Greg Burnham

I think it would be interesting to compile a list of the hardback and paperback sales of the most popular books on the assassination. Obviously limited to the most popular since I know there are thousands. Anyone know an easy way to compile this information?

Tim and all,

Please vote for your favorite book on the Assassination of JFK at my website's home page: Best JFK Assassination Book Poll

Scroll down a little and you'll find it on the right side bar.

Greg, what is the purpose of my voting for one from your list of 10 books if my favorite is not on your list of 10? My vote gets relegated to "others" and therefore the input is irrelevant. I don't like putting square pegs into round holes.

Ok.

Jake Esterline Interview here:

“I am one of those who feel it is very wrong to pick too much on Jack Kennedy because it was Nixon who, if

we had kicked off as we had hoped for, between November and January of 60-61, it might not have worked,

but it would not have been a major disaster.” — Jake Esterline.

Serious students of the Bay of Pigs need to read this interview in its entirety.

That Cabell was the immediate cause of "why the screw up was not prevented before it was too late" should no longer be in question. However, CIA's Jake Esterline placed most of the blame on...wait for it: Richard Nixon.

I will post a link to a page on my site when I've completed it later today. Stay tuned.

I just uploaded The Official History of the Bay of Pigs Volume 1 Part 3 here. This Volume focuses on Air Operations. The author is obviously a CIA historian, who was in their employ. Pfeiffer gets a lot of this right

as far as reportage goes. However, he continues to obfuscate the record by drawing erroneous conclusions based on faulty, unsupported assertions in key areas. He "almost" gets it right. Unfortunately, he would

apparently prefer to miss the mark rather than allow the real blame to fall where it should: CIA screwed the pooch. When the opportunity to speak to the president was offered to Cabell and Bissell in order to prevent

an imminent disaster that a misconceived instruction from the Secretary of State was about to cause--they declined. [read more]

Thanks Greg - the link works. Interesting - wonder about the blacked out portions. Angleton would have been the perfect KGB mole. How to square that possibility with Newman's theory that Angleton ran Oswald, especially in Mexico City.

That's an interesting thought. However, I think it is more likely that Joe McCarthy was a Communist (which is highly unlikely) than it is likely Angleton was a KGB mole. Angleton was like McCarthy on steroids with a black budget to boot!

Thanks Vince. Yes, we are TMWKK alumni -- At least your segment didn't get censored though!

Paul,

We added a direct "download to your device" button on that page for you. Thanks for bringing this to my attention because others might have similar issues. Please let me know if that works for you.

You're welcome David. The only portion that remains classified is Volume 5. The reason I uploaded Volume II first is that it addresses "Participation in the Conduct of Foreign Policy", which (in my view) is central to placing the

specifics of the events themselves into a proper historical context. That "what happened" (in terms of the failure) is a direct result of the political climate of the day is vital to understanding the "how and the why" of it. Similarly,

the assassination, when taken out of the proper historical context, can be viewed as a set of nearly "random events" that just happened to converge resulting in the tragic loss of a beloved leader. But, when placed in context,

we begin to see patterns emerge from the events that otherwise would not be clear. I will upload more very shortly. Volume One deals mainly with what is probably the most significant aspect of the failure: Air Operations. However,

Air Operations has been the specific aspect of the fiasco that has been grossly misrepresented for over 50 years. Before getting into that, I was hoping that researchers would spend some time with the possibly more mundane, yet

absolutely pivotal role that International as well as domestic "politics" played in the ultimate demise of the plan.

Meet author Edward Snowden on Black Op Radio interview.

I think it would be interesting to compile a list of the hardback and paperback sales of the most popular books on the assassination. Obviously limited to the most popular since I know there are thousands. Anyone know an easy way to compile this information?

Tim and all,

Please vote for your favorite book on the Assassination of JFK at my website's home page: Best JFK Assassination Book Poll

Scroll down a little and you'll find it on the right side bar.

Paul,

The file opens up in a "light box" within the page. However, it is from a PDF file. Although I use a Mac, I am not as familiar with an Ipad. To open a PDF file you need an application or program

that can read PDF files, such as, Adobe Reader or Preview. Do you have either of those on your Ipad? If not--and if it's possible--you might need to download for it to work. Do you have the

"Quick Look" program on your Ipad? If so, that should work, I think.

Thanks David. Be sure to take the "best book" poll while you're there!

How a Master Planner Became a Monster Plotter

by Greg Burnham

This document is an analysis of James Jesus Angleton’s obsession with assumed KGB penetration into high levels of the CIA

and how that obsession impacted the functioning of the Agency. Subjects covered include Lee Harvey Oswald, Yuriy Nosenko,

Anatoliy Golitsyn, and Dimitriy Polyakov, among others.

Thanks Tommy! It's just the very beginning. Lots more to come.

Dissenters and Demonstrators Unwelcome in Dallas –

Reflecting back on the ceremony by the City of Dallas commemorating the 50^th anniversary of the assassination of JFK, which my wife and I attended from beyond the roped off area in Dealey Plaza, I am less offended by the level of ignorance displayed by the public as I am by the level of arrogance displayed by those in whom the public’s trust has been placed. (read more)

The Official History of the Bay of Pigs can be found on my website.

Many thanks, Ken.

I forgot to mention that a portion of my 1999 debate with Professor John McAdams on the Paul Garson Radio Show is available there as well. In order to remove confusion let me point out that at the beginning of the debate I referred to him as Paul Nolan because Professor McAdams had once attended a JFK Conference under that assumed name. Debate link: Greg Burnham vs John McAdams

Please visit my new website: www.AssassinationofJFK.net

I have posted numerous articles and items of interest. I will be adding a large number of never before heard audio interviews over the next weeks, months, and years (yes, I have that many!) with Colonel Fletcher Prouty, Gerry Patrick Hemming, and others.

You will note a large collection of Cuba documents in raw form, as well. This will also grow as time permits. Thanks to Stan Wilbourne for assisting me in the setup. His attention to detail is stellar.

Comments and suggestions are welcome.

Gene,

As I mentioned earlier and you echoed: There was nothing suspect about an Ambassador to the United Nations (Stevenson) appealing to the Secretary of State (Rusk) in this instance.

It is, after all, the appropriate chain of command. However, that Rusk 1) prevailed on McGeorge Bundy to instruct Cabell to cancel a critical aspect of a paramilitary operation without

prior approval from the president and 2) that Bundy informed Cabell that any further discussion of the matter must be taken up with the Secretary (Rusk)--as opposed to the president or

other personnel more suited to the task of making these types of military judgments--does not appear serendipitous. You are correct that Dulles was indeed out of the country to give a

speech in Puerto Rico. One should also note that while the list of those who can get the president on the telephone is relatively long it is not infinite. Among those who could have called

the president directly are DCI Allen Dulles (out of country), Secretary of State Rusk, Secretary of Defense McNamara, National Security Advisor Bundy, JFK's Chief of Staff O'Donnell, the

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lemnitzer, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and many others. However, in this instance, those who were in a position to know the ramifications that

cancelled airstrikes would have had on the operation were NOT among them. Men like Jake Esterline, Colonel Jack Hawkins, J. C. King, and others either didn't know about the cancellation

or were unable to bring it to the attention of JFK due to lack of direct access. Even Cabell and Bissell did not enjoy direct access. When Rusk offered them the opportunity--or as Cabell put

it in his memo, offered them "the privilege"--of telephoning the president (under Rusk's access) they turned him down.

So here we have the Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, placed in position to be the FINAL word on a paramilitary operational decision upon which the entire success of the mission depended.

He was not trained for such a task and he knew it. Those who compromised Ambassador Stevenson's credibility in front of the United Nations by botching the CIA's "Cuban Pilot / False

Defector" scheme were not incompetent. They were clever. Stevenson's reaction was completely predictable: He would protest to the Secretary. In that single stroke of genius, in which

Stevenson's ego was made to suffer a big hit along with US credibility in the view of the International Community, lay the mechanism by which Rusk took command.

As for McGeorge Bundy: Not only did he deliver the cancellation order to Cabell, but he also instructed him that any protest was to be appealed to the Secretary! It was then that Bundy first

became Dean Rusk's errand boy. A position, I believe, he maintained until the end.

As for Dean Rusk, here's something I published 14 years ago:

JFK Offered Peaceful Co-Existence To Castro

January 1st, 2000 by Greg Burnham Castro had NO motivation to murder JFK. My reasoning in that regard is based on interviews I have conducted with persons in a position to know the details of JFK's (behind the scenes) CUBAN policy. In those years, it was politically suicidal for any public figure to openly suggest any non-agressive option to dealing with Communism. The "cold war" dictated the rules of engagement - and those rules were primarily based on the pontifications of those in the John Foster Dulles camp. Dean Rusk, a J.F. Dulles protege, was incredibly silent during a period when he was considered an expert on China by his colleagues in the State Department. Rusk, a Rhoades Scholar, was the Assisstant Secretary of State for the Far East, a position that was called "the suicide seat" during those years, yet Rusk VOLUNTEERED for the position; VOLUNTEERED to take a demotion from his current position of Deputy Undersecretary. -- But by that time the careers of many of the real "China Experts" at State: Marshall, Kennan, Bohlen, Clubb, Service, et al, had been ruined. Even the formidable, and formerly "untouchable" Dean Acheson was forever tarnished by the fall of China to Communism. Later, many of the best experts on China were described by Richard Nixon as graduates of "Dean Acheson's College for the Cowardly Containment of Communism..." But not DEAN RUSK. RUSK assumed the position of Assisstant Secretary (Far East) after China fell, thus escaping the China debacle unscathed. It was a fait accompli mostly because he did not participate in formulating policy, criticizing policy, or publically displaying an awareness of that doomed policy, in very much the same manner that he would later embrace as Secretary of State during Vietnam, attempting to project the appearance of having been "in no way involved". The reputation and career of John Patton Davies (arguably the VERY BEST expert on China) was all but ruined by those in the State Department and elsewhere, who blamed the fall of China to Communism, on the "failure of the U.S. to properly contain it" under the policies of the Democratic [Truman] Administration. Most people don't realize that Allen Dulles' brother, John Foster Dulles, was the Chairman of the ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION during the TRUMAN administration and that Dean Acheson, as Secretary of State was the prime architect of that administration's policy on South East Asia, with Dean Rusk as his principal Deputy for Asia. Together, they engineered the war in Vietnam at the end of WWII and the beginning of the end of a Democrat in the White House. By 1952, upon Republican candidate Eisenhower's election to the Presidency, John Foster Dulles would be leaving his position as the Chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation to accept the position of Eisenhower's Secretary of State. But, he needed to fill the position for ROCKEFELLER that he would be vacating. And he did just that. So, when Ike became President, Nixon became Vice-President, John Foster Dulles became Secretary of State, Allen Dulles became Director of Central Intelligence, and who became the Chairman of the ROCKEFELLER Foundation, you ask? Dean Rusk. Eight years later, JFK defeated Vice President NIxon to become the 35th President, and Dean Rusk, like John Foster Dulles before him, vacated the Chairmanship of the ROCKEFELLER Foundation, and became Kennedy's Secretary of State. Here's a rare memo from Richard Helms to National Security Advisor, McGeorge Bundy, confirming the JFK plan to re-establish relations (and much more) with Castro's Cuba. JFK realized, as he expressed in his speech at the American University, that the only sound "deal" between the US and the Communists that would insure a true and lasting peace, NOT a Pax Americana, where American weapons of war were used to inflict "our peace" on nations around the globe. Rather, a true peace would necessarily depend on the deal's being in the Communist's best interest, as well as our own best interest. He said that the only dependable agreements reached between nations were those agreements, AND ONLY those agreements, which served that nations own self interest... That is the type of "language" that get's a President killed by those in the business of WAR, who depend on the escalation of fear in the hearts of the taxpayers who will fund this great Military/Industrial Complex of which we were warned against by Dwight D. Eisenhower in his parting address to the nation. "We must guard against undue influence, whether sought or unsought, by the vast Military/ Industrial Complex."

Hi Gene,

Thank you for the kind words.

It's interesting to note that the necessity for complete air supremacy over the Bay of Pigs was considered essential to success all the way from day one of the planning stages. And

although Dean Rusk's concern for sustained plausible deniability also emerged from the beginning, the absolute operational imperative for air supremacy to be at all times maintained

was NEVER discussed in a fashion that would have kept him out of the loop on its being sine qua non for success. That he became the "go to" man OPERATIONALLY when it was

crunch time for decision making is indicative of a darker agenda. That his intervention was sought by Stevenson is possibly innocuous due purely to egotistical considerations on the

part of the Ambassador. However, that Stevenson was placed in such an embarrassing position because the "defector" B-26 that landed in Miami was obviously not a Castro Air Force

plane should not have happened to begin with. The CIA either was or SHOULD have been fully aware that such an outfitted plane (opaque versus plexiglass noses, eight 50 caliber

machine guns, and incorrect insignias, etc.) did not closely enough resemble Castro's planes to pass muster as one of his own. This blunder became the initial breakdown of the covert

nature of the operation--and was owned entirely by the CIA 2 days prior to the invasion--intentional or not. When Stevenson persuaded Rusk (and the Secretary by-passed the president

and the military opting instead to instruct McGeorge Bundy to direct the CIA) to cancel the MOST CRITICAL element for success of the mission in direct opposition to the president's

last standing order of the night before, the fate of the Brigade was sealed.

Another point worth noting is that although the size of the operation had grown to one of military scope, it was still a CIA covert operation that did NOT involve our military. Under these

conditions the Joint Chiefs need not have even been consulted for their approval of such a cancellation as they were not and could not be involved in the actual operation itself as per

NSC Directive 5412 /2. In other words, the CIA managed to keep the US military out of a military sized operation in order for them (CIA) to maintain complete control of its outcome. Once

it was evident to our military leaders (during the initial planning phase) that success hinged on the destruction of Castro's air force while his planes were still on the ground, they rightly

communicated this to the president. However, the CIA apparently needed the plan to fail in order to compromise the young president into violating international law by launching airstrikes

from the USS Essex. Thus the well planned, high probability of success, operation was indeed SABOTAGED from the inside in an attempt to force Kennedy's hand. JFK did not buckle

under the pressure of their subterfuge. Rightly. And he took the Truman-esque high road by accepting responsibility, as the buck stopped with him.

This was a very untenable aftermath for the president. In order to regain the helm fully he would have needed to fire Dulles, Bissell, Cabell, Rusk, Bundy and others--which would have

made him appear either incompetent at recruiting the proper talent from the beginning or as if he was having a temper tantrum. There was no good solution.

A secondary benefit to the cabalists was the creation of the first false patsies--Anti-Castro Cubans--with whom to begin muddying the waters by sprinkling the field with suspects.

I am still of the belief that eventually an official admission will be made, which will state that: "Yes, there was a conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy."

Unfortunately, the operative word in the admission will be the word: "was" -- as in past tense. "Move along, there is nothing to see here folks." Yet, it is

the ongoing conspiracy to cover up the crime that has become more the burden than the deed itself.

There may even be an admission that: "Yes, there was an effort to cover it up." However, the latter will be portrayed as an act of necessity, employed only in

order to prevent World War III. And of course, there will again be the same sense of "That was then and this is now, so move along, nothing to see here, folks."

It is much more important to realize that understanding "what this means" is relevant, whereas knowing "what this is" (i.e., the exact details) is irrelevant.

Ken,

I am very glad that the message I hoped to convey was not lost in the "hype" created by the media and officialdom. The pomp and

circumstance associated with their pseudo "celebration" of his life was grossly inappropriate to the day memorializing the 50th year

since his barbaric murder took place in their city. Indeed, any and all local celebrations of his life and legacy should take place yearly

on any day (or weekend) EXCEPT November 22 and in a more fitting location OUTSIDE of Dealey Plaza, but within the city of Dallas

fully sponsored by the Texas Historical Society.

November 22nd 1963 should forever remain a day that lives in infamy, much as December 7th 1941 so remains.

Barry,

I can send one to you via email in PDF format if you would like. Let me know. I am hoping to build a webpage or perhaps someone can assist me getting it all online. I need to lay out the relevant Bay of Pigs documents all in one place so that anyone can access them without having to sift through the mountains of extraneous information. I'm still recovering from my surgery and can only work a little at a time still. Send me an email: JFKresearch@cox.net

I also want to point out that the continued distortion of the facts regarding the Bay of Pigs is part of the ongoing effort to assassinate his character insomuch as the blame is, more often than not,

still erroneously placed on him. This persists despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. So, I agree with what you said in your speech quoted below.

Barry Keane said:

It is true that John Kennedy was not a perfect man; he had his faults. But here was a wealthy man who did not have to choose public service as a career or to run for the US Presidency and by extension the leadership of the free world; he did so because of a desire to make the world a better place for all. So I believe we should say to those who continue to strive to assassinate his character; remember the peaceful outcome of the events of October 1962. Kennedy was an advocate of the Greek definition of happiness: “The full use of your powers along lines of excellence.” He was indeed a perfect example of that belief.