Greg Burnham

Looking forward to seeing you there, Gene.

As for Gerald Hill...he was just about everywhere that day, huh?

I've often wondered why? Wasn't he in personnel that day at City Hall? Wasn't he vetting police officer applicants that day? There is something very "interesting" about his whole story. It starts with his not being able to remember if he climbed the steps from the 5th floor to the 6th floor of the TSBD that day? Right? When Belin first asks him about the elevator, he can't remember for sure if he took the steps to the top or not. That is extremely suspect. He would HAVE to remember that because it is memorable. Eventually he seems to "fill that part in" but his memory lapse is curious. There is a lot to consider about his story, too much to cover here. He was everywhere that Lee Harvey Oswald was supposed to have been that day following the assassination.

Plus he supplied transportation for the reporter, Jim Ewell, who hitched a ride with him to both the original "crime scene" at the TSBD and then to the Tippit crime scene in Oak Cliff! It's interesting that during Hill's Warren Commission testimony, the report misspelled the name as Jim E. Well when the reporter was hitching a ride to the TSBD with Hill, but spelled it correctly as Jim Ewell, when the reporter was hitching a ride to the the Tippit crime scene in Oak Cliff.

And since when does a police officer provide "courtesy" transportation to a reporter while the officer is in the middle of performing his law enforcement duties immediately following the commission of a crime--particularly a homicide--where the perpetrator(s) must be considered armed and dangerous? Police officers are notorious for limiting access to reporters because oftentimes reporters can inadvertently interfere with an investigation if allowed to roam freely. Inevitably reporters must be allowed to do their job, but not to the detriment of the investigation, and more importantly, not to the detriment of the apprehension of the suspected perpetrators in the immediate wake of the commission of a capital crime. I haven't even mentioned the safety of the reporter! Police tend to limit reporters' access for as long as legally possible. They do not tend to aid a reporter in getting a story in any manner including offering transportation especially while in pursuit of the perp.

If only Jim Ewell had a movie camera with him in the back seat. I can hear the song now: "Bad boys, bad boys, whatchya gonna do, whatchya gonna do when they come for you...bad boys bad boys..."

Thanks for posting this-makes me examine the Tippit angle from a whole new light

You're welcome, Harvey.

Greg:

Thanks for posting this theory. It is thought-provoking, and comes at the Tippit legend from a different angle. It is this kind of thinking (challenging the long-held facts) that brings the plot into better focus. Earlene Roberts' testimony and deposition is one of the more pivotal (and questionable) pieces of evidence in the entire case... and the way she and her story were handled was very questionable. I used to hold open the idea that Tippit's murder could've been a part of the plan gone bad... but McBride's book and this analysis tells me he was indeed sacrificed and perhaps something else. If in fact he were a Knoll player, what a convenient way to eliminate one of the mechanics. I am reminded of one researcher's comment (can't recall who) that none of the actual shooters would likely be left alive a year later.

As the authors emphasize, the planners had way too much that depended on Oswald being perceived to have picked up a gun and a jacket in his room. They could not leave that to chance, and the vagaries of his post-assassination travels. Oswald at the boarding house had to be a “sure thing”. I concur that they couldn’t rely on Oswald’s actions to promptly play the part; they must have had an imposter to follow a script ... the only way to be sure they could blame Oswald for the crime. Curtain rods and employment at TSBD weren't enough at that point. And I firmly believe (as they state) that nothing happened by accident.

The authors make some very good practical points: something very peculiar was going on when a ticket cashier could call the police at a moment when the phone lines to the Dallas Police must have been overloaded, only to have them send between 20-30 cops to a movie theatre because a suspicious person walked in without paying for a ticket. Chief Curry's thin statements about how the general description leads to an arrest, the implausible timing of it all, the weak sounding TSBD head count, Oswald's arrest ... the authors connect the dots in a convincing way.

When I first jumped into this black hole of disinformation many years ago, I was mainly struck by one implausible fact: Oswald was identified as a suspect very early on - based on a vague description whose provenance was unclear (even today) and a questionable Baker/Truly interaction - and then arrested within 90 minutes. The author's make their case well by challenging the implausible sequence of events, and logically connect Tippit's sacrifice to Oswald's incrimination. Bigger picture, consider the dichodemy: The century's most controversial murder was solved in world record time!

Gene

You're welcome, Gene.

I agree with your observations about the jammed phone lines at the DPD and the haste with which a "suspected non-paying movie goer" was apprehended, quite a distance from the Crime of the Century, when the President's murderer was still on the loose!

Stan posted this on my forum:

----------------------------------

Lee Harvey Oswald Draws a Crowd

Never, ever think of sneaking into a movie theater without paying for your ticket.

Greg - I think its a brilliant analysis. I wonder whether the authors have thought of an explanation for Tippit's frantic actions prior to his death. McBride points out in his excellent research on Tippit that he was a marksman. The Glaco gas station, where Tippit was reliably identified at about 12:40 pm, was less than 2 miles from Dealey Plaza, and the witness who claimed Tippit answered a call to his retail business 10 minutes prior to the assassination only came forward years later, and his story is not corroborated by police records. We are supposed to believe that Tippit was searching for JFK's assassin as a result of a radio call from police dispatch to be on the lookout for a man whose physical description fit Oswald's, but what it really fits is the false physical description of Oswald planted by Angleton in his compartmentalized CIA file dangled by him to see where that false description might later appear. No way Tippit had an accurate description of Oswald at 12:40 pm. But his actions would appear to show a desperate man. Surely one possible explanation is that he was on the grassy knoll at 12:30 in police uniform.

I think the authors are right to mention Jack Crichton and Operation 40, along with George Bush, whose family was the direct beneficiary of the destruction of the Kennedy clan. Hoover's infamous George Bush memo, uncovered by McBride, seems to be the real smoking gun. Can anyone here point to another instance where Hoover named a CIA agent in a memo? Does anyone here believe that the 'George Bush of the CIA' was not our future president? So why did Hoover write this memo, and what does it tell us? First, that George Bush was indeed working for the CIA in 1963, and probably much earlier, and it tells us that Hoover knew that. In my opinion it also implies that Hoover knew who the plotters were, and that he wanted the plotters to know that he knew, and that he had the goods and was therefore untouchable.

Paul I encourage you to ask the authors that question on my forum yourself rather than me be the go-between. I'm sure that any discussion that comes of it will add to the clarity of the analysis. Thanks--

Good luck with it, Duncan. I think it is long overdue as you say.

PS The authors' grammar and spelling mistakes are chocking (sic), absolutely chocking !

LOL

The authors live in Sweden and English is not their first language. Feel free to proof read their article and resubmit it to me, as I can't proof read for grammar 100% of the time. I'm sure they would appreciate it. It's only a few thousand words long.

As for the remainder of your post, feel free to raise your concerns at the forum. Staffan and Pete are quite affable and open to discussion:

http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/346-staffan-westerberg-pete-engwalls-new-article/

Looking at the Tippit Case from a Different Angle

A Theory

by Staffan H Westerberg and Pete Engwall

The killing of Dallas police officer JD Tippit is one of the undying questions in the JFK research community. To think one could solve the murder is perhaps a bit optimistic after all these years. Tippits death has always been surrounded with mystery and disinformation: Did a jealous husband kill him, or was it a random killing that happened by accident? JD Tippit as a narcotics dealer or a getaway driver for Oswald to the Red Bird Airport? The murder on 10th and Patton is not short of theories, but we think that the Dallas policeman had an important function that day – he was scheduled to die with the sole purpose of becoming the vehicle with which JFK’s killer was to be caught. As it were, before Tippits death the Dallas Police didn’t have any hard evidence to be able to explain to the American people how they were able to arrest Oswald for the murder of the President.

Read more

Actually, I have an FRK Forum connected to my website:

Robert Kennedy Assassination -- Home

When entering "Harry Dean" alone (with quotation marks) I got the following results [see Box 4 below]:

Russell Holmes Papers

• Background on the Papers of Russell Holmes
• List of Folder Titles in the Holmes Papers

Background on the Russell Holmes Papers

The Russell Holmes papers consist of 50,000 pages of CIA documents maintained by Holmes in his role as the custodian of the Oswald 201 file, as well as the Segregated Collection of CIA records compiled for the investigation of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Holmes was the CIA liaison for all inquiries on the assassination after the end of the HSCA investigation until his retirement.

List of Folder Titles in the Holmes Papers

Folder Title List
Volume: 20.2 Feet

Box 1

• RH01-F:001. Robert S. Allen and Paul Scott
• RH01-F:002. Bella Abzug Committee
• RH01-F:003. AMLASH/1
• RH01-F:004. AMLASH/1. Maria Teresa Proenza-Proenza
• RH01-F:005. AMMUG/1. Report on Oswald Case
• RH01-F:006. AMMUG/1. Lee Harvey Oswald
• RH01-F:007. AMTRUNK/1. AMLEO.
• RH01-F:008. Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: News clippings, 1/63- 9/22/88 (two folders)

Top of Page

Box 2

• RH01-F:009. Eusebio Azcue-Lopez
• RH01-F:010. Tenant H. Bagley. Nosenko
• RH01-F:011. Lists of documents released to FOIA requesters
• RH01-F:012. Nadine Detourgess. Coclay Stanojecic
• RH01-F:013. Maurice (Morris) Bishop. Jim (J. Walton) Moore
• RH01-F:014. Roger Blahut
• RH01-F:015. Carlos Bringuier
• RH01-F:016. Luisa Calderon
• RH01-F:017. Cambridge News
• RH01-F:018. Carlucci's statement before the HSCA, 12/11/78
• RH01-F:019. David Christ, Alias Daniel Carswell
• RH01-F:020. Plotting Castro's Assassination. Giancana, Roselli, Traficante, Marie Lorenz, Frank Sturgis
• RH01-F:021. "Black Book" given by Fidel Castro to Senator McGovern
• RH01-F:022. Alleged Chinese Communist/Castro plot to assassinate JFK
• RH01-F:023. Letter addressed to American Embassy in Stockholm
• RH01-F:024. CIA documents (from FBI sensitive study) referred by FBI to CIA
• RH01-F:025. Lee Harvey Oswald- Mexico City
• RH01-F:026. ARRB determined document "not believed relevant."
• RH01-F:027. ARRB determined document "not believed relevant."
• RH01-F:028. Oscar Contreras

Box 3

• RH01-F:029. GPFLOOR. Mrs. UNSTAR. Robert Nieto
• RH01-F:030. Cuban Mug book
• RH01-F:031. Gomez, Enrique; Cubela, Rolando.
• RH01-F:032. Warren Commission; Review of Records; Request for records (three folders)
• RH02-F: Inventory. Inventory of F033 to F050
• RH02-F:033. DDI, Miscellaneous documents. Reaction to JFK assassination (two folders)

Top of Page

Box 4

• RH02-F:034. Harry Dean
• RH02-F:035. List of U.S. Defectors to USSR, 1958-1963
• RH02-F:036. Delimitation Agreement, 1949
• RH02-F:037. Petr Deraybin
• RH02-F:038. Salvador Diaz-Verson
• RH02-F:039. Willem Oltmans, Dimitur Dimitrov
• RH02-F:040. CIA Disseminations to Community (three folders)

I didn't accuse you of intending to commit a fallacy, I simply pointed it out.

As for the fallacy of False Alternative, where have I committed it?

The fallacy of false alternative occurs when we fail to consider all the relevant possibilities.

One example is only considering the extreme possibilities rather than the intervening points on

a scale. For instance, if you told me that you are not very short--and I concluded that you must

therefore be very tall, that would be an example of the fallacy of False Alternative.

Having said that, it is not fallacious to consider all the available evidence and possibilities, but

choose the one that is most probable. All evidence is not equal and all possibilities are not either.

Among the available possibilities we must choose the most probable one. Of course, this can be

arrived at by using various methods including logic and intuition. I may not be correct in my

conclusion, but it is not due to the commission of the fallacy of False Alternative.

Perhaps you just have a prejudice against all researchers named Doug and those that support their work.

Yikes! Let's not make this personal, Pamela. I simply pointed out an error in logic. Anyone who reads what you wrote can determine for themselves if my observation

about your reasoning is valid.

PS: Thanks for bumping Doug's article.

JFK: A Reformed Cold Warrior

Paul,

You are putting words in my mouth, forcing me to conclusions that I do not hold and misinterpreting my positions. I have lost patience and

now I am done.

I couldn't disagree with you more. In my opinion, you are simply offering suppositions, nothing of substance. You are a bit over your head when it comes to talking operations and the dispassionate nature of assassins...particularly snipers.

Trust me--this was the Crime of the Century--and, notwithstanding your pet theory to the contrary, nothing could be left to chance. The precision required for this job has never been matched either before or since in terms of the target's high profile and the level of impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators. It was not left to pissed off amateurs.

That's fine, Greg, that's actually a secondary point. I will stipulate for the sake of argument that the executioners (or mechanics) involved in the JFK murder were dispasstionate professionals without any particular hatred for JFK.

But let's return to my main point, if you're willing -- and attempt to address why the Plotters were so keen to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as a Communist, in the context of 1963 politics, which were so focused on Cuba and Fidel Castro.

Do you disagree with Larry Hancock (SWHT/2010 End Game) that Cuba was the prize?

The Lone Nut theory cuts both ways. It undermined any reprisal against Communists, and it undermined any reprisal against Fascists. In other words, it was the obvious non-violent solution. As the Warren Commission declared -- the truth was a matter of National Security.

So, if Cuba was the prize, then why did the Warren Commission deny this prize to the Plotters? Do you have an explanation for that?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I disagree completely with Larry Hancock.

If Cuba had been the prize, we would have taken it. After the assassination we didn't take it because we didn't need to take it. Castro was OURS after that. And he still is and he knows it. We have the ability to "take"

Cuba at will because of the mountain of incriminating evidence that had been falsely generated implicating him through Oswald's actions. We contained communism in the Western Hemisphere, limiting it to Cuba and

Cuba alone, for over 50 years without firing a single shot... after Dallas. There were no plotters seeking to gain Cuba. That is myth. The only concern Cuba posed was its Communist Political affiliation and connection to

the Soviet Union. It was both a military and idealogical conflict where the Soviet brand of Communism, to which Fidel was most closely aligned, seeks always to expand. THAT was perceived as a threat to National Security.

Once Kennedy was eliminated and the murder was ABSOLUTELY pointing to a Castro plot, the need to intervene militarily in Cuba became moot. Because we could justify such a thing (and everyone knew it) we didn't need

to carry it out. It was our trump card--and still is...militarily.

Why do you think there are files being withheld? Because the American People will scream about us NOT attacking Castro. Watch how fast the files are freed once Castro passes away. Tick tock tick tock...

Paul,

More to come...stay tuned. You might not have heard this interview yet -- Hemming to Burnham: The Bay of Pigs Was Meant to Fail

The following is a reply that I wrote to a comment (regarding that interview) on my website that is apropos:

"It is important to remember that the cover story, (as opposed to the cover-up, aka: obstruction of justice), was conceived, planned, and set in motion long before the commission of the deed (assassination) was itself accomplished. We know this due to the age and deep history of the legend created for–and sometimes unwittingly by–the designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. We know the Secret Service was demonstrably remiss in its duties to protect President Kennedy as evidenced by his demise, but were not under the direction of the mob nor of the anti-Castro Cubans. We know the Dallas authorities were relieved of possession of the deceased president’s body by its being illegally removed from the jurisdiction of the Coroner of the County in which his murder occurred by Secret Service Agents who were not following the orders of Carlos Marcello or Manuel Artime, for example. We know that the autopsy findings were bogus (either intentionally or because the president's body had been altered en route to Bethesda), notes were burned, doctors’ testimonies were obtained under duress created by senior military officials who attended the autopsy, but who also were not under the orders of the mob or the anti-Castro Cubans. We know that the Warren Commission was appointed–not by the mob nor by anti-Castro Cubans–for the purpose of, wittingly or not, framing a lone assassin. While this list is sufficient to demonstrate my point it is in no way exhaustive of the evidence leading away from both the mob and the anti-Castro Cubans as the PRIME MOVERS of the hit. Therefore if we accept the fact that neither the mob nor the anti-Castro Cubans had the power to generate this kind of “cover story” prior to the act, we must ask the question: “Who did?” The answer is obvious: Those whose normal job function is to generate cover stories. After all, whoever had the power to accomplish what I listed above–in terms of the cover story AND the cover-up, including, I might add, controlling what information was leaked to the media and how the media would handle receipt of such information–whoever had THAT kind of power did not answer to the mob nor to the anti-Castro Cubans. Period.

Since cover stories are designed to draw attention from the true perpetrators of the crime and direct investigators and the opinion of the general public to the patsy, it would be counterintuitive to employ the services of those with a direct “dog in the fight” such as, the anti-Castro Cubans or the Mob. That is not to say that some of those in both those groups were not delighted at the development. I am sure that Marcello lost no sleep (other than from partying) at the news of the assassination of JFK. However, he did not have the power to pull off the most important–aside from the actual hit itself–part of the plan: getting away with it. The same applies to the anti-Castro Cubans. Finally, as for the actual mechanics (shooters and spotters) of the operation: They did not hate Kennedy. They did not care. They had no adrenalin coursing through their veins generated by a deep desire for revenge. Assuming the target is in the open and the sniper is properly concealed, adrenalin is arguably the sniper’s biggest enemy–possibly matched only by the presence of excessive speed or unpredictable lateral motion.

Those in control of this operation, including its precursive cover-story and its ensuing cover-up, would not have risked using “hot headed anti-Castro Cuban snipers who had a dog in the fight” for an assignment of this magnitude when they had dispassionate professionals at their disposal.

Thanks, Greg, for sharing that taped interview with Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Because you're such a good listener, it seems to me that Hemming was more open and lucid in interviews with you than in most I've heard.

In this particular interivew, I believe historians heard from an eye-witness real details about how the Eisenhower administration interacted with the Cuban Revolution -- there at the ground level.

Gerry Patrick Hemming was a man of action. He was shrewd, with tremendous confidence and common sense -- and yet it seems that the events of history overtook him and robbed him of a noble place in history. Such was the Cold War.

It was unclear to me until this interview that anti-Batista forces -- even militants within the USA -- were already opposing Batista in Cuba before Fidel Castro arrived on the scene. That is an exciting historical narrative.

As for your own comments that you wrote below the Hemming link, Greg, I have some critical comments, if that's all right.

First, I agree that the Cover Story is a major tell-tale sign, and that the Secret Service would hardly be persuaded to misbehave by mere civilians of any rank, and that no civilians of any rank could have seized the corpse of JFK, much less altered the autopsy findings. I agree with all that.

Yet I think that you’ve missed a key point with regard to those who planned and executed the murder of JFK, and their relationship with the Warren Commission.

It seems that in your opinion, the Warren Commission merely supported the Cover-story of the Plotters, but I find reason to disagree. The Cover Story made a Communist into the murderer of JFK, and they hoped that all Communists would be blamed, and that Cuba would be invaded.

I think this is clear based on your interviews with Hemming (the few I’ve heard so far) as well as other interviews with Hemming, and with recent writings that have appeared after the Mexico City Consulate papers of Edwin Lopez. The Plotters wanted to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro. That was the prize.

Yet everything the Warren Commission did was to oppose that result. Lee Harvey Oswald may have been an amateur Communist, but not a Party Communist, said Hoover. Rather, Oswald was merely a malcontent, that is, a “lone nut”

If the Warren Commission worked for the Plotters, the Commission would have handed Fidel over to the Plotters. Instead, the "lone gunman" theory undercut and undermined the most important thing that the Plotters hoped for in their murder of JFK.

So, the Cover Story does not tell the entire story.

The Cover Story theory goes back to Fletcher Prouty (Mr. X in Oliver Stone's JFK). It is undeniable evidence of wildman rogues in the Pentagon and the CIA, with vast powers over US media.

Yet the Cover Story theory still fails to explain why these powerful people still failed to accomplish the second phase of their Plan, namely, to inspire the USA to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro.

It was precisely on that point that they failed, and it was precisely LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover and the Warren Commission who formed the powerful obstacle to their ultimate success.

There is one other point that I think you might have also mistaken. Like Larry Hancock you see the Plotters and their Mechanics as consummate professionals, at the very peak of their youthful powers and careers. It was this professionalism that you credit with the calm nerves needed to accomplish their world-historical deed.

These mechanics had no feeling one way or another toward JFK, you propose. However, I think you have overlooked a key point, namely: where in the world would one find any militant mercenary in 1963 who did not hate JFK vehemently?

Young, ex-Marine sharpshooters were not really in short supply. One could find volunteers – even confidential volunteers -- with very little effort in 1963.

SO – did these shooters really need to be without emotion? Would it not make more sense to ensure that there were more radio operators in Dealey Plaza than shooters, and that the plan was coordinated with precision – rather than rely on the political feelings of any given shooter?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

I couldn't disagree with you more. In my opinion, you are simply offering suppositions, nothing of substance. You are a bit over your head when it comes to talking operations and the dispassionate nature of assassins...particularly

snipers.

Trust me--this was the Crime of the Century--and, notwithstanding your pet theory to the contrary, nothing could be left to chance. The precision required for this job has never been matched either before or since in terms of the

target's high profile and the level of impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators. It was not left to pissed off amateurs.

Paul,

More to come...stay tuned. You might not have heard this interview yet -- Hemming to Burnham: The Bay of Pigs Was Meant to Fail

The following is a reply that I wrote to a comment (regarding that interview) on my website that is apropos:

"It is important to remember that the cover story, (as opposed to the cover-up, aka: obstruction of justice), was conceived, planned, and set in motion long before the commission of the deed (assassination) was itself accomplished. We know this due to the age and deep history of the legend created for–and sometimes unwittingly by–the designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. We know the Secret Service was demonstrably remiss in its duties to protect President Kennedy as evidenced by his demise, but were not under the direction of the mob nor of the anti-Castro Cubans. We know the Dallas authorities were relieved of possession of the deceased president’s body by its being illegally removed from the jurisdiction of the Coroner of the County in which his murder occurred by Secret Service Agents who were not following the orders of Carlos Marcello or Manuel Artime, for example. We know that the autopsy findings were bogus (either intentionally or because the president's body had been altered en route to Bethesda), notes were burned, doctors’ testimonies were obtained under duress created by senior military officials who attended the autopsy, but who also were not under the orders of the mob or the anti-Castro Cubans. We know that the Warren Commission was appointed–not by the mob nor by anti-Castro Cubans–for the purpose of, wittingly or not, framing a lone assassin. While this list is sufficient to demonstrate my point it is in no way exhaustive of the evidence leading away from both the mob and the anti-Castro Cubans as the PRIME MOVERS of the hit. Therefore if we accept the fact that neither the mob nor the anti-Castro Cubans had the power to generate this kind of “cover story” prior to the act, we must ask the question: “Who did?” The answer is obvious: Those whose normal job function is to generate cover stories. After all, whoever had the power to accomplish what I listed above–in terms of the cover story AND the cover-up, including, I might add, controlling what information was leaked to the media and how the media would handle receipt of such information–whoever had THAT kind of power did not answer to the mob nor to the anti-Castro Cubans. Period.

Since cover stories are designed to draw attention from the true perpetrators of the crime and direct investigators and the opinion of the general public to the patsy, it would be counterintuitive to employ the services of those with a direct “dog in the fight” such as, the anti-Castro Cubans or the Mob. That is not to say that some of those in both those groups were not delighted at the development. I am sure that Marcello lost no sleep (other than from partying) at the news of the assassination of JFK. However, he did not have the power to pull off the most important–aside from the actual hit itself–part of the plan: getting away with it. The same applies to the anti-Castro Cubans. Finally, as for the actual mechanics (shooters and spotters) of the operation: They did not hate Kennedy. They did not care. They had no adrenalin coursing through their veins generated by a deep desire for revenge. Assuming the target is in the open and the sniper is properly concealed, adrenalin is arguably the sniper’s biggest enemy–possibly matched only by the presence of excessive speed or unpredictable lateral motion.

Those in control of this operation, including its precursive cover-story and its ensuing cover-up, would not have risked using “hot headed anti-Castro Cuban snipers who had a dog in the fight” for an assignment of this magnitude when they had dispassionate professionals at their disposal.

This speech was given in 1975 at Yale University by retired Air Force Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty. Those who want to learn more about the

most revelatory clues to the machinations behind assassinations are encouraged to listen. The speech is accompanied by the text.

The Anatomy of Assassination

John Judge: Conspiracy Theorists vs Coincidence Theorists

You're welcome, Paul.

John details his experiences as a youngster growing up in a "Pentagon Family" as well as his involvement in demonstrations outside of the Pentagon.

He describes his observations of security measures in place in the 50's when he was a child and teenager while visiting the Pentagon with his parents

who worked there. He talks in depth about his experiences on September 11th during the attacks and much more.

The Pentagon According to John Judge YouTube

On April 20, 1963 JFK commented on the events in Cuba.

http://youtu.be/aKruOTAVsjI

This 4 part interview is approximately 2 hours in length. The normal constraints imposed by time limitations, typical of

conferences, were suspended. Len allowed me sufficient time to describe these events in more detail than I've ever

been afforded in the past (121 minutes versus 20 minutes).

AssassinationOfJFK.net -- The Bay of Pigs: Details

You're welcome, David. I will...

Gerry told me to take everything that Weberman wrote about him [Hemming] with a grain of salt because Weberman got more than half of it wrong. He also said that

Weberman wanted to use libel and/or slander in order to induce a law suit for defamation of character in which the government's files would be subject to subpoena.

(This is not an attack on Weberman. I am merely reporting what Hemming said to me about him.)