Greg Burnham

Mike, Here's a very short excerpt from a Dave Ratcliff interview with Prouty: "Ratcliffe: In looking back at the actual execution of the murder -- the planning and execution -- what role, if any, do you feel the following government agencies (or individuals within those agencies) played. I want to just run down a list here. Start with the FBI. Prouty: I'll just say first that no agency played a role as an agency. What happens in such things as this -- in fact, we had a term for it, we called it the "Gold Key Club." A certain small group coalesces and they are given an order to do something and it's not by agency. As a comparison: there was a program that had been constituted, I think in '62, called Mongoose. The objective of Mongoose was to remove Castro from office in Cuba. The people that were assigned to Mongoose (under the direction of General Lansdale), were from various agencies and various countries working together. Some others who were not from any agencies -- they were hired employees from other specialties and other businesses that are competent in this business of establishing coup d'états and things like that. So it's not correct to say that the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Defense, the State Department, had a role in this. To over-simplify, their people are bureaucrats. It could very well be (and I'm quite sure it was) that people from those agencies might have been called upon for certain special functions, but that isn't how these jobs are done. Ratcliffe: So there wouldn't be much point in looking at it by agency as far as being able to identify anyone that you felt, "Oh, yes, that person must have had this to do with it or that to do with it -- " Prouty: Not that way specifically. Those things are done. I have worked on assassinations in other countries, or the removal from office of people from other countries, and it was not done agency by agency. It was done on the basis of a very clever group arrangement which would get the job done by people who are very proficient in that type of business -- and totally unknown, or "faceless."

You'll need to do your own research. But, here's something to consider... How the CIA Controls President Ford By L. Fletcher Prouty In this monstrous U.S. government today, it's not so much what comes down from the top that matters as what you can get away with from the bottom or from the middle -- the least scrutinized level. (Contrary to the current CIA propaganda as preached by William Colby, Ray Cline, Victor Marchetti and Philip Agee, who say, incorrectly, "What the Agency does is ordered by the President.") As with the Mafia, crime is a cinch if you know the cops and the courts have been paid off. With the Central Intelligence Agency, anything goes when you have a respected boss to sanctify and bless your activities and to shield them from outside eyes. Such a boss in the CIA was old Allen Dulles, who ran the Agency like a mother superior running a whorehouse. He knew the girls were happy, busy, and well fed, but he wasn't quite sure what they were doing. His favorites, all through the years of his prime as Director of Central Intelligence, were such stellar performers as Frank Wisner, Dick Bissell, George Doole, Sheffield Edwards, Dick Helms, Red White, Tracy Barnes, Desmond Fitzgerald, Joe Alsop, Ted Shannon, Ed Lansdale and countless others. They were the great operators. He just made it possible for them to do anything they came up with. When Wisner and Richard Nixon came up with the idea of mounting a major rebellion in Indonesia in 1958, Dulles saw that they got the means and the wherewithal. When General Cabell and his Air Force friends plugged the U-2 project for Kelly Johnson of Lockheed, Dulles tossed it into the lap of Dick Bissell. When Dick Helms and Des Fitzgerald figured they could play fun and games in Tibet, Dulles talked to Tom Gates, then Secretary of Defense, and the next we knew CIA agents were spiriting the Dalai Lama out of Lhasa, CIA undercover aircraft were clandestinely dropping tons of arms, ammunitions, and supplies deep into Tibet and other planes were reaching as far as northwestern China to Koko Nor. While he peddled the hard-won National Intelligence Estimates to all top offices and sprinkled holy water over the pates of our leaders, Dulles dropped off minor miracles along the way to titillate those in high places. If you win the heart of the queen and convert her to your faith, you can control the king. This works for the Jesuits. It worked well for the CIA. Allen Dulles was no casual student and practitioner of the ancient art of religion. He was an expert in the art of mind-control. He learned how to operate his disciples and his Agency in the ways of the cloth. But for every Saint and every Sinner in the fold there must be an order of monks, and the Agency has always been the haven for hundreds of faceless, nameless minions whose only satisfaction was the job well done and the furtherance of the cause. One of the most remarkable -- and surely the best -- of these was an agent named Frank Hand. In my book, The Secret Team, written during 1971 and 1972, I mentioned that the most important agent in the CIA was an almost unknown individual who spent most of his time in the Pentagon. At that time I did not reveal his name; but a small item in a recent obituary column stated that: "Frank Hand, 61, a former senior official of the CIA, died in Marshall, Minn. . . . (he was) a graduate of Harvard Law School. He had served with the CIA from 1950 until retirement in 1971." After a life devoted to quiet, effective, skillful performance of one of the most important jobs in the worldwide structure of that unparalleled agency, all that the CIA would publicly say of Frank Hand was that he was a "senior official." Ask Dick Helms, Ed Lansdale, Bob McNamara, Tom Gates or Allen Dulles or John Foster Dulles, if they were with us today, and they all would tell us stories about Frank Hand. They would do more to characterize the nature and the sources of power which make use of and control the CIA than has ever been told before. He was that superior operative who made big things work unobtrusively. You might have been one of the grass-green McNamara "whiz kids," lost in the maze of the Pentagon Puzzle Palace, who came upon a short, Hobbit-like, pleasant man who knew the Pentagon so well that you got the feeling he was brought in with the original load of concrete. Thousands of career men to this day will never realize that Frank Hand was a "Senior Official" of the CIA and not one of their civilian cohorts. To my knowledge he never worked anywhere else. I was there in 1955 and he was there. I left in December 1963, and he was at my farewell party. He must have spent some of his time at the agency; but it must have been before 1955. If he had a dollar for every trip he made in those busy years between the Pentagon and the CIA he would have died a very wealthy man. He popularized the Agency term "across the river" and the "Acme Plumbers" nickname for agents of the CIA. (A term later to be confused by Colson and John Ehrlichman, among others, with the use of the term "White House Plumbers" of Watergate fame. Someone knew that Hunt, McCord, the Cubans, Haig, Butterfield and others all had CIA backgrounds and connections and therefore were "Plumbers." Only the insiders knew about the real "Acme Plumbers.") Frank was as much at home with Allen Dulles as he was with the famous old supersleuth, General Graves B. Erskine, and as he was with Helms, Colby, or Fitzgerald. Ian Fleming may have popularized the spy and the undercover agent as a flashing James Bond type; but in the reality of today's world the great ones are more in the mold of Frank Hand and The Spy Who Came In From The Cold. There has long existed a "golden key" group of agency and agency-related supermen. They came from the CIA, the Pentagon, the Department of State, the White House and other places in government or from the outside. They have kept themselves inconspicuous and they meet in the evening away from their offices. They are the men who open the doors of big government to industry-banking law and to the multinational corporate centers of greed and power. Their strength lies in their common awareness of the ways in which real power is generated in the government, the real power that controls activities of the government. In many instances this is the power of being able to keep something from happening, rather than to make it happen. For example, if the President is murdered, real power involves the control of government operations sufficient to make any investigation ineffective and to assure that the government will do nothing even if the investigation should turn up something. Real power is the ability to keep the government bureaucracy from going into action when the price of petroleum and wheat is doubled or tripled by avaricious international monopolies. Some of these "gold key" members have surfaced and have accepted publicity, as did Des Fitzgerald, Allen Dulles, Tracy Barnes and others. Frank never did. He was so anonymous that even his friends could not find him. The Agency covered for Frank Hand as it did for few others. The James Bonds of this world may be the idols of the Intelligence coterie; but if you are a Bill Colby, Dick Helms, or Allen Dulles, you know the real value of an indispensable agent. Frank was their man in the Pentagon, and the Pentagon was always the indispensable prime target of the CIA. When the chips are down, the CIA could care less about overturning "Communism" in Cuba or Chile. What really matters is its relative power in the U.S. Government. Control of a good share of what the Pentagon is doing is more important to the CIA than control over the government of Jordan or Syria. Once, when the CIA wanted to move a squadron (twenty-five) of helicopters from Laos to South Vietnam, long before the troubles there had become a war, I turned down the request from the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence in the name of the Secretary of Defense for no other reason than the fact that I did not find that project on the approved list of the National Security Council's "Forty Committee" (then called the 5412/2 committee). That meant the agency had neither been directed by the National Security Council to move those helicopters into Vietnam, nor had it received authorization for such a tactical movement. In other words, the planned intervention into South Vietnam with a squadron of helicopters would at that time have been unlawful as an intervention into the internal affairs of another country. This denial then, in 1960, effectively blocked the CIA from being able to move heavy war-making equipment into Vietnam. The helicopters were actually U.S. Marine Corps property on "loan" from Okinawa to the CIA for clandestine operations in Laos. At that time my immediate superior was General Graves Erskine, the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Special (Clandestine) Operations, and the man then responsible for all military support of clandestine operations of the CIA. Also at that time, Frank Hand, "worked for" Erskine. Of course, this was a cover assignment -- "cover slot" as it was known to us and to the CIA. Frank had a regular office in the Pentagon. No sooner had the CIA request been turned down than someone near the top of the agency called Frank and told him about it. In his smiling and friendly way he came into my office, carrying two cups of coffee, and began some talk about music, travel, or golf. Then, as was his practice, he would get the subject around to his point with such a comment as, "Fletch, who do you suppose took a call here about the choppers in Laos?" and we would be off. The special ability he possessed was best evidenced by the process he would set in motion once he discovered a problem that affected the ambitions of the agency. He would talk about the choppers with Erskine. Then he would drop in to see the Chief of Naval Operations and perhaps the Commandant of the Marine Corps. He would talk with some of the other civilian Assistant Secretaries. In other words, he would go from office to office like a bee spreading pollen, titillating only the most senior officers and civilian officials with the most "highly sensitive" tidbits about the CIA's plans for Vietnam. In this manner he would find out what the real thinking in the Pentagon might be, and where there might be real opposition to such an idea -- such as in the Marine Corps, which knew it would never get compensation for those expensive helicopters and for the loss of time of all their support people. He would also find out where there would be support, as with the ever-eager U.S. Army Special Forces, most of whose senior officers had been with the CIA. Then he would drop out of the picture for awhile to travel back to the old CIA headquarters, on the hill that overlooks what is now the Watergate complex, for a long talk with Allen Dulles or the Deputy Director, General Cabell. On matters involving the clandestine services he would also stop by the old headquarters buildings, that lined the reflecting pool near the Lincoln Memorial, to talk with Dick Helms, Desmond Fitzgerald, and other operators. Within a day or two he would have them fully briefed on the steps to be taken in order to win over the Defense Department; or failing that, how to overpower and outmaneuver the Pentagon in the Department of State and the White House. The foregoing is a "case study" on the important subject of how the CIA really operates and what it believes is its top priority. The propaganda being spread around today by the CIA and its propagandists that, "What the CIA does is ordered by the President," is totally untrue in all but .00001 percent of actual historical cases. It is much more factual to say that, "What the CIA does is to find ways to initiate major foreign policy moves without having the President find out -- or at least without discovery until it is too late." "It is in precisely that manner that the CIA today works around, beneath and behind the White House to effect policies that could influence the survival of the nation and the world. "Gold Key" operatives are, at this very moment, carrying out CIA game plans entirely outside the power of President Ford's ability to affect their activities. He is totally without knowledge of most of them, and therefore powerless to stop or alter them. In the case of the helicopters, Frank Hand was able to convince Allen Dulles that the disapproval from the Secretary of Defense, via my office, was real and that the Secretary would, at that time, be unlikely to change his mind. Frank also could report that the position of other top-level assistants was so cool to stepping up the hardware involvement of the military in Vietnam, in 1960, that none of them would likely attempt to persuade the Secretary to change his policy of limited involvement. Fortified with the information gleaned by Frank Hand, Allen Dulles would have two primary options: drop the idea of moving helicopters into Vietnam, or bypass the Secretary of Defense for the time being by going to the White House for support. In 1960 this was a crucial decision. The huge attempt to support a rebellion in Indonesia had failed utterly, the U-2 operations had been curtailed because of the Gary Powers incident, the far-reaching operations into Tibet had come to a halt by Presidential directive and anti-Castro activities were limited to minor forays. And at that time the large-scale (large for CIA) war in Laos had become such a disaster that the CIA wanted no more of it. Dick Bissell, the chief of the Clandestine Services, had written strong, personal letters to Tom Gates, the Secretary of Defense, wondering openly what to do about the 50,000 or more miserable Laotian Meo tribesmen the CIA had moved into the battle zones of Laos and then had deserted with no plans for their protection, resupply, care or feeding. The CIA badly wanted to be relieved of the war that they had started and then found they could not handle. They wanted to transfer and thus preserve the agency's assets, including the helicopters, to the bigger prospects in Vietnam. So, in 1960, if Allen Dulles dropped the idea of moving his assets from Laos, he would not only have lost those helicopters back to the Marine Corps but he would have seriously jeopardized the CIA's undercover leadership role in the development of the war in Vietnam, which it had been fanning since 1954. This was a crucial decision for both the CIA and for those who wished to contain the agency. If those who wished to put the CIA genie back in the bottle had been able at that time to prevent the move of those CIA assets into Vietnam, Dulles would have had to disband them: helicopters, B-26 bombers from the Indonesian fiasco, tens of thousands of rifles and other weapons, C-46, C-54 and other Air America-supported heavy transport aircraft, U-2 operations over Indochina, radar and other clandestine equipment, C-130's specially modified for deep Tibetan operations, and much more. From the point of view of the CIA, the helicopters were simply the tip of the iceberg, and the decision was its most important in that decade. Typically, in his unwitting Mother Superior-style, which included bulldog tenacity, Dulles chose the route to the White House. Here again he could rely strongly on Frank Hand. Working with Hand in Erskine's office was the CIA's other best agent, Major General Edward G. Lansdale, who had long served in the CIA. Like Hand, he had unequalled contacts in the Department of State and in the White House. In support of Dulles, they contacted their friends there and began a subtle and powerful move destined to prepare the way for what would appear to be a decision by President Eisenhower. This was an important feature of the "case study": The apparent Presidential decision. When the CIA wants to do something for which it does not have prior approval and for which it does not have legal sanction, it works from the bottom, using all of its guile with security and "need to know" -- a euphemism for "keep the scheme away from anyone at any level of government who might stand in its way." Hand and Lansdale, among others, were almost always able to line up enough support in the right places to make it possible for the CIA to get a favorable reading from the "Forty Committee" on any subject, legal or not. In fact, this is the great weakness of such a committee. Rather than working to control the agency it works the other way. The procedure makes it possible for the agency to win approval from a lesser echelon of the NSC intrastructure, and then, by clamping on a security id, it makes others believe that the CIA had orders from the NSC or perhaps even from the President, when in fact it did not. Thus it was that, about two weeks from the day that I received that first call requesting the movement of the squadron of helicopters, received word from General Erskine that he had been "officially" informed that the White House (Forty Committee) had approved the secret operation. The helicopters were moved into Vietnam. They were the first of thousands. The great significance of this incident is to point out how the CIA works powerfully, deftly, and with great assurance at any level of our government to get anything it wants done. But the anecdote shows only the surface coating of the application of the CIA apparatus. One year earlier, in 1959, Frank Hand had directed a Boston banker to my office. At that time I worked in the Directorate of Plans in Air Force headquarters and my work was top secret. Few of my contemporaries in the Pentagon knew that I was in charge of a global U.S. Air Force system created for the dual purpose of providing Air Force support for the CIA and for protecting the best interests of the USAF while performing that task. My door was labeled simply, "Team B"; yet that Boston banker knocked and entered with assurance. Somehow he knew what my work was and he knew that I might be able to help him. In 1959 there were very few helicopters in all of the services, and military procurement of those expensive machines was at an all-time low. The Bell Helicopter Company was all but out of business, and its parent company, Bell Aerospace Corp., was having trouble keeping it financially afloat. Meanwhile, the shrewd Royal Little, President of the Providence-based Textron Company, had a good cash position and could well afford the acquisition of a loser. Textron and the First National Bank of Boston got together to talk helicopters. Neither one knew a thing about them. But men in First Boston were close to the CIA, and they learned that the CIA was operating helicopters in Laos. What they needed to know now was, "What would be the future of the military helicopter, and would the use of helicopters in South East Asia escalate if given a little boost -- such as moving a squadron from Laos to Vietnam?" The CIA could tell them about that, and Frank Hand would be the man who could get them to the right people in the Pentagon. The banker from Boston phrased his questions as though he believed that the helicopters in Laos were somehow operating under the Air Force, and then went on to ask about their tactical significance and about the possible increase of helicopter utilization for that kind of warfare. This was at a time when not even newspapers had reported anything like the operation of such large and expensive aircraft in that remote war. We had a rather thorough discussion and then he left. He called me several times after that and visited my office a month or two later. As the record will show, Textron did acquire the Bell Helicopter Company and the CIA did step up use of helicopters to the extent that one of the CIA's own proprietary companies, Asia Aeronautics Inc., had more than four thousand men on each of two bases where helicopters were maintained. Most of those men were involved in their maintenance -- Bell Helicopters, no less! Orders for Bel Helicopters for use in Vietnam exceeded $600-million. Anyone wanting to know more about how the U.S. got so heavily ($200-billion and the loss of 58,000 American lives) involved in Indochina need look no further. This was the pattern and the plan. At the present time, when the White House, the House, and the Senate are all investigating the CIA, it is important to understand the CIA and to put it all in the proper perspective. It is not the President who instructs the CIA concerning what it will do. And in many cases it is not even the Director of Central Intelligence who instructs the CIA. The CIA is a great, monstrous machine with tremendous and terrible power. It can be set in motion from the outside like a programmer setting a computer in operation, and then it covers up what it is doing when men like Frank Hand -- the real movers -- put grease on the correct gears. And in a majority of cases, the power behind it all is big business, big banks, big law firms and big money. The agency exists to be used by them. Let no one misunderstand what I mean. It was President Lyndon B. Johnson who on more than one occasion said that the CIA was "operating a damn Murder Inc. in the Carribean." In other words, he knew it was doing this -- and he was the President! This knowledge has been recently confirmed by Defense Secretary James Schlesinger (who is a former head of the CIA) and others by their admission that they told the agency to end all "terminations." But Lyndon Johnson was powerless to do anything about it. This is an astounding admission from a President, the very man from whom, the CIA says, it always gets its instructions. The present concern over "domestic surveillance" and such other lean tidbits -- most important to you and me as they are -- is not important to the CIA. It can easily dispense with a James Angleton or even a Helms or a Colby (just look at the list of CIA bigwigs who have been fired -- Allen Dulles, Frank Wisner, Dick Bissell, Dick Helms, and now perhaps Colby); but the great machine will live on while Congress digs away at the Golden Apples tossed casually aside by the CIA -- the supreme Aphrodite of them all. Notice that the agency cares little about giving away "secrets" in the form of cleverly written insider books such as those by Victor Marchetti and Philip Agee. The CIA just makes it look as though it cared with some high-class window dressing. Actually the real harm to the American public from those books is to make people believe that certain carefully selected propaganda is true. In the story of Frank Hand we come much closer to seeing exactly how the CIA operates to control this government and other foreign governments. It is still operating that way. Today it is President Ford who is the unwitting accessory.

Tommy, Did you get the memo? See above posts...

Greg, please accept my apology for losing my cool. I know and respect your many contributions to assassination research. My mention of Col. Prouty was limited to referencing the captions of three photographs in a more recent edition of his book "JFK" than you appear to have, as supporting my proposition the CIA has sabotaged peace attempts. I do not consider that to be an interpretation, but a citation, and at no other point do I even mention, much less interpret, the work of your late friend. Did Col. Prouty ever tell you anything about the U-2 incident that is inconsistent with the captions opposite page 60 of the 2009 edition of his book? Apology accepted, Michael. Thank you. In my copy of the book the photos and attendant captions you reference are located between pages 156 and 157 in the glossy photos section. I agree with you that the CIA did indeed attempt and many times succeed in derailing the peace process, including, but not limited to Eisenhower's "Crusade For Peace" among others. Fletch emphasized his conviction that Gary Powers' U-2 flight was sabotaged by the intentional dilution of his fuel supply (it lacked sufficient hydrogen). In my view, your having made statements that assert "the CIA did it" and that "Dulles was the loop" in the context of Prouty's work is misleading, albeit unintentional. Additionally, you also mentioned the Gold Key Club in your opening paragraph. That is a Prouty euphemism. So, you did "interpret" Prouty in more areas than you admit.

Mr. Schweitzer, There are many researchers on this forum who have been at this for decades. We all can learn from the fresh, non-jaded, ideas of the novice, as well as the wisdom and experience of the seasoned researcher. Many of the items that you mention as your sources were actually released to the public as a result of the efforts put forth by members of this forum. We are very aware of the contents and significance of those documents and we welcome your interpretation of their significance even if it is at odds with our own. That said, do not expect to go unchallenged when you offer a pet theory that has been re-hashed countless times by the critical community. Perhaps you will offer something new to the arguments that we have already considered and perhaps you will persuade. So far, you have offered nothing new and you have not persuaded. The burden is on you. We are not required to accept your conclusions merely because "you say it is so" without your having provided a solid foundation upon which to base your assertions. Colonel Prouty was my friend. I have a box full of dozens of correspondences from him. I have hours of recorded conversations with him. I have been to Alexandria Virginia where he lived and was with him for the last time at Arlington National Cemetery when he was laid to rest. I can assure you that much of your interpretation of Prouty--as presented here--is inconsistent with his work. Perhaps you will appreciate this 30 minute video presentation from last year's COPA conference as it is based on Prouty's communications with me. It is regarding NSAM's 263 and 273: http://justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com/2010/12/greg-burnham-copa-2010-presentation.html

No, you are quite mistaken. Dulles' own basic training was primarily as a lawyer. Even as DCI Dulles did not give orders, he took them.

I did not quote, mis-quote, interpret or mis-interpret Fletcher Prouty. I referenced his captions opposite page 60 of his 2009 revised edition of "JFK." Period. The photo on page 60 shows Fletch (left side) standing with Captains Ed Clark and Harry Rogers at the Tokyo International Airport in 1954 beneath the nose of a USAF "MATS" air plane. In my copy, I see no "captions" opposite page 60, but there is one below the photo. However, on page 61 Fletch goes into some detail as regards the role of the Saigon Military Mission in Vietnam and he explains the tremendous amount of MILITARY SUPPORT that the CIA enjoyed in those years and in that part of the world. Please understand, I am not attempting to exonerate CIA for its many violations. I am stating a simple fact: The CIA needs military support to pull off military operations, even the ambush of a chief executive. They tend to screw up operations in which they do not have such support and even get caught in the process.

I agree with most of what you wrote here, David. In my view, there is little reason to dismiss either TUM or the DCM under the circumstances. That the FBI did not successfully identify them is suspect. That is not to say that I have any "pet theory" which explains their presence or their actions that day. I do not. But, it seems quite a stretch to imagine that they were just casual innocent bystanders, (again) under the circumstances, especially when one considers their close proximity to the target coupled with 1) their actions during the event and 2) their subsequent reactions immediately following it. I also agree with your comment regarding the exaggerated "head snap" probably being the result of alteration. As for the umbrella pumping, we have evidence of it from non Z-film STILL photographs. So, that would not be an artifact of Z-film alteration, IMO.

He appears to have mistyped the URL. It should be: JFK Assassination Forum

Gerry and I probably spent the better part of 5 full--8 hour--days discussing WerBell alone. None should dismiss out of hand the weapons programs being employed in the 1960's. It was an era of "cowboy atmosphere married to a James Bond romanticism" replete with fancy gadgets, codes, ciphers, and exotic weapons. There is no better place to test devices than in the field. Of course, you wouldn't test a new device on a chief executive. You'd employ a device that had already been field tested and passed with flying colors.

Even his references to Prouty appear to be tainted by his own subjective mis-interpretation. Prouty was one of my best sources, provided I did my own homework and sought clarification from him regarding context and the like. While it's easy to put words into the mouth of a dead person, it is ill advised.

When one considers Prouty's position it is quite telling of the very separate functions of the CIA and the military: Colonel Prouty was the Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the JFK years. He was directly in charge of the global system designed to provide military support for the clandestine activities of the CIA. Many times the CIA has gotten credit for operational successes that are actually "behind the scenes" military victories. Like I said, the CIA is very good at some things, but they are not any good at operational level activities. That is precisely the reason why they need the military's support. Operations that become too involved for them to effectively handle also need to be cleared through other parts of government. When the Agency's "plans" are not approved because they are unable to persuade those in authority due to the illegal nature of the operation, or because of the complexity of the operation, or because the military judges the operation as unlikely to succeed, then the Agency: is unable to gain the military's operational support; is unable to acquire funding for the project; is forced to either abandon the project altogether or is forced to conduct it in total secrecy without the required support of those in a position to help. But, sometimes the Agency proceeds with such plans anyway. They have created a system for raising huge sums of money outside of congressional oversight in order to fund such illegal projects. Occasionally such projects even succeed--by the seat of their pants. However, more often than not, these half baked schemes fall apart before they ever reach fruition and the public never even hears about them. In the relatively rare instance--compared to the number of abandoned "plans" that exist--where they proceed without the operational support that they need, they goof it up and get caught red handed to boot! By way of analogy, Stephen Hawking is an astrophysicist and cosmologist. He studies the universe as a whole as well as our small corner of it. He can analyze data very well and offer great insight to those at NASA as they prepare various space travel programs. However, he is not the guy you would want to pilot your spaceship.

That the CIA can be named in even ONE failure, let alone the actual number that can be traced back to them, speaks volumes as to their ineptitude in operational matters. As a supposed clandestine service NONE of their activity should be publicly known, by definition--NONE. If they had been our chief intelligence service over the years we would all be speaking Russian and eating a Bowl of Borscht. As it is, various branches of Military Intelligence are responsible for the "real deal" as far as that goes. The Agency is good at a lot of things. But, the events in Dallas are not among them. Even my late friend, Fletcher Prouty, made it quite clear that the Agency was not responsible for the deed. They were deeply entrenched in the cover up, though. Well, better yet, they were deeply involved in executing facets of the "cover story" at the direction of their masters above the Secret Team.

Greg, I agree with the thrust of your argument. My one disagreement is that I do not believe that all CIA failures were celebrated as failures internally. They had to wear the "failure" tag publicly for obvious reasons. Three such cases stand out in my mind. In chronological order: The Bogotazo - needed to get support for Latin American anti-Communist pacts. The CIA Director was called before Congress to explain this "intelligence failure". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogotazo The Hungarian Uprising - the NSC had laid out the idea that creating an uprising in Soviet satellites with one reason listed as being to "provoke Soviet intervention". For some reason, historians either don't know about - or ignore that NSC document http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t38-the-truth-about-the-hungarian-uprising Powers' U2 - sabotage of the upcoming summit... Greg, Perhaps I was remiss in my failure to say that the CIA does not "volunteer" to be the patsy. It simply comes naturally to them because the evidence in support of their ineptitude is myriad and voluminous due to publicly known OPERATIONAL failures and also due to failed "plausible deniability" on levels that remain classified. The latter is a MAJOR short coming, especially considering the nature of the work of a clandestine service. Interestingly astute is your mentioning the sabotaged U-2 flight, which in turn sabotaged the summit.

Welcome to the forum, Michael. I enjoyed, for lack of a better word, reading your take on the events in Dallas. I agree with much of what you wrote, with the exception of your central premise: "The CIA Did It" part. The CIA has been readily available to play the part of the "rejected step kid patsy" ad nauseum throughout its existence. Why? Because they suck at field operations. Even worse, they tend to get caught in their failure. Our military intelligence services are much better equipped, trained, and perhaps most importantly, disciplined enough to pull off such a coup than the Agency has ever dreamed of being. The Agency is very good at fomenting dissent, creating a fertile ground for revolution, obstructing justice, and producing red herrings...AFTER the fact. Keep in mind: when a covert operation (illegal) is in the planning stages, its "cover-up" is also being planned PRIOR to the event itself. Many times people are under the impression that the cover-up originates and is carried out subsequent to the deed. That is erroneous. The cover-up is equally as important as the deed itself and is therefore planned side by side with the operation. Its implementation begins PRIOR to the event, but runs long after the event has taken place. If it is determined that the perpetrators cannot "get away with it" the mission is scrubbed. In 1963 the very best "cover-up" capability did not originate out of Langley, it originated out of the Pentagon's Department of Cover and Deception. There are numerous botched CIA operations: The Gary Powers U-2 flight, The Bay of Pigs Fiasco, Watergate, Iran-Contra, to name but a few. Had the CIA been "Operationally In Charge" on the ground in Dallas, JFK would have lived to a ripe old age, indeed. .

Fair enough, in a sense. I've known Jack for almost 2 decades. Sometimes he has made hasty claims based on a snap judgment, but that has been extremely rare. However, the amount of work he has done to offer evidence in support of his conclusions is many times quite impressive. He is not always 100% correct. None of us are. But until I can rebut anyone's claims successfully, I think the better part of discretion, for me, is to suspend judgment until I can. But, to each his own. I suppose I don't have a right to expect you not to express your beliefs. I just wish you'd offer "why" you don't think Jack's correct, instead of making pontifications. But, like I said, to each his own. Out.

I don't know if Jack is right or wrong about that and neither do you, Robert. How much research have you conducted on that subject? The same amount as has David Lifton, which is ZERO? Neither of you have a clue as to the facts and evidence surrounding the subject because you haven't studied it at all. If David has conducted actual research on the subject he is keeping it a SECRET. So, I assume he hasn't done squat. You and he simply buy the official account because the alternative is too much for you to imagine. You are behaving about that subject in the same way that many American's behave regarding the official version of the JFK assassination: they buy it blindly because the alternative--a massive conspiracy removed not only the 35th president from office, but it also removed the Executive Branch of our government--is simply too much to bear. Aren't you the same guy who insists that the Zapruder film is authentic? But, upon what research do you base this opinion, Robert? You haven't even looked at the evidence supporting alteration. By your own admission you haven't even read any of the books that have been scholarly written about the subject, yet you insist that the authors of such works are wrong, such as, Jack White, Jim Fetzer, Noel Twyman, Doug Horne, David Mantik, David Healey, and yes, even David Lifton, to name but a few. Each of these researchers has offered various proofs for their position favoring alteration. Perhaps they are wrong, but you have not even read their work! Your opinion is self-serving nonsense in this instance. You don't know and you can't support your arbitrary conclusion with facts because you have not done the work. There are those on this forum with whom I disagree about Z-film alteration. There are others with whom I disagree about their CERTAINTY regarding the moon landings. But at least some of them have bothered to do their homework and studied the subject. Many haven't even done that prior to having reached a conclusion. You are definitely in the last group. Even though I don't always agree with I Jim DiEugenio, I do resoect his position on Z-film alteration. He is agnostic about it because he admits that he doesn't know having not done the research on the subject. That is honest and what he chooses to study is his prerogative. But for you or anyone to proclaim that you are certain that a qualified researcher is mistaken WHEN YOU HAVEN"T DONE ANY WORK TO OFFER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM is quite pathetic. And then you do it again... I am not claiming to know the truth about 9/11. But, you offer nothing in rebuttal to the evidence provided by dozens of EXPERTS on the subject! Why not just remain agnostic if you are unwilling to study the evidence?

First off, David Lifton: If a cop ticketed a motorist for speeding, his belief regarding moon landings would not be questioned as it is wholly OFF TOPIC in a courtroom concerning a traffic offense just as it is off topic in this thread. I was obviously being facetious, but you must have known that.

If David Lifton tells us the name of Witt's dentist--and it can be verified--I might even consider telling him what I think about the moon landings!

Jim, Just for information: The Queen Mary did not "butt up against" the Presidential limo in the "other film" that I saw.

Great posts Steven. We need a revolution of MIND and of SPIRIT. Such a revolution is not violence based. It can't be. In this day and age such mental and emotional meanderings are ill conceived. Only when slaves refuse to slave (labor) do the masters pay heed for they know not how to labor for themselves. In the wake of such rebellion their control comes tumbling down.

I agree 100%. Witt has nothing to do with being a witness. Why did the man not come forward in 1963 or 64? He was merely the means by which TUM could be dismissed.

I hope he will. Some reasonable moderation of these threads by a suitable candidate (Don Jeffries comes to mind) would be welcome. But, I'm not holding my breath--

Sheesh. Jim, You started this thread. If it is about TUM and the DCM, why would you choose to engage Lamson in a debate about JFK's clothing here? It is off topic. These guys will continue to derail this (or any) thread because THEY CAN. No one will moderate thread integrity here. You must "self moderate" your replies--unless you don't care if your topic is hijacked. A word to the wise.

What I have asked is definitely not "off topic." It goes to your credibility. The question is whether you are going to join in with this nonsense that we didn't go to the moon (and multiple times, I might add); whether you're going to claim that you "haven't had the time to study the matter" etc etc. And while we're on the subject of credibility: do tell us all about the "other film" you claim to have seen. That is another good indicator of credibility (or lack thereof). DSL Fine. Do you still live with your parents, David? Knock it off. If you want to know about my experience with the "other film" you can listen at this link. It's all I have to say about the subject. Stop asking. http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-gov%20ventura%20and%20greg%20burnham.mp3