Brian Schmidt

More of the same in an article from Business Insider: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/were-learning-more-cia-cover-155047836.html From the article: "The CIA recently told Politico that the agency decided to declassify the report "to highlight misconceptions about the CIA's connection to JFK's assassination," including the infamous "Grassy Knoll" theory that asserts the CIA was behind the assassination." LOL, what does that even mean?

Excellent writing, Bill.

Mine should be in my mailbox by now. I look forward to reading some of it tonight. Here are a few more tidbits. My commentary in italics and parenthesis. April 10, 1964: Lee Winfrey, Knight newspapers. Re Parade story on Bay of Pigs by St. George. AWD stated that he knew nothing of alleged attempt on Castro’s life at time of Bay of Pigs. (Obviously lying) May 27, 1964 11:00 - 1:00 AT Sullivan & Cromwell - re our wills & Mrs. Bancroft's Trust September 22, 1966 Edward Norton called again to ask Mr. Dulles if he and a colleague could come talk with Mr. Dulles about the Warren Commission Report "off the record". Mr. D. said yes, and gave permission for them to bring a tape recorder. Mr. Norton promised not to ever make the tape public. October 5, 1966 Mr. Lowrie, from the London Daily press, called to say that the pictures taken after the assassination showing the wounds and bullet holes, etc. are nowhere to be found. Archives denies having them, Robt. Kennedy denies having them. October 31, 1967 3:00 Bill Harvey (This is around the time of the Johnny Rosselli-Jack Anderson column. It is believed the source of the leaked information was Harvey)

There are a lot of gems even with the redacted text. It's clear that Dulles is working in concert with Helms, Angleton, Stuart Alsop, Cord Meyer, Howard Roman, etc. to counter any kind of criticism against the Agency aggressively. You can see the number of references to Truman's December 22nd opinion piece and how much time Dulles takes to try to negate it. Also note how many times he speaks with Angleton (and Raymond Rocca) in the months after the assassination. Here are some interesting parts: December 2, 1963: Chief Justice Warren is having luncheon with Katzenbach today. First meeting of Commission will probably be Wednesday morning. Warren agreed that they will have to get a staff, should have no subpoena powers, no public hearings. December 6, 1963: (Redacted) reported that a group of air force officers had planned to try to impeach President Kennedy before next re-election. AWD advised he report to FBI (redacted). December 26, 1963: Mr. Angleton felt that lunch should be delayed; learned through Sam Papich that the Bureau had had some strong internal differences. January 6, 1964: Mr. McCloy. Both agreed that organization of Commission is proceeding at a very slow pace. January 28, 1964 Mr. Rocca. Received Dulles-Jackson-Correa report. Mentioned article in Labor Monthly by Palme "After Kennedy"; thesis is that CIA killed the President. Said that Mrs. Oswald was going on a speaking tour, also said he is getting material together re AWD's briefing of Mr. Truman. Will send copies to AWD. January 20, 1964: Mr. Cord Meyer. Discussed Labour Monthly article.

Great post, Paul. Besides, knowing what we know about CIA assassination plots, they always used surrogates to carry out the ground operations for deniability purposes. Thinking you are going to find a some smoking gun evidence pointing directly at the CIA, like a CIA agent assassin with Helms' name listed in his phone book is naive.

Check out this resource, Cliff: https://webspace.princeton.edu/xythoswfs/webview/fileManager.action?stk=&entryName=%2Fusers%2Fmudd%2FdigitalObjects%2FMC019.09%2FML.2007.004%2Fonline%2FCorrespondence_Appointment_Call_Diaries_1945-1968&msgStatus= I've referred to it on here before, but couldn't find it again until now. It used to be in a bit more of an intuitive format, but it's still pretty straight-forward. It's Dulles' appointment book, both in person and by telephone, for almost every day. The database is probably worth a thread of its own and has a lot of interesting information, like who Dulles was in correspondence with before and after the assassination (he was speaking with Tracy Barnes a few days before Dallas). Some of the correspondence is redacted, which is curious. Anyway, Dulles was in Boston the day before and morning of the assassination, but was back in the D.C. area when it went down. His schedule from Saturday the 23rd to Tuesday morning isn't available--go figure.

Another post by Talbot: My book on the epic battle between democracy and the national security state will be published tomorrow. Final tease from "The Devil's Chessboard": After JFK forced Allen Dulles out of his administration, the former CIA director simply went home to his Georgetown manor and continued to operate as if he were still running the CIA, meeting with his top aides and field agents, including several who later fell under suspicion by the House Select Committee on Assassinations and other investigators. In "retirement," Dulles ran a kind of anti-Kennedy government in exile out of his house, trying to covertly subvert administration policy. And where was Dulles the weekend of Kennedy's assassination -- two years after being run out of the CIA? He spent the weekend at "The Farm" -- a top-secret CIA facility in northern Virginia, which he used as a command post. He would soon begin pressuring Lyndon Johnson to put him on the Warren Commission -- a panel he so thoroughly dominated that some observers thought it should have been called the Dulles Commission.

http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/10/new-dulles-cia-jfk-revelations/ The link above is an interview with David Talbot about his new book on WhoWhatWhy. http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/12/new-book-on-cia-master-plotter-dulles-sneak-peek-part-1/

David Talbot responds to Phil Shenon: Phil Shenon continues to recycle the myth -- long propagated in CIA circles -- that Fidel Castro was behind the JFK assassination. He now adds another piece of disinformation, asserting that Robert Kennedy also fell for this CIA propaganda line. This is completely false. I interviewed over 150 close friends, colleagues and family members of Bobby Kennedy, including Kennedy administration officials and insiders, for my book, "Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years." NONE of them indicated to me that Castro was among Bobby's leading suspects in the assassination of his brother. Instead, they said that RFK immediately focused on the CIA and its ANTI-Castro operation as the source of the plot against President Kennedy. My sources included close advisors of Bobby Kennedy like Adam Walinsky, Frank Mankiewicz, Ed Guthman and Richard Goodwin -- as well as assassination researchers with whom Bobby Kennedy met during his secret search for the truth. I also interviewed the widow and close associates of Walter Sheridan, Bobby Kennedy's top investigator ever since his days as the chief of the 1950s Senate rackets probe. Who are Shenon's sources? RFK was fully aware of how politically explosive his search for the truth about Dallas was, considering the enormous power wielded by the U.S. security forces that he suspected, and the criminal underworld elements with whom they were aligned. So he was very careful in his public remarks about the Warren Report, which he privately considered a whitewash. It is clear from my research that Bobby Kennedy was biding his time until he could return to the White House, at which point he planned to use the full powers of the executive branch to track down those in Washington who were responsible for murdering his brother. Shenon also repeats the old canard that RFK urged President Johnson to appoint former CIA director Allen Dulles to the Warren Commission. This bogus story apparently originated with Lyndon Johnson himself, who alleged in his 1971 memoir that Bobby recommended both Dulles and John McCloy, another Republican pillar of the Wall Street-national security world. Johnson, of course, was one of the most notorious fabulists who ever occupied the Oval Office. And his hatred of Bobby Kennedy, who by 1971 was conveniently dead, was one of the core passions of LBJ's life. The notion that Johnson would huddle with his arch enemy to make such a politically delicate choice as the makeup of the Warren Commission is absurd. So is the the idea that Bobby himself would recommend two men who were political enemies of his late brother -- two men with whom JFK had strongly clashed over national security policy. In truth, as close CIA associates of Dulles later revealed, such as Richard Helms, Dulles himself arm-twisted his way onto the Warren Commission, where he and McCloy soon established themselves as the dominant players. This is one more example of Shenon's gullibility when it comes to covering CIA-related issues. In fact, his new "scoop" in Politico about the Warren Commission is based on newly declassified excerpts from a CIA biography of John McCone, Dulles's successor as CIA director, by CIA historian David Robarge. Shenon treats Robarge's institutional version of this history as an important revelation,when it should be treated with sharp journalistic skepticism. All documents that the CIA freely releases, like Robarge's redacted report on McCone, are made public for a reason. In this case, it's clearly part of the CIA's 50-year campaign to manage public perceptions of the Kennedy assassination. The mainstream media in this country, from the New York Times (where Shenon once worked) on down, has never had the investigative courage of Bobby Kennedy to deeply examine the true source of the epic crime that took place in Dallas in November 1963. The Washington Post's legendary editor, Ben Bradlee, had the honesty to tell me why, during an interview late in his life. He was afraid it would hurt his rising journalism career, if he dared to open these doors, Bradlee told me. This is why when Americans search for the truth about the Kennedy assassination, they must look outside these mainstream media circles for the truth, at the pathbreaking work done by independent journalists, historians and citizen researchers.

I know, parts of it are hard to read without gagging. Obviously the CIA would spin it this way, and Shenon is the poster-child for the kind of journalist who blindly accepts it.

This Politico article is on the front page of Yahoo. I assumed it was going to be about Allen Dulles and would be covering something from Talbot's new book. Turns out, it's about John McCone and is authored by Philip Shenon. Interesting nonetheless. Here's the link: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197

I don't think King has an agenda per se, at least the way a lot of others in the media do in relation to the assassination. King has talked a lot about how the Kennedy assassination was a watershed moment in his life in various interviews throughout the years. If I remember correctly, years back, he was skeptical of the official story and was open to a conspiracy. He references the assassination in many of his novels. In the Tommyknockers, the Dallas PD are a symbol of incompetence and possibly corruption. I suspect his 'research' before writing the book wasn't all that in depth and he read Bugliosi and Posner and was swayed over relatively quickly, giving a cursory look at everything else. He may have even had an idea in his mind beforehand about where he wanted to take the book and the official story might work better for his purposes.

Just what we need like a hole in the head (excuse the pun). This forum provides plenty of debate on the physical evidence and ballistics. Those who are obsessed with convincing everyone of physical anomalies are protesting too loud, IMO. I already believe there was a conspiracy. I'd rather spend my time going the step further to figuring out who was responsible.

Exactly

From David Talbot's Facebook page: And now, another teaser from my forthcoming book, "The Devil's Chessboard"... Jacobo and Maria Arbenz: They were the Kennedys of Guatemala -- young, wealthy, attractive, charismatic -- and dedicated to improving the lives of the desperately poor in their country. And like the Kennedys they had powerful enemies -- the landed oligarchy, United Fruit and the Dulles brothers who had long represented the agribusiness colossus. When a CIA-engineered military coup overthrew President Arbenz in 1954, Arbenz and his family escaped with their lives -- but they were hounded and harassed throughout the world by CIA agents like Howard Hunt, beginning at the Guatemala City airport, where the proud Jacobo was forced to strip in front of the world press before boarding the plane. In exile, the Arbenz family traveled the world like ghosts looking for a home, tragedy following them everywhere. Jacobo's own life ended in 1971 in a Mexico City hotel room, when authorities said he climbed into a scalding hot bath and either drowned or burned to death. His wife Maria was convinced he was murdered -- the latest victim on a hit list of Guatemala nationalists that had been compiled by the CIA. I was fortunate to interview members of the Arbenz family and hear their tragic family story -- a tragedy that was played out on a much grander scale after the 1954 coup for the entire people of Guatemala.

*crickets*

People, IMO, have a great misconception of Trump and what he represents. He's certainly not being pushed by the GOP--even for strategic means--quite the opposite. The establishment really is afraid of him. Aside from his outrageous persona and extreme stance on immigration and tough-guy foreign policy rhetoric, he IS the moderate. His views on preserving Social Security, investing in infrastructure, rewriting our trade policies, campaign finance reform, etc. are very much out of line with wealthy conservative donors and position him as the populist candidate. I think this article's analysis is fairly accurate: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9217633/why-people-like-donald-trump

Different Robert Morrow... the name is just a coincidence. The Robert Morrow in the post you referenced is (or was) a member on this forum.

Some problems I have with this: Howard Hunt wasn't a household name in 1963. Did he specifically call out Hunt and was Hunt's identity known to those present at the meeting? Kind of coincidental that the story materialized in 1974. Also, if this were really how it happened, why wasn't it Hunt's "deathbed confession?"

I look forward to reading it.

I hope you're joking.

That's certainly a plausible angle. I tend to doubt an "all out, no holds barred" scenario, though, but that's just my interpretation. I think the fact that the way the shots hit Kennedy allowed for a single assassin scenario (as much of a stretch the single-bullet theory was) suggests it was intentionally framed up that way. Of course one could argue that this was political jiu-jitsu after the fact to hide the truth, and assumes none of the evidence was tampered with. My best guess is that one of the high level plotters had a somewhat more pragmatic, if no ulterior motive than just setting up the assassination as a Castro conspiracy, and just wanted Kennedy gone, knowing that the lone nut scenario would be safer. Same goes if Johnson was really at the top of the pyramid--he may have used the the prospect of a Cuban provocation as a motivating factor for the ground crew, knowing that he would stick with a lone assassin after he became president. In this instance, I suspect there was a "hierarchy of shots" and was communicated as such through signal men--the most blatant shots would be spared unless absolutely necessary. Of course, if a shot was fired but missed and there actually was a bomb waiting for Kennedy under the underpass, it'd be a little hard to pretend there wasn't a conspiracy.

I guess we all rely on our own personal experiences, for better or for worse, to inform what we think is probable in a particular area. I won’t rehash what I’ve already mentioned, but I don’t think one should dismiss something as impossible or laughable when the literature and historical record says otherwise. I also disagree that after spending some time at a gun range with a qualified professional, it will somehow open your eyes and provide great insight into the ammunitions strategies of the most highly skilled operators. But don’t get me wrong, Greg, I too have serious concerns about a scenario with which the conspirators would rely on such inferior ammunition. Robert, I don’t want to get into the weeds about the merits of specific weapons, and my posts weren’t implying that this forum’s members don’t have excellent knowledge of weapons. The point I was demonstrating is that a Carcano is deficient relative to other commercially available guns in 1963. So if someone is trying to argue that the conspirators would pick the most efficient gun possible, they clearly had other motives—such as keeping the operation clandestine.

I specifically used the term “covert assassination tactics,” because that’s really the crux of what we’re talking about. It was—most of us would agree at least—a covert assassination. Therefore, it’s not merely an argument about bullets or weapons, because the whole reason we’re debating the use of a silenced .22 in the first place is because there was a clandestine necessity. Now, if you wanted to kill JFK most efficiently, why not use the most powerful weapon possible? Why not just machine gun him down? Of course a .22 is an inferior weapon (so is a Mannlicher Carcano), but that’s the whole point— it’s a trade-off for surreptitious means. Your argument was very much an argument for deferring to expertise and authority. I don’t think anyone on this forum is a ballistics expert. I also highly doubt that many here have both "been there and read that" and "been there and done that", as you suggest. But your willingness to defer to researchers with gun experience over the actual literature on the subject is very questionable, IMO.

As much as I hate to take sides on this, as an outside observer, I have to say criticizing Pat's position because he doesn't have "real world" experience with a gun doesn't hold up. I agree we can't all be experts on everything, but do you think someone who's spent, say, 100 hours shooting different guns and doing target practice is more well versed in covert assassination tactics than Pat, who has spent countless hours reading primary documents on the subject? The spread between having no gun experience and being an expert is vast. In fact, gaining a novice's training on firing a gun may, as Pat has suggested, in fact skew your judgment and make you think that the shot is so hard that it's impossible. In reality, the shot is hard (no one disputes this), but we're talking top notch people being assigned to pull the shooting off (as in a fraction of a percent of the population). So, pretending that someone who knows a lot about guns is an expert in covert assassination, while rejecting the CIA Manual on Assassination and ballistics literature, whose authors actually ARE experts on the subject and say it's possible, seems silly to me.