist camp, continued his own strange journey onward into the surrealistic transitional administration of the new Governor [former Lt. Governor], Paul B Johnson, Jr [1964-68] -- where Erle served increasingly as a kind of race-relations mediator in the then early-on and sometimes chaotic rapidly desegregating racial situation. He left state government in 1968, by then quietly convinced of the validity and necessity of racial integration, to return to his newspaper, the Scott County Times. Years later, he ran for mayor of his substantial town of Forest and won -- with virtually all of the many Black votes. [it is he, who as Mayor, desperately called me in North Dakota for advice on how to deal with a heavy snowfall. I was, of course, experienced with that problem and was quite helpful to him.] Erle Johnston wrote a number of good books on Mississippi. His initial one, Roll With Ross, was a study of Ross Barnett and that very turbulent administration. I reviewed it, favorably, for the quarterly Journal of Southern History [came out in November '81 along with a review of my own book] -- and that's how Erle and I connected [1980] in Post-War Mississippi. A later 1990 book of his, large and full and very honest, is Mississippi's Defiant Years: 1953-1973: An Interpretive Documentary with Personal Experiences. It carries a an eloquent Foreword by his old friend, also from Grenada, William F. "Bill" Winter. It is Bill Winter who, as Mississippi State Tax Collector in the Old Days, was the one significant public official at any level who flatly refused to join the Citizens Councils. His own gubernatorial administration, 1980-84, was one of the very best Mississippi has ever had. In his Foreword to Defiant Years, Bill Winter wrote: "This is a book about a time and place that will forever be etched in the memory of those of us who lived in Mississippi in the 1950's and '60's." Defiant Years [ which opens with a Tribute to long time Black civil rights activists Aaron Henry and Charles Evers], carries a number of testimonials from various persons of some prominence in the Mississippi milieu -- and the back book cover conspicuously features four of those: General William D. McCain, president emeritus of University of Southern Mississippi; Hodding Carter III, of many things -- including Secretary of State for Jimmy Carter; myself [ then John R Salter, Jr]; and the noted American historian from USM, Neil R. McMillen. Only in Mississippi. Richard Barrett, the arch-Nazi Nationalist Movement leader from Learned, Mississippi [near Jackson] venomously attacked Erle Johnston [and myself and others] through this whole latter-day period. He was especially vitriolic toward Erle who he consistently termed a "scalawag." Interestingly, Barrett is a Dixie Convert -- originally from New Jersey [which, I'm sure, was glad to see him leave long, long ago.] As we ate that late March, 1988 evening, Erle and I and John were surrounded in the restaurant by a lively throng of high school students celebrating a friend's birthday. The honoree was Black and the group very well mixed on a Black / White basis. As this encouraging [but now long racially commonplace] event proceeded, Erle, in response to a question from me, talked about the status and health of the once huge and powerful Citizens Councils -- no friends of his to the bitter end! He told us they'd moved their "national headquarters" several times and were now in very modest quarters. He'd been over there to look over their extremely large library. "They sit each day at a long table and talk about the old days. Got a lot of books in there and sometimes they just sit and read." "Is my book there?" I asked. "You bet it is," he grinned. "At least three copies." "Bill Simmons, is he there?". Erle nodded. "Faithfully, from what I hear." "And Dr. Evans?" [Medford Evans, arch-ideologue and former college English professor -- and the father of the Indianapolis Star-based national conservative writer, M. Stanton Evans.] "He, too," said Erle. "All the old guard." Only a very few years after that, the Citizens Councils hung it up and formally went out of business. And this new thing -- the Council of Conservative Citizens? Well, if I were a hot-eyed Reb, it wouldn't be my idea at all of the Ditch for which to fight and perhaps die. I'd be riding Bigger Dragons -- which is the point of my post which now follows. And Erle? Erle died in 1995. I miss him. Hunter [Hunter Bear] ============================================= -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous message: [bearwWthoutBorders] The Evanses: Father & Son -- and Arizona and Mississippi Next message: [bearwWthoutBorders] Forrest Carter, yet again Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- More information about the BearWithoutBorders mailing list

Art often imitates life. Harold Grey used Wickliffe Draper as "Big Daddy Warbucks" and Anastase Vonsiatsky as "Little Orphan Annie" and "Indiana Jones" was based on Carleton S. Coon. And Richard Condon chose about a dozen members of the Radical Right in America for The Manchurian Candidate. Boris Pash was no secret by the time Rocky and Bullwinkle hit the tube. Your efforts on Gerry P. Hemming are much more convincing though.

What we have here in the Shinley posting is essentially the entire hierarchy of the JFK Assn Cabal.... from Soup to Nuts. (via Right-Wing Nut Country) Please note the the links to be described right back into over half of Condon's Dirty Dozen and most of the Mississippi Murderers as well. Medford Byran Evans not only lived in Jackson, Mississippi but he worked for Elmore Greaves, the Publisher, at The Citizens Council in Jackson, Mississippi as the Managing Editor of The Councillor. Medford Stanton Evans is listed in a book called Mississippi Authors as the author of a book which cites Col. Boris Pash extensively so of course they had to know each other quite well: The Secret War for the A-Bomb Medford Stanton Evans Bookseller: Books From California (Simi Valley, CA, U.S.A.) Quantity Available: 1 Book Description: Henry Regnery Company, 1953. Hardcover. Book Condition: Very Good. Dust Jacket Condition: Includes dust jacket. Signed. Inscripted "John Randolph Calhoun Gentleman patriot Medford Evans September 1970" Dust jacket has little shelfwear clean text binding tight. Bookseller Inventory # mon0000211765 Bookseller & Payment Information | More Books from this Seller | Ask Bookseller a Question Dirty Dozen #1 was Wickliffe Draper from The Pioneer Fund. William Regnery was a cotton millionaire and a Draper crony who started Henry Regnery Press and The America First Committee during World War II where Dirty Dozen #2 Rev. Gerald L K Smith was a member as well. Smith later ran the Presidential Campaign of Dirty Dozen #3 member Gen. Douglas MacArthur as part of The America First Party in 1952 Harry Augustus Jung the owner of The Jung Hotel was yet another Draper crony who started The American Vigilant Intelligence Federation in about the mid 1920's a forerunner of the American Security Council. Dirty Dozen #4 is General Edwin A. Walker who was referenced by Condon using his home address of Turtle Creek Drive in Dallas. Dirty Dozen #5 and #6 are Charles Willoughby and Robert Morris of The Dallas John Birch Society joining Walker in that distinction. Dirty Dozen #7 of course is Bill Buckley cited as "...that fascinating young man who wrote about God and Man at Yale." Billy Buck himself. See H. Smith Richardson Foundation, the sponsor of MKULTRA research that included Gerald O'Reilly the brother in law of Billy Buck. Dirty Dozen #8 is Senator Thomas Jordan ...err I mean Senator J. Strom Thurmond who was in Man Cand by Condon. Guy Banister of course was active on WACL with Elmore Greaves, Roger Pearson (both Pioneer Fund Draper cronies) and Ray S. Cline from the Pink Palace in PingTung, Taiwan when Oswald was there with his Marine Corps pals getting his brain fried and molded. Dirty Dozen #9, a bit of a stretch is Brig Gen Bonner Fellers from Cairo, Egypt who sent Monty's troop movements through Jim Angleton in Rome to Erwin Rommel in Northern Africa. Fellers launched For America and 10,000,000 Americans Mobilizing for Justice out of his 544 Camp St. HQ in New Orleans which was incorporated by Maurice B. Gatlin. Fellers was in Cairo along with "Indiana Jones" and Draper crony plus Greaves' hero Carleton S. Coon and Amoss working for Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg. The INCA funders like Alton Ochsner, the Sterns from Radio Station OSDU, the Reily from The Riley Coffee Company and Patrick J. Frawley who hired Robert Morris to work for him at both Technicolor and Schick all were involved with building the Oswald Legend along with Guy Banister. Add David Treen to that list, too. Also appearing at various Indignation Committee meetings across the country was Dirty Dozen #10 Dr. Revilo P. Oliver. Walker's other lawyer was of course Robert J. Morris cited earlier here. So we have Ten of Condon's Dirty Dozen in just one posting from Jerry Shinley and now Medford Evans is yet another Mississippi Murderer very closely affiliated with Elmore Greaves at The Councillor and Wickliffe Draper at The Pioneer Fund. And Ernie Lazar has evidence that neither the CIA nor the FBI would allow employees to join The John Birch Society, so Evans was NOT in THE CIA either.

I sent in the photo of Yaroslaw Stetsko myself. Either way, I am now convinced that BOTH Boris Pash AND Yaroslaw Stetsko were involved in the elimination of JFK. The eyeglasses worn by the man near LBJ match those worn by Stetsko much more closely than the pair seen on Pash in both the 1940's and the 1960's but that still does not exonerate Pash from inclusion in the events in Dealey or at Parkland. The fact that Medford Evans worked with Pash at The Atomic Energy Commission and with Draper crony Elmore Greaves at The Councillor of The Citizens Council in Jackson, Mississippi and that Evans son was involved with the Buckley Circle of Evil at the H. Smith Richardson Foundation just cements Pash's likely role in the events in Dallas. The role of these Ghosts of Mississippi like Greaves, Evans, Draper, Eastland and Touchstone in covert political events in the 1960's was much more massive than I had ever predicted. When you combine a Yale or Harvard education with a Mississippi racists mentality the result is sheer havoc, violence and retribution beyond your wildest imaginings. And this factual tidbit is going to throw previous characterizations of Medford B. Evans, of The John Birch Society, into a cocked hat but Ernie Lazar has received over 500,000 pages of documents via FOIA about right wing extremists, especially The John Birch Society, and he has accumulated evidence that both the FBI and the CIA made it perfectly clear that they NEVER would have permitted one of their employees to become members of The John Birch Society nor rise to the level of high ranking officers within that organization. He has copies of various memos to that effect in his extensive collections. Just look at the group of psychos and wackos who were on the speaker's podiums during those days: Dr. Revilo P. Oliver, ("I had a beatific vision last night. I woke up after dreaming that all Jews had been vaporized"), Robert Morris who could have used a lobotomy according to Richard Condon in ManCand, Charles A. Willoughby, who was MacArthur's "Little Fascist", and that entire coterie in the Birch Society who believed that "Flouridation of your water supply is a Communist Plot" or that "There are over 100,000 Communist Chinese soldiers training right now in the swamps of Georgia to take over the USA". So the concept of Medford B. Evans being a deep penetration agent of the Central Intelligence Agency is patently absurd on its face. Almost as preposterous as picturing David Ferrie or Clay Shaw as CIA agents. "OK you are both hired, but you have to stop the cross-dressing, the wild costume parties, and drop the makeup habits, someone just might blackmail you if they ever found out about your secret lives. And no more marching in the Mardi Gras Parades in New Orleans. We don't care if you get voted in as Queen of The Mardi Gras either." Medford B. Evans was a total Mississippi racist, he was Managing Editor of The Councillor the house organ of The Citizens Councils and lived in Jackson, MS near Elmore Greaves, owner of The Councillor, who along with Wickliffe Draper was considered one of the biggest scientific racists who ever lived. Greaves and Evans were close to the likes of Nathaniel Weyl, Carleton S. Coon, R. Ruggles Gates, Prof. Wesley Critz and Carleton Putnam all of whom were in The Funding of Scientific Racism by William Tucker from Rutgers. Greaves even thought that Senator James Eastland was useful but a little too "liberal" on the race issues for his liking. Imagine that? Eastland, who helped to build Oswald's Legend at SISS along with Guy Banister, too liberal for Greaves? Amazing. Can anyone here name a SINGLE PERSON involved with building Oswald's Legend who was actually in the ONI, the DIA, DISC, NSA or the CIA? Only Guy Banister who was drummed out of the FBI and lost a job in the Monroe, LA police dept. because of his wild temper and erratic behavior and Wickliffe Draper, a Lt. Col. in Army working on Intelligence related projects, had a previous US Gov intelligence background among those who built Oswald's Legend. And there were exactly ZERO active members of Intelligence Agencies involved with building Oswald's Legend. Zero, Zilch, Zip, Nada, None, Nunca. So wrong for so long. What a shame.

What we have here in the Shinley posting is essentially the entire hierarchy of the JFK Assn Cabal.... from Soup to Nuts. (via Right-Wing Nut Country) Please note the the links to be described right back into over half of Condon's Dirty Dozen and most of the Mississippi Murderers as well. Medford Byran Evans not only lived in Jackson, Mississippi but he worked for Elmore Greaves, the Publisher, at The Citizens Council in Jackson, Mississippi as the Managing Editor of The Councillor. Medford Stanton Evans is listed in a book called Mississippi Authors as the author of a book which cites Col. Boris Pash extensively so of course they had to know each other quite well: The Secret War for the A-Bomb Medford Stanton Evans Bookseller: Books From California (Simi Valley, CA, U.S.A.) Quantity Available: 1 Book Description: Henry Regnery Company, 1953. Hardcover. Book Condition: Very Good. Dust Jacket Condition: Includes dust jacket. Signed. Inscripted "John Randolph Calhoun Gentleman patriot Medford Evans September 1970" Dust jacket has little shelfwear clean text binding tight. Bookseller Inventory # mon0000211765 Bookseller & Payment Information | More Books from this Seller | Ask Bookseller a Question Dirty Dozen #1 was Wickliffe Draper from The Pioneer Fund. William Regnery was a cotton millionaire and a Draper crony who started Henry Regnery Press and The America First Committee during World War II where Dirty Dozen #2 Rev. Gerald L K Smith was a member as well. Smith later ran the Presidential Campaign of Dirty Dozen #3 member Gen. Douglas MacArthur as part of The America First Party in 1952 Harry Augustus Jung the owner of The Jung Hotel was yet another Draper crony who started The American Vigilant Intelligence Federation in about the mid 1920's a forerunner of the American Security Council. Dirty Dozen #4 is General Edwin A. Walker who was referenced by Condon using his home address of Turtle Creek Drive in Dallas. Dirty Dozen #5 and #6 are Charles Willoughby and Robert Morris of The Dallas John Birch Society joining Walker in that distinction. Dirty Dozen #7 of course is Bill Buckley cited as "...that fascinating young man who wrote about God and Man at Yale." Billy Buck himself. See H. Smith Richardson Foundation, the sponsor of MKULTRA research that included Gerald O'Reilly the brother in law of Billy Buck. Dirty Dozen #8 is Senator Thomas Jordan ...err I mean Senator J. Strom Thurmond who was in Man Cand by Condon. Guy Banister of course was active on WACL with Elmore Greaves, Roger Pearson (both Pioneer Fund Draper cronies) and Ray S. Cline from the Pink Palace in PingTung, Taiwan when Oswald was there with his Marine Corps pals getting his brain fried and molded. Dirty Dozen #9, a bit of a stretch is Brig Gen Bonner Fellers from Cairo, Egypt who sent Monty's troop movements through Jim Angleton in Rome to Erwin Rommel in Northern Africa. Fellers launched For America and 10,000,000 Americans Mobilizing for Justice out of his 544 Camp St. HQ in New Orleans which was incorporated by Maurice B. Gatlin. Fellers was in Cairo along with "Indiana Jones" and Draper crony plus Greaves' hero Carleton S. Coon and Amoss working for Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg. The INCA funders like Alton Ochsner, the Sterns from Radio Station OSDU, the Reily from The Riley Coffee Company and Patrick J. Frawley who hired Robert Morris to work for him at both Technicolor and Schick all were involved with building the Oswald Legend along with Guy Banister. Add David Treen to that list, too. Also appearing at various Indignation Committee meetings across the country was Dirty Dozen #10 Dr. Revilo P. Oliver. Walker's other lawyer was of course Robert J. Morris cited earlier here. So we have Ten of Condon's Dirty Dozen in just one posting from Jerry Shinley and now Medford Evans is yet another Mississippi Murderer very closely affiliated with Elmore Greaves at The Councillor and Wickliffe Draper at The Pioneer Fund. Who was it that once said: "Wickliffe Draper had absolutely nothing to do with the JFK murder?" Hmmmm..... his absence and his lack of relevance here is duly noted.

James, I've been doing some research along those lines. I think the link to Gottlieb travels right through Dr. Jose Rivera to H. Warner Kloepfer and then Ruth Paine and LHO. I'm still convinced that there's a Gottlieb/Rivera connection when I consider Adele Edison's account of events prior to Nov. 63. Rivera was in Gottlieb's employ. Boy there is that guy Kloepfer again. He was a member of the American Eugenics Society from 1956 forward, and therefore very familiar with Wickliffe Draper and others within that sphere of influence. This implies that Elmore Greaves citations of Eugenicists and Draper cronies like Carleton S. Coon, R. Ruggles Gales, Carleton Putnam, Nathaniel Weyl, Wesley Critz George and others in The Blackamoor of Oxford p. 5 (Ole Miss) looms even larger than I had ever thought before this. Greaves started The White Citizens Councils and headed up the US delegation to WACL conferences right after Roger Pearson and just before Ray S. Cline's tenure there. Kloepfer and Greaves are just massively important to the understanding of the entire JFK plot and the role played by MKULTRA contributors like Dr. Hans J. Eysenck of Draper's Pioneer Fund. Could Eysenck have essentially highjacked the recipe for the creation of programmed assassins from MKULTRA and delivered it on a silver platter to Draper and his Pioneer Fund cronies? Of course he could have and that would include Kloepfer, too. Hank, is the quote above attributed to you, or was it Chris Newton's?

Even though Bill Baggs was involved with Operation Mockingbird during its earliest days when he helped the CIA debunk and destroy Senator Joseph McCarthy after he went after Cord Meyer, it is unfair, in my opinion, to characterize him as some sort of right wing across the board CIA-supporter and an agent of the Military Industrial Complex. In fact he was one of the biggest supporters of the candidacy of John F. Kennedy, his close personal friend, and a very early advocate AGAINST the Viet Nam War. Baggs once went on a peace mission to interview Ho Chih Minh and he was a strong proponent of Civil Rights for everyone. He used to be compared to Jane Fonda for his liberal attitudes, for his anti-War stance and for his support for The Civil Rights Act of 1964 in fact. He was nicknamed "Hanoi Bill" just like Fonda was called "Hanoi Jane". So here is my attempt to set the record straight and offer some further insights into the man who gave me my start in investigative journalism. Bill Baggs From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search William Calhoun "Bill" Baggs was editor of The Miami News from 1957 until his death in 1969. Bill Baggs was one of a group of Southern editors who campaigned for civil rights for African-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s. Others in this group included Ralph McGill at the The Atlanta Constitution, Hodding Carter at the Greenville Delta Democrat-Times and Harry Ashmore at the Arkansas Gazette.[1] [2] Baggs became an early opponent of the Vietnam War. In 1967 and 1968 Bill Baggs traveled to North Vietnam with Harry Ashmore on a private peace mission. While there, they interviewed Ho Chi Minh about what conditions would be necessary to end the war.[3] Unknown at the time, Bill Baggs was also one of the journalists involved in the CIA's Operation Mockingbird particularly during the latter stages of The McCarthy Era which he opposed very firmly and convincingly as a reporter. He joined philosophically with both Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner of the C.I.A. at Operation Mockingbird in supporting and defending Cord Meyer when Senator McCarthy began to target the C.I.A. which he claimed harbored more than 100 closeted Communists which turned out to be a gross distortion of the actual facts. [4] Bill Baggs was a very active anti-Communist himself, publishing numerous anti-Castro articles during the very early days of the Castro regime in Cuba beginning in 1959. Baggs cultivated numerous news sources from within the anti-Castro Soldier-of-Fortune community in South Florida including Gerry Patrick Hemming, Roy Hargraves, Eddie Collins and William Whatley as well as Alex Rorke and several others. He also worked with eventual Watergate burglars Frank Sturgis and Bernard Barker to develop news leads and sources about the South Florida anti-Castro exile community long before they were involved with Watergate. Baggs also conferred with South Florida C.I.A. case officers like David Atlee Phillips and E. Howard Hunt on various topics related to the intrigue among South Florida anti-Castro Cuban exiles. One of his reporters, Hal Hendrix known as "the spook" at The Miami News, once broke the story about the alleged coup d'etat against Juan Bosch of the Dominican Republic, the day before it actually happened which was an obvious embarassment for both the C.I.A., and The Miami News but especially for Hal Hendrix. Baggs was a longtime supporter of liberal Democrats like Rep. Claude Pepper and Senator Dante Fascell and was instrumental in writing articles and editorials supporting legislation which helped the numerous retirees who were already dominating the population in the South Florida area and represented the core readership base of The Miami News. He was often a target of criticism launched by the right wing for his early efforts at advancing Civil Rights, for opposing the Viet Nam War and for defending and promoting various social welfare programs for the elderly, the infirm and the disadvantaged in South Florida and throughout the nation. Bill Baggs worked tirelessly on his very early pioneering conservation efforts to rescue the section of Key Biscayne from over-development by real estate developers. That section was later named Bill Baggs State Park in his honor. And he also worked indefatigably on his lifelong resuscitation project The Miami News which was an afternoon newspaper that always trailed The Miami Herald, the dominant morning paper, in total circulation and advertising revenues during his tenure as Editor-In-Chief. Bill Baggs died of a heart attack in 1969 at the age of 48 due at least partially to his devotion to the success of The Miami News on a 7-days a week basis throughout the year. He was often the first employee to arrive every morning before 5:30 A.M. and the last one to leave at night after 6:00 P.M. after the paper had been published and distributed to be available for rush hour traffic starting at 4:00 P.M. when the newsboys hawked the paper at traffic lights throughout South Florida. Bill Baggs was a genuine admirer of President John F. Kennedy and was noticeably saddened after his assassination. The fact that he personally knew several of those South Florida Soldiers of Fortune and C.I.A. case officers who later admitted playing a role in JFK's demise like Frank Sturgis, Gerald Patrick Hemming, Roy Hargraves and E. Howard Hunt would have caused him no small amount of consternation and pain. His close associates said that he was never the same after the death of his longtime friend and political hero.[5] Cuba kept on simmering, and the White House kept on patrolling the news with the same steely determination that had put a naval blockade in the Caribbean. But one U.S. daily seemed totally undisturbed by the specter of Government news control. Without any handouts or help from Washington, where it does not even keep a reporter, the Miami evening News has been steadily producing some of the best Cuban coverage in the U.S. A full two weeks before President Kennedy alerted the nation to the presence of offensive Russian missiles in Cuba, the News had the story on Page One: SOVIETS BUILD 6 CUBAN MISSILE BASES. Hours before the White House response to this new threat, the News headlined—CUBA BLOCKADE IN THE WORKS? By 90 minutes, it beat a Defense Department statement that Cuba-bound Soviet ships were turning back. Where does the News get such intelligence? "Whenever anyone asks me that," said Editor William Calhoun Baggs last week, "I just say a little roseate spoonbill told us." A Bunch of Individuals. For all its fast journalistic footwork, the News is undeniably Miami's second daily. The paper's circulation of 145,263, while steadily rising, is less than half that of Miami's dominant morning Herald (320,547). The News trails hopelessly in ad linage, 7,533,733 to the Herald's 21,376,317 (for the first half of 1962). It runs about 125 daily columns of news to the Herald's 200, musters an editorial staff of 100 to the Herald's 173. But such odds have only inspired the News to act as if it were the first, best, biggest and only paper in town. Its self-confidence is very much the image of its deceptively easygoing editor. By newsroom standards, Bill Baggs, 40, makes an ideal boss. He keeps a brass cuspidor within reachable trajectory of his desk, shows visitors the bullet hole that some disgruntled subscriber drilled through his office window, and lets his staffers strut their stuff. "Hell. I don't have much to do," he says, and proves it by writing a daily column and occasional editorials, and by often accompanying his men on out-of-town assignments. "The best ideas that show up in the paper come from guys out in the newsroom. What we don't have is a team. We have a bunch of individuals." Baggs is the most individual of the bunch. He is a Southerner by birth, son of a well-to-do Atlanta Ford dealer, but his convictions know no geography. His outspoken views on the race issue have antagonized Floridians from Jacksonville to Key West. "There is nothing much but anguish," wrote Baggs in a typical News editorial, "when you feud with so many of your readers and friends. But there are times when you have no other choice. Which brings us quickly to the practice of enforced segregation in the public schools of Florida. It is wrong." His opinions pull such a heavy poison-pen response from racists that Baggs requisitioned a rubber stamp to answer most of the letters. The stamp reads: "This is not a simple life, my friend, and there are no simple answers." Cuba kept on simmering, and the White House kept on patrolling the news with the same steely determination that had put a naval blockade in the Caribbean. But one U.S. daily seemed totally undisturbed by the specter of Government news control. Without any handouts or help from Washington, where it does not even keep a reporter, the Miami evening News has been steadily producing some of the best Cuban coverage in the U.S. A full two weeks before President Kennedy alerted the nation to the presence of offensive Russian missiles in Cuba, the News had the story on Page One: SOVIETS BUILD 6 CUBAN MISSILE BASES. Hours before the White House response to this new threat, the News headlined—CUBA BLOCKADE IN THE WORKS? By 90 minutes, it beat a Defense Department statement that Cuba-bound Soviet ships were turning back. Where does the News get such intelligence? "Whenever anyone asks me that," said Editor William Calhoun Baggs last week, "I just say a little roseate spoonbill told us." A Bunch of Individuals. For all its fast journalistic footwork, the News is undeniably Miami's second daily. The paper's circulation of 145,263, while steadily rising, is less than half that of Miami's dominant morning Herald (320,547). The News trails hopelessly in ad linage, 7,533,733 to the Herald's 21,376,317 (for the first half of 1962). It runs about 125 daily columns of news to the Herald's 200, musters an editorial staff of 100 to the Herald's 173. But such odds have only inspired the News to act as if it were the first, best, biggest and only paper in town. Its self-confidence is very much the image of its deceptively easygoing editor. By newsroom standards, Bill Baggs, 40, makes an ideal boss. He keeps a brass cuspidor within reachable trajectory of his desk, shows visitors the bullet hole that some disgruntled subscriber drilled through his office window, and lets his staffers strut their stuff. "Hell. I don't have much to do," he says, and proves it by writing a daily column and occasional editorials, and by often accompanying his men on out-of-town assignments. "The best ideas that show up in the paper come from guys out in the newsroom. What we don't have is a team. We have a bunch of individuals." Baggs is the most individual of the bunch. He is a Southerner by birth, son of a well-to-do Atlanta Ford dealer, but his convictions know no geography. His outspoken views on the race issue have antagonized Floridians from Jacksonville to Key West. "There is nothing much but anguish," wrote Baggs in a typical News editorial, "when you feud with so many of your readers and friends. But there are times when you have no other choice. Which brings us quickly to the practice of enforced segregation in the public schools of Florida. It is wrong." His opinions pull such a heavy poison-pen response from racists that Baggs requisitioned a rubber stamp to answer most of the letters. The stamp reads: "This is not a simple life, my friend, and there are no simple answers." Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...l#ixzz0e8v21TYF Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...l#ixzz0e8v21TYF

If the Shoe Fits, Wear It! he replied Is he the only one who has spread, supported or enabled these scurrilous, salacious and scandalous distortions about the Kennedy Space Program? I doubt it! And I don't think that he has either the guts, the temerity, the intelligence or the fortitude to attempt to counter the cogent arguments of Evan Burton either for all to see for themselves and evaluate. He counts on his audience being predisposed to inanities, lunacy and gross distortions. He counts on his audience on having both the perspicacity of a tree stump, the appetite of a dung beetle and the analytical skills of a titmouse. What is the real purpose behind efforts at deliberately distorting and contorting reality about the OK Bombing, the Randy Weaver episode, the Waco inferno, the 9/11 terrorist attack, the Ft. Hood massacre and the legion of other fabrications and distortions promulgated by those who would engage in such behavior? The Murrah Building bombing was not a Strike from Space it was from a fertilizer bomb whose recipe was published in The Liberty Lobby's Spotlight! The Waco inferno was not started by a blow torch mounted on an ATF tank! The 9/11 terrorist attack was NOT a controlled demolition from within nor a U.S. Governement Plot! The Lunar Landing was not a hoax perpetrated by NASA or any other branch of the U.S. Government! Anyone who believes any of these right wing inspired fabrications and distortions, needs to have either their motivations examined or their heads examined, or both! Can anyone even trust any one of their conclusions about the JFK murder after looking at and evaluating their conclusions about these other incidents? I doubt it!

It is just amazing to me that it is still necessary at this late date, to refute a pack of blatantly distorted lies and machinations manufactured by a periodical, The Liberty Lobby's Spotlight newspaper, which were apparently surreptitiously crafted on demand by a person who has a long history of "seeing" things which are just not there in order to "prove" points which have as their ultimate goal nothing more than an anti-USA and anti-Government anarchistic agenda. This same approach was used by The Liberty Lobby's Spotlight and their sister publications after the Tim McVeigh OK bombing, after the Randy Weaver incident, during and after the Waco, Texas incident, the 9/11 terrorist attacks and after several other similar incidents. I think it is time that we start discussing the motivations of these anarchistic, anti-Government and anti-USA types who might very well be guilty of several seditious, insurrectionist and treasonous offenses. Certainly they are taking unfair advantage of their rights to free speech in my opinion while spreading nothing more than salacious and scurrilous statements designed with but one thing in mind: To inspire a violent insurrection against the rule of law and order and to bring down the Government of the USA by spreading these false statements and inciting susceptible citizens to riot or to perform treasonous or insurrectionist acts of violence as a protest against the government. You can neither shout "Fire" in a crowded, darkened theater nor scream the equivalent of "treason", "revenge", "Jihad" or "insurrection" from the highest mountain tops in my honest opinion, no matter how subtly it is accomplished. The net result is that certain susceptible people then act out their hidden impulses and we have another Ft. Hood massacre, another 9/11 terrorist attack or yet another OK bombing tragedy. And then the same people who incited these acts in the first place step in after the fact, to try to place the blame on official US government agency acts and yet another susceptible nut perpetrates yet another act of violence, retribution or revenge. Who is more guilty, these anarchists and people who engage in subtle incendiary speech who incited the riots or the individual or individuals who carry out these acts of violence? To me there is no distinction whatsoever. You may be able to laugh off the wackos, nut jobs and weirdos who still claim that we never landed on the moon or that 9/11 was a controlled demolition as just freakazoids, psychos, whack jobs, space cadets or mean spirited individuals but when they start to focus on their lies about 9/11 and controlled demolitions and nanothermite, about Waco, Texas and blow torches in tanks, or about alleged strikes from space on the Murrah Building isn't it about time that we draw the line and call a spade a spade and distinguish between "Harmless 'White' Lies" and "Deliberately 'Black' Treasonous and Insurrectionist Ops by Anarchists?"

Although I have yet to devote as much attention to Oswald as many others already have done, I would like to describe a few aspects of his background which have intrigued me for almost 15 years, in order to elicit some constructive feedback. Many portions of this theory are controversial and even fly in the face of some of the generally accepted principles held almost universally about him. Since I was able to sway Dick Russell at least a little bit on these concepts I think there is still hope for the true diehards on these subjects. And even though I believe that no one could have fired the kill shots in Dealey Plaza from the TSBD, let alone Oswald, I still think that he was trained in both the MK/ULTRA program and in a comparable Russian program in Minsk also attended by Bogdhan Stashinsky (Murder to Order) as a programmed assassin. The mere knowledge of his presence in both of these programs made him the "perfect patsy" and the perfect "cover-up lightening rod". 1) The Corporal Schrand case when Oswald was present on guard duty in close time and space proximity to Schrand when he was shot in the armpit and into his heart, indicates that something very sinister occurred that night. I believe that Schrand had to have had his arms either held above his head in the classic "surrender" pose or clasped behind his neck in the "prisioner's march" posture. The bullet that killed him traveled in a path almost horizontal to the ground. It is quite likely that the prowess of Oswald as a "kill-on-demand" trained assassin was being demonstrated for some audience. 2) Oswald's activities in or near Ping Tung, Taiwan when Ray S. Cline was also stationed there also lead me to believe that Oswald was taking part in some sort of conditioning or training as one of Cline's programmed assassin guinea pigs. Cline, of course, was identified by Richard Condon as a principal in the entire Manchurian Candidate conundrum. And the fact that Cline inherited the penetration and insurgency teams run by Coon and Amoss leads me to believe that the leadership of both of these groups were involved with trained assassins including Robert Emmett Johnson. 3) George de Mohrenschildt as a North American Nazi spy reported directly to Anastase Vonsiatsky, according to Charles Higham in American Swastika who stated that ALL Nazi spies in North America reported to Vonsiatsky. And since Vonsiatsky was THE Candidate from Manchuria to lead the Russian Fascists, according to Richard Condon, also leads me to believe that George was indeed well aware of Oswald's talents as a programmed assassin, although he may not have known that the ultimate target of his operation was going to be the husband of Jacky Kennedy, his family's close friend for an entire lifetime. 4) The paths from Coon, Amoss, Fellers and Cline lead right into the now infamous Baltimore Connections to the JFK Assassination, through Gram Trade Intl, Boston Metals and Baldt Anchor and Chain and end up in the WACL operations of Maj Gen John Singlaub and Iran-Contra money laundering via The Bank of Maryland. Robert Barrett, the Olympic Gold Medalist in the 1896 Athens Olympics in the Discus was the "Baltimore Eugenicist" who evaded my detection for so long. More on him later. He sponsored two Intl Eugenics Conferences between the Wars and was one of the two Baltimore and Ohio Railroad references made by Richard Condon in ManCand. The other one was to Clendenin J. Ryan, Amoss' financial sponsor at ISI, whose grandfather Thomas Fortune Ryan delivered industrial diamonds to Hitler before and during the War from South Africa. Taken in the aggregate, it is now apparent that the building of the Oswald legend in New Orleans and elsewhere was done by Guy Banister, Alton Ochsner, Ed Scannell Butler, James Reily and Patrick Frawley from INCA, Bonner Fellers from New Orleans, James Eastland Ned Touchstone and Elmore Greaves from the Draper-funded Mississippi Murderers and Edwin Walker, Robert Morris and George De Mohrenschidt from Dallas. And except for James Eastland at SISS, there was nary a single representative on the payroll of ANY U.S. Government Agency involved with the building of the "Oswald Legend", like it or not. And since almost everyone agrees that the builders of the Oswald Legend were also the JFK plot masters and the killers of JFK, then we all now know who was behind the murder of JFK. And certainly James Eastland was not representing MY Government but rather the Government and the White Citizens Councils of the Sovereign Confederate State of Mississippi. Thankfully, Senator Everett Dirksen talked Eastland out of convening "The Eastland Commission to Investigate the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" although the process had already begun. This fact was cited and noted by Jim Marrs in Crossfire. Controversial? For sure. Accurate? For certain.

And is this the first incident involving the attempted bugging of a liberal Democratic Senator's office in this decade? My supposition is that it is not. A thorough sweep for more bugging devices across the board is probably in order. This is going to turn into a mini-Watergate for certain. And to think that my neighbor's house was occupied or rented at various times by Frank Strugis, E. Howard Hunt and Bernard Barker who ran Keyes Realty in South Florida in the 1960's. The For Rent sign for Keyes Realty was prominently posted in front of that 2-story house in Grapeland Heights shortly after the assassination happened.

I do not want to turn this thread into just a bioweapons dominated topic, but I think that Herr Doktor Erich Traub and his role with both the Forrestal and Olson cases looms large at this time... And certainly the fact that Charles Willoughby was assigned to visit Unit 731 near Harbin, Manchuria right after World War II where Vonsiatsky had his headquarters is also important given the blatantly obvious roles played by both Vonsiatsky and Willoughby in the JFK proceedings and its aftermath. Source : Global Research By Tom Burghardt The history of bioweapons research in the United States is a history of illicit–and illegal–human experiments. From the Cold War to the War on Terror, successive American administrations have turned a blind eye on dubious research rightly characterized as having “a little of the Buchenwald touch.” While the phrase may have come from the files of the Atomic Energy Commission as Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Eileen Welsome revealed in her 1999 book, The Plutonium Files, an investigation into secret American medical experiments at the dawn of the nuclear age, it is as relevant today as the United States pours billions of dollars into work on some of the most dangerous pathogens known to exist in nature. That Cold War securocrats were more than a little concerned with a comparison to unethical Nazi experiments is hardly surprising. After all, with the defeat of the Axis powers came the triumphalist myth-making that America had fought a “good war” and had liberated humanity from the scourge of fascist barbarism. Never mind that many of America’s leading corporations, from General Motors to IBM and from Standard Oil to Chase National Bank, were sympathizers and active collaborators with the Third Reich prior to and even during World War II, as documented by investigative journalists Charles Higham in Trading With The Enemy, and Edwin Black in IBM and the Holocaust. Like much else in American history, these were dirty little secrets best left alone. Soon enough however, these erstwhile democrats would come to view themselves as mandarins of a new, expanding American Empire for whom everything was permitted. In this context, the recruitment of top German and Japanese scientists who had conducted grisly “medical” experiments whilst waging biological war against China and the Soviet Union would be free of any moralizing or political wavering. As the Cold War grew hotter and hotter, America’s political leadership viewed “former” Nazis and the architects of Japan’s Imperial project not as war criminals but allies in a new undertaking : the global roll-back of socialism and the destruction of the Soviet Union by any means necessary. This tradition is alive and well in 21st century America. With the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and subsequent anthrax mailings as a pretext for an aggressive militarist posture, the national security state is ramping-up research for the production of genetically-modified organisms for deployment as new, frightening weapons of war. According to congressional testimony by Dr. Alan M. Pearson, Director of the Biological and Chemical Weapons Control Program at the Washington D.C.-based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, with very little in the way of effective oversight or accountability, tens of billions of dollars “have been appropriated for bioweapons-related research and development activities.” Pearson reveals that approximately $1.7 billion “has been appropriated for the construction on new high containment facilities for bioweapons-related research.” By high containment facilities I mean facilities that are designed for work with agents that may cause serious or potentially lethal disease through exposure to aerosols (called Biosafety Level 3 or BSL-3 facilities) and facilities that are designed for work with agents that pose a “high individual risk of life-threatening disease, which may be transmitted via the aerosol route and for which there is no available vaccine or therapy” (called Biosafety Level 4 or BSL-4 facilities). Prior to 2002, there were three significant BSL-4 facilities in the United States. Today twelve are in operation, under construction, or in the planning stage. When completed, there will be in excess of 150,000 square feet of BSL-4 laboratory space (as much space as three football fields). The number of BSL-3 labs is also clearly growing, but ascertaining the amount of growth is difficult in the absence of accurate baseline information. There are at least 600 such facilities in the US. (Alan M. Pearson, Testimony, “Germs, Viruses, and Secrets : The Silent Proliferation of Bio-Laboratories in the United States,” House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, October 2007) Chillingly, one consequence of this metastatic growth “is that the very labs designed to protect against bioweapons may become a source for them.” As the 2001 anthrax attacks amply demonstrated, the threat posed by a biological weapons’ incident may be closer to home than any of us care to think. Pearson writes, “Nor should we ignore the possibility that a US biologist may become disgruntled or turn rogue while working in one of these labs.” According to Edward Hammond, the Director of the now-defunct Sunshine Project, while “biological arms control is currently in … its worst crisis since the signing of the Bioweapons Convention (BWC) in 1972,” the American Bioweapons-Industrial Complex has “embarked on the exploitation of biotechnology for weapons development.” Indeed, Hammond relates that active programs utilizing genetic engineering techniques have “been employed in offensive biowarfare programs in order to make biowarfare agents more effective.” But increases in state subsidies for such work have generated new risks to the public. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report faulted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for lax security at three of the nation’s five BSL-4 labs currently in operation that “handle the world’s most dangerous agents and toxins that cause incurable and deadly diseases.” Agents such as Ebola, Marburg and smallpox are routinely studied at these facilities. And yet, as GAO auditors found, Select agent regulations do not mandate that specific perimeter security controls be present at BSL-4 labs, resulting in a significant difference in perimeter security between the nation’s five labs. According to the regulations, each lab must implement a security plan that is sufficient to safeguard select agents against unauthorized access, theft, loss, or release. However, there are no specific perimeter security controls that must be in place at every BSL-4 lab. While three labs had all or nearly all of the key security controls we assessed, our September 2008 report demonstrated that two labs had a significant lack of these controls. (Government Accountability Office, Biosafety Laboratories: BSL-4 Laboratories Improved Perimeter Security Despite Limited Action by CDC, GAO-09-851, July 2009) As Global Security Newswire revealed in June, a “recently completed inventory at a major U.S. Army biodefense facility found nearly 10,000 more vials of potentially lethal pathogens than were known to be stored at the site.” The 9,220 samples–which included the bacterial agents that cause plague, anthrax and tularemia; Venezuelan, Eastern and Western equine encephalitis viruses; Rift valley fever virus; Junin virus; Ebola virus; and botulinum neurotoxins–were found during a four-month inventory at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md., according to Col. Mark Kortepeter, the center’s deputy commander. (Martin Matishak, “Thousands of Uncounted Disease Samples Found at Army Biodefense Lab,” Global Security Newswire, June 18, 2009) The GSN report states that while “half of the newfound material was destroyed after being recorded,” inventory control officer Sam Edwin told reporters that “the other half was deemed worthy for further scientific use, cataloged, and stored in the center’s containment freezers.” More pertinently, what happens when the state itself turns “rogue” and under cover of national security and the endless “war on terror” creates the “acute risk” in the form of out-of-control laboratories “designed to protect against bioweapons” that instead, have “become a source for them”? Bioweapons and National Security: A Chronology Source Notes : This chronology has drawn from dozens of books, articles and declassified government documents in its preparation. Notable in this regard is Michael Christopher Carroll’s Lab 257 : The Disturbing Story of the Government’s Secret Germ Laboratory; Linda Hunt, Secret Agenda; Bob Coen and Eric Nadler, Dead Silence : Fear and Terror on the Anthrax Trail; the National Security Archive’s documentary history of U.S. Biological Warfare programs and The Sunshine Project. * August 1945 : Operation Paperclip, an Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program to import top Nazi scientists into the United States. Linda Hunt relates in her book, Secret Agenda, that Reich Health Leader (Reichsgesundheitsführer) Dr. Kurt Blome, was saved from the gallows due to American intervention. Blome admitted he had worked on Nazi bacteriological warfare projects and had experimented on concentration camp prisoners with bubonic plague and sarin gas at Auschwitz. After his acquittal at the 1947 Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial, Blome was recruited by the U.S. Army Chemical Corps and advised the Pentagon on biological warfare. Walter Paul Emil Schreiber, a Wehrmacht general who assigned doctors to experiment on concentration camp prisoners and disbursed state funds for such experiments was another Paperclip recruit; in 1951, Schreiber went to work for the U.S. Air Force School of Medicine. Hubertus Strughold, the so-called “father of space medicine” discussed–and carried out–experiments on Dachau inmates who were tortured and killed; Strughold worked for the U.S. Air Force. Erich Traub, a rabid Nazi and the former chief of Heinrich Himmler’s Insel Riems, the Nazi state’s secret biological warfare research facility defects to the United States. Traub was brought to the U.S. by Paperclip operatives and worked at the Naval Medical Research Institute and gave “operational advice” to the CIA and the biowarriors at Ft. Detrick. * September 1945 : General Shiro Ishii’s Unit 731, a secret research group that organized Japan’s chemical and biological warfare programs is granted “amnesty” by Supreme Allied Commander in the Pacific, General Douglas MacArthur in exchange for providing America with their voluminous files on biological warfare. All mention of Unit 731 is expunged from the record of The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. During the war, Unit 731 conducted grisly experiments, including the vivisection of live prisoners, and carried out germ attacks on Chinese civilians and prisoners of war. According to researcher Sheldon H. Harris in Factories of Death : Japanese Biological Warfare 1932-45 and the American Cover-Up, Unit 731 scientists performed tests on prisoners with plague, cholera, smallpox, botulism and other infectious diseases. Their work led to the development of what was called a defoliation bacilli bomb and a flea bomb used by the Imperial Army to spread bubonic plague across unoccupied areas of China. The deployment of these lethal munitions provided the Imperial Army with the ability to launch devastating biological attacks, infecting agriculture, reservoirs, wells and populated areas with anthrax, plague-infected fleas, typhoid, dysentery and cholera. Rather than being prosecuted as war criminals, Unit 731 alumni became top bioweapons researchers. Ishii himself became an adviser at USAMRIID at Ft. Detrick. 1950 : A U.S. Navy ship equipped with spray devices supplied by Ft. Detrick, sprayed serratia marcescens across the San Francisco Bay Area while the ship plied Bay waters. Supposedly a non-pathogenic microorganism, twelve mostly elderly victims die. * Early 1950s : Army biological weapons research begins at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC). Vials of anthrax are transferred from Ft. Detrick to Plum Island. This information is contained in a now declassified report, “Biological Warfare Operations,” Research and Development Annual Technical Progress Report, Department of the Army, 1951. * 1951 : Racist experiments are carried out. U.S. Army researchers deliberately expose African-Americans to the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus to discern whether they are more susceptible to infections caused by such organisms than white Europeans. Also in 1951, black workers at the Norfolk Supply Center in Virginia were exposed to crates contaminated with A. fumigatus spores. * 1952 : According to 1977 hearings by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research into Project MKULTRA, we discover the following: “Under an agreement reached with the Army in 1952, the Special Operations Division (SOD) at Fort Detrick was to assist CIA in developing, testing, and maintaining biological agents and delivery systems. By this agreement, CIA acquired the knowledge, skill, and facilities of the Army to develop biological weapons suited for CIA use.” * 1953 : Frank Olson, a chemist with the Army’s top secret Special Operations Division at Ft. Detrick was involved with biological weapons research and was tasked to the CIA for work on MKULTRA. In 1953, as Deputy Acting Head of Special Operations for the CIA, Olson is a close associate of psychiatrist William Sargant who was investigating the use of psychoactive drugs as an interrogation tool at Britain’s Biological Warfare Centre at Porton Down. After being dosed with LSD without his knowledge by Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, the Agency’s liaison to Ft. Detrick, Olson undergoes a severe psychological crisis. The scientist begins questioning the ethics of designing biological organisms as weapons of war. This does not sit well with his Agency and Army superiors. On November 24, 1953, Olson and a CIA minder, Robert Lashbrook, check into New York’s Staler Hotel. He never checked out. According to Lashbrook, Olson had thrown himself through the closed shade and window, plunging 170 feet to his death. But because of his knowledge of CIA “terminal experiments” and other horrors conducted under MKULTRA, the Olson family believes the researcher was murdered. When Olson’s son Eric has his father’s body exhumed in 1994, the forensic scientist in charge of the examination determines that Olson had suffered blunt force trauma to the head prior to his fall through the window; the evidence is called “rankly and starkly suggestive of homicide.” Norman G. Cournoyer, one of Olson’s closet friends at Ft. Detrick also believes the scientist was murdered. When asked by the Baltimore Sun in 2004 why Olson was killed, Cournoyer said, “To shut him up. … He wasn’t sure we should be in germ warfare, at the end.” * 1955 : Following a CIA biowarfare test in Tampa Bay, Florida, the area experiences a sharp rise in cases of Whooping Cough, including 12 deaths. The Agency had released bacteria it had obtained from the U.S. Army’s Chemical and Biological Warfare Center at the Dugway Proving Grounds. * 1956-1958 : More racist experiments. The U.S. Army conducted live field tests on poor African-American communities in Savannah, Georgia and Avon Park, Florida. Mosquitoes were released into neighborhoods at ground level by “researchers” or by helicopter; residents were swarmed by the pest; many developed unknown illnesses and some even died. After the tests, Army personnel posing as health workers photographed and tested the victims, then disappeared. While specific details of the experiments remain classified, it has been theorized that a strain of Yellow Fever was used to test its efficacy as a bioweapon. * 1962 : A declassified CIA document obtained by the National Security Archive relates the following: “In November 1962 Mr. [redacted] advised Mr. Lyman Kirkpatrick that he had, at one time, been directed by Mr. Richard Bissell to assume responsibility for a project involving the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, then Premier, Republic of Congo. According to Mr. [redacted] poison was to have been the vehicle as he made reference to having been instructed to see Dr. Sidney Gottlieb in order to procure the appropriate vehicle.” Gottlieb was the chief scientific adviser for the CIA’s MKULTRA program. * June 1966 : The U.S. Army’s Special Operations Division dispenses Bacillus subtilis var niger throughout the New York City subway system. More than a million people were exposed when Army operatives dropped light bulbs filled with the bacteria onto ventilation grates. * December, 1967 : The New York Times reports, “Fatal Virus Found in Wild Ducks on L.I.” A virus never seen before in the Western hemisphere, began with ducks in Long Island at a site opposite Plum Island; the virus devastates the area’s duck industry and by 1975 has spread across the entire continent. * 1971 : The U.S. Department of Agriculture proclaims that “Plum Island is considered the safest in the world on virus diseases.” USDA’s proof? “There has never been a disease outbreak among the susceptible animals maintained outside the laboratory since it was established.” * 1975 : PIADC begins feeding live viruses to “hard ticks,” including the Lone Star tick (never seen outside Texas prior to 1975). The Lone Star tick is a carrier of the Borelia burgdorferi (Bb) bacteria, the causal agent of Lyme Disease. The first cases of the illness are reported in Connecticut, directly across from the facility. Current epidemiological data conclusively demonstrate that the epicenter of all U.S. Lyme Disease cases is Plum Island. It is theorized that deer bitten by infected ticks swam across the narrow waterway separating the island from the mainland. * September 1978 : A PIADC news release relays the following: “Foot and Mouth Disease has been diagnosed in cattle in a pre-experimental animal holding facility at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.” A documented outbreak has occurred. * 1979 : An internal investigation of the FMD incident reveals massive, widespread failures in the containment systems at PIADC. A USDA Committee report recommends that “Lab 101 not be considered as a safe facility in which to do work on exotic disease agents until corrective action is accomplished.” * 1979 : Despite containment failures and poor practices, USAMRIID undertakes the investigation of the deadly Zagazig 501 strain of Rift Valley Fever at PIADC. Producing symptoms similar to aerosolized hemorrhagic fevers such as Marburg and Ebola virus, the Army inoculates sheep that should have been destroyed as a result of the FMD outbreak with an experimental Rift Valley Fever vaccine. The experiments are conducted outdoors, in violation of the lab’s primary directive prohibiting such work. During a 1977 Rift Valley outbreak in Egypt, some 200,000 people are infected and 700 others die excruciating deaths. A survey of blood serum taken before 1977 proved that the virus was not present in Egypt prior to the epidemic. By 2000, rampant outbreaks of the disease have occurred in Saudi Arabia and Yemen with the virus poised to unfurl its tentacles into Europe. * 1982 : A Federal review begun after the FMD outbreak concludes: “We believe there is a potentially dangerous situation and that without an immediate massive effort to correct deficiencies, a severe accident could result… [L]ack of preventive maintenance, [and] pressures by management to expedite programs have resulted in compromising safety.” * 1983 : Six PIADC workers test positive for African Swine Fever virus. The workers are not notified of the test results which are conducted clandestinely during routine annual physical exams. * 1991 : USDA privatizes PIADC. A New Jersey firm, Burns & Roe Services Corporation low bids other competitors and is awarded the contract. In cost-cutting moves, the contractor scales back on safety and security measures in place for decades. * June 1991 : An underground cable supplying Lab 257 shorts out but is not replaced since there is no money left in the budget. * August 1991 : Hurricane Bob, a category 3 storm similar to Hurricane Katrina, slams into Plum Island, knocking down overhead power lines that connect Lab 257. The underground cable which was Lab 257’s primary power source has not been repaired. Freezers containing virus samples defrost, air seals on lab doors are breached and animal holding room vents fail. PIADC’s “fail safe” mechanism of “air dampers” to seal off the facility also fail. Melted virus samples mix with infected animal waste on lab floors as swarms of mosquitoes fill the facility. * September 1991 : The USDA denies that any system failures occurred during the hurricane. Whistleblowing workers in Lab 257 at the time of the blackout are fired in further cost-cutting moves and several subsequently develop mysterious undiagnosed diseases. * 1992 : The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cite PIADC with hundreds of safety violations. When OSHA returned five years later, none of the violations have been corrected and discover 124 new violations. * July 1992 : Although USDA officially denies that PIADC conducts biological warfare research, fourteen officials from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon visit Plum Island. Internal documents reveal that that the visit was “to meet with [Plum Island] staff regarding biological warfare.” According to Carroll, “the visitors were part of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency reviewing the dual-use capabilities of the facility.” * Spring 1995 : Lab 257 is closed. Although scheduled to be fully decontaminated and demolished in 1996 Carroll reports: “Lab 257 still stands today, rotting from weathered decay, harboring who knows what deep within.” * August 1999 : The first four human cases of West Vile virus, a mosquito-borne pathogen never diagnosed in North America are diagnosed on Long Island. Horse farms within a five-mile radius of one another, directly opposite Plum Island, report horses dying following violent seizures. An investigation reveals that 25% of the horses in this small, localized area test positive for West Nile. The outbreak begins in August 1999 when birds, including half the exotic bird species in the Bronx Zoo begin dying mysteriously. The virus has an affinity for birds and the vector is soon identified as the mosquito. In 1999, the disease was confined to the New York City area, however by 2002, the Centers for Disease Control reports all but 6 of the lower 48 states reported West Nile virus in birds, mosquitos, animals or human populations. CDC estimates that some 200,000 people are infected nationally. During the initial outbreak in 1999, veterinary pathologist Tracey McNamara suspected a casual relationship between the bird die-offs and the human cases; CDC rebuffs her concerns. Through her persistent efforts, it is determined that the virus was indeed West Nile, a pathogen that had never been seen in North America. The CDC announces that West Nile virus was in the nation’s blood supply when transplant patients who had no prior exposure to the pathogen develop the disease. The USDA’s response? Deny, deny, deny? However, Jim House, a former PIADC scientist, believes that West Nile samples existed prior to 1999 on Plum Island. He told Carroll, “There were samples there, and it wasn’t answered clearly to the public. They didn’t honestly tell how many samples they had and that’s when people started to get upset. When Carroll filed a Freedom of Information Act request for a catalog of germs held in the Plum Island virus library, he was turned down on grounds of “national security.” * September 1999 : The New York Times reports that due to “the growing threat of biological terrorism” against America’s food supply, USDA “is seeking money to turn the Plum Island Animal Disease Center … into a top security laboratory where some of the most dangerous diseases known to man or beast can be studied.” * 1999 : A Cold War-era document is declassified proving that in the early 1950s USAMRIID shipped twelve vials of weaponized anthrax (enough to kill one million people) to PIADC. In 1993 Newsday revealed that previously unclassified documents demonstrated Pentagon plans to disrupt the Soviet economy by spreading diseases to kill pigs, cattle and horses. * 1999 : Plans to “upgrade” PIADC by building a BSL-4 lab are killed when Congress pulls funding after a public outcry. * September 2001 : After the anthrax attacks, despite USDA denials that anthrax was ever present on the island, FBI investigators include the following questions in their polygraph examination of scientists under investigation: “Have you ever been to Plum Island?” “Do you know anyone who works at Plum Island?” “What do they do there?” * December 2002 : The New York Times reports “a three-hour power failure at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center last weekend renewed concerns about the safety of the high-security government laboratory.” According to the Times, “the loss of power and failure of all three backup generators raised fears for the first time that the containment of infectious pathogens could have been seriously compromised at the laboratory.” * June 2003 : President George W. Bush transfers control of PIADC to the Department of Homeland Security. The airspace over the island is unrestricted and the gates leading to Lab 101 remain open and unguarded. * May 2004 : In a sign that work on Plum Island is being shifted to “other sites,” including those run by private contractors, DHS announces an $18 million grant to study Rift Valley fever, avian influenza and brucellosis. * August 2004 : DHS confirmed that an FMD outbreak “had spread briefly” in “two previously undisclosed incidents earlier this summer,” The New York Times reports. A DHS spokesperson said the virus remained “within the laboratory’s sealed biocontainment area” and that there “had be no risk” to human or animals. An investigation into the cause “was continuing.” * 2004 : At the Medical University of Ohio, a researcher is infected with Valley Fever at the center’s BSL-3 facility; Valley Fever is a biological weapons agent. * February 2005 : University of Iowa researchers conduct unauthorized genetic engineering experiments with the select agent Tularemia (rabbit fever). The Sunshine Project reports that researchers mixed genes from Tularemia species and introduced antibiotic resistant characteristics into the samples. * March 2005 : When a containment facility fails, workers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are exposed to tuberculosis when the BSL-3 “fail-safe” systems malfunction; a blower pushes contaminated air out of the work cabinet, infecting the workroom. The facility had been inspected one month prior to the accident by U.S. Army. * Summer 2005 : At the same Ohio facility a serious accident occurs when workers are infected with an aerosol of Valley Fever. * October-November 2005 : Dozens of samples thought to be harmless are received by the University of California at Berkeley. In fact, they are samples of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, a BSL-3 bioweapons agent due to its transmission as an aerosol. The samples are handled without adequate safety precautions; however, the community is never notified of the incident. * August 2005 : The whistleblowing watchdog group Tri-Valley Cares obtains documents in May 2009 proving that the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory had conducted “restricted experiments” with “select biological agents” at the facility. In 2005, LLNL “inadvertently” released anthrax at the lab in another incident that lab officials attempted to cover-up; five individuals were infected with the deadly pathogen. * April 2006: Three Texas A&M “biodefense” researchers are infected with Q Fever, a biological weapons agent. Rather than reporting the incident to the CDC as required by law, Texas A&M officials cover-up the accident. * August 2006: DHS announces that PIADC is “not on the rebuilding list” and a new site to study infectious diseases is being considered. * January 2009: DHS announces that the new National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility will be built in Manhattan, Kansas. * July 2009: Government Accountability Office investigators charge that DHS relied on “a rushed, flawed study” to locate the $700 million research facility for highly infectious pathogens “in a tornado-prone section of Kansas.” Among other concerns, the GAO cites DHS’s “flawed and outdated methodology” in its criticism. Those concerns are: “the ability of DHS and the federal government in general to safely operate a biosafety facility such as the proposed NBAF; the potential for a pathogenic release through accidents, natural phenomena, and terrorist actions; our May 2008 testimony that concluded that DHS had not conducted or commissioned a study to determine whether FMD research could be conducted safely on the U.S. mainland; natural phenomena such as tornadoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes that could cause catastrophic damage to the NBAF and result in the release of a pathogen; the possibility that an infected mosquito vector could escape, allowing a pathogen such as Rift Valley Fever virus to become permanently established in the United States; the economic effects of a release or a perceived release on the local, state, and national livestock industry.”

There are some counter-arguments on the web questioning whether or not Traub ever worked at Plum Island with Lyme disease, but the mention herein of his role at Fort Dietrich, MD caught my attention as possibly being closely related to the Forrestal and Olson mysterious death cases. I think Forrestal and Olson were going to blow the whistle on various aspects of these bio warfare and mind control programs and were eliminated before it could ever happen. From Wikipedia... Dr. Erich Traub was a Nazi germ warfare scientist allegedly smuggled into the United States in 1949 from the former Soviet Union under the auspices of the top secret United States government program Operation Paperclip.Hunt, Linda. Secret Agenda: The United States Government, Nazi Scientists, and Project Paperclip, 1945 to 1990. New York: St.Martin's Press, 1991. 340 pagesDr. Traub is known as the father of the Plum Island biological research lab, located 6 miles from Old Lyme, Connecticut. According to the book Lab 257, by author Michael Carroll, Dr. Traub was chief of Insel Riems, a virological research institute in the Baltic sea now known as the Friedrich Loeffler Institute.Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, History: Isle of RiemsTraub worked directly for Adolf Hitler's second in charge, Heinrich Himmler.Carroll, Michael (2004). Lab 257:The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0-06-001141-6 At Insel Riems, Dr. Traub's interests included personally collecting Rinderpest virus from Anatolia, and packaging weaponized foot and mouth disease for dispersal onto cattle and reindeer in Russia.Carroll, Michael (2004). Lab 257:The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0-06-001141-6 Dr. Traub also experimented with the glanders bacteria and had a particular fascination for organisms that voraciously devour the brain.Carroll, Michael (2004). Lab 257:The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0-06-001141-6 According to his National Defense Program FBI application form, he was born on June 27, 1906 in Asperglen, Germany and he died in Germany in 1988.Carroll, Michael (2004). Lab 257:The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0-06-001141-6 Plum Island From Wikipedia... In the book, The Belarus Secret, author John Loftus, the Justice Department employee who exposed Kurt Waldheim as a Nazi, states that Nazi germ warfare scientists had experimented with poison ticks dropped from planes to spread rare diseases. Loftus also states that he had received information that the United States had tested some of these poison ticks on the Plum Island artillery range off the coast of Connecticut during the early part of the 1950s. Loftus, John (1982). The Belarus Secret. Knopf. ISBN 0394522923. Michael Carroll quotes former Plum Island lab director Jerry Callis talking about tick research on Plum Island: "Plum Island experimented with ticks, but never outside of containment. We had a tick colony where you take them and feed them on the virus and breed ticks to see how many generations it would last, on and on, until its diluted. Recently they reinstated the tick colony." Carroll additionally cites a 1978 US Department of Agriculture (UDSA) document titled "African Swine Fever," which further confirms the study of vector competence in ticks on Plum Island, noting that the report stated: "In 1975 and 1976 the adult and nyphal stages of Ablyomma americanum (the Lone Star tick) and Ablyomma cajunense (the Cayenne tick) were found to be incapable of harboring and transmitting African Swine fever virus." Coincidentally, the Lyme disease outbreak was identified about the time of the Swine Fever tick study conducted on Plum Island. Despite rumors to the contrary, at the time of the Plum Island Swine Fever experiments, the Lone Star tick's documented range was not limited to Texas. As early as 1944, lone stars ticks had been reported as abundant in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisianna, Arkansas, and Missouri. Cooley, R.A. and Kohls, G.M. 1944. The genus Amblyomma in the United States. Jour. Parasit. 30:77-111 They were also reported to be present in lesser numbers in Minnesota and Ohio of the same year. Riley, W.A. 1944. The occurence of Amblyomma americanum in Minnesota and in Ohio. Jour. Parasit., 30:200-201 By 1977, these ticks were endemic throughout the American southeast. It's range has since continued to expand. Today it is endemic from New England west through much of the Great Plains and the upper Midwest. Carroll states in Lab 257, that no one can answer how the Lone Star tick migrated from Texas to New York and Connecticut. This is, however, clearly not the case.Erich Traub's legacy of arthropod vector competancy experimentation continued during the 1980s at Plum Island under the jurisdiction of Entomologist Dr. Richard Endris, who is reported to have nurtured over 200,000 soft and hard ticks of varying species in tick nurseries on Plum Island, personally collected from locations as far away as Cameroon, Africa.Carroll, Michael (2004). Lab 257:The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. ISBN 0-06-001141-6 In a footnote in Lab 257, Carroll notes that Endris, while under contract with the US Army lab at Fort Detrick had also conducted experiments in 1987 on Plum Island, using sand flies as vectors of the rarely fatal illness Leishmaniasis.Carroll, Michael (2004). Lab 257:The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0-06-001141-6 The work is alleged by Carroll to have been done in secrecy, with few safety precautions. Carroll cites Dr. Traub as having worked with the U.S. Army, the Navy, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the UDSA before he returned to Germany in 1953. Dr. Traub is known to have visited Plum Island on at least three different occasions, and was offered the directorship there several times.

Short summary of Herr Doktor Erich Traub from Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy: http://www.MTWSFH.com ...which is a nice Hidden History blog site to say the least. Fills in a lot of the high level summarized links without getting lost in the details. Wonder how close Camp Siegfried and The Vineland School are to Camden, NJ? So close and yet so far! Sometimes the answer is right under your nose or in your own backyard and yet if you look but can not see, or listen but can not hear, there is no chance of discovering the obvious. 1930s-1985: UNITED STATES/NAZI GERMANY. Herr Doktor Erich Traub leads a varied and interesting life. In the 1930s, the German scientist is trained in the fine art of manipulating bacteria and viruses at the Rockefeller Institute in Princeton, New Jersey. He rounds out his first term in the U.S. with membership in the Amerika-Deutscher Volksbund, a German-American ‘club’ also known as Camp Sigfried. Camp Sigfried is the national headquarters of the American Nazi movement. At the outbreak of World War Two, Traub will return to his native Germany and apply his Rockefeller-acquired skills to Nazi germ warfare, working directly under SS Reichsfuehrer Heinrich Himmler, and conducting grotesque experiments on live victims. Among his many accomplishments for Nazi Germany will be the release of live virus sprays over the occupied Soviet Union. At the close of World War Two, Traub's life will come full circle when, along with thousands of other Nazi war criminals and mass murderers, he is rescued from prosecution by Allen Dulles' Operation Paperclip and, nicely de-Nazified, goes to work for the government of the United States of America. Traub finds a satisfying new job in the U.S. Navy's biological warfare program at the Naval Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. America sure is the land of opportunity. I think James Forrestal died while incarcerated at the Naval Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. I am now of the opinion that Forrestal and Olson were probably eliminated when they voiced massive opposition to the work of Herr Doktor Erich Traub and others who came here under Operation Paperclip and Operation Gladio. Anastase Vonsiatsky, who was THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE in Condon's novel, often attended Nazi confabs and conferences at Camp Siegfried along with James Wheeler-Hill another White Russian who dressed in a Nazi uniform as head of the German-American Bund. Dick Russell asked me to find out who James Wheeler-Hill was since his informant Richard Case Nagell identified him as a major principal in the plot to kill JFK. Dick was flabbergasted when I told him he was seen in pictures with Vonsiatsky at Camp Siegfried in The Russian Fascists written by John J. Stephan (Little Brown 1979). All of a sudden his belief in the MK/ULTRA aspects of the JFK hit and the White Russian aspects took a noticeable turn away from incredulity to a strong belief. He also wanted me to find out about a person named Wrangel who was probably the son of Baron Wrangel who fought in the Czar's Army or Navy against the Bolshevik Rooskies. Traub is a new entity to me, but I will pursue him as time permits.

More on Robert Garrett - the first Modern Olympic Champion in the Discus in 1896 and one of Wickliffe Draper's favorite Eugenicist's Robert Garrett From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For other persons named Robert Garrett, see Robert Garrett (disambiguation). Medal record Robert Garrett Men's athletics Competitor for the United States Olympic Games Gold 1896 Athens Shot put Gold 1896 Athens Discus throw Silver 1896 Athens High jump Silver 1896 Athens Long jump Bronze 1900 Paris Shot put Bronze 1900 Paris Standing triple jump Robert S. Garrett (May 24, 1875 – April 25, 1961) was an American athlete. He was the first modern Olympic champion in discus throw and shot put. Contents [hide] * 1 Biography * 2 1896 Olympics * 3 1900 Olympics * 4 Life after Olympics * 5 External links * 6 References [edit] Biography Born in Baltimore County, Maryland, Garrett came from a wealthy family and studied in Princeton University. He excelled in track and field athletics as an undergraduate, and was captain of the Princeton track team in both his junior and senior years. Garrett was primarily a shot-putter, though he also competed in the jumping events. When he decided to compete in the first modern Olympics in 1896, Professor William Milligan Sloane suggested he should also try the discus. They consulted classical authorities to develop a drawing and Garrett hired a blacksmith to make a discus. It weighed nearly 30 pounds (14 kg) and it was impossible to throw any distance, so he gave up on the idea. Garrett paid for his own and three classmates' (Francis Lane third in 100 m, Herbert Jamison second in 400 m, and Albert Tyler second in pole vault) way to Athens to compete in the Olympics. When he discovered that a real discus weighs less than five pounds, he decided to enter the event for fun. [edit] 1896 Olympics The Greek discus throwers were true stylists. Each throw, as they spun and rose from a classical Discobolus stance, was more beautiful than the last. Not so with Garrett, who seized the discus in his right hand and swinging himself around and around, the way the 16 pound hammer is usually thrown, threw the discus with tremendous force. Garrett's first two throws were embarrassingly clumsy. Instead of sailing parallel to the ground, the discus turned over and over and narrowly missed hitting some of the audience. Both foreigners and Americans laughed at his efforts and he joined in the general merriment. His final throw, however, punctuated with a loud grunt, sent the discus sailing 19 centimeters beyond the best Greek competitor's Panagiotis Paraskevopoulos's mark to 29.15 metres. American spectator Burton Holmes wrote: "All were stupefied. The Greeks had been defeated at their own classic exercise. They were overwhelmed by the superior skill and daring of the Americans, to whom they ascribed a supernatural invincibility enabling them to dispense with training and to win at games which they had never before seen." The performances were remarkable. According to James Connolly, in five of the track and field events won by Americans, they had not had a single day of outdoor practice since the previous fall. Garrett also won the shot put with a distance of 11.22 metres and finished second in the high jump (tied equally with James Connolly at 1.65 metres) and second in the long jump (with a jump of 6.00 metres). [edit] 1900 Olympics In the 1900 Olympics, Garrett placed third in the shot put and the standing triple jump. His bronze medal in the shot put was especially impressive, as he refused to compete in the final due to it being held on a Sunday. His qualifying mark was good enough to place him in third. He also competed in the discus throw again, but due to a poorly planned course was unable to set a legal mark as his discus throws all hit trees. Garrett was the IC4A shot put champion in 1897. In addition, Garrett was a member of the Tug-of-War team at the 1900 Olympics that was unable to take part because three of its six members were engaged in the hammer throw. [edit] Life after Olympics Later he became a banker and donator to science, especially to history and archeology. He helped to organize and finance an archaeological expedition to Syria, led by Dr. John M. T. Finney. From 1932 to 1939, he was involved with the Committee for the Excavation of Antioch and Its Vicinity both helping to fund the excavations and working on them. His hobby was collecting Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts. In 1942 Garrett donated to Princeton University his collection of more than 11,000 manuscripts, including sixteen Byzantine Greek manuscripts, containing rare and beautiful examples of illuminated Byzantine art for the use of scholars. He was for many years a trustee of Princeton University and The Baltimore Museum of Art. Garrett had amassed this collection of historical volumes of Western and non-Western manuscripts, fragments, and scrolls, originating from Europe, the Near East, Africa, Asia and Mesoamerica, ca. 1340 B.C.-1900s. Garrett inherited his collecting interest from his father, Thomas Harrison Garrett, Princeton Class of 1868. After his father's sudden death in 1888, Garrett spent the following two and a half years traveling extensively with his mother and two brothers, Horatio and John, in Europe and the Near East. During his travels Garrett developed a particular interest in manuscripts and began collecting. He used the text Universal Paleography: or, Facsimiles of Writing of All Nations and Periods by J. B. Silvestre (by Sir Frederic Madden, London, 1949-50) as his guide for collecting primary examples of every known type of script. Robert Garrett was one of the primary financial sponsors of the American Eugenics Society the personal project of Wickliffe P. Draper who sponsored most of the research behind "The Bell Curve" published in 1994. Garrett also served on the Finance Committee of the International Congress of The American Eugenics Society along with Madison Grant author of "The Passing of the Great Race." In 1930 in New York, many of the wealthiest people in the world were members of the American Eugenics Society. It earliest members and sponsors included: J. P. Morgan, Jr., chairman, U. S. Steel, who handled British contracts in the United States for food and munitions during World War I Mrs. Mary Duke Biddle, tobacco fortune heiress whose family founded Duke University Cleveland H. and Cleveland E. Dodge and their wives, who used some of the huge fortune that Phelps Dodge & Company made on copper mines and other metals to support eugenics Robert Garrett, whose family had amassed a fortune through banking in Maryland and the B&O railroad, who helped finance two international eugenics congresses Miss E. B. Scripps, whose wealth came the Scrips-Howard newspaper chain and from United Press (later UPI) Dorothy H. Brush, Planned Parenthood activist, whose wealth came from Charles Francis Brush (1849-1929), who invented the arc lamp for street lights and founded the Brush Electric Company Margaret Sanger, who used the wealth of one of one of her husbands, Noah Slee, to promote her work. Slee made his fortune from the familiar household product, 3-in-One Oil. The other Finance Committee members included: Leon F. Whitney the great-grandson of Eli Whitney inventor of the Cotton Gin who was the Chairman; Frank L. Babbott the well-known philanthropist and educator, Madison Grant later of The Pioneer Fund, founded by Wickliffe Draper following the 1936 Olympics when his nephew, Floyd Draper, was edged out for Olympic glory by Jesse Owens and Ralph Metcalf, Mrs. Helen Hartley Jenkins, a philanthropist from the Phelps-Dodge, Remington Arms and DuPont Chemical families, and John H. Kellogg who owned the Kellogg's Cereal Company. Garrett's associates on the Finance Committee later promoted some very controversial population control schemes. Leon Whitney proposed sterilizing 10,000,000 "hereditary defectives" against their will (almost 10% of the entire population of the USA at the time) which was also supported by Wickliffe Draper and Madison Grant, known as "America's most influential racist". Grant continuously proposed segregation of undesirable minority populations in "ghettos" encircled by barbed wire fences and armed guards. He also helped to pass several Anti-Miscegnation Laws in Virginia and elsewhere. John Kellogg later supported some of the more extreme measures of Birth Control including total abstinence, discouragement of onanism, and even sexual mutilation. Kellogg was also very outspoken on his beliefs about segregation. In 1906, Kellogg founded The Race Betterment Foundation along with Charles Davenport, which became a major center of influence for the new Eugenics movement in America. Kellogg was in favor of complete racial segregation and firmly believed that both immigrants, especially non-whites would severely damage the gene pool and lead to the diminuition of the domination of the white Anglo-Saxons in America. And Robert Garrett once proposed limiting the growth of the US population in direct proportion to the growth of the Money Supply ostensibly in order to assure adequate employment opportunities at a fair, living wage standard. Many of their "Progressive" proposals were actually put into practice later primarily through the efforts of Wickliffe Draper and his Pioneer Fund which lobbied successfully to pass Involuntary Sterilization Laws in almost 20 States which resulted in over 75,000 sterilizations being performed between 1924 and 1972 when the last of these laws were overturned. See: "Against Their Will" by Kevin Begos in the Winston-Salem Journal. Draper and his cohorts also supported various Anti-Immigration Laws including The Johnson Act of 1924. As the supremacy of white athletes at the Olympics and elsewhere began to gradually fade away, the efforts of the American Eugenics Society were increased in order to attempt to retain that advantage. Draper and Prof. Henry Garrett of The Pioneer Fund, Robert's grand-nephew fought both Brown vs. Board of Education (School Desegregation) and The Civil Rights Act of 1964 using their memberships in The American Eugenics Society, The Pioneer Fund and The International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics, but to no avail. When you consider the common goals and aspirations of everyone closely associated with Robert Garrett on that Finance Committee, one can only conclude that the reason Garrett personally financed these International Eugenics Conferences was an attempt to convert their Eugenics based social policies into legislative mandates enforceable as Federal or State laws. And for a while they partially succeeded in that lofty though thoroughly despicable set of goals. Robert Garrett died on April 25, 1961, in Baltimore, Maryland. [edit] External links * The Unexpected Olympians - How Harvard Dominated the First Modern Games - In Spite of Himself By Jonathan Shaw. An article in Harvard Magazine * Amusing Then Amazing--American Wins Discus in 1896. An article by Thomas Curtis

Robert M Yerkes - Autobiography First published in Murchison, Carl. (Ed.) (1930). History of Psychology in Autobiography (Vol. 2, pp. 381-407). Republished by the permission of Clark University Press, Worcester, MA. © 1930 Clark University Press. Posted March 2000 PSYCHOBIOLOGIST I continue to think of the surroundings into which on May 26, 1876, I came as a first-born child, as nearly ideal. It was in the midst of a beautiful agricultural country, inhabited by intelligent, self- respecting, law-abiding, prosperous folk; hills and vales, forests and streams, as scenes of the ceaseless and ever-varying activities on large farm, with its rotation of crops, dairying, and woodcraft. There were domestic animals of many kinds, and many laborers and mechanics came and went. The great city of Philadelphia was so near that our farm and dairy products were hauled to it overnight in horse-drawn wagons. This is the picture that appears when I think of my childhood. If I were choosing now, I should not change that environment. Pleasant occupations abounded. Fishing, swimming, skating, berry and nut gathering, fetching the cows, learning to care for, saddle and harness, ride and drive horses, and, finally, to do, and in many instances to enjoy doing well, the multitude of things necessary to comfort and prosperity on a large farm in eastern Pennsylvania, late in the nineteenth century, filled my days and rendered them joyous. Dominant among the recollections of childhood are out-of-door amusements; free, unrestricted, unaided study and enjoyment of nature; the care of household and farm pets; the capture and taming of wild animals. When the household cat one day killed a pet albino rabbit, I was so inconsolable that my parents had the skin mounted and thus I long kept it as a cherished possession. I was extremely fond of every sort of game, from parchesi, dominoes, checkers, and cards indoors to such rough outdoor sports as shinny, baseball, and football. Warm, after nearly fifty years, are my memories of gathering tortoise and snake eggs in new lands when first plowed, of carrying them home in my hat, preparing earth-filled boxes, "planting" them, and watching for the hatch. The young snakes usually managed to escape me, but the tortoises became treasures of entertainment. Thus happily passed the first eight years of my life. I have delightful recollections of three of my great-grandparents, and I enjoyed and richly profited by long-continued acquaintances [p. 382] with all of my grandparents.[1] My parents, who belonged to families long resident in the vicinity of Philadelphia and devoted almost without exception to agriculture, lived to see me established familially and professionally. Both were ambitious, energetic, musical, religious by nature and training. My mother, a woman of rare sweetness of disposition and unusual ability, beloved of all who knew her, was the strongest influence in my early life, and I think also the wisest. My father and I were intimate merely because of blood and social relationship. We had little in common intellectually, and more often than not we disagreed in practical matters. Except for my attachment to my mother and the influence of a capable, level-headed young German then in the employ of my father, I probably should have run away from home before my fourteenth year. Lest this should appear to belittle my father, I hasten to add that I have been described as a moody, strong-willed, unsuggestible child, difficult to control. Father doubtless lacked the magic touch of sympathetic insight. In early childhood I feared him; later, I actively disliked and disapproved; and finally, in maturity, I came to pity him for characteristics which rendered his life relatively unhappy and unsuccessful. As I write I am reminded of many incidents of family life which are illuminating. Only a few may appropriately find place in this professional sketch, and as it happens those which I have chosen refer rather to my grandfathers than to my father or self. Grandfather Yerkes once told me, and he was then more than sixty years of age, that he did not know what it meant to feel tired! The members of his household used to say that, on arising to his day's work about four o'clock in the morning, he would loudly call the poultry to breakfast in order thoroughly to arouse the family and get things started. Father also was like that, and I should confess that in my own household I am sometimes called the slave driver. Lack of sympathy with my father and our temperamental incompatibility very definitely turned me against his occupation and his vocational plans and desires for me. These misfortunes also robbed me of much that should be most precious in paternal companionship, training, and guidance. The following incident, taken from my relations with Grandfather Yerkes, partially explains my estrangement from Father, for his treatment of me was as direct and unsuited to [p. 383] my disposition as was that I would now describe. I had been set an irksome, arduous, farm task which I performed as I thought proper and necessary, but with maximum economy of effort and simplicity of procedure! Subsequently, I learned that Grandfather had complained to Father that the work might better have been left undone. I bitterly resented the criticism, which I considered unjust, but even more the fact that Grandfather spoke to Father instead of to me. Perhaps, had he come to me and tactfully explained why my method was unsatisfactory, I should have been the wiser and he respected instead of disliked. Radically different are my memories of Grandfather Carrell, for he genuinely sympathized with my intellectual interests and aspirations and always was ready to encourage and aid me in my educational efforts. During childhood I was much alone. A sister some four years my junior, to whom I became devoted, died when she was three, and I barely recovered from the same dreaded scarlet fever. Two brothers and another sister, born later, were so much younger that I looked upon them as charges rather than playmates. Because of its far-reaching influence on my physical and intellectual development and my vocational choice, the scarlet fever tragedy should be more fully described. A man, prematurely discharged from a Philadelphia hospital or for other reasons a carrier of infection, came to us as a farm laborer. He was friendly with us children and, from his arrival, we were much with him. When we became ill he disappeared, doubtless conscience-stricken or fearful of responsibility. Many weeks later I learned that my little sister had gone from us. Vivid is my memory of Mother's gentle, sad words as she told me of this when, for the first time, I sat up beside a favorite window in the sunshine of early spring. In my young life that loss was irreparable. No one ever took the place of my infant sister and I continue to think of her as the most beautiful and altogether lovable of children. The family physician, during this fight with the forces of destruction, was a cousin, Dr. John Beans Carrell, whose ministrations, often bitterly resented and opposed by my feverish self, nevertheless made lasting impressions and deeply stirred my admiration and vocational hero-worship. Ever since, in my daydreams, I have imagined myself as physician, surgeon, or, in other guise, alleviator of human suffering. This is the first indication of a social-mindedness which subsequently came to pervade my life and to establish fellow service as its chief objective.[p. 384] I am wholly unable to confirm the observation, but Dr. Carrell assures me that my disposition radically changed during my grave and prolonged illness. Before it, according to him, I had been wilful, violent-tempered, obstinate, unruly, disagreeable. Thereafter I was so greatly improved as to be fit to live with! Be this as it may, I am convinced that my illness so far conditioned my physique and interests as practically to determine vocational choice. Mine was not a home for formal educational regimen. Neither my parents nor any among my immediate relatives were college graduates. I can recall no thirst for knowledge in early childhood, and, although from six to twelve years I was passionately fond of being read to, I read little myself. Vocational imaginings came early, and, after transient longings for the delights of old-iron collector, huckster, locomotive engineer, preacher, I turned, as intimated above, to medicine mixing, and for a physician. many years purposed to become a physician. My motives I suspect were chiefly utilitarian, for the physician's life appealed to me as less harshly laborious, more interesting, exciting, heroic, useful, and altogether profitable than that of the farmer. In my eighth year, when first sent to school, I was unable to read well and so shy that I went unwillingly and with intense discomfort until I had become accustomed to the routine and made acquaintances. For some seven years I attended the nearby ungraded rural public schools. I worked hard in school because I liked to succeed and stand well in the class. Ambition and social prestige evidently were primarily motivational, but usually I also liked the work itself and did it eagerly and without pressure in school or home. Subjects which induced lasting attitudes were spelling, because difficult and irksome; arithmetic and algebra, because I found them stimulating, interesting, game-like -- their problems fascinated me, whereas memorizing repelled -- and physiology and hygiene, because their objectives, information, and principles impressed me as peculiarly important. I lacked gift of graphic expression, being then, as now, quite incapable of seeing or representing objects as does the naturally endowed artist. Musical ability, if present, I suppressed, for, despite my mother's eagerness to teach me and her urging and pleading, I never learned to sing or to play any instrument. Probably music would have been difficult for me, but I suspect that shyness and reluctance to try were the chief causes of my resistance. There are [p. 385] few things which in later years I have more deeply regretted than lack of musical education. Probably I was prepared for high school, possibly for college except in the ancient languages, when in my fifteenth year I was sent with a cousin, Leonard Slack, to the State Normal School at West Chester, Pennsylvania. This was my first experience away from home and my educational baptism. I worked hard and achieved special commendation and promotions in mathematics. The fact reminds me that subsequently in college a professor of mathematics suggested that I devote myself to the subject professionally. During the year at West Chester I recall being asked by my father whether I still wished to study medicine. My reply was an emphatic affirmative. Father, as I knew, hoped that I would follow agriculture, but, if I would choose a learned profession, he preferred that it be the law. Mother, on the contrary, wished me to enter the church. Almost certainly she would have become a foreign missionary had she been free to choose a career. I think it was about this time in my educational history that an incident occurred which fixed itself permanently in my memory. Its significance is clear. An aunt, mindful of my exceptional educational opportunities, one day asked me some geographical and historical questions. When I admitted ignorance, she expressed surprise at the imperfection of my education. I well remember my mingled feelings of chagrin, resentment, and disapproval, for her conception of education struck me as unsatisfactory. Even then my interest centered in constructive, creative effort toward the extension of knowledge, instead of in achievement of scholarship through mere accumulation of facts. Thus early, my interest in research manifested itself. The incident suggests the query: Is it perhaps true that persons of exceptionally retentive memories tend to become encyclopedically learned, whereas those of relatively poor memories, among whom I undoubtedly should number myself, tend rather to become inventive, inquiring, and constructive? Whether, in such case, psychological traits are primarily conditions or results is the question in point. So it happened that at the age of sixteen I possessed vocational orientation and determination to obtain the educational preparation desirable for the profession of medicine. Undoubtedly, our family physician, Dr. Carrell, was chiefly responsible for this choice. His personality and professional example had stirred my imagination, and [p. 386] his interest, encouragement, suggestions, and advice provided the necessary basis for definite decision. Except for the happening now to be narrated, I almost certainly would have gone to Dr. Carrell "to read medicine" and thereafter have matriculated, probably without collegiate training, in his medical alma mater, the Jefferson Medical College of Philadelphia. But things happened otherwise and thus. When I returned to the farm from my few months at Normal School, ways and means were not discernible for the continuation of my studies. Father was struggling to pay heavy indebtedness on his farm and there were three younger children to provide for. It was then that an uncle, Dr. Edward Atkinson Krusen, who had married one of my mother's sisters and recently established himself as a homeopathic physician in Collegeville, Pennsylvania, the seat of Ursinus College, offered me opportunity to earn my way in college by doing the chores about his place. There was neither doubt nor hesitation on my part, and I rejoiced greatly in my parents' consent to the arrangement. In the fall of 1892 I entered Ursinus Academy, and after a year's preparatory work, with concentration on the ancient languages, I was admitted to the collegiate department of the institution. I elected the chemical-biological program of study, and, in addition, did preparatory medical work in human anatomy and physiology. But it was all work and no play, for my eagerness to progress held me to my academic tasks, and my duties in the Krusen home required all my spare hours, morning, evening, and Saturday. As I look back on those happy, toilsome years, it seems as though they would have been perfect if I could have afforded and arranged to have had Saturday as holiday. Yet I was far from self-pity, and I always have considered myself fortunate in my opportunity to obtain collegiate training. After entering Ursinus I was at home only for short visits or for a few weeks during the summer harvest season, when I worked as a paid laborer. From the small savings of my youth, which, on Dr. Carrell's advice, had been well invested, and from my current earnings in the Krusen home, I was able to pay all of my expenses in college. In addition to board and room, after my first year in his home my uncle paid me a wage of ten dollars per month. This I considered generous and just. Indeed, to Uncle Doctor, as I always called him, my debt is incalculable. He was a wise, broad-minded, generous gentleman, a beloved physician, and a staunch, dependable [p. 387] friend. Had he been my father, and, practically, from my sixteenth to my twenty-first years he stood in loco parentis, he could not well have done more for me. Disinterestedly, devotedly, affectionately, he advised, guided, and encouraged me. I cannot do less than thus acknowledge my debt of gratitude and love. A word further on personal influences. Up to the time of my entrance into college, my character, vocational leanings, educational endeavors and ambitions, had been markedly affected by six persons: my father and mother; the German farm laborer, Adolph Weise; my public school teacher, Miss Eva Roberts; and the physicians, Drs. Carrell and Krusen. My father, I suspect, most strongly influenced me negatively. I desired to become what he was not: had he wished me to become a physician, doubtless I should have refused. My mother, on the contrary, through affection, tactful suggestion, the inculcation of the moral code, principles of character of the Christian religion and of her community, influenced me profoundly and permanently. Father's employee, Adolph Weise, was my intimate, wise friend and counselor in those years of early adolescence when I sorely needed guidance and stabilization. He read to me, talked with me of many things, aided with my lessons, and reasoned with me on endless practical matters. By sheer simplicity and convincingness of argument, this strong, clear-minded young German reasoned me away from the undesirable. Of swearing, which he abjured, although most of our farm laborers were adepts, he always said: "It is a foolish, useless, disagreeable habit. Don't form it." As I could not meet his arguments, I naturally followed his example in this and many other matters. My first public school teacher, Eva Roberts, later for many years a highly successful and esteemed teacher in Girard College, Philadelphia, deeply impressed and influenced me by her strength of character and purpose, mastery of pedagogical method, soundness of judgment, and utter justice in the treatment of pupils. I admired her almost worshipfully. There was also the all-pervasive and continuing influence of my cousin, Dr. Carrell, which certainly initially determined and confirmed my choice of medicine as a career; and, finally, that of my uncle, Dr. Krusen. To these few I owe my life and its main traits and trends. My heart goes out to them now in gratitude and affection. Would they were all here to receive such reward of appreciation as I can offer. In June, 1897, I was graduated from Ursinus College after four [p. 388] profitable years of strenuous intellectual work. Two Ursinus teachers profoundly influenced me. Colonel Vernon Ruby, Professor of English, more, perhaps, than anyone else, taught me the importance of careful, thorough, honest work. My ability to use my mother tongue I owe principally to him and to the subsequent practice which his precept and example encouraged. Dr. P. Calvin Mensch, biologist, I worked with as pupil, disciple, and friend. His ideals and his enthusiasm for creative endeavor became mine. Probably my debt to him is greater than to any other teacher. Completion of work at Ursinus found me at a crossroads, for a deus ex machina had unexpectedly appeared and I was offered the loan of one thousand dollars for graduate work in Harvard University. Choice was between the study of medicine in Philadelphia or the unexcelled opportunities for graduate work in biology, psychology, and philosophy at Harvard. It was a momentous decision which, as now appears, determined the course of my professional career. I was just twenty-one. Readily I convinced myself that I was young to enter medical school and might better devote at least a year to special work in Harvard before completing my medical training. It was my earnest desire to work with pre-eminently able investigators and teachers. So, in the fall of 1897 I entered Harvard, not as a graduate student, but with provisional undergraduate classification and opportunity to demonstrate preparedness for professional work. At the end of the first year I was awarded the A. B. degree and given graduate status. I might then naturally have turned to medical studies, but instead I leaned toward preparation for research in some department of biology. Encouraged by my teachers and aided by appointments to assistantship and scholarship, I decided finally to become a candidate for the degree of doctor of philosophy instead of doctor of medicine. Again a crossroads which compelled important decision. I was keenly interested in zoölogy and also in psychology. At the suggestion of Josiah Royce, to whom I had gone for advice when I first arrived in Cambridge in 1897, and who became my teacher, friend, and colleague, I undertook to combine these interests by devoting myself to what was then called comparative psychology. Introduced and recommended by Professor Royce, I consulted with Professor Münsterberg about opportunities in animal psychology. He was encouraging and the outcome was my transfer in 1899 from the [p. 389] laboratories of zoölogy, where I had enjoyed the rare privilege of working with E. L. Mark, G. H. Parker, C. B. Davenport, and W. E. Castle, to the laboratory of psychology, in which, during the succeeding eighteen years, as student, assistant, instructor, or professor, I conducted psychobiological research and instructional courses in comparative and genetic psychology. From the beginning of our acquaintance, Hugo Münsterberg, with almost paternal interest and solicitude, and with rare generosity, aided me both professionally and personally, and, although I never was able to admire him as scientist, I learned to prize highly his friendship, enthusiasm for research, and scholarship. Throughout our association from 1899 until his death in 1916 our relations were intimate, and I was constantly the beneficiary because of his learning, extensive professional acquaintance and knowledge of the world, and his devotion to research. I seriously doubt whether I should have remained in Harvard more than one or two years except for his influence and encouragement. Thus I acknowledge a great debt. In 1902 I was granted the doctorate of philosophy in psychology and offered an instructorship in comparative psychology in the University, with half time for research and a salary of one thousand dollars per year. I well remember Professor Münsterberg's friendly question when he told me of the opportunity: "Can you afford to accept it, Yerkes?" "No," I replied, "but I shall, nevertheless." Thus began a period of professional service to Harvard University and science which continued until it was interrupted by the World War in 1917. During those fifteen happy, eventful, fruitful years of research and teaching I gave my best to Harvard and received incomparably more benefits from rare associations and companionships than I could give in return. It was for me a period of intellectual and cultural growth and enlightenment, of constant stimulation to improvement and achievement, and of precious inspirational influence. For, unworthily, as it seemed to me, I was a member of a university faculty group of pre-eminently great scholars and great personalities, which at one time or another during the period in question included Josiah Royce, George Herbert Palmer, William James, Hugo Münsterberg, Francis Peabody, George Santayana, Dickinson Miller, Robert MacDougall, Edwin B. Holt, and Ralph Barton Perry. These, my colleagues in the Division, which was then inclusive of philosophy, social ethics, and psychology, were men of such personal quality, [p. 390] originality, and creativeness, as seldom are found in an academic group. Thus, with victory for the latter, ended in 1902 the struggle between medicine and psychobiology in my vocational imaginings. My taste for scientific research, if not my ability, had long before been revealed at Ursinus when my teacher and master, Professor Mensch, himself a doctor of medicine and of philosophy, proposed for my training the investigation of a problem in physiological chemistry. I did not solve the problem, but in the attempt I learned much about myself and the attractiveness of biological research. From that time I knew positively that I wished to give my life to constructive work in the biological sciences rather than to practical service in medicine or surgery. It was then that I first resolved that making a living should, so far as practicable, be merely incidental to my life work. And so, as it turns out, it has been, these thirty years! But when I abandoned the study of medicine, lively interest in its varied problems and in the sciences basic to both medicine and surgery persisted. Although I lack a medical degree, my dominant interests classify me with the profession. Much of my work has been conducted in medical institutions; more might have been, and my friendships and companionships continue to bear witness to my natural taste and my initial vocational leaning and choice. All this merely to establish the fact that in reality my original choice of career was modified, not abandoned, and my professional interest broadened and liberalized instead of turned into unrelated channels. A plan, whose realization after nearly thirty years has now been nearly achieved in Yale University, came to me as a stirring vision of usefulness during my graduate days in Harvard. It was the establishment and development of an institute of comparative psychobiology in which the resources of the various natural sciences should be used effectively for the solution of varied problems of life. Naturally, psychological and physiological interests dominated in this vision. For a time it seemed that the dream might speedily come true in Harvard, but President Eliot, wise and far-sighted promoter of productive scholarship and of medical education and research, retired from his responsibilities just too soon. Instead of receiving encouragement in such seemingly impractical planning as I had been indulging in, I was gently and tactfully advised by the new administration that educational psychology offered a broader and more direct path to a professorship and to increased academic usefulness than did [p. 391] my special field of comparative psychology, and that I might well consider effecting a change. In disregarding this well-meant and wholly reasonable advice, I ran true to form. To do what I had especially prepared myself for, what I felt pre-eminently fitted for, and what, above everything else, I wished to do, seemed to me incomparably more important and desirable than a professorship at Harvard. Several of my professional colleagues agreed with me. Many times since I have had to confirm that decision or to make similar ones. I never have regretted the abiding determination to live my own professional life, irrespective of administrative and other practical considerations. During the first year of my Harvard instructorship, opportunity appeared for a brief visit to Germany and Switzerland to study the organization and equipment of physiological and psychological institutes. This was in preparation for the planning of suitable building and facilities for comparative and other branches of psychological work in Harvard. The experience naturally was very valuable to me. It was seventeen years before I again visited Europe, and then it was to England and France that I journeyed. This neglect of international professional contacts was due to financial limitations and the demands of my research, not to lack of interest or desire. Indeed, it has proved a very serious disadvantage. As I write these words, I am on my third professional foreign tour, which includes visitation of numerous psychobiological establishments in the principal countries of Europe, and, in addition, the laboratories of the Pasteur Institute at Kindia, French Guinea. In 1905, when I was fairly started in my career as a psychobiologist, began a partnership with Ada Watterson (Yerkes), which perfectly blended our lives and incalculably increased our professional and social usefulness. Successful marriages appear in these times to be not unworthy of record and remark. Moreover, from 1905 my professional autobiography is no longer mine alone. At this moment our partnership is publishing jointly, as the outcome of six years of continuous preparatory labor, a book on anthropoid life, The Great Apes. Crowded with interesting activities were the years between 1902, the beginning of my professional life, and America's entrance into the World War. My intellectual environment was stimulating, conditions within and without were favorable to creative endeavor, incentives to service abounded. I was busy, contented, happy in my [p. 392] scientific work, my family life, and friendships. As my colleague Ernest E. Southard once remarked, professionally speaking, for years I lived on cream. To supplement my small and obviously insufficient Harvard salary, which during fifteen years of service as instructor and assistant professor averaged about two thousand dollars a year, I taught in Radcliffe College, Harvard Summer School, and the University Extension Department in Boston. It was through my teaching of elementary psychology that I first was brought into contact with Edward B. Titchener. Use of his textbooks in my courses provoked exchange of opinions, discussion, and, on my part, endless questions, for in introspective method and its results I was the novice, he the master. I treasure a folder of letters which represent much of my vital exchange with the most learned psychologist I have ever known. Whatever interest I have in introspection, competence in its use, and appreciation of its results, and whatever I know of the psychology of the self, as contrasted with objective psychology, I owe primarily to Titchener. With his aid I came to distinguish sharply between my special interest in the materials and problems of psychobiology and psychology as the science of experience. Efforts to systematize my thinking in this direction for the benefit of my students resulted in the publication of my Introduction to Psychology, the first and only textbook I have had the will to write. My professional debt to Titchener is equaled only by that to Münsterberg, Royce, and Holt. In the midst of intensive work with students and colleagues in the Harvard Psychological Laboratory I found time for several profitable adventures in cooperation. These are some of them. From association as pupil and assistant with Edward L. Thorndike at the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, I profited much. Later for some years I labored with John B. Watson for the improvement and the standardization of methods for the comparative study of vision in animals. At this time Watson was in Baltimore, I in Cambridge, and our exchanges were mostly by letter. One spring, to my great satisfaction, I was granted leave of absence from Harvard to acquire knowledge of neuro-surgical technique through association with that skillful technician and brilliant investigator, Professor Harvey Cushing. My weeks in the Hunterian Laboratory of the Johns Hopkins University, under the guidance of Cushing, provided stimulating, enlightening, and revealing experience, whose effects were permanent. In addition to technical training and new [p. 393] professional insight, I carried from the laboratories of comparative surgery an enduring friendship. That I have made no noteworthy contributions to neurology or psychobiology by way of surgical techniques is the fault of circumstances beyond my control. Yet another important season was that spent with my former pupil, Gilbert V. Hamilton, in his ideally situated private laboratory at Santa Barbara, California. And with another pupil, Daniel W. La Rue, who, like Hamilton, returned with interest what little I had been able to give as teacher, I planned, used in courses of instruction, and finally published An Outline of the Study of the Self. Much more than an episode in my almost too full professional life of the young century was opportunity, on recommendation of Ernest E. Southard, Professor of Neuropathology in the Harvard Medical School, and Scientific Director of the Psychopathic Department of the Boston State Hospital, to serve as psychologist in the Hospital. This was my introduction to research in psychopathology. During five years I gave half of my time to the direction of psychological service and research in the Hospital. It was here I discovered certain urgent needs of psychiatry for improved techniques of psychobiological examining and measurement, and here also, with the aid of graduate students and assistants, I developed the point-scale method of measuring aspects of intellectual activity and the multiple-choice method for the study of ideational behavior. Naturally, both practical and theoretical relations of psychobiology to medicine, and more particularly to psychopathology and psychiatry, commanded my attention and I thought and talked much about ways of rendering these subjects more helpful to one another. I have mentioned Ernest Southard as my master in psychopathology. He was that and much more, for, even after a decade of separation from his influence, his brilliant originality, vision, versatility, and tireless industry, continue to stir my imagination and to spur me to more fruitful effort. His was a remarkable intellect, backed by exceptional training and vision, which neurology and psychiatry could ill afford to lose either early or late.[2] Those were particularly stirring years, for when I accepted hospital duties I gave up no portion of my teaching burden or program of research in the Cambridge laboratories. Doubtless, it was fortunate for my health that in its fifth year this dual life was abruptly ended by the World War. The internal values of my concentrated [p. 394] practical experience in psychopathology it would be difficult to overestimate. The external results are scant because I published relatively little. Throughout my Harvard connection several graduate students each year shared my labors and enthusiasm for discovery and invention. I then considered the university the logical and altogether fitting home for research, and I now even more strongly hold that conviction after some thirty years of varied professional experience, both within and without American universities. Stable in my professional life and not over-eager for increased income or rank, the current ran smoothly and it seemed that I might continue at Harvard until the end of the chapter. It had been relatively easy to refuse numerous opportunities to migrate. Then out of the war-clouded sky came an attention-compelling, insistent call to reorganize psychological work and take direction of the laboratory in the University of Minnesota. At first I declined thoughtfully and reluctantly, with the urgent advice of Professors Royce and Münsterberg. But when, a year later, the offer was made even more alluring, I hesitated and was lost to my university birthplace and home. It was a difficult decision, opposed I recall by such disinterested friends and advisers as Professors Royce and Herbert W. Rand, but supported by such as ex-President Eliot and Professors Münsterberg and Taussig. I was in my fortieth year when, in the spring of 1917, I accepted the Minnesota appointment. Barely had I made this new arrangement than America's entrance into the War upset all of my plans. For two years after resigning my appointments in Harvard and in the Boston Psychopathic Hospital I held my western academic post and during that time made necessary recommendations for staff reorganization, planned the establishment of a department of psychology, and arranged for the transfer of the laboratory to a new site and building. It was a profitable experience, although in the end I resigned my post without having at any time been resident in Minneapolis. For this circumstance the War was wholly responsible. The members of my staff in Minnesota who, after my resignation, carried on effectively included, in addition to Herbert Woodrow, who was originally on the ground, Richard M. Elliott, William S. Foster, Mabel Fernald, and Karl S. Lashley. A better-trained, more able, and altogether competent group of young psychologists was not to be found.[p. 395] Thus, with America's declaration of war ended one of the most important periods of my professional career -- measured by twenty years as student, teacher, and investigator in Harvard University. It is appropriate to note here the distinctive characteristics of my research interests and results during this period. My first scientific paper was published from the Laboratory of Comparative Zoölogy of Harvard in 1899, when I was twenty-three years of age. It was the outcome of suggestions received from my teacher, Charles B. Davenport, and of observations made under his direction. The title of this maiden publication in psychobiology, Reaction of Entomostraca to Stimulation by Light, indicates one of my major fields of interest, namely, organic receptivity, its nature, conditions, and relations to behavioral expression and to experience. There followed several papers on phases of receptivity and response in invertebrates. All show the helpful influence of my biological teachers, Messrs. Mark, Parker, and Davenport, and all are classifiable under the physiology of the nervous system, although even then it would have been fairer to my interest and point of view to place them in psychobiology. Shortly my interest extended to include organic adaptivity, which then was almost universally designated as habit formation, and from 1905 to 1912 I published several reports of investigations on adaptivity and receptivity in such relatively lowly vertebrates as the amphibians and reptiles. Other aspects of physiological process which at this time suggested to me important neurological problems were temporal relations of response, inhibition, and facilitation. A little later I became profoundly interested in problems of instinct versus individual acquisition, and several of my investigations and those conducted under my direction were concerned with the essential characteristics and relations of maturational or so-called hereditary modes of response and their neuromuscular mechanisms. I still consider solution of the assemblage of problems suggested by these phrases of the utmost theoretical and practical importance. Many times my work on the mechanisms and behavioral expressions of inheritance and acquisition has been interrupted, once by the loss of my colony of dancing mice, and again by the World War, which found me with apparatus ready for continuation of work with mice. Investigation of the behavior of wildness and savageness in rats, well begun with the cooperation of Professor William E. Castle, I abandoned because conditions of experimentation were not favorable to reliable results.[p. 396] Especially conspicuous in my research has been interest in methods and efforts to advance comparative psychobiology by invention, adaptation, and improvement thereof. My work, I suspect, has been characterized rather by ingenuity and originality than by technical skill and mechanical gift. Theoretically, method conditions progress; practically, it has always seemed to me more important than observation. My investigations, I think, entirely support this conviction, for the greater part of my life has been devoted to methodological work in the biological sciences. I have mentioned my abiding interest in the problems of organic receptivity, adaptivity, and instinct. Always my research has been more nearly physiological than psychological, for I have dealt with problems of behavior, not with experience. Therefore my constant use of the descriptive term psychobiology. That either my interests or methods of work, my descriptions or interpretations, have become consistently more or less objective during the past thirty years I am not aware. Certainly there have been fluctuations of opinion, and gradually the conviction has strengthened that open-mindedness, willingness to envisage all problems and all trustworthy results, and to consider and test the value of all types of method, are prime essentials for the advancement of knowledge. With extreme objectivism, as voiced during the early years of my career by such eminent biologists as Loeb, Beer, Bethe, and von Uexküll, I have never been able to sympathize unreservedly because it impressed me as dangerous in its restrictions and negations. On similar grounds I have rejected the more recent objectivism, or as he calls it, behaviorism, of Watson, for it is characterized by the same logical and practical defects which appear in the historical types of psychological objectivism. More forcibly than ever, after thirty years of earnest thought and persistent study of problems of organic behavior and experience, it strikes me as wholly indefensible, and extremely unprofitable, to deny the possibility of scientifically investigating phenomena of experience in their relations to other vital happenings. That my own interest has always centered in problems of organic structure and function in no degree prejudices me against the study of consciousness and mind. Instead, I consider the problem of the nature and relations of consciousness as at once the most fascinating and the most important in biology, and it is my earnest hope that I may live to help in some measure toward its solution. That my path is not obviously directed toward this end needs neither explanation nor apology. My course in research is pragmatic.[p. 397] The scope of my research was broadened in 1913 by the addition of psychopathology, for it was in that year I accepted appointment in the Boston Psychopathic Hospital. Naturally, I undertook work in psychotechnology which promised to be helpful to psychiatry, but at the same time I formulated and, with my peculiar equipment as comparative psychobiologist, attempted to solve certain problems relative to the nature and causation of psychobiological disturbances and defects. Unwittingly I was thus prepared for the military opportunities and demands which were shortly to confront me. Had I planned my adventure in practical mental measurement with full knowledge of what awaited me in the World War I could not have arranged things better. My work at the Hospital was abruptly terminated by the War, but, even without it, removal to the University of Minnesota would have caused a break. Much of my work in psychopathology continues as I then left it, unfinished. It was thus the presidential proclamation of April, 1917, found me. At the moment a group of experimental psychologists was meeting informally at Harvard University. Naturally, we asked ourselves what professional service American psychologists might hope to render in the military emergency. Discussion revealed eagerness, coupled with optimism and assurance that some, at least, of our techniques could be made serviceable. Because I happened to be President of the American Psychological Association, it became my privilege and duty to take the initiative in organizing our group and in attempting to discover ways in which we might be useful. It is indicative of my lifelong professional leaning and affiliations that I promptly established relations with the Medical Department of the Army and that the major service for which I was personally responsible throughout the War, the psychological examining of recruits, should have been conducted in that arm of the service. The story of psychological service his elsewhere been told officially and completely, if not in detail.[3] It is appropriate here to consider its principal relations to my professional life.[p. 398] For nearly two years I lived in military psychology, with scarcely a thought of the psychobiological problems which previously had occupied me. The novel opportunity which my profession created for itself in the American military establishment called for constructive planning, combined with methodological resourcefulness and skill. For these demands, as contrasted with many which more usually come to the academician and investigator, it shortly appeared that I possessed unusual qualifications. During my term of military service I wrote little for publication. There was no time. But my official correspondence was both extensive and profoundly important for my intellectual and technical growth and the development of facility in verbal expression. It was necessarily descriptive, expository, argumentative, for my chief task, aside from making clear what we planned and proposed, was to convince military and civil officials that what we desired to undertake possessed practical value. Often it seemed that my foremost duty and obligation -- one for which I usually felt myself peculiarly unsuited -- was to vanquish seemingly insuperable difficulties by overcoming the passive resistance of ignorance and the active opposition of jealousy, misinformation, and honest disagreement. Fortunately, I flourished amidst difficulties and discouragements, and the service which my group rendered finally yielded abundant satisfaction. It has been characterized by those who observed it from above the battle as uniquely significant alike for military progress and for the development of psychology and its technologies. Assuredly it was highly beneficial to me to be carried by force of circumstance from the comfortably sheltered provincialism of a great university into the swirling current of world conflict. As never otherwise could have happened, I was brought into active give-and-take contact with men of varied interests, abilities, and points of view, at a time when every man rose superior to himself; with national and international problems, plans, and programs; with organizations, methods of administration, and ideals which are foreign to academic experience. Necessity made me at home in this novel situation and I was able to present [p. 399] and maintain the needs, claims, and merits of my profession as determinedly, and I think also as effectively, as I could have done in my customary environment. As obligations and opportunities multiplied, so also my knowledge, insights, faith, and will to succeed, and when suddenly the great conflict ended I was so completely engrossed in helping to increase the efficiency of the military organization of my country that for a time I felt like a person without a calling. If ever I have spoken or written as though the contribution of military psychology in Army or Navy was largely mine, I would beg here to correct the impression. Mine, as it happened, was the responsibility for initiative and leadership, but scores of my colleagues enthusiastically and loyally gave their best. To mention names would be invidious and in bad taste, because the honor roll is too long to be reproduced entire. I could have accomplished little indeed without the whole-hearted, generous, and efficient constructive work of my fellows. The reward of growth, self-revelation, and confidence in my ability to serve mankind which came to me by reason of my share in the great conflict is more than adequate compensation for the arduous labors of the most trying years of my life. As never otherwise could have happened, military opportunities, demands, and achievements gave American psychology forward and directed impetus. Owing primarily to an endless succession of difficulties, resultant delays, and finally the termination of the War just when our service was fully organized, our methods perfected, and authority granted for the extension of our work throughout the Army, the strictly scientific as contrasted with the practical returns of our labors, although by no means unimportant, proved meager in comparison with what we had planned for and legitimately expected. It will be long, however, before our profession entirely escapes from the directive influence of psychotechnological military developments or forgets that almost incredibly extensive and precious gift of professional service, which to the laity and the military profession was the more impressive because wholly unexpected and unsolicited. When discharged from the Army shortly after the Armistice, I found myself faced with choice between continuation of work in Washington in connection with the National Research Council, through which much of our psychological military service had been organized and rendered, or reporting for duty in the University of Minnesota. For two reasons, chiefly, I hesitated and then decided to resign my academic post: I wished to complete and superintend the [p. 400] publication of the official report of our psychological work during the War, and, picking up the threads of my psychological past, to endeavor to find financial support for systematic utilization of the anthropoid apes in biological research. The latter interest, as one of the most important in my professional career, here demands brief historical comment. In the course of comparative studies of receptivity and adaptivity which I conducted or directed in Harvard University, and especially because of the work of my student, M. E. Haggerty, on imitative tendency in monkeys, and varied observations of my own on marmosets, monkeys, and orangutans, I had become convinced that, for certain major groups of psychobiological problem to whose solution I hoped to dedicate my life, the primates, and, more particularly, the great apes, promised to be supremely and perhaps also uniquely serviceable. My conviction found expression in a plan of action which I formulated for publication as early as 1916.[4] Following the publication of this plan several offers of assistance came to me, but no one of them could be safely accepted because I was not financially independent and thus able to give my time to the project without compensation. From 1917 to 1919 my efforts to finance suitable laboratories were necessarily in abeyance, but my dream recurred with increased vividness and compelling power when the war clouds vanished. So it happened that I was ready and eager to serve the National Research Council as chairman of one of its divisions, in part because the connection enabled me to remain in Washington where conditions seemed peculiarly favorable for the promotion of my pet project. When I originally decided to stay in Washington instead of going to the University of Minnesota, I supposed that it would be for only one or two years, for I was optimistic that within that period I should succeed in arranging to go forward with my research. But it was not so. Disappointments succeeded one another as in the Army, and the period stretched to five years before I escaped to more congenial activities. In the meantime my personal research was almost wholly in abeyance and my only noteworthy service to my particular branch of science was the organization and facilitation of research in problems having to do with aspects of sex and human migrations. This work was done primarily through the agency of committees. I initiated and for more than two years served as Chairman of the Com-[p. 401]mittee on Scientific Problems of Human Migration of the National Research Council,[5] and simultaneously gave much of my time to the Chairmanship of the Council's Committee for Research in Problems of Sex. During my association with these committees we were able to secure, through the National Research Council for the support of our programs of research, sums aggregating eight hundred thousand dollars. That our promotional endeavors were fruitful is convincingly established by the content of scores of reports which have been published by cooperating investigators. Although it was far enough from my primary interest and desire, I nevertheless took great satisfaction in this promotional work, and I even dared to hope that the committee method as we developed it might become so well established as to continue in use. In this, the migrations organization proved disappointing, whereas that for the study of problems of sex has continued with increasing usefulness to the date of writing. As I reflect on my experiences I realize that personal relations during my sojourn in Washington were far too significant professionally to be ignored. My period of military service was slightly less than two years. The National Research Council elected me to membership in 1917 and for several years I served that organization in various capacities. Among the many delightful and professionally invaluable acquaintances and friendships which came to me during seven years' residence in Washington, I mention the following because of their pre-eminently great influence on my professional career: with George E. Hale, astronomer, the boldly imaginative and constructive genius of American science; with John C. Merriam, paleontologist, wise, far-sighted organizer and director of research; with Raymond Dodge, physiological psychologist, gifted in methodological inventiveness, friendship, and loyalty; with Clarence E. McClung, zoologist, socially minded, devoted investigator and leader in the organization of research; with Victor C. Vaughan, bacteriologist-physician, beloved and widely influential teacher, investigator, friend; with William H. Welch, pathologist, fount of wisdom, adviser of unnumbered thousands of medical students, colleagues, and friends.[p. 402] As, earlier in life, it was my good fortune in Harvard University to be intimately associated with men of genius in scholarship and in the art of living, so somewhat later I enjoyed in Washington the incomparable advantages of working with men such as I have named, of wider and different experience, more thorough scholarship, more varied insights, and better intellects than my own. One's professional achievements may not be understood if such aspects of social environment as these are overlooked. In the spring of 1924, seven years after I left Harvard to enter the Army, I was enabled to return to my professional career by appointment to a professorship in the Institute of Psychology of Yale University. This research position I accepted with the understanding that I should be free to devote myself to comparative psychobiology and to promote, as might prove practicable, achievement of facilities for the scientific utilization of anthropoid subjects. The agreement was for a term of five years. Although it did not provide immediately precisely the type of establishment and equipment which I had long desired and labored to bring into existence, it did supply an institutional connection which, largely because of the sympathetic interest and professional knowledge of President James R. Angell, promised to be incomparably useful. Turning immediately from my administrative and promotional activities in the National Research Council, I devoted the summer of 1924 to anthropoid research in Havana, Cuba, where, thanks to the generosity of Señora Rosalia Abreu, and with the cooperation of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, I was able to observe a large colony of primates. On returning from Cuba, I took up residence in New Haven. Progress has been rapid in several lines of endeavor during the five years which I have spent in Yale University. Signally important for the realization of my plans are the following achievements: (1) The establishment in New Haven of a special laboratory for psychobiological study of primates; (2) completion of an inclusive survey of the naturalistic and experimental literature of anthropoid life, preparation of an informational catalogue, abstracts, and indices, and the publication of the source book for investigators previously mentioned as The Great Apes; (3) supplementation of the New Haven primate laboratory by establishment near Jacksonville, Florida, of a subtropical anthropoid station in which subjects may be bred and observed; (4) perfecting of arrangements for systematic natural-[p. 403]istic study of the chimpanzee and gorilla in Africa; (5) preparation and publication of a program of psychobiological research with anthropoid subjects; and, finally, (6) formulation of plans for a department of comparative psychobiology in Yale University which shall include the existing primate laboratory and be conducted in conjunction with, and as the academic headquarters of, the Florida station. Throughout this period of continuous intense activity I have endeavored to prepare the way for effective use of anthropoid apes and other primates in the solution of assemblages of problems which include the psychobiological, physiological, psychopathological, anthropological, and sociological. Always the ape has been thought of as means to an end: namely, the solution of important problems which may not readily be approached initially by aid of human subjects. Despite considerable contributions of fact, this section of my professional life may best be characterized as one of systematic preparation for work which doubtless will engage many investigators over an indefinite period. In 1929, after fifteen years of persistent effort, the provision for anthropoid research which I first proposed and urgently recommended in 1916 finally was achieved. Above I have referred to this consummation of my efforts as the establishment of special primate or anthropoid laboratories and station. Not even the difficulties and discouragements of psychological military service equaled those which at one time or another confronted me in my attempts to secure suitable provision for study of the anthropoid apes. Visionary, impracticable, promising slight returns, too difficult of realization, impossible, are some of the unfavorable characterizations offered as objections to investment in the plan. To have succeeded after so long a period of endeavor is heartening indeed. It renews and redoubles my faith in both plans and objectives and my desire to press forward. As I write these words (September, 1929) I am on an extended tour of those foreign laboratories whose research equipment, personnel, and publications bear obviously important relations to the psychobiological work which I have projected. I have visited several institutions and conferred with many colleagues in Europe and am now homeward bound from the African laboratories of the Pasteur Institute at Kindia, French Guinea, which some eight years ago were established for utilization of the chimpanzee and other African primates in the investigation of problems of disease. Few experiences [p. 404] are more inspiring than discovery or rediscovery of the fact that scientific interest, activity, and sympathetic appreciation recognize no geographical, national, or racial limitations. My immediate work and my plans for the future find appropriate setting in the recently established Institute of Human Relations of Yale University, in which the former Institute of Psychology has been incorporated, and in the Human Welfare Center of which the Institute is an important part.[6] I firmly believe today, as ever, that comparative method and infrahuman organisms may and will be made to contribute increasingly and importantly to the solution of a multitude of pressing human problems. I believe also in the logic and fitness of establishing laboratories of comparative psychobiology in conjunction with those of physiology in a great center for research in social biology, and as supplementary to the appropriate special establishments for human psychology, psychotechnology, and the various social sciences. Such value as this account of my professional life may have for the reader, aside from the satisfaction of his legitimate curiosity, is more likely to come from analysis and revelation of character, motives, and methods, than from simple record of achievements or failures. This assumption is my excuse for concluding with an attempt at revelation and appraisal which, if not complete and adequate, is at least honest. Physically handicapped from my seventh year by scarlet fever, I have had to conserve my strength and act circumspectly in order to work continuously and efficiently. Probably this explains why intellectual and especially professional satisfactions have come to dominate over physical pleasures. Endowed with a mentality in many respects ordinary, I have always had the advantage of a few wholly extraordinary abilities. Love of work and the power to tap new reservoirs of energy seem to have been paternal heritages which the circumstances of my life greatly strengthened. From childhood I have been able to work easily, effectively, and joyously, even when associates whom I considered my superiors physically and intellectually faltered or failed. This I attribute more largely to exceptional planfulness, persistence, sustained interest, and abiding faith in the values [p. 405] of my objectives, than to unusual intellectual gifts or acquisitions. My love of planning and a degree of prophetic insight therein, which sometimes seems to approach genius, have, I suspect, more than compensated in my professional life for relatively poor memory, a degree of inaptitude for the acquisition of languages which, to the amusement of my family, I often refer to as linguistic idiocy, and almost complete lack of power of artistic expression either graphically or vocally. As I view my life in retrospect, its professional achievements, and especially its originality, constructivity, and fruitfulness, which many of my colleagues characterize as exceptional, are attributable primarily to the habit of planning with care, foresight, and acquired skill whatever I propose to undertake, to steady unflagging interest and constancy of purpose, and, finally, to persistence which is slow alike to yield to discouragement or to admit failure. At the age of fifty-three, and though deriving from long-lived stock, I cannot say, as did my paternal grandfather in his sixties, that I have never known fatigue. Instead, it is what I most often have had to work against. Reputed among my intimate friends and my family to be a hard worker, I have never been able to accept the fact, for during most of my years of intense professional activity I have worked not more than eight in each twenty-four hours. It is true, however, that during hours of application my concentration usually is intense and my efficiency relatively high. That the chief if not the only secret of my professional progress is hard work finds illustrative support in my ability to use my native tongue. Not infrequently, when I speak to professional friends of my joy in writing, they voice either surprise or envy. I think I enjoy composition almost as much as I do inventing, planning, or perfecting apparatus and methods or the act of observation, but I cannot discover in my present measure of ability unusual native or inborn gift. To me it seems instead the product of ceaseless practice from youth to the present moment. It is said that I have published much, perhaps it might be said too much, but nevertheless of what I have written during the last thirty years I estimate that barely one-tenth has been published. Letter writing has, I am sure, immensely increased my facility in expression. If relieved of the irksomeness of making a multiplicity of symbols, I usually would rather write to a friend than eat my dinner! Aside from the improving influence of practice in writing, I attribute my power of verbal expression to systematic use of the diction-[p. 406]ary early and late, with resultant growth of vocabulary and increase in the precision of use of words. As a boy of twelve I carried in my pocket a handy English dictionary which I consulted on opportunity during the day's farm work. Often in later years I have wondered whose suggestion led me to this method of self-improvement. Were I required to single out the one characteristic which, above all others, has influenced my professional career it would have to be planfulness. Whenever I have had to compete with my fellows I have succeeded, if at all, by prophetic planning rather than by greater activity or longer effort. The purity of my joy in creative effort -- it may as appropriately be called play as work -- probably is due chiefly to self-determination, for more often than not I have followed freely and consistently my judgments, plans, preferences, and desires, instead of another's. Whether it be a merit or a shortcoming, I am not a good follower. It cramps my dominant trait, planfulness, and reduces me to a species of intellectual slavery. The low levels in my career are due to inhibition of initiation through limitation of self-determination, and, correlatively, the high levels to large freedom for planning and achievement. Looking backward over thirty years of diligent labor and abundant intellectual, social, and material rewards, I am impelled to view all as preparation for the future. It is as if I were now on the threshold of a great undertaking which from the first was dimly envisaged and later planned for with increasing definiteness and assurance. Whether in this characterization of my past and prophecy for my future I am substantially correct, time will reveal. As ever, I am optimistic and determined. The prospect is alluring, for, as never before, and in a measure beyond my hopes, it promises the fulfilment of my persistent dream for the progress of comparative psychobiology and the enhancement of its values to mankind through the wise utilization of anthropoid apes and other primates as subjects of experimental inquiry. My professional self and the program of research which has become identified with that self are parts of a movement which will dominate the twentieth century, the socializing of biology. In this great movement, as in the problems which must be solved and the practical services rendered for its facilitation, I am single-mindedly and intensely interested. As a rule remote or inclusive objectives are hidden or obscured by a multiplicity of immediate demands and responsibilities. Therefore, I have presumed to point a goal toward [p. 407] which all mankind is struggling and to claim it as my own. It should not be difficult to merge the self with such a goal or to lose one's life completely in its quest. It is ungracious to preach to one's professional colleagues. Here they should stop. Only those whose careers are in prospect may safely continue! The wisdom which has come to me from vicissitudes and achievements finds expression thus: to recognize and accept one's limitations cheerfully, bravely, but also intelligently; to choose as vocation, and to render service through, work for which one is well fitted by nature and acquisition, and, in so doing, to utilize one's special abilities to the utmost. This is the best recipe I have discovered for social usefulness and for personal happiness. I have done scant justice to my creditors in this brief human document. What throughout I have referred to as such actually is not mine. More truly and largely it belongs to those whose work throughout the ages prepared the way for my constructive efforts and to those also who have labored for and with me as teachers, pupils, assistants, colleagues. In contemplation of my debts, I stand humble and reluctant to use the personal pronoun, for the professional strivings and achievements which I have recorded are ours and thine even more than mine. This is my inadequate acknowledgment to those who have gone before and to those who have personally companioned, guided, enlightened, and inspired me. Notes [1] Yerkes and Carr (paternal); Carrell and Addis (maternal). [2] Doctor Southard died February 8, 1920. [3] Report of the Psychology Committee of the National Research Council. Psychol. Rev., 1919, 26, 83-149. Psychology in relation to the war. Psychol. Rev., 1918, 25, 85-115. The measurement and utilization of brain power in the army. Science 1919, 44, 221-226, 251-259. Yerkes, R. M., and Yoakum, C. S. Army mental tests. New York: Holt, 1920. Pp. 303. Cobb, M. V., and Yerkes, R. M. Intellectual and educational status of the medical profession as represented in the United States Army. Bull. Nat. Res. Council, 1921, 1, 457-532. The personnel system of the United States Army. Vol. 1. History of the personnel system; Vol. 2. The personnel manual. Published by the War Department, Washington, D. C., 1919. Psychological examining in the United States Army. Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci., 1921, 15 (Official report). [4] See "Provision for the study of monkeys and apes," Science, 1916, 43, 231-234. [5] Yerkes, R. M. The work of the Committee on Scientific Problems of Human Migration. Reprint and Circular Series of the National Research Council, 1924, No. 58. Wissler, C. Final report of the Committee on Scientific Problems of Human Migration. Reprint and Circular Series of the National Research Council, 1929. No. 87. [6] Since this was written two years ago. the plan of organization has been altered. My work is now administratively a section of the Department of Physiology of the School of Medicine, Yale University, and I am in charge of the Laboratories of Comparative Psychobiology.

Hank, It seems that the deaths of James Forrestal and Frank Olson may have happened shortly after the arrival of Dr. Erich Traub, Hitler's former chief biological warfare expert, at the Naval Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, MD. Could these events be related somehow? Just seems very suspicious. Did they both lodge violent protests over their concerns about Traub's experiments which resulted in having them both silenced? More later... Dr. Erich Traub (1906-1985) was a German veterinarian and scientist/virologist. During the 1930s, he performed research on vaccines and viruses, including pseudorabies virus and lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCM), at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, Princeton, NJ.[1][2][3] Traub worked at the University of Giessen, Germany, from 1938 to 1942, and from 1942 to 1948 at the Reichsforschungsanstalt (für Viruskrankheiten der Tiere) on the Insel Riems (Riems Island), a German animal virus research institute in the Baltic sea, now named the Friedrich Loeffler Institute. The Reichsanstalt was headed by Prof. Dr. Otto Waldmann; Traub was vice-president. From 1949 - 1953 he was associated with the Naval Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, MD (Operation Paperclip). Subsequently (1953) he founded and led a new branch of the Loeffler Institut in Tübingen, Germany, and headed it from 1953 to 1963.[4] Traub was brought to the United States in 1949 under the auspices of the United States government program Operation Paperclip, meant to exploit scientific knowledge gained during Nazi rule in Germany.[5] In the book Lab 257, author Michael Carroll claims that Traub supposedly was a Nazi (Traub was a member of the NSKK (motorist corps, a subsidiary of the SA, from 1938-1942; he was not a member of the NSDAP or SS; Traub and his wife were members of the Amerika Deutscher Bund from 1934-1935). Of note, the NSKK was declared a condemned, not a criminal organization at the Nuremberg trials. Carroll further claims that Traub worked directly for Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS and Gestapo, who in 1943 took over the Innenministerium (Ministry of the Interior); the Reichsanstalt was transferred administratively to the Ministry of the Interior in 1943 [6]. The 'chain of command' was Himmler --> Conti --> Dr. Kurt Blome --> Waldmann --> Traub. In 1944 Blome ordered Traub to pick up a strain of Rinderpest virus in Turkey; upon his return, this strain proved inactive (nonvirulent) and therefore plans for a Rinderpest vaccine had to be shelved. Carroll claims that Traub visited the Plum Island biological research facility in New York on at least three occasions in the 1950s. The Plum Island facility, operated by the Department of Agriculture, conducted research on foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) of cattle, one of Traub's areas of expertise.[6] Traub was offered a leading position at Plum Island in 1958 which he declined. Carroll, along with author John Loftus, has alleged the United States performed bioweapons research on Plum Island.[7] Traub never worked with ticks or Borrelia spp. The alleged Plum Island - Lyme Disease - Erich Traub 'connection' is pure fiction. Traub served as an expert on FMD for the FAO of the UN in Bogota, Colombia, from 1951-1952, in Teheran, Iran, from 1963-1967, and in Ankara, Turkey, from 1969-1971. He retired from the West German civil service in 1971. In 1972, on the occasion of the 500. anniversary of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University, München, Traub received an honorary doctorate degree in Veterinary Medicine for his achievements in basic and applied Virology (basic research on LCM; definition and diagnosis of type strains of FMD and their variants; development of adsorbate vaccines against fowl plague, Teschner disease of swine, and erysipelas of swine). With regard to Traub's alleged role in biological warfare during WW II, the reader is referred to Erhard Geissler's book: Biologische Waffen, nicht in Hitlers Arsenalen. Biologische und Toxin-Kampfmittel in Deutschland von 1915 bis 1945. LIT-Verlag, Berlin-Hamburg-Münster, 2. edition, 1999, pp. 483 – 516, ISBN 3825829553. One might wish to consult Erhard Geissler. Biological Warfare Activities in Germany, 1923 - 1945. In: Geissler, Erhard and Moon, John Ellis van Courtland eds., Biological warfare from the Middle Ages to 1945. New York, Oxford University Press, 1999; ISBN 0-19-829579-0. Interested readers might also wish to consult the Alsos Report (1945) and Bernstein, Barton J.: Birth of the U.S. Biological Warfare Program. Scientific American 256: 116 - 121, 1987. These publications confirm that Nazi Germany did not produce offensive biological weapons (see also: PBS 'Living Weapon' film features MIT expert on U.S. biological weapons program (Ms. Jeanne Guillemin)--http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/bioweapons.html - February 2, 2007). Hitler had blocked the development of biological weapons. Rather, vaccines against animal viral diseases, in particular FMD, served defensive purposes. See also: Paul Maddrell: Spying on Science: Western Intelligence in Divided Germany 1945 - 1961. Oxford University Press, 2006, ISBN 0199267502. As is well known, the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), entered into force March 26, 1975, prohibits the development, production, and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons; permitted purposes under the BWC are defined as prophylactic, protective and other peaceful purposes. Therefore, the research and the development of animal/livestock vaccines are legitimate. [edit] References 1. ^ Traub E, A filterable virus recovered from white mice, Science, 1935, volume 81, pages 298-99. 2. ^ Traub E, Cultivation of Pseudorabies Virus, J Exp Med, November 30, 1933, 58(6), 663-81. 3. ^ Barthold SW, Introduction: microbes and the evolution of scientific fancy mice, ILAR J, 2008, 49(3), 265-71. 4. ^ Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, History: Isle of Riems 5. ^ Hunt, Linda. Secret Agenda: The United States Government, Nazi Scientists, and Project Paperclip, 1945 to 1990. New York: St.Martin's Press, 1991. 340 pages 6. ^ a b Carroll, Michael (2004). Lab 257: The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 0-06-001141-6 7. ^ Loftus, John (1982). The Belarus Secret. Knopf. ISBN 0394522923. [edit] Further reading * Bernstein, Barton J.: Birth of the U.S. biological warfare program. Scientific American 256: 116 - 121, 1987. * Geissler, Erhard: Biologische Waffen, nicht in Hitlers Arsenalen. Biologische und Toxin-Kampfmittel in Deutschland von 1915 - 1945. LIT-Verlag, Berlin-Hamburg-Münster, 2nd ed., 1999. ISBN 3825829553. * Geissler, Erhard: Biological warfare activities in Germany 1923 - 1945. In: Geissler, Erhard and Moon, John Ellis van Courtland, eds., Biological warfare from the Middle Ages to 1945. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0198295790. * Maddrell, Paul: Spying on Science: Western Intelligence in Divided Germany 1945 - 1961. Oxford University Press, 2006, ISBN 0199267502. * John Rather: New York Times, February 15, 2004: Heaping more dirt on Plum I.

I think I have finally discovered the previously unnamed "Baltimore Eugenicist" who was associated with the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad alluded to by Richard Condon in The Manchurian Candidate. Garrett would have been very familiar with Robert "Railroad" Ryan, and Thomas "Fortune" Ryan who were the forebears of Clendenin J. Ryan part of the Ulius Amoss, Harold B. Chait and Carleton Coon related organizations from Baltimore and part of Gram Trade Intl and Boston Metals Processing Company of Baltimore along with Morris B. Schapiro. One of the Ryans actually shipped industrial diamonds to Hitler before and during World War II from his Belgian owned mines in South Africa. And Clendenin J. Ryan was involved with William F. Buckley, Jr., Charles Edison and and Doug Caddy through his son, Clendenin J. Ryan, Jr. in the formation of Young Americans for Freedom. Clendenin J. Ryan reported to Admiral James Forrestal during World War II, the first U.S. Secretary of Defense but it may have been called the Secretary of War in the beginning. Forrestal, Coon, Ryan, Amoss, Garrett and Bonner Fellers were all involved with MK/ULTRA in one way or the other or they would not have been included in Condon's Manchurian Candidate. Robert Garrett's brother was John W. Garrett and my supposition is that the Draper and Pioneer Fund confidante Henry Garrett, from Columbia University, is probably related to them in some form or fashion. Henry Garrett claimed to be related to the owners of Garrett's Farm where John Wilkes Booth was hidden after he killed Lincoln. Funding the Eugenics Movement Last Updated: 05/27/2009 23:58 Eugenics Watch When Francis Galton coined the word eugenics and set out to promote the idea, he launched a movement based on an ideology. Different people at different times have been attracted by different aspects of eugenics — and have often rejected some pieces. There is no neat package, no central headquarters, no guiding Fuhrer. Rather, eugenics is a collection of ideas and projects about improving the human race by social control of human reproduction. The eugenics movement has spread around the world, and into all facets of social life. No one in the United States (or anywhere in the developed world) today needs to look far to find eugenics: if you have trouble finding it in the mirror, you might look in your high school textbooks, and even in papers that you wrote yourself. It is in our newspapers (and all media), in the fiction we enjoy (and in much nonfiction), in government, at the mall, in your best friend's head. It is a way of thinking about life that some very smart people have been pushing for a century, with little or no resistance in the last 50 years. To ask, then, about the funding for the movement is to pose a huge and tangled question. Nonetheless, we will wade into the thicket, not planning to get a complete answer, but expecting to get some idea of the size of the eugenics movement, some sense of the magnitude of the challenge we face. The Robber Barons At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the United States changed dramatically, from a society based on agriculture to a society based on industry. The population did not shift from the farms to the cities right away, but the money and power shifted. Men no longer made huge fortunes based on tobacco or cotton plantations; instead, men made huge fortunes from steel, oil, railroads and banking. In 1934, Matthew Josephson stuck a label on the small handful of very aggressive and successful businessmen who amassed huge fortunes in that period, and the label stuck — the "robber barons." The eugenics movement was funded substantially by them (and other multimillionaires). Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) made his fortune in railroads and then steel. In 1889, he wrote an essay about the life of a rich man, explaining his view that the successful should spend part of life acquiring wealth and then part of life distributing it wisely. And he tried to follow his own advice. Unfortunately, some of his money went to the eugenics movement. The Carnegie Institution of Washington funded the Station for Experimental Evolution at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island, beginning in 1904. This beautiful little outpost of biological research and study hosted the Eugenics Record Office (funded with Harriman money), beginning in 1910. C. B. Davenport was the director of the Cold Spring Harbor lab, and also the director of the Eugenics Record Office. Throughout the century, a number of universities and think-tanks have welcomed and groomed eugenics theorists and leaders. Individuals moved among these institutions as if there were revolving doors between them. The Carnegie Institution of Washington was among these eugenics think-tanks. For example, Robert S. Woodward was president of the Institution from 1904 to 1920, and helped to plan the Second International Congress of Eugenics. Other eugenics activists who went through the Carnegie revolving door included Ellsworth Huntington, Michael Teitelbaum and Howard Newcombe. In 1952, when the eugenics movement was reorganizing, the Carnegie Institution of Washington helped out. George W. Corner, representing the Carnegie Institution, argued that there was "a great and emergent need for which special weapons are required." The Institute helped to fund research on these "special weapons" — new birth control methods. Edward Henry Harriman (1848-1909) made his fortune speculating on the stock market. In 1897, he took over the bankrupt Union Pacific Railroad, and then went on to build a railroad empire in the West. When he died, his wife inherited his money. The following year, she provided $500,000 to found the Eugenics Record Office. The Eugenics Record Office was involved in the forced sterilization campaigns and the anti-immigration laws. In 1932, the Third International Eugenics Congress was held in New York, at the Museum of Natural History. (The First International Eugenics Congress had been in 1912 in London, and the Second was in New York.) Mrs. E. H. Harriman was among the sponsors, along with Mrs. H. B. DuPont and Dr. J. Harvey Kellogg, among others. John Davison Rockefeller (1839-1937) made his fortune in the oil industry. He founded Standard Oil, which at one time controlled 95 percent of the oil refining business in the country. He and his descendants gave away hundreds of millions of dollars. The Rockefellers funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Germany, when eugenicists were preparing the way ideologically for what eventually became the world's most infamous slaughter, the Nazi holocaust. The Rockefeller Institute supported Alexis Carrel, who advocated the use of gas to get rid of the unwanted. John D. Rockefeller III founded the Population Council. Rockefeller money made Alfred Kinsey's sex research possible. In the fall of 1993, the Rockefeller Archive Center Newsletter published "The Rockefeller Foundation, the Population Council and the Groundwork for New Population Policies" by John B. Sharpless of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Sharpless had been studying the files of the Rockefeller Foundation (RF), the records of the Population Council, and the personal papers of John D. Rockefeller III. He concluded that "Foundations and individual philanthropists are important in understanding the impressively quick and nearly unanimous change in attitudes and ideas about population that occurred during the 1960s." Such foundations funded the development of contraceptives, but also built the international network of experts who shaped the public debate, who shared "a core body of knowledge and a common mode of discourse" as well as a "shared set of assumptions about how population dynamics worked." Sharpless wrote, "The power to accomplish this task was based on their relationship with the philanthropic community. In addition to the Rockefeller Foundation and the Population Council, other Foundations active in this area included the Ford Foundation, the Milbank Memorial Fund and, to a lesser extent, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Conservation Foundation." Henry Ford (1863-1947) was a pioneer in the use of assembly lines, and mass-produced the first inexpensive automobile, the Model T. He and his son Edsel (1893-1943) established the Ford Foundation in 1936. For many years, this was the largest foundation in the world, giving away billions of dollars. For many years, the Ford Foundation supported population control. In the 1970s, Michael Teitelbaum worked quietly on Capitol Hill to shape American population policy (without any public debate or scrutiny); he was supported for part of his career by the Ford Foundation. The foundation's impact on population policy is described at length in John Caldwell's 1986 book, Limiting Population Growth and the Ford Foundation. John Harvey Kellogg, M.D. (1852-1945) figured out new ways to get Americans to eat the abundant grain of the Midwest. His best known product was corn flakes, a staple on American breakfast tables for generations. Kellogg was on the Advisory Council of the American Eugenics Society from the early days. He founded the Race Betterment Foundation, and was a sponsor of three eugenics conferences. Clarence J. Gamble used part of the fortune made by Procter & Gamble products (including soap) to finance birth control projects for the poor in many parts of the world. He helped to push through legislation in 1937 legalizing birth control in Puerto Rico; the law specified that birth control material was to be distributed by trained eugenicists. He supported birth control distribution in Appalachia and in rural Japan. A leader in Margaret Sanger's Birth Control Federation, he suggested that they set up a "Negro Project," using black clergy and physicians to promote birth control. He founded the Pathfinder Fund, to promote population control around the world. In 1930 in New York, many of the wealthiest people in the world were members of the American Eugenics Society. They did not all provide funds for major eugenics initiatives, but their support certainly opened doors. It does not hurt an organization financially if its membership includes: * J. P. Morgan, Jr., chairman, U. S. Steel, who handled British contracts in the United States for food and munitions during World War I; * Mrs. Mary Duke Biddle, tobacco fortune heiress; * Cleveland H. and Cleveland E. Dodge and their wives, who used some of the huge fortune that Phelps Dodge & Company made on copper mines and other metals to support eugenics; * Robert Garrett, whose family had amassed a fortune through banking in Maryland and the B&O railroad, who helped finance two international eugenics congresses; * Miss E. B. Scripps, whose wealth came from United Press (later UPI); * Dorothy H. Brush, Planned Parenthood activist, whose wealth came from Charles Francis Brush (1849-1929), who invented the arc lamp for street lights and founded the Brush Electric Company; * Margaret Sanger, who used the wealth of one of one of her husbands, Noah Slee, to promote her work. Slee made his fortune from the familiar household product, 3-in-One Oil. Wealth Opens Doors to Wealth Rich people generally don't get rich by being dumb. The people who funded the eugenics movement were smart enough to use their power and influence to develop additional sources of funding for their projects. Two huge sources of additional funds for eugenics are tax dollars and corporate donations. Today, a large part of the eugenics movement is involved in population control, a form of negative eugenics. The funds that international bodies and national governments spend on population control stagger the imagination. A few examples follow. From its beginning, the United Nations was a major battleground for population control. The Vatican and many Catholic countries resisted population control there, as did many Muslim nations. Still, the flow of funds from the United Nations for eugenics purposes has grown steadily. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) puts out an Inventory of Population Projects every year, which gives a quick view of programs and their financial support around the world. The inventory shows "multilateral" support from international bodies, "bilateral" support from one nation to another, and support from "non-governmental organizations," or NGOs. To take one random example: in Egypt in 1988-89, there was support from three multilateral organizations. The World Bank had supported two projects over a period of years, with a cost of over $45 million (costs split with the Egyptian government). UNFPA had provided support for eleven projects, expending over $30 million. The World Health Organization (WHO) had provided approximately $2.5 million over the previous 17 years. Egypt received bilateral agency assistance from three nations. The United States provided $25 million over a two-year period. Germany and Japan provided much smaller sums. There were 17 NGOs providing funds for population assistance in Egypt that year. The NGOs are much more flexible than national governments; they can get funds approved faster than donor nations, and can work around laws in recipient nations. One clear example is the Pathfinder Fund in the United States, which provided funds for abortion equipment when the American government refused to do so, and provided the equipment in a nation where abortion was illegal (by saying that the suction devices were for "menstrual regulation). NGOs active in Egypt that year included: * Association for Voluntary Surgical Sterilization (formerly the Human Betterment Foundation, founded by E. S. Gosney, a member of Advisory Council of the American Eugenics Society), which provided about $125,000 for six sterilization projects; * Family Planning International Assistance, which reported "a cumulative total of $2,952,940 in family planning commodities [that is, condoms, Pills, IUDs, etc.] to 27 institutions in Egypt"; * International Planned Parenthood Federation, which spent $588,500 in Egypt that year; * John Snow, Inc, which was spending $4.5 million over seven years to save children from diarrhea, plus another $532,000 in one year to strengthen family planning programs; * Pathfinder Fund, which was spending $300,226 over two years helping to build or improve 258 family planning clinics; * Population Council, which reported four projects in Egypt that year, including one on Norplant and two on IUDs, at a cost of $59,000; * Rockefeller Foundation, which was spending $55,000 on two projects over several years to study Norplant and Pill usage. In Kenya, to take another example, the same multilateral agencies provided population control funds that year (World Bank, UNFPA and WHO). Bilateral support came from the United States, Sweden, Norway, Britain, Finland, Germany and Canada. There were 22 NGOs funding population control in Kenya that year, including all the groups mentioned above. In the years since the report used in these example, population funding has increased substantially, from all sources. The major international population control funders are the World Bank and UNFPA. The leader among the national governments that have made a serious commitment to population control has been the United States, but Japan has been catching up. The Scandinavian nations have made the largest per capita contributions. The British and the Canadians are also large donors to population control. Corporate Support Each year, corporations in the United States make a long list of charitable donations. These donations are a way that the companies can share their wealth with the community, but they also get good public relations. When people watch a television program funded by an oil company, they don't automatically switch their gas purchases, but the company gets name recognition and good feelings that can generate more sales over time. As a result, it is often possible to persuade companies that make controversial donations to stop it. So it would be a mistake to put out a list of companies that fund eugenics today; they may stop tomorrow, and the list would change. However, there are hundreds of companies on the list. Drug companies that manufacture oral contraceptives and other birth control material are not likely to change their ways quickly. American corporations that make birth control Pills include American Home Products, Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, Monsanto, Alza, Warner Lambert and Pharmacia-Upjohn. The products — both good and bad — of these huge companies are in every household in America. In fact, virtually every household in the nation buys their products every time they go shopping. The drug companies have provided funds and lobbyists in Washington for eugenics-related work. But today, they are joined by biotechnology companies. The fastest growing companies in the nation are computer firms and biotechnology firms. Dark Clouds on the Horizon There may be huge sums of new money coming to the eugenics movement in the beginning of the 21st century. Three of the richest men in the world have indicated that they intend to use their wealth to improve the quality of life (for some). Ted Turner became a billionaire by developing a television network, CNN. He is giving one billion dollars to the United Nations, doled out over ten years by his own foundation, and is steering a large portion of it to population control. Warren Buffett has discussed plans for a foundation to distribute his money after he dies. The foundation is to focus on two issues: world peace and population control. His fortune in early 1999 was reported to be over $30 billion and growing steadily. Other billionaires have begun funding parts of the eugenics movement. Bill Gates, the richest man in the country, and George Soros, the financier, have started putting their money into population control projects. The struggle over eugenics is a battle for minds and hearts, and can be won by telling the truth with courage and love. But it is prudent to assess the strengths of our opposition. They do have money and power. In 1930 in New York, many of the wealthiest people in the world were members of the American Eugenics Society. They did not all provide funds for major eugenics initiatives, but their support certainly opened doors. It does not hurt an organization financially if its membership includes: * J. P. Morgan, Jr., chairman, U. S. Steel, who handled British contracts in the United States for food and munitions during World War I; * Mrs. Mary Duke Biddle, tobacco fortune heiress; * Cleveland H. and Cleveland E. Dodge and their wives, who used some of the huge fortune that Phelps Dodge & Company made on copper mines and other metals to support eugenics; * Robert Garrett, whose family had amassed a fortune through banking in Maryland and the B&O railroad, who helped finance two international eugenics congresses; * Miss E. B. Scripps, whose wealth came from United Press (later UPI); * Dorothy H. Brush, Planned Parenthood activist, whose wealth came from Charles Francis Brush (1849-1929), who invented the arc lamp for street lights and founded the Brush Electric Company; * Margaret Sanger, who used the wealth of one of one of her husbands, Noah Slee, to promote her work. Slee made his fortune from the familiar household product, 3-in-One Oil. John Work Garrett (1872-1942) — also known as John W. Garrett — of Baltimore County, Md.; Baltimore, Md. Born in Baltimore, Md., May 19, 1872. Son of Thomas Harrison Garrett and Alice Dickinson (Whitridge) Garrett; married, December 24, 1908, to Alice Warder; brother of Robert Garrett. Republican. Banker; Foreign Service officer; U.S. Minister to Venezuela, 1910-11; Argentina, 1911-13; Netherlands, 1917-19; Luxembourg, 1917-19; delegate to Republican National Convention from Maryland, 1920, 1924; U.S. Ambassador to Italy, 1929-33. Died in 1942. Burial location unknown. Robert Garrett (b. 1875) — of Roland Park, Baltimore, Md. Born in Baltimore County, Md., June 24, 1875. Son of Thomas Harrison Garrett and Alice Dickinson (Whitridge) Garrett; brother of John Work Garrett; married, May 1, 1907, to Katharine Barker Johnson. Republican. Banker; candidate for Maryland state house of delegates, 1903, 1905; candidate for U.S. Representative from Maryland 2nd District, 1904, 1906, 1908; member of Maryland Republican State Central Committee, 1912. Presbyterian. Member, American Historical Association; American Academy of Political and Social Science; Alpha Delta Phi. Burial location unknown. Robert Garrett seems to have been the much more extreme right-wing Eugenicist while his brother John Work Garrett was much more philanthropic and liberal than his brother. John W. Garrett From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For other persons named John W. Garrett, see John W. Garrett (disambiguation). John W. Garrett Born July 31, 1820(1820-07-31) Baltimore, Maryland Died September 26, 1884 Deer Park, Maryland John Work Garrett (July 31, 1820 – September 26, 1884) was an American banker, philanthropist, and president of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad (B&O). In 1855, he was named to the board of the B&O, and in 1858, became its president, a position he held until the year he died. His tenure was marked by his support for the Union cause during the Civil War, the expansion of the railroad to reach Chicago, Illinois, and his struggles with the Pennsylvania Railroad over access to New York City. Many places are named in his honor, including: * Garrett, Indiana * Garrett County, Maryland * Garrett Park, Maryland * Garrett, Pennsylvania Contents [hide] * 1 Early life * 2 The Civil War * 3 Postbellum activities * 4 References * 5 External links [edit] Early life After attending but not graduating from Lafayette College,[1] Garrett began working as a clerk in his father's banking and financial services firm, Robert Garrett and Company, at the age of nineteen. The company's fleet of Conestoga wagons carried food and supplies west over the Cumberland Trail. In later years, the business expanded into railroads, shipping, and banking. Garrett began purchasing the stock of B&O during a difficult period when the railroad was contending with the completion of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and internal conflicts created by its part private and public ownership. Of the thirty members of the B&O's board of directors, eighteen were selected by Maryland and the City of Baltimore.[2] On November 17, 1858, following a motion of board member and shareholder Johns Hopkins, Garrett became president of the B&O Railroad. The Garrett Company and the B&O interests had strong ties to the London-based George Peabody & Company, and through their business interests, Garrett and George Peabody became close friends. Garrett became deeply involved with the Peabody Institute. Garrett married Rachel Ann Harrisson (1823–1883) and had four children. His daughter Mary E. Garrett, a philanthropist and suffragist, helped found the Bryn Mawr School and secured the admission of women to the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. Among the Baltimore residences of the Garretts was Evergreen House, which was later donated by a descendant to the Johns Hopkins University. [edit] The Civil War The B&O got an early taste of the Civil War during John Brown's raid on the Federal armory in Harper's Ferry, West Virginia (in those days still part of Virginia). Garrett learned that raiders had stopped a train at Harper's Ferry, and sent a telegraph to the Secretary of War.[2] Federal troops led by Robert E. Lee were sent to put down the rebellion on a B&O train. Garrett considered the B&O to be a Southern railroad, and had pro-South sympathies. However, his business sense (and his anger at seeing Confederates tearing up his railroad) made him side for the Union[5], and under his direction, the B&O was instrumental in supporting the Federal government, as it was the main rail connection between Washington, DC and the northern states. Garrett is particularly remembered for his part in the Battle of Monocacy. Agents of the railroad began reporting Confederate troop movements eleven days prior to the battle, and Garrett had their intelligence passed to authorities in the War Department and to Major General Lew Wallace, who commanded the department that would be responsible for defense of the area. As preparations for the battle progressed, Garrett provided transport for federal troops and munitions, and on two occasions was contacted directly by President Abraham Lincoln for further information. Though Union forces lost this battle, the delay allowed Ulysses S. Grant to successfully repel the confederate attack on Washington at the Battle of Fort Stevens two days later, and after the battle, Lincoln paid tribute to Garrett as "The right arm of the Federal Government in the aid he rendered the authorities in preventing the Confederates from seizing Washington and securing its retention as the Capital of the Loyal States."[3] Garrett was a confidant of President Lincoln, and often often occompanied on his visits to battlefields in Maryland.[1] In 1865 Garrett organized the funeral train that took the body of the assassinated president from Washington to Springfield, Illinois, a trip which included stops and processions in Baltimore, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, New York City, Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, and Chicago.[4] [edit] Postbellum activities After the war, Garrett acquired three gunboats that had been used in the blockade service and refitted them into packet ships, establishing the first regular line service from Baltimore, Maryland, to Liverpool, Pennsylvania. He was also associated with several telegraph companies.[1] Following the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, Garrett in 1880 was one of the organizers of the B&O Employees' Relief Association.[1] The B&O provided its initial endowment and assumed all administrative costs. Worker coverage included sickness, indefinite time for recovery from accidents, and a death benefit.[2] In 1884 Garrett was instrumental in negotiating the loans which allowed the B&O to extend its main line to Philadelphia and through the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad to reach New York City. Garrett, a trustee of the Peabody Institute, asked its founder, George Peabody, to persuade Johns Hopkins to make the bequest that would make possible the Johns Hopkins University and Medical Institutions. Garrett became one of the most active trustees of the university. [edit] References 1. ^ a b c d Hall, Clayton Colman (1912). Baltimore: Its History and Its People. 2. Lewis Historical Publishing Co.. pp. 458–461. 2. ^ a b c Fee, Elizabeth (1991). "Evergreen House and the Garrett Family: A Railroad Fortune". in Fee, Elizabeth; Shopes, Linda; and Zeidman, Linda (eds.). The Baltimore Book: New Views of Local History. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. pp. 11–27. ISBN 0-87722-823-X. 3. ^ John W. Garrett, President, B & O Railroad from the US National Park Service Monocacy National Battlefield website (accessed 14 November 2006) 4. ^ Scharf, J. Thomas (1967 (reissue of 1879 ed.)), History of Maryland From the Earliest Period to the Present Day, 3, Hatboro, PA: Tradition Press, pp. 656, http://books.google.com/books?id=9IEjAAAAM...istory+maryland * Bowditch, Eden Unger (2001). Growing Up in Baltimore: A Photographic History. Charleston, S.C.: Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 0-7385-1357-1. OCLC 48216339. * "About Us". Garrett State Bank. http://www.garrettstatebank.com/about.htm. Retrieved 2005-03-02. * Ingham, John N. (1983). Biographical Dictionary of American business leaders. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-23907-X. OCLC 8388468. * "Biography of John Work Garrett". Encyclopedia of World Biography. Thomson Gale. 2005. http://www.bookrags.com/biography/john-work-garrett/. Retrieved 2005-03-02. * Treese, Lorett (2003). Railroads of Pennsylvania: Fragments of the Past in the Keystone Landscape. Mechanicsburg, Penn.: Stackpole Books. ISBN 0-8117-2622-3. OCLC 50228411. * White, John H, Jr. (Spring 1986). "America's Most Noteworthy Railroaders". Railroad History (154): p. 9–15. OCLC 1785797. ISSN 0090-7847. 5. Summers, Festus "The B&O in the Civil War"

It is not often that a single web site encapsulates most of the topics related to the hidden history of the United States. But this one captures the essence of the deep and dark side of American History with a strong emphasis on what I would call the unmentionable topics of Genocide, Racism, Eugenics, Apartheid, Anti-Semitism, Fascism, Involuntary Sterilization, Racial Purity, Fascism, the Klan, Segregation etc. This site would include all the topics that Paul Weyrich said should be included when all the History books in America covering the 20th Century are re-written to describe the various roles of Wickliffe Draper and The Pioneer Fund during that timeframe. http://mtwsfh.blogspot.com/2008/09/1929-19...al-reserve.html ALL OF the Topics at Making The Word Safe For Hypocrisy are listed here... The forces that eliminated JFK are all described herein. And all of these groups existed long before your list of usual suspects in the murders of JFK, RFK and MLK. * 1620: Lie Number One, The Pilgrims * 1763-1783: Lie Number Two, The American Revolution * 1783-1799: Lie Number Three, The Miracle of Democracy * 1800-1849: Thirty Five Invasions And A Genocide * 1850-1859: Invasions, Racism, Slavery and Ethnic Cleansing * 1860-1864: The Civil War, But First, Let's Kill Some Indians And Get Rid of the Jews * 1865-1869: The Final Solution To The Indian Problem And The Invasions Keep On Coming * 1870-1884: More Invasions, More Racism, More Ethnic Cleansing. Happy 100th Birthday America. * 1885-1894: The U.S. Steals Hawaii, Four Thousand Lynchings, Shooting Workers in the Streets and Planning For a Splendid Little War * 1895-1899: The Spanish-American War, A Sordid Little War * 1900-1904: The Philippines, A Full Dress Rehearsal For Iraq * 1905-1909: Treacherous Muslims and Ze Quest For Ze Master Race * 1910-1912: Invasions, Apartheid, Lynchings, Censorship And The Quest For The Master Race But No Conspiracies * 1913-1914: Destroying Democracy in Mexico and the Federal Reserve Scam * 1915-1916: Dangerous Singers, Lynching Jews and Niggers Speaking French! * 1917-1918: Now The Great War's A Good Thing, Fascism In America, SettingThe Stage For Old Adolf Plus The Miracle Of Free Speech * 1919-1920: A Summer Of Blood, Lynching Will Brown And J. Edna Hoover Takes The Stage * 1921-1922: Setting Up The Hitler Project, Giving Away The Nation's Oil, Mass Murdering Black Americans And Poisoning All Americans * 1923-1924: Destroying Rosewood, Racial Purity In Virginia And Prescott Bush And The Boys Get Old Adolf Started * 1925-1926: Legislated Ignorance, Dupont's Supermen, Hoover In Drag And Murdering Nicaraguans * 1927-1928: Sterilizing Americans, Slaughtering Miners, Making Your Boyfriend FBI Assistant Director, Invading China And Dive Bombing Nicaraguans * 1929-1930: The Crash of '29--A Federal Reserve Production, Racist Pseudoscience, Murdering Workers (Again) And The Dulles Brothers Help Old Adolf * 1931-1932: Admiring Mussolini, The Depression Ain't So Bad For Some, Murdering U.S. Veterans And Killing Puerto Ricans And Black People For Science * 1933-1934: The Dust Bowl, Gangsters In Pinstripe Suits, Pimping For Hitler, The Merchants of Death And An All-American Coup * 1935-1936: Arming The Nazis, Gangsters For Capitalism, Hanging Out With Hitler, Blackmailing Hoover And Truth, Justice Or The American Way * 1937-1938: Lebensborn U.S.A., Murdering Workers (Again), Murdering Puerto Ricans (Again), Arming Adolf (Again) And Outlawing The Killer Weed * 1939-1940: War's Just Good Business, Shortselling Czech Stock, Torturing Veterans' Kids, Crushing Dissent And The Hitler Project Boys Hedge Their Bets * 1941-1942: Lobotomizing Rosemary, Shock And Awe, Playing Both Sides Of The War And Concentration Camps In The Land Of The Free * 1943-1944: GM Builds Jet Engines For The Nazis, Apartheid In The Workplace, Beating Up Hispanics And The Hitler Project, Plan B * 1945: Bullxxxx At Nuremberg, Kissinger Joins The Boys, Experiment In Hiroshima, Installing Fascists And It's Not A War Crime When We Do It * 1946: Stealing A Hundred Billion Dollars, The Mafia Finances Tricky Dick, Rewarding War Criminals And It Ain't Over Yet For The Master Race * 1947: Thought Crime In America, Nazi Immigration, Subverting Democracy, No Nigras On The Freedom Train And Mickey Mouse Is A Commie Rat * 1948: Trying To Kill Robeson, Promoting Fascism, Mass Murdering Koreans, Lebensraum For Jews And Spying On Everyone * 1949: Bombing China, Lying To The World, Destroying Democracy, Silencing Uppity Niggers And Forrestal Goes Flying

Man are we on the same page with almost everything you have posted to date. Do a Search on this site for "Ulius Amoss" or "Carleton Coon" or even "Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order John" to see where I have definitively linked well over 3/4 of Condon's ManCand Dirty Dozen into either the OSJ designation or SMOM or even "Shickshinny Knights of Malta" who I believe were the ultimate perps including Draper cronies like Admiral Barry Domville, Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton of the Cliveden Set, Lt. Gen. Pedro A. del Valle from the Marine Corps and of course Charles Willoughby and Douglas MacArthur. I describe the SMOM OSJ efforts as "Killing Commies for Christ the King". And lest you abandon any thoughts of Richard Condon being onto these guys as of 1959 please suspend disbelief for a few days until you read about his Dirty Dozen and how they were linked into both SMOM and MK/ULTRA and WACL as well as the John Birch Society, The Pioneer Fund and the Eugenics movement in all its manifestations including the Mississippi Murderers like Draper who funded the MissSovComm, James Eastland who was Oswald's handler at SISS, Elmore Greaves who headed up the US WACL delegation at one time and Ned Touchstone who was a Yale educated Mississippi Racist. What a parlay that guy was. And even James Forrestal whom Clendenin J. Ryan, Amoss' moneybags, reported to at one time during WW-II was cited in ManCand by Condon. I think even Frank Wisner reported to Forrestal as well if I am not mistaken. And then Amoss, Fellers and Coon all reported to Hoyt Vandenberg in Cairo, Egypt during World War II. I may have to reconsider Maj. Carleton Coon's role in this whole conundrum. I am very familiar with most of his activities and yet somehow see him first and foremost as anti-Fascist rather than as a full-blown xenophobe like Carleton Putnam, R. Ruggles Gates, Henry Goddard, Robert Yerkes, Elmore Greaves and Wickliffe Draper. I used to watch Coon on "Where in the World" as a child and he just seems so professorial and so harmless, but his gun was used on Admiral Darlan and he was the prototype for "Indiana Jones" I honestly think so anything is possible. Otto Rahn was supposed to be another choice for the "Indiana Jones" paradigm so who really knows for sure? Coon is a much closer match though then Rahn. Do a Google for Where in the World Carl Coon and you might find a video from that 1950's program. Amazing stuff, really.

James Richards brought Maj. Carleton "Carl" Coon to my attention a few months ago when we were discussing Cairo, Egypt and Gen. Bonner Fellers who was yet another member of Richard Condon's Dirty Dozen. Both Coon, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Bonner Fellers were in Cairo when messages about Monty's troop movements were sent by Fellers to a young James Angelton in Rome who forwarded them all to the Desert Fox, Erwin Rommel. Coon joined a right wing money bags named Clendenin J. Ryan and Uliuss Amoss in Baltimore, Maryland at a company known as ISI Intl Services of Information and Gram Trade Intl which was later merged into the Baltimore Metals Processing Company owned by a figurehead Morris Schapiro who also bought out The Baldt Anchor and Chain Company in Chester, PA when it was about to go out of business between wars. Coon and Amoss using Ryan's money pulled off a bunch of major projects over the years including the assassination of Admiral Darlan using Coon's pistol, who was the leader of the French Vichy pro-Nazi forces. Coon and Amoss were both anti-Nazi and anti-Communist while Ryan was pure anti-Communist. Ryan's father or grandfather had sent Hitler industrial diamonds from his Belgian owned diamond mine in South Africa before and during World War II. The Feller's run operations "For America" and "Ten Million Americans for Justice" (for McCarthy) ended up with offices in New Orleans in the same building as Guy Banister. Fellers was a MacArthur protege and a friend of Willoughby. Suffice it to say for now that when Amoss died in 1961, his operations were taken over by Ray S. Cline, also a Condon charter member of The Dirty Dozen and Harold B. Chait who was also a member of the CIA who worked for Schapiro. Chait was a well known South Florida SOF bagman who funneled both Ryan's money and some laundered CIA money from Boston Metals into South Florida. The SOFs thought it was all his money or his wife's money. This came from Roy Hargraves and some/most these details were confirmed by James Richards as well using his sources. Cline and Chait took Boston Metals on a turn to the Far Right and later Cline joined other Eugenicists like Elmore Greaves from The White Citizens Councils and Draper's Pioneer Fund and Roger Pearson also of The Pioneer Fund as heads of the US delegations to WACL conferences during their most Fascist periods joining Guy Banister as avid WACL supporters which absorbed the entire band of Fascist and pro-Nazi ABN types into their fold including Raikin and Stetsko. It was this nexus of characters who highjacked Oswald on the docks of Hoboken, NJ after Oswald tried to kill Stetsko in West Berlin just like Stashinsky killed Stephan Bandera and Lev Rebet on the way to Rotterdam to hop on the SS Masdaam from Holland. The anti-JFK Oswald Legend Building team consisted of Guy Banister, Elmore Greaves, James Eastland, Thomas Dodd, Bonner Fellers, Alton Ochsner, Patrick J. Frawley, Robert Morris, Edwin A. Walker and Edward Scannell Butler most of whom were linked into either INCA started by Ochsner who later ended up at The Council for National Policy or The Pioneer Fund or The White Citizens Councils from Jackson, MS or Ole Miss. Where people like the Eugenicists who were close to Draper fit in is just coming into sharper focus: Henry Herbert Goddard and Robert Yerkes plus Carleton Putnam, Roger Pearson, Carleton Coon and R. Ruggles Gates of IAAEE all were adored and cited often by Elmore Greaves in his White Citizens Councils publications and Willis Carto of The Liberty Lobby, although I still maintain that Coon was not part of the actual JFK killing operation. He was probably not even asked to join. The others however were wholeheartedly in favor of the operation and contributed something to the final coup de grace. Oswald's role as a highjacked assassin? He did not even have to fire a shot in order to be picked as the perfect patsy. He was there just to act as a lightning rod to assure the PERFECT COVER-UP since he was indeed an MK/ULTRA trained assassin. Oswald's profile probably fit the pattern of someone who would make a great programmed assassin. Juvenile Delinquent, hated authority, no father figure, tendency towards violence, easily hypnotized, etc. And apparently he was used to snuff Corporal Schrand right in the armpit with a rifle as a demonstration of his finely tuned and honed skills as a kill on demand robot. Oswald was in Taiwan when Ray Cline was there as well. And the rest is history.