Terry Mauro

************************************************************* "My question involves the possible extremely reckless and dangerous (concerning matters of National Security) possible "mental" behavior of the President and Attorney General of the United States." And, my question is, why are you insisting on whipping a dead horse? Wasn't this already discussed quite thoroughly in Doug Caddy's thread, which goes on 4 or more pages, AD NAUSEUM? I'm surprised to see 207 hits on this already, and for what? Someone's overactive prurient interests? Or, someone desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel in an effort to bash the Kennedy brothers, one more time. And, you're all falling for it like a bunch of lemmings. This place is starting to resemble something closer to a "chat room," or a super market tabloid like The Inquirer, than it does a research or an education forum. Maybe this is somebody's idea of group therapy? Listen, it's all been documented below. What's not to understand? Jeez... ___________________________________________ Doug Caddy posted: FBI file links Kennedy to Monroe's death March 17, 2007 Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/kennedy-l...722744304.html# For four decades there have been rumours that Marilyn Monroe's death was not a simple suicide. Now a Los Angeles-based Australian writer and director, Philippe Mora, has uncovered an FBI document that throws up a chilling new scenario. The screen legend Marilyn Monroe...the FBI report says she "expected to have her stomach pumped out and get sympathy for her suicide attempt", but it suggests she was left to die. Latest related coverage How Bobby betrayed Marilyn Web links Documents: Read the FBI papers BOBBY KENNEDY'S affair with the screen idol Marilyn Monroe has been documented, but a secret FBI file suggests the late US attorney-general was aware of - and perhaps even a participant in - a plan "to induce" her suicide. The detailed three-page report implicates the Hollywood actor Peter Lawford, Monroe's psychiatrist, staff and her publicist in the plot. The allegations suggest the 36-year-old actress, who had a history of staging attention-seeking suicide attempts, was deliberately given the means to fake another suicide on August 4, 1962. But this time, it is suggested, she was allowed to die as she sought help. The document, hidden among thousands of pages released under freedom-of-information laws last October, was received by the FBI on October 19, 1964 - two years after her death - and titled simply "ROBERT F KENNEDY". It was compiled by an unnamed former special agent working for the then Democrat governor of California, Pat Brown, and forwarded to Washington by Curtis Lynum, then head of the San Francisco FBI. Despite a disclaimer that it could not be sourced or authenticated, it was considered important enough to immediately circulate to the FBI's five most senior officers, including director J. Edgar Hoover's right-hand man, Clyde Tolson. The report was in effect buried for decades as a classified document, and even the released version contains censored sections. Never before mentioned despite thousands of articles, books and documentaries about her death, it details aspects of Kennedy's on-and-off affair with the movie star, including sex parties and a lesbian dalliance, as well as her emotional departure from 20th Century Fox and descent into depression. Critically, it raises an alleged conspiracy, apparently overseen by Lawford, for Monroe to unwittingly commit suicide with the drug Seconal, a barbiturate used to treat insomnia and relieve anxiety. The document gives no precise reason why she would be killed but hints it may be linked to her threats to make public her affair with Kennedy, as other conspiracy theories have previously claimed. It states in part: "Peter Lawford, [censored words blacked out] knew from Marilyn's friends that she often made suicide attempts and that she was inclined to fake a suicide attempt in order to arouse sympathy. "Lawford is reported as having made 'special arrangements' with Marilyn's psychiatrist, Dr Ralph Greenson, from Beverley Hills. The psychiatrist was treating Marilyn for emotional problems and getting her off the use of barbiturates. On her last visit to him he prescribed Seconal tablets and gave her a prescription for 60 of them, which was unusual in quantity especially since he saw her frequently. On the date of her death … her housekeeper put the bottle of pills on the night table. It is reported that the housekeeper and Marilyn's personal secretary and press agent, Pat Newcomb, were co-operating in the plan to induce suicide." It goes on to say that on the same day, Kennedy had booked out of the Beverley Hills Hotel and flown to San Francisco where he booked into the St Charles Hotel, owned by a friend. "Robert Kennedy made a telephone call from St Charles Hotel, San Francisco, to Peter Lawford to find out if Marilyn was dead yet." Lawford called and spoke to Monroe "then checked again later to make sure she did not answer". The document claims the housekeeper, Eunice Murray, who had been hired by the actress on the advice of Dr Greenson, then called the psychiatrist. "Marilyn expected to have her stomach pumped out and get sympathy for her suicide attempt. The psychiatrist left word for Marilyn to take a drive in the fresh air but did not come to see her until after she was known to be dead." Officially, the actress was found by Murray in the early hours of August 5, naked on her bed lying on top of her telephone. The others are now dead, too. The FBI report says Kennedy had promised Monroe he would divorce his wife and marry her, but the actress eventually realised he had no intention of doing so. About this time, he had told her not to worry about 20th Century Fox cancelling her contract - "he would take care of everything". When nothing happened, she called him at work and they had "unpleasant words. She was reported to have threatened to make public their affair." Hoover, keeper of America's secrets, was obsessed with the private life of celebrities, particularly those with leftist leanings. The files show the FBI tracked Monroe from the Cold War mid-1950s to her death in 1962, but particularly after she met and married the playwright Arthur Miller, who was being watched as a possible communist. http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/kennedy-l...722744304.html# William Kelly Rating: 0 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Mar 17 2007, 03:39 AM Post #2 Advanced Member *** QUOTE(Douglas Caddy @ Mar 17 2007, 04:12 AM) * FBI file links Kennedy to Monroe's death March 17, 2007 Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/kennedy-l...722744304.html# For four decades there have been rumours that Marilyn Monroe's death was not a simple suicide. Now a Los Angeles-based Australian writer and director, Philippe Mora, has uncovered an FBI document that throws up a chilling new scenario. The screen legend Marilyn Monroe...the FBI report says she "expected to have her stomach pumped out and get sympathy for her suicide attempt", but it suggests she was left to die. Latest related coverage How Bobby betrayed Marilyn Web links Documents: Read the FBI papers BOBBY KENNEDY'S affair with the screen idol Marilyn Monroe has been documented, but a secret FBI file suggests the late US attorney-general was aware of - and perhaps even a participant in - a plan "to induce" her suicide. The detailed three-page report implicates the Hollywood actor Peter Lawford, Monroe's psychiatrist, staff and her publicist in the plot. The allegations suggest the 36-year-old actress, who had a history of staging attention-seeking suicide attempts, was deliberately given the means to fake another suicide on August 4, 1962. But this time, it is suggested, she was allowed to die as she sought help. The document, hidden among thousands of pages released under freedom-of-information laws last October, was received by the FBI on October 19, 1964 - two years after her death - and titled simply "ROBERT F KENNEDY". It was compiled by an unnamed former special agent working for the then Democrat governor of California, Pat Brown, and forwarded to Washington by Curtis Lynum, then head of the San Francisco FBI. Despite a disclaimer that it could not be sourced or authenticated, it was considered important enough to immediately circulate to the FBI's five most senior officers, including director J. Edgar Hoover's right-hand man, Clyde Tolson. The report was in effect buried for decades as a classified document, and even the released version contains censored sections. Never before mentioned despite thousands of articles, books and documentaries about her death, it details aspects of Kennedy's on-and-off affair with the movie star, including sex parties and a lesbian dalliance, as well as her emotional departure from 20th Century Fox and descent into depression. Critically, it raises an alleged conspiracy, apparently overseen by Lawford, for Monroe to unwittingly commit suicide with the drug Seconal, a barbiturate used to treat insomnia and relieve anxiety. The document gives no precise reason why she would be killed but hints it may be linked to her threats to make public her affair with Kennedy, as other conspiracy theories have previously claimed. It states in part: "Peter Lawford, [censored words blacked out] knew from Marilyn's friends that she often made suicide attempts and that she was inclined to fake a suicide attempt in order to arouse sympathy. "Lawford is reported as having made 'special arrangements' with Marilyn's psychiatrist, Dr Ralph Greenson, from Beverley Hills. The psychiatrist was treating Marilyn for emotional problems and getting her off the use of barbiturates. On her last visit to him he prescribed Seconal tablets and gave her a prescription for 60 of them, which was unusual in quantity especially since he saw her frequently. On the date of her death … her housekeeper put the bottle of pills on the night table. It is reported that the housekeeper and Marilyn's personal secretary and press agent, Pat Newcomb, were co-operating in the plan to induce suicide." It goes on to say that on the same day, Kennedy had booked out of the Beverley Hills Hotel and flown to San Francisco where he booked into the St Charles Hotel, owned by a friend. "Robert Kennedy made a telephone call from St Charles Hotel, San Francisco, to Peter Lawford to find out if Marilyn was dead yet." Lawford called and spoke to Monroe "then checked again later to make sure she did not answer". The document claims the housekeeper, Eunice Murray, who had been hired by the actress on the advice of Dr Greenson, then called the psychiatrist. "Marilyn expected to have her stomach pumped out and get sympathy for her suicide attempt. The psychiatrist left word for Marilyn to take a drive in the fresh air but did not come to see her until after she was known to be dead." Officially, the actress was found by Murray in the early hours of August 5, naked on her bed lying on top of her telephone. The others are now dead, too. The FBI report says Kennedy had promised Monroe he would divorce his wife and marry her, but the actress eventually realised he had no intention of doing so. About this time, he had told her not to worry about 20th Century Fox cancelling her contract - "he would take care of everything". When nothing happened, she called him at work and they had "unpleasant words. She was reported to have threatened to make public their affair." Hoover, keeper of America's secrets, was obsessed with the private life of celebrities, particularly those with leftist leanings. The files show the FBI tracked Monroe from the Cold War mid-1950s to her death in 1962, but particularly after she met and married the playwright Arthur Miller, who was being watched as a possible communist. http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/kennedy-l...722744304.html# WHAT IS THIS, A SAINT PADDY'S DAY JOKE? GIVE ME A FREAKIN BREAK. THIS IS NEWS IN SYDNEY? ONE FBI DOC THAT REAKS OF TOTAL BS - AN FBI DOC FROM AN AGENCY THAT NO LONGER AND PROBABLY NEVER SHOULD HAVE ANY REASONABLE PERSON'S RESPECT OR ATTENTION - AFTER ALL WE'VE LEARNED ABOUT THE FBI - HOW THEY FOLLOWED OSWALD AROUND BUT MISSED EVERYTHING, HOW THEY HELPED FRAME HIM AFTERWARDS, FUDGED MEXICO CITY, AN AGENCY RUN BY A CROSS DRESSING FAGOT, THAT CONTINUED TO FUDGE EVERY MAJOR INVESTIGATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY SIGNIFICANCE, AND CONTINUES TO BE MISUSED BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION'S POLITICAL ENDS - THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AGENCY THAT FAILED US IN 1963, 2001 AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. WHY ANYONE WOULD CONSIDER ANY FBI DOCUMENT ANYTHING MORE THAN KINDLING, ESPECIALLY ONE ABOUT MONROE AND ANY KENNEDY, MEANS YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION. IF THIS IS NEWS IN SYDNEY, THEN THEY HAVEN'T SEEN THE SPIRGILIO DOC YET. BK Post Mar 17 2007, 05:26 AM Post #3 Hi Bill: My,My how the story has already grown..... NOTE: ""The report, titled simply Robert F Kennedy, is not sourced or authenticated but it was circulated to the FBI's five most senior officers, Mora said."" That means it could be another phony.....they have arisen in the past.... Killing Kennedys Again Time.?? Repeatedly moreso it seems in the past few years. This was the earlier report, how some seem to have jumped on the bandwagon...as always. And as usual break their necks to report such without checking and or having any verification...aw well, the way it has gone on for years... Kennedy link to Monroe death March 17, 2007 12:00 Article from: AAP Font size: + - Send this article: Print Email AN Australian director has uncovered a document that suggests Robert Kennedy was aware of a plot to "induce" the suicide of Marilyn Monroe. Bobby Kennedy was the brother of murdered US president John F Kennedy and served as US Attorney-General from 1961 to 1964 before he was assassinated in 1968. Philippe Mora, writing for Fairfax newspapers, said Monroe was well known for staging suicide attempts as a form of attention seeking. But he said he has uncovered a three-page document that revealed on August 4, 1962, she was left to die while attempting another attention seeking moment. The report, handed to the FBI on October 19, 1964, implicated the actor Peter Lawford, Monroe's psychiatrist, her housekeeper and personal secretary in the 36-year-old actresses death. It stated Lawford made “special arrangements” with the psychiatrist that saw Monroe given a high quantity of her prescription medication. “Marilyn expected to have her stomach pumped out and get sympathy for her suicide attempt,” the report said. It said on the same day, Kennedy made a phone call from St Charles Hotel, San Francisco to Lawford “to find out if Marilyn was dead yet”. Mora, who is based in Los Angeles, has found the document, compiled by an unnamed former special agent, among thousands of pages released under Freedom of Information laws in October. The report, titled simply Robert F Kennedy, is not sourced or authenticated but it was circulated to the FBI's five most senior officers, Mora said. http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/stor...from=public_rss post Mar 17 2007, 02:24 PM Post #4 Bill, Bernice, Doug This bulls### disinfo has been floating around for years. Next there will be Bobby kills MM, the movie. Of course Drudge has it. Sickening. Dawn -------------------- Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2036 Go to the top of the pageReport Post Post Mar 17 2007, 02:53 PM Post #5 This story makes a lot of sense on every level. MM's friend Peter Lawford, her psychiatrist, and her housekeeper all agree to kill MM. (What a world.) Well, not kill her directly, but the doc prescribes her a bunch of pills, and the housekeeper leaves them on her bed table, and everybody hopes she will take them all. And MM does take them, seeing as how somebody clearly wants her to fake another suicide. She must think that they're waiting and will come into her bedroom in the middle of the night with something to pump out her stomach with. At least she certainly hopes so. Or else she hopes she'll have time to call someone before she passes out. Or something. Everybody's hopes bear fruit except MM's, who must have put the dumb in the old chauvinistic term "dumb blonde." If RFK wanted MM dead, I think he had the means to see that it got done in more certain fashion than everyone hoping that MM would idiotically do herself in. (And what was everyone's motive, other than RFK's, to do this? RFK wants her dead, and luckily MM's friend, her doctor, and her employee all agree to help out? For money? I guess you can truly buy anything.) Almost any of the theories about her death make more sense than this. So maybe it's true. Quote Post John Simkin Rating: 5 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Mar 17 2007, 03:31 PM Post #6 Super Member **** Group: Admin Posts: 10079 Joined: 16-December 03 From: Worthing, Sussex Member No.: 7 QUOTE(Dawn Meredith @ Mar 17 2007, 02:24 PM) * Bill, Bernice, Doug This bulls### disinfo has been floating around for years. Next there will be Bobby kills MM, the movie. Of course Drudge has it. Sickening. Dawn This attempt to link the Kennedy brothers with the death of Marilyn Monroe has been going on for sometime. This is a CIA document dated 3rd August, 1962, that appeared on the web a few years ago Wiretap of telephone conversation between reporter Dorothy Kilgallen and her close friend, Howard Rothberg; from wiretap of telephone conversation of Marilyn Monroe and Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Appraisal of Content: (Blacked Out). 1. Rothberg discussed the apparent comeback of subject with Kilgallen and the break up with the Kennedys. Rothberg told Kilgallen that she was attending Hollywood parties hosted by the "inner circle" among Hollywood's elite and was becoming the talk of the town again. Rothberg indicated in so many words, that she had secrets to tell, no doubt arising from her trists (sic) with the President and the Attorney General. One such (illegible) mentions the visit by the President at a secret air base for the purpose of inspecting things from outer space. Kilgallen replied that she knew what might be the source of the visit. In the mid-fifties Kilgallen learned of secret effort by US and UK governments to identify the origins of crashed spacecraft and dead bodies, from a British government official. Kilgallen believed the story may have come from the (illegible) in the late forties. Kilgallen said that if the story is true, it could cause terrible embarrassment to Jack and his plans to have NASA put men on the moon. 2. Subject repeatedly called the Attorney General and complained about the way she was being ignored by the President and his brother. 3. Subject threatened to hold a press conference and would tell all. 4. Subject made references to "bases" in Cuba and knew of the President's plan to kill Castro. 5. Subject made reference to her "diary of secrets" and what the newspapers would do with such disclosures. -------------------- John Simkin Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1365 General Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk JFK Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm Watergate: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/watergate.htm Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm Spartacus Travel Guide: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/travelguide.htm Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post William Kelly Rating: 0 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Mar 17 2007, 03:39 PM Post #7 Advanced Member *** Group: Members Posts: 977 Joined: 20-October 05 Member No.: 3667 QUOTE(John Simkin @ Mar 17 2007, 04:31 PM) * QUOTE(Dawn Meredith @ Mar 17 2007, 02:24 PM) * Bill, Bernice, Doug This bulls### disinfo has been floating around for years. Next there will be Bobby kills MM, the movie. Of course Drudge has it. Sickening. Dawn This attempt to link the Kennedy brothers with the death of Marilyn Monroe has been going on for sometime. This is a CIA document dated 3rd August, 1962, that appeared on the web a few years ago Wiretap of telephone conversation between reporter Dorothy Kilgallen and her close friend, Howard Rothberg; from wiretap of telephone conversation of Marilyn Monroe and Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Appraisal of Content: (Blacked Out). 1. Rothberg discussed the apparent comeback of subject with Kilgallen and the break up with the Kennedys. Rothberg told Kilgallen that she was attending Hollywood parties hosted by the "inner circle" among Hollywood's elite and was becoming the talk of the town again. Rothberg indicated in so many words, that she had secrets to tell, no doubt arising from her trists (sic) with the President and the Attorney General. One such (illegible) mentions the visit by the President at a secret air base for the purpose of inspecting things from outer space. Kilgallen replied that she knew what might be the source of the visit. In the mid-fifties Kilgallen learned of secret effort by US and UK governments to identify the origins of crashed spacecraft and dead bodies, from a British government official. Kilgallen believed the story may have come from the (illegible) in the late forties. Kilgallen said that if the story is true, it could cause terrible embarrassment to Jack and his plans to have NASA put men on the moon. 2. Subject repeatedly called the Attorney General and complained about the way she was being ignored by the President and his brother. 3. Subject threatened to hold a press conference and would tell all. 4. Subject made references to "bases" in Cuba and knew of the President's plan to kill Castro. 5. Subject made reference to her "diary of secrets" and what the newspapers would do with such disclosures. John, This is the so-called Spirgilio Document I was refereing to. It has everything, MM, Dorothy Kilgallon, pillow talk with the Pres, plot to kill Castro and UFOs, all on one page. Appologies for my rant, but the FBI gets on my nerves sometimes. BK -------------------- Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5214 Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post Gil Jesus Rating: 0 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Mar 17 2007, 04:26 PM Post #8 Experienced Member *** Group: Members Posts: 53 Joined: 22-October 05 Member No.: 3674 Bill, I would tend to agree with you. The "murderous" JFK was the same one who fired Dulles, Bissell and Cabell, who were trying to kill Castro. He sent an envoy to Trujillo to try to talk him into surrendering power. He sent a plane to whisk Diem and his brother Nhu out of So. Vietnam. After his election, he was considering coming to the rescue of Patrice Lumumba. He did everything he could to prevent the murder of these men. It is difficult for me to grasp the notion that this same man, JFK, who abhorred the possibilty that he might have to "push the button" and kill 300 million people, had no qualms about murdering in single numbers. Likewise, the AG, who was after the murderous mob with the full force of the justice department, would himself resort to the same tactics of those who he sought to put behind bars. It just doesn't make sense. Compare that to the credibility of the man, J. Edgar Hoover, man whose whole life was a lie, from his secret homosexual life, to his hypocritical stand against gays, to his taking credit for captures of criminals who were actually caught by his subordinates. This was a man so paranoid, that he spent the resources of the federal government obtaining "dirt" on everyone and had no problem "leaking" that dirt to the press. There were many "unsubstantiated rumors" that found their way into the FBI's files. This one seems just like another one. -------------------- Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5222 Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post William O'Neil Rating: 0 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Mar 17 2007, 04:31 PM Post #9 Experienced Member *** Group: Members Posts: 113 Joined: 22-January 06 Member No.: 4180 QUOTE(John Simkin @ Mar 17 2007, 04:31 PM) * QUOTE(Dawn Meredith @ Mar 17 2007, 02:24 PM) * Bill, Bernice, Doug This bulls### disinfo has been floating around for years. Next there will be Bobby kills MM, the movie. Of course Drudge has it. Sickening. Dawn This attempt to link the Kennedy brothers with the death of Marilyn Monroe has been going on for sometime. This is a CIA document dated 3rd August, 1962, that appeared on the web a few years ago Wiretap of telephone conversation between reporter Dorothy Kilgallen and her close friend, Howard Rothberg; from wiretap of telephone conversation of Marilyn Monroe and Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Appraisal of Content: (Blacked Out). 1. Rothberg discussed the apparent comeback of subject with Kilgallen and the break up with the Kennedys. Rothberg told Kilgallen that she was attending Hollywood parties hosted by the "inner circle" among Hollywood's elite and was becoming the talk of the town again. Rothberg indicated in so many words, that she had secrets to tell, no doubt arising from her trists (sic) with the President and the Attorney General. One such (illegible) mentions the visit by the President at a secret air base for the purpose of inspecting things from outer space. Kilgallen replied that she knew what might be the source of the visit. In the mid-fifties Kilgallen learned of secret effort by US and UK governments to identify the origins of crashed spacecraft and dead bodies, from a British government official. Kilgallen believed the story may have come from the (illegible) in the late forties. Kilgallen said that if the story is true, it could cause terrible embarrassment to Jack and his plans to have NASA put men on the moon. 2. Subject repeatedly called the Attorney General and complained about the way she was being ignored by the President and his brother. 3. Subject threatened to hold a press conference and would tell all. 4. Subject made references to "bases" in Cuba and knew of the President's plan to kill Castro. 5. Subject made reference to her "diary of secrets" and what the newspapers would do with such disclosures. Most of these stories originated from the efforts of one Frank Capell, the RW's propaganda minister, in an ongoing program to dicredit the K's, He would later resurface after 11/22/63, to do his handy work in that case as well. -------------------- Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5922 Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post Sid Walker Rating: 0 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Mar 17 2007, 04:31 PM Post #10 Advanced Member *** Group: Members Posts: 545 Joined: 5-April 06 From: near Cairns, Queensland, Australia Member No.: 4537 QUOTE(William Kelly @ Mar 17 2007, 04:39 PM) * QUOTE(John Simkin @ Mar 17 2007, 04:31 PM) * QUOTE(Dawn Meredith @ Mar 17 2007, 02:24 PM) * Bill, Bernice, Doug This bulls### disinfo has been floating around for years. Next there will be Bobby kills MM, the movie. Of course Drudge has it. Sickening. Dawn This attempt to link the Kennedy brothers with the death of Marilyn Monroe has been going on for sometime. This is a CIA document dated 3rd August, 1962, that appeared on the web a few years ago Wiretap of telephone conversation between reporter Dorothy Kilgallen and her close friend, Howard Rothberg; from wiretap of telephone conversation of Marilyn Monroe and Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Appraisal of Content: (Blacked Out). 1. Rothberg discussed the apparent comeback of subject with Kilgallen and the break up with the Kennedys. Rothberg told Kilgallen that she was attending Hollywood parties hosted by the "inner circle" among Hollywood's elite and was becoming the talk of the town again. Rothberg indicated in so many words, that she had secrets to tell, no doubt arising from her trists (sic) with the President and the Attorney General. One such (illegible) mentions the visit by the President at a secret air base for the purpose of inspecting things from outer space. Kilgallen replied that she knew what might be the source of the visit. In the mid-fifties Kilgallen learned of secret effort by US and UK governments to identify the origins of crashed spacecraft and dead bodies, from a British government official. Kilgallen believed the story may have come from the (illegible) in the late forties. Kilgallen said that if the story is true, it could cause terrible embarrassment to Jack and his plans to have NASA put men on the moon. 2. Subject repeatedly called the Attorney General and complained about the way she was being ignored by the President and his brother. 3. Subject threatened to hold a press conference and would tell all. 4. Subject made references to "bases" in Cuba and knew of the President's plan to kill Castro. 5. Subject made reference to her "diary of secrets" and what the newspapers would do with such disclosures. John, This is the so-called Spirgilio Document I was refereing to. It has everything, MM, Dorothy Kilgallon, pillow talk with the Pres, plot to kill Castro and UFOs, all on one page. Appologies for my rant, but the FBI gets on my nerves sometimes. BK I'm interested in how these stories get run. In the case of the SMH article, the author is Philippe Mora, an Australian emigre of Jewish parentage, who lives in Los Angeles and is best known as a film director. Mora has, to my knowledge, no track record of previous interest in the Kennedys or Monroe. Where did he get the story from? What motivated him to rehash an old tale that was never based on anything more than extremely flimsy evidence? It seems to me there's a substantial genre of articles, books and suchlike that denigrate the Kennedy brothers and make them out to be gangsters and sex fiends. Who is behind this and why? This post has been edited by Sid Walker: Mar 17 2007, 04:31 PM -------------------- Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6499 "The technique of infamy is to start two lies at once. and set people arguing which one is true" - Ezra Pound Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post John Simkin Rating: 5 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Mar 17 2007, 04:44 PM Post #11 Super Member **** Group: Admin Posts: 10079 Joined: 16-December 03 From: Worthing, Sussex Member No.: 7 QUOTE(Sid Walker @ Mar 17 2007, 04:31 PM) * It seems to me there's a substantial genre of articles, books and suchlike that denigrate the Kennedy brothers and make them out to be gangsters and sex fiends. Who is behind this and why? I assume it is organized by the Republican Party. The Kennedys are closely identified with the Democratic Party. It tends to happen when the Republicans are being investigated for corruption. It amazes me that they don't spread some of the true stories about LBJ. -------------------- John Simkin Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1365 General Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk JFK Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm Watergate: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/watergate.htm Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm Spartacus Travel Guide: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/travelguide.htm Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post Kathleen Collins Rating: 5 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Mar 17 2007, 09:50 PM Post #12 Experienced Member *** Group: Members Posts: 163 Joined: 13-December 06 Member No.: 5645 Using a pseudonym (I believe), Frank Capell wrote a pamphlet about Marilyn Monroe being surrounded by commie Jews and having an affair with Bobby Kennedy. This came out in 1964. He also smeared Pat Newcomb, Monroe's publicist and "best friend," by hinting she was a lesbian. But also, Pat Newcomb was in love with Bobby Kennedy. After Monroe's death, Newcomb was brought to Hyannis Port to get over it. There's a photo of her sailing with the Kennedys on a cold day. If I can find the photo, I will post it. Then she went to work in an office down the hall from Bobby's, having to do with government films. I do believe Monroe and the Kennedy brothers were romantically involved. And that the CIA or FBI murdered her when Bobby left her house that day, hoping he would be framed for MM's death. The next time an author wrote about MM and the Kennedys was Fred Lawrence Guiles in his tome Norma Jean: the Life of Marilyn Monroe. He has updated it, but I haven't read the update. Bobby was called "The Eastener." The original book was published in 1969. And then came Norman Mailer's book, Marilyn in 1973. In the last chapter, he muses whether MM was having a dalliance with the Kennedy brothers. But not that they murdered her. I think Mailer loved John F. Kennedy. He added a chapter or two to his book after Robert F. Slatzer published his book, The Life and Curious Death of Marilyn Monroe. This is the book that really sealed the deal. I do feel President Kennedy had an affair with Monroe and the shock of her death must have been incredible. I read, possibly in this book, that Jackie Kennedy came down early that morning to speak to a handful of reporters and said in paraphrase, Monroe would live on in our memories and words to that effect. I have never read that elsewhere. All my Monroe books are in another state, so I don't have them by my side. Around 1984 or 1985, the ghouls came out. All these authors saying Bobby Kennedy killed her, quoting dead witnesses. Publishing autopsy photos of her. It became repugnant to read these books and I more or less stopped collecting Marilyn Monroe. I think the authors of the most horrible books are disinformationalists. Especially Slatzer, who has lied about her, especially in his second book, which was more embellished and makes him a closer friend to her. He croaked 2 years ago. Former actress Jeanne Carmen is keeping the story going. She's in her '70's, but she still looks like a hustler to me. Kathy -------------------- Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8819 Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post John Simkin Rating: 5 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Mar 18 2007, 07:08 AM Post #13 Super Member **** Group: Admin Posts: 10079 Joined: 16-December 03 From: Worthing, Sussex Member No.: 7 I believe David Talbot's Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years will have some interesting things to say about the death of Monroe. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brothers-Hidden-Hi...1581&sr=1-3 -------------------- John Simkin Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1365 General Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk JFK Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm Watergate: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/watergate.htm Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm Spartacus Travel Guide: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/travelguide.htm Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post J. Raymond Ca... J. Raymond Carroll Rating: 0 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Mar 18 2007, 01:02 PM Post #14 Advanced Member *** Group: Members Posts: 709 Joined: 10-March 05 Member No.: 2672 QUOTE(John Simkin @ Mar 17 2007, 05:44 PM) * QUOTE(Sid Walker @ Mar 17 2007, 04:31 PM) * It seems to me there's a substantial genre of articles, books and suchlike that denigrate the Kennedy brothers and make them out to be gangsters and sex fiends. Who is behind this and why? I assume it is organized by the Republican Party. The Kennedys are closely identified with the Democratic Party. It tends to happen when the Republicans are being investigated for corruption. It amazes me that they don't spread some of the true stories about LBJ. I don't think this is a party matter. Republican politicians nowadays often quote JFK with approval, but seem to think that the less about Johnson the better. No one wants to be reminded of that ugly character, and there is a sizable segment of the journalistic establishment that wishes Robert Caro would stop working on his Johnson biography. Jim Di Eugenio has an excellent article on the character assassination of the Kennedy brothers that followed their physical assassination, posted here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry61914 Anthony Summers has been a leader in the movement to assassinate the characters of the Kennedy brothers. Since he is a member of this forum, perhaps Mr. Summers will enlighten us on what motivates him. I doubt if loyalty to the Grand Old Party is a consideration in his case. -------------------- Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3444 Go to the top of the pageReport Post +Quote Post Dawn Meredith Rating: 5 View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts post Mar 18 2007, 01:50 PM Post #15 Super Member **** Group: Members Posts: 1499 Joined: 27-October 04 From: Austin, Tx. Member No.: 1787 QUOTE(John Simkin @ Mar 18 2007, 09:08 AM) * I believe David Talbot's Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years will have some interesting things to say about the death of Monroe. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Brothers-Hidden-Hi...1581&sr=1-3 I think the timing of this "news" is to try to discredit Talbot before his book comes out. And Ray yes Jim Di's article is great. Dawn -------------------- Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2036 Go to the top of the pageReport Post +

***************************************************************** "I don't feel that I would be wrong in assuming that you were one of the very few "dullards" that did not realize that my mention of drugs was a somewhat joking response to Charles Drago's (I assume) joking recommendation that I change my medications. I feel that both my post and his were not meant to be taken seriously by the average particpant on this forum. Tho it is really none of you business, I take no drugs, prescription or otherwise, that is stronger than aspirin. HOWEVER, if you are often propelled into maniacal, hysterical ramblings, of the type which you just posted, I believe that most would feel that you are indeed in need of analytical or chemical assistance. As I was reading your post, I seriously felt that you had indeed slipped over the edge." Thanks for clarifying that point, but I really don't think it's anything to joke about. "Do you really "NOT BELIEVE" that Robert did not do much to antagonize Edgar, which at the time was not in the best interest of Jack? Where the hell have you been? Between Jack and Robert, they alienated much support which they could have used. The proper useage of Politics is meant to gather support for one's endeavors, not to alienate persons and positions which you purposely and very obviously bypass or refuse to recognize. A great part of this alienation, resulted often from the Kennedy refusal to follow protocol. Those in "true power" do not take lightly if they feel that their desires are being purposely bypassed." Personally, I believe that an appointed official of Gay Edgar Hoover's character was an egregious over sight on the part of the electorate, as a choice for a civil servant in a gov. position. He waged war against his perceived enemies using nothing short of blackmail as a weapon. Your definition of the proper use of politics falls hollow in comparison to what JFK perceived to be a gross misuse of gov. power which had obviously fallen into the wrong hands. And, if you equate what you consider to be "the gathering of support for one's endeavors" by means of aiding and abetting what you sense would be in direct violation of international law, then what definition of protocol are you blindly willing to follow? Why should Kennedy or his brother, have resorted to kow-towing to "those in true power," especially if "those in true power" were insistent on steering this country down the wrong path, in order that "those in true power" might be enabled to make a killing in the stock market through blatant misappropriation of gov. contracts, by keeping the constituency in total darkness as to their true intentions. If nothing more, the murders of JFK, RFK, and MLK have at least, served the purpose of bringing the dark and murky underpinnings of the U.S. gov. and its sordid past under the scrutiny it has eluded for far too long. Sacrificially speaking. But, since I have a job to go to, and seemingly lack time or the luxury of being able to sit on the forum all day, or read all the books I've purchased, since we are no longer allowed to have reading materials on the job that do not relate to our work, being short-staffed as it is, and having to resort to grabbing a bite to eat on the run, making sure the patients don't observe us actually eating on the job. Thanks to the neocons who've cut all funding and allowed corporations to slash, burn, and downsize departments to skeleton crews, I bid you farewell and hope you don't choke on your coffee while laughing hysterically at my post.

************************************************************** "If you feel that Robert Kennedy's actions, many of which were absolutely self motivated, which he so publicly flaunted, did not add to the animosity which both LBJ and JEH continued to develop for JFK, were arrogant and meant to antagonize these two men...I feel that you must breathe the same "esoteric" lack of oxygen as your pleasant cohort, Charles Drago!" Excuse me? Since when did "these two men," especially "Gay Edgar," ever NOT go out of their way to antagonize the office of the presidency? "Robert was generally considered "an arrogant little Bastard" by many of those who mattered and who figured heavily in "The November 22, Coup". This certainly isn't remotely reasonable politics." Is that right? IMO, many of those who mattered and who figured heavily in "The November 22, Coup" should have been strung up by the balls, until dead! Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, fascist, socialist, John Birchers, communists, I don't give a good goddamn what or who they were. As long as they were involved in murder, perpetrated it, condoned it, or paid for the contract, they're guilty, be it by association, or by aiding and abetting. Are you condoning murder based upon the whatever dislike or hatred was garnered by a cadre of elitist pigs and thieves, for the POTUS's brother? Who gave them the "God-Given Right" to kill a Chief? "My sincere thanks for your kind wishes. However the Doctor advised me that I should expect no immediate relief from the new "meds" as they take appx. two weeks before they "kick in". It appears that I might have to resort to having a drink or two! For medicinal purposes of course!" Surely you jest. I sincerely hope you're only joking around with regard to your mental status, Charles. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, you've lost all credibility for me to take you seriously. Of course, Simkin may have views far different from mine, and this is after all, his "house." But, I also reserve the right to voice mine with regard to this present form of reckless abandon you seem to have acquired a proclivity for exhibiting. I was originally under the impression that you were merely being passionate in expressing your views about whom you believed were the real perpetrators. Therefore, your recent entries aimed at RFK, and the persistent audacity you've displayed in cutting him to shreds, gave me pause to reassess your actual intentions, on the subject. Henceforth, I believe I would be more acquiescent to your current miscreant attitude if I was assured that you were in full control of your mental faculties, and not reliant on psychotropic drugs in order to voice a truly reasonable opinion. Please clarify, as I don't find the of subject of your mental stability to be anything one should joke about, even in passing. This forum is monitored by many who love nothing more than to set up those who would choose to study the assassination, as examples of sheer lunacy. Unfortunately, there have been a few who've managed to slip under the radar, and by the content of their posts, have added credibility to our detractors' claims. This, has only served to subject the dedicated authors and actual researchers to much ridicule and derision, and relegated the status of an investigation serving to challenge the Warren Commission, the infiltrated HSCA, or the best of intentions meant by those who'd testify before another infiltrated ARRB, to that of "conspiracy theory," inhabited by nothing more than, "buffs." I would have hoped that you, of all people, would have been more cognizant of this fact.

********************************************************* "Ladies and gentlemen, the conspirators have been identified!" That's right, Mr. Drago. And, their names are Rockefeller-Morgan, Harriman, McCloy, Bundy, Cabot, and their lap-dog mouth-pieces: the Dulles brothers of Sullivan and Cromwell Associates, and their subsequent followers. Plus, their P.R.-Media mogols: Paley, Sarnoff, Luce, Graham, and John Train, to name a handful. Their regional operatives in Tejas, Miami, D.C., and Mexico: Demohrenschildt, Phillips, Shakely, and Johannides, to name a few. And, don't forget their little team of mechanics, led by E.L. Hunt, which included Liddy, Sturgis, Barker, and their bottom feeders: GPH, Hall, Morgan, Rodriguez, and their hysterical Cuban aristocratic nationals. And, that's just the tip of the iceberg. I haven't even started to mention the Chiefs of Staff at the D.O.D., or the bonafide members of The Birchers, and the other Right- Wing social clubs. JFK, RFK, and MLK, and all that they stood for pissed, the above names mentioned, off royally. Where else could the collateral for a contract the size of which would be needed to cover up a coup de etat of this magnitude, come from and continue to be financed into perpetuity? Surely, the cities of Midland, Houston, Austin, and Dallas, TX would've been bankrupt within that first decade following the assassinations. Make no mistake when you mention Martha Stewart's name. She, at least, did time for the crime.

********************************************************** "I do agree with you regarding Mafia participation. They were certainly not needed and were not controllable, from the true conspirators standpoint. Just another scapegoat mixed in with both the pro and anti Castro Cubans and lone nut crazed Commies!" You got that right, Charlie! And, from what I gather in reading your posts, you know who the real perps are. Just like Myra, and my friend, Steve Gaal, know, and two other pals of mine know, but prefer I didn't go tossing their names around. Follow the cobblestone road...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PLEASE LET ME ADD FOR I was told by a fellow site member to fillout/clarify some of my post ...so... Ms. Magazine's first publisher was Elizabeth Forsling Harris, a CIA-connected PR executive who planned John Kennedy's Dallas motorcade route. This from http://www.savethemales.ca/180302.html brother see link http://webscript.princeton.edu/~paw/memori...lay.php?id=6288 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Kiluna estate had "TWO" names , see link ,also named for road Shelter Rock http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...752C0A961958260 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The main companies in stockpile plot where : Newmont,Hanna,Freeport and Falcon Bridge. The Cabot family controlled HANA (see Dulles brothers CABOT CONNECTION MY LINK above). The Cabots controlled Bell Helicopter through their First National Bank of Boston. Michael Paine is a Cabot on both sides of his family -thus he worked for his family (and thus has a Dulles connection). Ruth's dad worked for Nationwide Insurance ,which had Allen Dulles on the board. When you know that DEMOH's brother is close to the Dulles family and that DEMOH himself via Prescott is Connected to Dulles - you dont have to wonder why WC didnt go down this path. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ For further visit the site below and read the LUCE post. FYI. Luce,Lovett, Augustus Long,Prescott Bush, GHWBush,Bundy brothers and many Cabot family members all Skull & Bones. Lovett sat on the board of Free Port Sulfur. JFKresearch Assassination Forum POST BELOW (PLEASE VISIT site) Luce, Lovett, et al, and Garrison's Invitation THANKS SG ***************************************************************** "The Kiluna estate had "TWO" names , see link ,also named for road Shelter Rock http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...752C0A961958260" Steve, this link no longer works. It only takes you to the NYTimes Archives for the years 1851 - 2006 "Ms. Magazine's first publisher was Elizabeth Forsling Harris, a CIA-connected PR executive who planned John Kennedy's Dallas motorcade route. This from: http://www.savethemales.ca/180302.html" O.K., now this one worked and so did the Princeton link above it. But, here are some interesting facts that appear in this link after I opened it. "Steinem's personal relationships also belie her anti establishment pretensions. She had a nine-year relationship with Stanley Pottinger, a Nixon-Ford assistant attorney general, credited with stalling FBI investigations into the assassinations of Martin Luther King, and the ex-Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Latelier. In the 1980's, she dated Henry Kissinger. For more details, see San Francisco researcher Dave Emory. Our main misconception about the CIA is that it serves US interests. In fact, it has always been the instrument of a dynastic international banking and oil elite (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan) coordinated by the Royal Institute for Internal Affairs in London and their US branch, the Council for Foreign Relations. It was established and peopled by blue bloods from the New York banking establishment and graduates of Yale University's secret pagan "Skull and Bones" society. Our current President, his father and grandfather fit this profile. The agenda of this international cabal is to degrade the institutions and values of the United States in order to integrate it into a global state that it will direct through the United Nations. In its 1947 Founding Charter, the CIA is prohibited from engaging in domestic activities. However this has never stopped it from waging a psychological war on the American people. The domestic counterpart of the "Congress for Cultural Freedom" was the "American Committee for Cultural Freedom." Using foundations as conduits, the CIA controlled intellectual discourse in the 1950's and 1960's, and I believe continues to do so today. In "The Cultural Cold War," Francis Stonor Saunders estimates that a thousand books were produced under the imprint of a variety of commercial and university presses, with covert subsidies. The CIA's "Project Mockingbird" involved the direct infiltration of the corporate media, a process that often included direct takeover of major news outlets. "By the early 1950's," writes Deborah Davis, in her book "Katherine the Great," the CIA owned respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communication vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all." In 1982 the CIA admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll have acted as case officers to agents in the field. Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, who ran the operation until his "suicide" in 1963, boasted that "you could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple of hundred dollars a month." I was born in 1949. Idealists in my parent's generation were disillusioned when the Communist dream of universal brotherhood turned out to be a shill for a brutal despotism. My own generation may discover that our best instincts have also been manipulated and exploited. There is evidence that the 60's drug counter culture, the civil rights movement, and anti-war movement, like feminism, were CIA directed. For example, the CIA has admitted setting up the (National Student Association as a front in 1947 http://www.cia-on-campus.org/nsa/nsa2.html). In the early 1950's the NSA opposed the attempts of the House Un-American Activities Committee to root out Communist spies. According to Phil Agee Jr., NSA officers participated in the activities of SNCC, the militant civil rights group, and Students for a Democratic Society, a radical peace group. According to Mark Riebling, the CIA also may have used Timothy Leary. Certainly the agency distributed LSD to Leary and other opinion makers in the 1960s. Leary made a generation of Americans turn away from active participation in society and seek fulfillment "within." In another example of the CIA's use of drugs to interfere in domestic politics, Gary Webb describes how in the 1980's, the CIA flooded Black ghettos with cocaine. I won't attempt to analyze the CIA's motivation except to suggest what they have in common: They demoralized, alienated and divided Americans. The elite operates by fostering division and conflict in the world. Thus, we don't realize who the real enemy is. For the same reason, the CIA and elite foundations also fund the diversity and multicultural movements. And, sure to guarantee the sheeple will keep chasing their own tails. Thanks, for posting this, Steve.

************************************************************** Hey Doo, that's really interesting. I didn't know you were doing profiles on the wives of the presidency. Sounds like the Adams family were a bunch of drunkards and reprobates. And, poor Louisa! Sounds like J.Q. was a real chauvinistic bastard. Well, what can one expect? Women were considered as nothing more than chattel in those days. Have you gotten to Mary Todd Lincoln, yet? She was a real piece of work. No wonder old Abe always looked so damned depressed in his pictures. Keep up the good work, Dix.

**************************************************************************** "I apologize for my misquote of Marc Antony....it had been years since I had last read it and should have looked it up. I however firmly believe in my other comments that "I personally feel, quite true"." You need never apologize for anything, Charles. Your beliefs are yours to express. Isn't that what civil discourse is supposed to be based upon? "I felt that his actions before the sub-committee seemed "quite childish" to me....particularly his immature and ridiculous comments to Sam Giancana. I think that his personal behavior may have induced, "more" not less, support for the "bad guys". IMHO, he displayed a childish lack of class. Yes, but I will always be grateful for the education I inadvertently received, while remaining engrossed in these proceedings, as a "child" of 10, in the summer of 1955. 'It was with this performance clearly in mind, that I was more than "shocked" with his appointment as Attorney General. In a great many areas, I feel that "Bobby" and Joe Sr.'s actions had more to do with JFK's assassination than anything that Jack had said or done. I further feel that his often childish "exchanges" with Hoover, and his constant and open critical comments to LBJ went a long way toward being some of the nails in the Presidents coffin." Be that as it may, regardless of whose actions may have incited the assassination, NO ONE HAS A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO TAKE ANOTHER MAN'S LIFE, except maybe in self-defense. JFK was sucker-shot, and ambushed at high noon! Whatever actions his siblings or his father may have been guilty of, still did not warrant that act to be perpetrated on JFK, and in front of the whole world. This is one of the reasons I find it hard to accept the theory of "the Cosa Nostra" doing the deed. They may have been known for being "cold-blooded" in the past, when it came to "an eye for an eye" type of vendetta situations, as far as inter-familial, or inter-territorial boundary disputes, were concerned. But, by the time JFK had been in office, the mob had been reasonably assimilated into mainstream corporate, import/export, and transit venues. Even if they had offices on Wall Street, as well. Even if they were "made" into the CIA, as mechanics, captains, or lieutenants. They were considered "legit" by the last half of the 20th Century. If they weren't into merging corporations, they were marrying into families like the Rockwell's of Rockwell International. I know, because I attended just such a wedding back in the early 1970's. 1973, to be exact. In fact, here's a little anecdote from the "groom", regarding the eventual take-over of the waterfronts, airports, and trucking lines. Frank related a story about how the term, "dago" was entered into the English language. He said that, "When the Italians first came to the U.S. at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, and were given jobs on the docks, the Irish were running the show. So, when the ships would come into the slips at the pier and dock, one of the long shoremen would ask who was going to be assigned to clean out the bilge from the bottom of the ships. The boss would point his finger at the Italians, and say "Dey go." After that, WE took over the waterfront, the docks, the airports, the transit systems, and the truckers, and never gave them up." Oh, and BTW, the term WOP, came from the W.O.P. stamp at Ellis Island that meant, "With-Out-Papers." As far as Hoover and LBJ go, they were considered to be "easily pliable" buffoons by the time the elite decided to take out a contract on JFK. Hoover for his own set of "dark secrets" that were increasingly becoming a liability, should certain operators or social acquaintances find themselves compromised into revealing what was really going down in those sordid soirees, of which he was known to partake. And, LBJ was nothing more than a small-time/town operator, who managed to make it to the big time by having his corn-pone Tejas hired-hands, and/or D.C. henchmen take care of any damage control that may have been created along the way, while he was busy clawing his way to the top. I personally don't think LBJ had anything to do with the murder, as far as giving any signal or go ahead to anyone, even if he did happen to make that remark Madeleine Brown attributed to him. He was too busy worrying about his own hide, and most likely was repeating a promise made to him by Hoover, and his merry band of men. He was no fool, mind you, but he knew to whom his Tejas oil buddies were beholden to answer. He definitely had to know who those people were. You could say that LBJ sold his soul to the same "devil-at-the-crossroads" that another man [a black man] named Johnson, is noted for having done. All for the price of fame and glory. "I don't claim to be a psychologist, but my layman's view is that Bobby exhibited many of the characteristics of what I personally, not professionally, term "the little man syndrome"." Are you referring to what is known as a "Napoleonic" complex, by any chance? "I am helpless to offer any comfort to you "Bobby supporters", when I say that his appointment as Attorney General may have been the greatest single political disaster of JFK's Presidency. No! I don't feel that he was qualified....it was flagrant nepotism.....and I feel that this action had much to do with the formation of a coalition against a possible "24 year Kennedy Dynasty"." No offers of comfort are needed, Charlie. And, when you think about it, maybe it was JFK who needed the "firebrand" rhetoric of Bobby's personality to go up against that lecherous excuse for a human being, JEH. Bobby was a definite "scrapper," but that was a part of his personality that I admired. He was by far, the "Bones" alter-ego, if you will. An analogy drawn from the early StarTrek series with Captain Kirk's personality sometimes influenced or intertwined with his starship physican's staccato-type personality. On the other hand, JFK's personality was more in tuned with Mr. Spock's and Captain Kirk's relationship dynamic, more stoic and retrospective with regard to decision making and Cold War diplomacy. "I feel that Robert's lack of maturity and sound political behavior, coupled with his deplorable manners and arrogant behavior, contributed more to his brother's downfall than any other single person.....including the trigger pullers. These are my personal feelings only and I am unwilling to engage in a multi paged debate regarding these points. You may each believe what you like." And, trust me Charlie, we're just as unwilling to engage in a multi-page debate, regarding these points, as well. Isn't that the beauty of what free speech is all about? The opportunity to express your opinions, freely. The ability to be able "to agree to disagree?" "Having held these opinions for almost four decades, and having given "years" of thought to them..... the chance of my opinion being changed is virtually non-existent. Yes, you may say that I have a "closed mind" on this issue, and I will agree! Charlie Black" Accepted, Charlie. Your opinion, that is.

******************************************************** "I come not to praise Caesar, but to bury him". "Friends, Romans, and Countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." My purpose on these forums is not to "in any way," exalt any of the Kennedy family. When I say something which I feel true, tho uncomplimentary, I have never insinuated that similar behavior was not undertaken by others of their social and financial class. And yes, I do attribute much of Kennedy success to their privileged position and the pressure and drive of Joseph SR. Do any of you feel that the Kennedy brothers fought their way up "through the ranks"? Do ANY of you feel that RFK "earned" the position of Attorney General? There can be much said that without the forceful guidance and prodding and the introduction and support of some large sums of money from Joe Sr., that perhaps none of the "Kennedy Boys" would have reached their lofty levels. It's unfortunate if you weren't around in the summer of 1955, when the Senate's "Rackets" Investigation Committee was in session and being televised, to have been able to have observed the two brothers in action. Especially, RFK's interrogation of these mob figures, at the time. I was only 10 years old, but got a lesson in what the "Fifth Amendment" meant. I became what you might describe as "transfixed" by these two brothers, and looked forward to 1:00 in the afternoon, just so I could watch this guy, who looked like a teenager, hammer away at these tough guys, who would pronounce the word, "incriminate" as "incrimidate." Bobby would say, "Have you, at any time, been involved with...?" And, the suspect would answer, "I refuse to answer on the grounds that the it may tend to incrimidate me." Then, JFK would say, "Let me rephrase the question for you, Sir." And, it went on like that for days. I began to understand that you might be able to get the answer you wanted, or more importantly, get your point across, by the questions you posed to a person. And, regardless of whether they answered you, or plead "the Fifth," the body language, or lack of, was enough to lead you to draw your own conclusions. And, this was long before body language was even considered, outside of a poker game. So, even though I was only 10, at the time, I learned a great deal about the judicial system, and the methodology used in cross-examination and inquiry on the gov. level, that I might not have had the chance to be exposed to until I got to high school. And, it was a great opportunity to have had the time, with school out of session, to observe these proceedings "live," and in action. And, even as a child of 10, I became acutely aware of this brother named "Bobby" who won me over at such a young and tender age. I was actually sad, when the proceedings ended. The same feeling you get after finishing a great book. I have seen clips of Bobby Kennedy grilling Sam Giancana. When Bobby said to him, (paraphrase) "Are you going to answer my questions, or are you going to sit there and giggle? I thought only little girls giggled." I always thought that was the first bullet shot in Dealey Plaza. And to me, it looked like John Kennedy wished he was anywhere but there as these hearings went on. Also, there was a mobster who, for some reason, the camera could not show his face. But the body language of the man's hands told a lot. You would know better than I who that was. I don't think I was even born yet. I loved Bobby Kennedy. My brother and I were so happy he was running. And then the inevitable (in retrospect) assassination. I couldn't talk about him for years. It was the thing we couldn't acknowledge. Until Mailer's book came out, Marilyn, which suggested she was intimate with Bobby. I don't know -- it was like a balm. And it was all right to talk about him again. Ask Sigmund Freud... Kathy ******************************************************* "Ask Sigmund Freud..." Freud was a fraud. I'd rather ask Carl Jung, the only qualified psych in the history of the field of Psychology, as far as I'm concerned.

******************************************************** "I come not to praise Caesar, but to bury him". "Friends, Romans, and Countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." My purpose on these forums is not to "in any way," exalt any of the Kennedy family. When I say something which I feel true, tho uncomplimentary, I have never insinuated that similar behavior was not undertaken by others of their social and financial class. And yes, I do attribute much of Kennedy success to their privileged position and the pressure and drive of Joseph SR. Do any of you feel that the Kennedy brothers fought their way up "through the ranks"? Do ANY of you feel that RFK "earned" the position of Attorney General? There can be much said that without the forceful guidance and prodding and the introduction and support of some large sums of money from Joe Sr., that perhaps none of the "Kennedy Boys" would have reached their lofty levels. It's unfortunate if you weren't around in the summer of 1955, when the Senate's "Rackets" Investigation Committee was in session and being televised, to have been able to have observed the two brothers in action. Especially, RFK's interrogation of these mob figures, at the time. I was only 10 years old, but got a lesson in what the "Fifth Amendment" meant. I became what you might describe as "transfixed" by these two brothers, and looked forward to 1:00 in the afternoon, just so I could watch this guy, who looked like a teenager, hammer away at these tough guys, who would pronounce the word, "incriminate" as "incrimidate." Bobby would say, "Have you, at any time, been involved with...?" And, the suspect would answer, "I refuse to answer on the grounds that the it may tend to incrimidate me." Then, JFK would say, "Let me rephrase the question for you, Sir." And, it went on like that for days. I began to understand that you might be able to get the answer you wanted, or more importantly, get your point across, by the questions you posed to a person. And, regardless of whether they answered you, or plead "the Fifth," the body language, or lack of, was enough to lead you to draw your own conclusions. And, this was long before body language was even considered, outside of a poker game. So, even though I was only 10, at the time, I learned a great deal about the judicial system, and the methodology used in cross-examination and inquiry on the gov. level, that I might not have had the chance to be exposed to until I got to high school. And, it was a great opportunity to have had the time, with school out of session, to observe these proceedings "live," and in action. And, even as a child of 10, I became acutely aware of this brother named "Bobby" who won me over at such a young and tender age. I was actually sad, when the proceedings ended. The same feeling you get after finishing a great book.

******************************************************************** "What I posted was from my files, this is a much better rendition... The rest of the info, photo & sites etc..were on file..and added to the information... If interested grab the facts from the weapons list, as this type of information seems to be disappearing from the web, the site is no longer active...?? Well from what I see.." Thanks for the link, Bean. But, from what I can deduce, your documentation is nothing short of excellent, as far as laying out a blueprint of the specs involved. And, Pete's explanation of his experience with the methodology involved in this field goes perfectly with yours. Now, as far as the disappearance of this type information from web sites, I've found that if I transpose something I've copied and pasted from a site, and put it in another format, that if I later find the link to that site has disappeared, mine will remain intact, even if it's in my Saved Box. Of course, making sure to back them up on a floppy, or burning them to a CD is always the best way to go. Thanks for keeping this thread on track.

**************************************************************** WELL HELLO AND HALLELUJAH!!! THANK YOU, BERN! You old bean, you! Gotta love that gal!!! And, THANKS TO YOU TOO, PETE!

************************************************************ I've studied and researched some the world's different religious sects, and what I've come to observe is that the more devoutly religious, or the more zealously religious, a particular group of people embrace their particular faith, the more easily manipulated they appear to be as a group. Especially, when viewed by those not affected by that particular affiliation, or belief system. This seemingly praiseworthy virtue of innocent blind faith, would appear to make them easy targets for certain organizations to extort, or recruit the services of those seeking a sure passage or a one-way ticket to paradise, heaven, nirvana, or wherever their particular faith believes there is an afterlife. To those religiously-minded, spiritual individuals, who actually believe in the goodness, and charity they may wish to bestow upon those of a lesser faith, or those who would be relegated to the status of infidel, may have all the best of intentions in their hearts. But, it only serves to label the individual as one who is easily lead. Easily lead, because they're required, as individuals, to pledge themselves, so heavily, emotionally, as well as, financially to an iconic belief, in order for them to feel secure enough as to have been saved or redeemed, and worthy enough to enter paradise, heaven, nirvana, etc. I find this to be most disturbing due to the conclusion that faith such as this, has been fostered through intense fear of retribution, and/or the pain of the fires of hell, or the banishment of one's soul to walk through purgatory for all eternity. This is once and foremost, archaic, and secondly, only serves to keep the believer forever servile to a dogmatic system rooted in the minds of those prophets who manifested these stories thousands of years ago, as a means of control, and manipulation of their tribes. How else can one allow himself to be put in harm's way, or kill another person thought of as an enemy, without believing he will be saved for his efforts, should he die for what he is supposed to believe in. Another form of hypnosis on a grand scale, on both sides of the Jordan River, as well as, on both sides of the Atlantic. A sheer and utter waste, at face value. Yet, on the other hand, another means by which to cull the world's population. The reality of which is starkly grave, yet can be viewed as an efficient means to garner the resources necessary for those who wish to profit from them.

John, as I remember the CIA had a program in the fifties and sixties that studied the toxicological effects of every form of poison. I think this was a spin-off of MKULTRA. Anyhow, they were looking for poisons that could simulate heart-attacks. I believe they were successful. The KGB had similar poisons. Somewhere I remember reading about a Soviet turncoat being murdered in London in the early seventies. It looked like a heart attack. The coroner, once tipped off that it was a possible murder, did a re-inspection, and found a small needle-mark on the man's arm (as I remember). Somebody had bumped into him on the street, and stung him with a tiny needle. Within a few minutes he was dead. Without a trace. After reading this, I remembered that Adlai Stevenson dropped dead on the streets of Paris after denouncing the Vietnam War on a radio show. Made me kinda wonder.... At another point I looked into a series of Senatorial deaths and heart attacks. As a result of this quick series of deaths, Prescott Bush became a U.S. Senator and LBJ became majority leader. Something like 9 sitting Senators (of 96) dropped dead in a 3 year stretch--more than in all the time since. Of course, shorty afterwards LBJ had a heart attack of his own. Made me kinda wonder... {Strange I put up a response on this tread earlier in the day...and saw it..now it isn't here.} Anyway...what I said then was, the CIA and others had developed as mentioned drugs that could simulate heart attack and even all but the most suspicious and qualified forensic pathologist would be likely fooled....more so if they didn't do chromatography on the blood and body fluids....I even once heard a name attached to this set of drugs 'digitoxin'. Remember what Angleton said 'assasination had been developed to a science'! I belive many, many more persons than most think were murdered this way to make it look like a natural death. If you look at just the JFK case alone and all the people who had heart attacks at the most 'convenient' times.....that alone would make a statistician take pause...as it does me. Yes, people naturally die of heart attacks and other natural things...but, yes, the intelligence community has also developed nearly undetectable simulators of 'natural' death - i.e. they mimic natural death. (interesting to note that the Mockingbird mimics also). ******************************************************** "Yes, people naturally die of heart attacks and other natural things...but, yes, the intelligence community has also developed nearly undetectable simulators of 'natural' death - i.e. they mimic natural death. (interesting to note that the Mockingbird mimics also)." I could swear we had a thread going here a couple of months back regarding the occurrence of heart attacks-at-the-wheel of a car, in seemingly otherwise, "healthy" individuals, that were possibly the result of a chemical, DMHO [although I could have the chemical compound's I.D. mis-transposed, here]. This agent could be rubbed on the steering wheel of the victim's car, and go unnoticed. It supposedly could cause aneurysms to form on arterial walls, and it would appear that a undiagnosed pre-existing condition could have been in the process of developing over a period of time, pre-disposing the victim to a heart attack or other form of cerebral attack, or stroke. It was speculated that this could have been what happened to Karen Silkwood. Does anyone remember what thread this appeared in? In fact, it was I who posted that on Silkwood and DSMO. I don't know what became of the tread and find the 'search' function on the Forum nearly useless and so frustrating that I barely ever use it. A whole hell of a lot of people who had just found out something that would not please [to put it mildly] the powers that be suddenly got in their cars and careened off the road. They sometimes monkeywrench the car itself, but they also put strong drugs in DSMO like compounds on the steeringwheel. Few would think to wear rubber gloves in their car...and then like Moffet and Letelier they can also put a bomb in your car....the answer is to stop the madmen and their dirty tricksters before they stop the whole planet [nearly done!] *********************************************************** Thanks, Pete. I, too, tried to search for that thread and to no avail. It was also ironic that right around the time, or shortly after that thread was active, PBS aired a documentary about the umbrella dart, using a small projectile, even the size of a grain of rice, which could render a body dead or incapacitated, on contact. So, Prouty was spot on about that type of apparatus being in use, or at least available in the early 60's. Not as far-fetched from Ian Fleming's imagination as one would have thought back then. How insanely naive, we were! Yet, how insanely ignorant the majority of U.S. citizens are, still today, in this day and age. Frighteningly so.

I for one am staggered by this turn of events. John Simkin's history resources are just about the most used and most valued resources amongst UK school teachers and their students. John was one of the pioneers moving school history away from an establishment sanctioned highly biased narrative of the past towards the source and skills based approach much UK practice is now happily informed by. I find it extraordinary that a visitor to his site may see some sources on something controversial or contested and then assume that the author necessarily shares the views of the person(s) who wrote the source(s). I find it bewildering, hugely disappointing and utterly philistine and totally anti educational that Wikipedia appear to wish to create an "approved" version of any history and presumably then intend to dress this "narrative" up as "fact". I manage to convince 11 year old school girls that history is constructed reconstructed and contested in about 6 months of teaching. I then concentrate for the rest of the year on giving them the skills to evaluate interpretations and to develop their own interpretations of past events. Perhaps I would have less success with adult Americans? Given the evidence of the behaviour of these Wikipedia muppets I would certamly need more time Andy, You would have little success trying to teach anything to Americans that leaves them feeling "uncomfortable". We have been brainwashed into believing nothing our country does, has done, or will do is wrong. We have God on our side. We are a free country. And so on and so forth..... We really could use a wake up call over here. What we truly are is a country in decline without the ability to see the truth for what it is. Reality, no matter how stark and unpleasant, is what we need to deal with. The sooner the better. *************************************************************** Exactly! And, how do you manage to undo more than 50 years of dumbing-down that have left the majority of the citizenry between the major cities of this continent, with I.Q.'s barely above 70? People who believe that if they pray hard enough and long enough, all good things will come to them [all things material, that is; Designer SUV's, designer clothes, 72 inch screen TV's, $200.00 a pair sneakers], who take every word uttered by the talking heads of the three major commercial news and programming media, as the gospel truth, and who choose to stand by their president, right or wrong, just because "he IS our president, and we voted for him." How, in the name of Buddah, and how long a period of time, do you think it will take to fix that? This is the clearest case of neurosis/psychosis/hypnosis on a massive scale, and nobody has a damned clue. Least of all, those sheeple, whose main concern is who will be the next winner on American Idol. Nero fiddled while Rome burned. The sheeple sat transfixed voting for American Idol, while their gov. sold itself down the river. Douse it with kerosene, throw a match to it, and they'd be too slow and too stupid to even bat an eye. Guaranteed.

John, as I remember the CIA had a program in the fifties and sixties that studied the toxicological effects of every form of poison. I think this was a spin-off of MKULTRA. Anyhow, they were looking for poisons that could simulate heart-attacks. I believe they were successful. The KGB had similar poisons. Somewhere I remember reading about a Soviet turncoat being murdered in London in the early seventies. It looked like a heart attack. The coroner, once tipped off that it was a possible murder, did a re-inspection, and found a small needle-mark on the man's arm (as I remember). Somebody had bumped into him on the street, and stung him with a tiny needle. Within a few minutes he was dead. Without a trace. After reading this, I remembered that Adlai Stevenson dropped dead on the streets of Paris after denouncing the Vietnam War on a radio show. Made me kinda wonder.... At another point I looked into a series of Senatorial deaths and heart attacks. As a result of this quick series of deaths, Prescott Bush became a U.S. Senator and LBJ became majority leader. Something like 9 sitting Senators (of 96) dropped dead in a 3 year stretch--more than in all the time since. Of course, shorty afterwards LBJ had a heart attack of his own. Made me kinda wonder... {Strange I put up a response on this tread earlier in the day...and saw it..now it isn't here.} Anyway...what I said then was, the CIA and others had developed as mentioned drugs that could simulate heart attack and even all but the most suspicious and qualified forensic pathologist would be likely fooled....more so if they didn't do chromatography on the blood and body fluids....I even once heard a name attached to this set of drugs 'digitoxin'. Remember what Angleton said 'assasination had been developed to a science'! I belive many, many more persons than most think were murdered this way to make it look like a natural death. If you look at just the JFK case alone and all the people who had heart attacks at the most 'convenient' times.....that alone would make a statistician take pause...as it does me. Yes, people naturally die of heart attacks and other natural things...but, yes, the intelligence community has also developed nearly undetectable simulators of 'natural' death - i.e. they mimic natural death. (interesting to note that the Mockingbird mimics also). ******************************************************** "Yes, people naturally die of heart attacks and other natural things...but, yes, the intelligence community has also developed nearly undetectable simulators of 'natural' death - i.e. they mimic natural death. (interesting to note that the Mockingbird mimics also)." I could swear we had a thread going here a couple of months back regarding the occurrence of heart attacks-at-the-wheel of a car, in seemingly otherwise, "healthy" individuals, that were possibly the result of a chemical, DMHO [although I could have the chemical compound's I.D. mis-transposed, here]. This agent could be rubbed on the steering wheel of the victim's car, and go unnoticed. It supposedly could cause aneurysms to form on arterial walls, and it would appear that a undiagnosed pre-existing condition could have been in the process of developing over a period of time, pre-disposing the victim to a heart attack or other form of cerebral attack, or stroke. It was speculated that this could have been what happened to Karen Silkwood. Does anyone remember what thread this appeared in? DMSO di-methyl-sulf-oxide A chemical which allows for the passing of chemicals through the skin. Mix poison with DMSO and whomever comes in contact with the DMSO-poison mixture becomes poisoned. ********************************************************** DMSO, seems like a chemical that would be put to much better use as a vehicle for topical application of beneficial products into the skin, such as medicines, or even for cosmetic purposes. How sinister, otherwise. Thanks for the clarification.

Is this inaccurate?If not, why leave out the significant fact that Johnson was elected as minority leader in January 53 - and naturally became majority leader when the Senate became Democrat dominated in January 55? *********************************************************** "Here's an extract from today's Wikipedia entry on LBJ:" Excuse me? I'm not attempting to hi-jack this thread, but I was under the impression that Wikipedia, or Fakepedia, as I choose to term them, was no longer considered to be that reliable a source of information. Especially, due to the proclivity of its originator to continually condone the allowance of misrepresentation by, as well as, refuse to supply sufficient background checks of, their supposedly qualified (?) contributors. And, since this issue has recently come to light regarding this site, how can one continue to reference this organization as one from which its articles should be able to stand as factual? Or, has a truce been recently called between Spartacus and that particular site, of which I am unaware, at present? In other words, has Spartacus finally become an acceptable link offered by Wikipedia, or are we still being "dissed?" Just wondering. Terry. My posts don't reflect any kind of forum group policy. The post in question carefully said "today's Wikipedia" to draw attention to the fact that I'm well aware (as are most regulars here) of some of the pitfalls of using Wikipedia as a source. What's more, I specifically asked whether Pat (or anyone else) wished to contest the info cited. I sometimes use the CIA Factbook as a source. No overall endorsement of the CIA as an organisation is implicit in such a citation. ******************************************************** Thank you for clarification on that fact, Sid. I don't get around to the forum as much as I used to, and I wanted to know if there was something I may have missed in the interim.

I just got this e-mail from DL, and thought it was interesting enough to be posted here on the forum. [DSLPostOnPAFPS;32407] Sec 2: My Post to “all” (see the “to” and “cc” list above, in Sec 1) I disagree with the statement that JFK "only turned toward withdrawal in 1963 after almost two years of escalation." Its not at all clear when "the turning point"--if there was such an event-- actually was reached, but JFK certainly decided "against escalation" much earlier--indeed, some two years prior to his death. An important time-marker for JFK--or at least the point when it seems clear what his future intentions were--was December 1961. At that point, JFK turned down the JCS in their request for combat troops for Vietnam. This particular time marker--call it a "turning point" if you will--was a central focus for John Newman's Ph.D thesis, which was turned into the book, over the summer of 1991, and published that fall by Warner. Relying here on recollection (so the quote which follows is approximate), a key document indicating JFK's future intentions was dated November 22, 1961 and pertained to a critical JFK meeting with the JCS. At that meeting, which marked JFK's rejection of requested combat troops, the document records JFK as saying something like, "How can you expect me to send troops 10,000 miles and halfway around the world, when I cannot invade Cuba, which is only 90 miles away?" To which General Lemnitzer (of Northwoods fame) replied: "We should invade Cuba, too." It was after this Nov/Dec 1961 period that it became clear that JFK was not going to escalate any further. Certainly, American combat troops were NOT going to be sent there. That whole idea was anathema to JFK, and he made that very clear to his inner circle. Going back to George Ball's 1968 memoir, "Discipline Of Power," one will find very strong and unequivocal statement to the effect that JFK never intended to send American combat troops to Vietnam, or follow the course that LBJ subsequently did. Of course, around 1965--with the publication of "To Move A Nation," by Assistant Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Roger Hillsman--the same point was made, if not in his book, certainly on his L.A. Book tour. Besides Ball, there is Michael Forrestal, who said that JFK told him--and I believe this was within a week of his death, and just prior to his going to Vietnam on a fact finding mission on the weekend of the assassination--that he (JFK) was involved in an extensive policy review, which also addressed the question of "whether we should even be there in the first place." (Quote from memory, from NBC "White Paper," circa 1971) There is much more that can be said on this whole question of whether there was--as I and other JFK researchers called it-- a Post Assassination Foreign Policy Switch (PAFPS). While no foreign policy expert, I am quite familiar with the underlying documentation, because (a) I was tracking this situation carefully, from back in 1965; ( I was an early friend of John Newman, a good 6 years before be became involved in the JFK research movement; and © I was very much involved with the ARRB, and Doug Horne, at the time key documents were being unearthed. Here are some further comments, and anecdotal evidence, thrown together just for this email. To begin with---and by that, I mean going back to the period 1965-1968--I, like many others who believed there was a conspiracy in Dallas, initially had some difficulty discerning the political motive. After all, didn't LBJ keep most of JFK's advisers? Didn't LBJ get the civil rights legislation passed? Etc. Over the years, as research on the Dealey Plaza aspects intensified, the foreign policy puzzle remained. Then came the Pentagon Papers, the Defense Department's top-secret study of the growth of United States military involvement in Vietnam, leaked to the New York Times, which commenced publication on June 13, 1971. Suddenly, every morning's New York Times carried another collection of previously top secret document which exposed the debate that had been going on in the government, prior to the escalation, and many details pertaining to the secret planning. Next came Peter Dale Scott's high original 1972 work, piecing together the puzzle of NSAM 263/273, and significant new light was shed. Of course, the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and particularly allusions to JFK's withdrawal plan --and then the actual documents in the Gravel edition--provided much new data. Yes, indeed, it seemed there had been a post-assassination foreign policy switch. But you didn't have to be a Talmudic scholar to understand. I remember going to the UCLA dorm to have dinner, and watching Walter Cronkite, once a week, announce American casualties, which were topping 250 per week, back in 1967/68. Going to microfilmed records of newspaper, someone discovered how, in early October 1963, the L.A. Times ran a front page banner headline after the October meeting when JFK made the decision. In big bold letters across page one: JFK: Out of Viet by '65 (again, from memory). The contrast between "then and now" was striking. Jumping forward now a full decade (or more) to the truly groundbreaking research of John Newman: I worked closely with John Newman, during the period he was doing his Ph.D thesis--back in the late 80s. John had taught a course on Best Evidence, when stationed in Hawaii, looked me up in 1985, and we spoke often, and visited. This was a good five years prior to his becoming known to those in "the movement." I am proud to count myself as someone who persuaded John to do his PhD on the issue of whether there had been a policy change after Dallas. After John embarked on his project, we spoke frequently, sometime immediately after he had critical interviews. Often, I functioned as a sounding board, and consequently suggested we should record the conversations (which we did). John didn't just do a fine thesis--we have what amounts to an oral history of his process. John had a whole range of conversations, with a variety of people, including a significant one--with McNamara. At some point, he obtained the actual official history of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and that provided a record of McNamara, himself, saying that it was not JFK's intention to send in combat troops. During this same period, John and I gave two "joint lectures" on the subject of Dallas and Vietnam (one in Maryland, which was mostly attended by various USG personnel, including those at NSA). When it was clear he was to be posted to China, around 1989, I was frankly concerned that something might happen and we would lose this fabulous resource. So I arranged for a professional film crew to record the state of his Vietnam research--this, during a time when he was stationed at Ford Ord. One of the central themes that emerges from John's research is the extent to which JFK had a political problem that complicated any decision he might make. Specifically, it came down to this: whereas LBJ's problem was to disguise an escalation, JFK's was to disguise a withdrawal. Those are two diametrically opposite scenarios, and it seems clear that both Presidents acted deceptively, but there is a major difference in the reason for the deceptive behavior in each case. As far as JFK is concerned, recognizing this "political problem" is the key to understanding, and properly interpreting, what otherwise appears to be a confusing and somewhat bifurcated record. JFK recognized that problem and acted accordingly. He had no intention of provoking a right-wing backlash and throwing away his chance of a second term. On the other hand, the evidence seems clear he intended to disengage, even if that meant a "Laos-like" solution. Some of the best writing about JFK's intentions--admittedly difficult to fathom at times--is to be found in Ellsberg's book "Secrets," where he describes a frank and detailed discussion with RFK about the matter, circa 1967 (again, from recollection). So much for those who are citing such superficial data as what JFK said in Fort Worth the day before, or even the month before. That is a weak argument. The September 1963 interviews on national TV are of course important, and depending on which sentence one quotes, one can perhaps find support for either position (withdrawal, or "stay the course" etc). However, when one puts those interviews ("its their war, they have to fight it, etc.," omitted from the Gus Russo quotes) in the context of the documents, and the secret orders, and the JFK withdrawal plan, JFK's intention is very clear: to disengage; and to do so in such a manner as to not provoke a right-wing backlash. I do not believe for one minute that JFK wanted to see Saigon become Ho Chi Minh City, but neither did he subscribe to the domino theory. He was just too smart for that. Further, JFK was a writer and a historian at heart, had visited the area (with his brother, I believe) back in the early fifties, and had a thorough understanding that he was President at a time that nationalist revolutions were sweeping the globe, and the question was how to tame that force and not have radicals take control in foreign countries. As it pertains to South America, that's what the Alliance for Progress was all about. But let's focus on Vietnam, and the enormous change that took place between November, 1963, and, say, the summer of 1965. Remember: in the course of JFK's two years and 10 months, only 78 Americans---mainly, Green Berets--died in Vietnam. By no means am I demeaning their courage or sacrifice, but those casualties resulted from an attempt to implement assistance via a counter-insurgency strategy. Those numbers offer a striking contrast to the carnage that followed (under Johnson): the fourth largest war in American history, with 58,000 Americans dead, and millions of Asians killed and wounded. As to Krulak, I believe it to be absurd to cite him as a source, and for two reasons. To begin with: Krulak was a right-wing hawk, and represented (at a relatively "low" level) the kind of problem JFK had to deal with (constantly) at the Pentagon. Second: after the Bay of Pigs, JFK caught on, and realized he had a major problem with his right-wing military. In the Vietnam documents that became available via the ARRB (and this was largely the work of Doug Horne, who painstakingly chaired meetings in which official A had to be coaxed into working with Official B, to get material declassified), a most interesting picture emerges. Moving briefly away (for just a moment) from "foreign policy" to the psychology of the individual military officers, one of the documents which struck me as significant was how JFK went so far as to inquire about the reading material of these chiefs. I think the reason is obvious: JFK wanted to know just what the heck some of these people were reading, that they were talking and thinking as they did (e.g., preemptive nuclear strike on the USSR, etc.) And should we forget the top Air Force General (White?, I'm not sure) who said that if there was a full-fledged conflict, involving nuclear exchanges, and one American remained living, that, as far as he was concerned, it would have all been worth it; that we would have been successful, that we would have "won"? What kind of craziness (may I ask) is that? Well, that's the kind of mentality that JFK had to deal with. And that's why he was trying to reorganize and promote people to his liking, and who shared his view. But back to Krulak: in the fall of 1963, Krulak was one of two people sent to Vietnam to assess the situation. When they returned, and met with JFK, one gave a rather bleak report; Krulak propounded some rosy scenario. JFK turned to them and asked: "Have you two gentlemen visited the same country?" (Source: Schlesinger, I believe). One cannot understand how JFK was dealing with Vietnam, without understanding who he was, and how he approached the world. Rather than the superficial view based on out of context quotes from JFK-detractors (that includes many who promote the notion that Oswald was his murderer), I commend the book JFK: The Education of a Statesman, by Barbara Leaming (2006). This remarkable book, based on serious research, paints an accurate picture of who JFK was, intellectually, how he evolved, and the profound influence of Winston Churchill, and David Ormsby-Gore, on his beliefs and development. JFK was, at heart, a writer and a historian. Had his older brother Joe not died, he probably would have gone through life as a newspaper publisher. He also had a very high-minded view of the Presidency, and public service. What other president would say that after a second term, he wished to go back to the Senate, and serve there? The Bay of Pigs may have been botched, and was a disaster, but the key point about it was that JFK learned from the experience. Isn't that what we all try to do, in our personal lives? Why this tendency, then, to reduce JFK to some two-dimensional stick figure who was driven by petty motives of revenge? Further: the notion that a U.S. President who wanted to accelerate the making of a movie of Seven Days in May, published in 1962, about the possibility of military coup (and so expedited filming by his friend, John Frankenheimer, at the White House) to help raise the public consciousness about the problems he was facing, would then turn around and escalate in Vietnam, is, in my opinion, just plain absurd. Further, those who are "connecting the dots" in that manner--quoting statements from public speeches, obviously made while JFK was doing everything possible to hold things together, politically, while engineering a change in policy (behind the scenes)-- are making a serious error. This represents superficial thinking that dwells on appearances, and not the reality. The situation--vis a vis Vietnam policy--is far more complex and nuanced than that. It does not surprise me that the same folks who believe in the single bullet theory and the "Oswald did it alone" scenario, approach the area of foreign policy in the selective manner they do; and ignore the most significant data (i.e., what the documents say, and what JFK was saying to his most important confidants; e.g., Mansfield, O'Donnell, etc.) and proclaim that there was policy continuity. This approach denudes the assassination of political meaning, robs JFK's death of its true meaning; and removes a key political motive for his assassination. Yet in doing so, these same people say they are refusing to believe in "mythology--referring to Camelot. But in fact, they are subscribing to a different mythology--that of the lone assassin, and a political assassination that suddenly, because of their faulty analysis, has no apparent motive. * * * LBJ -Moyers Meeting of November 24, 1963 On November 24, 1963, in the evening, LBJ met in the office with one or more of the Chiefs. As I recall, one cannot tell from the typical media coverage that there was any new policy. However, what was going on behind the scenes tells a different story. Immediately afterwards, he met with Bill Moyers, alone. Moyers kept a diary--which presumably is going to provide valuable data for the memoir he is currently writing. Sometime in the early 70s, when (in the aftermath of the Pentagon Papers publication) the Vietnam debate was raging, and at a time when Moyers was a columnist for Newsweek, he addressed the issue of policy continuity in one of his columns. Moyers described--and this is from memory--how he and LBJ were alone in the Oval office on November 24, 1963, drinking scotch, after that meeting with the JCS. LBJ related to Moyers how he was having to now deal with the issue of Vietnam, and he told Moyers: "I'm going to give the Generals what they want. I don't want to see Vietnam go the way China went." So there one has the Munich Analogy (and JFK certainly rejected that kind of fatuous reasoning) and the policy switch, all wrapped up into one quote. When Stone was making his film--and I always thought his sub-theme about Vietnam was far more important, and well documented, than anything about Clay Shaw--I dug up the file, and provided that quote --via John--to Stone. (And as I recall, it was put into some scene in the movie, somewhere). THE LBJ ESCALATION CHRONOLOGY One other final point: During the 13 months following the assassination, LBJ laid low, not implementing the actual policy switch, or really letting on as to his future intentions, until after his January, 1965, inauguration. It was in August 1964, and as a result of the machinations of OP-PLAN 34A (in which the U.S. hit North Vietnam covertly, and then cried foul at the response) that these incidents led to the Gulf of Tonkin, which provided the legal basis for the subsequent escalation. Then, in May 1965, came the first "surge" (to use current terminology) and then July 1965, LBJ had detailed meetings with congressional leaders getting everybody on board before he made the big push. (See Califano's books, if there is any doubt about these statements). All very well--that's just the unfolding chronology; of a US President who is supposedly "wrestling" with this "new" problem, and going "Gee, what am I going to do about all this?" etc. As ex-LBJ press secretary George Reedy said, the President is presented with options. That's the way it always is. But then HE makes the decision. It seems pretty clear, from the record, that JFK was making one kind of choice; and LBJ another; that JFK was going in one direction; and Johnson, another. But the escalation was incremental. After all, nobody stood up, after the assassination, and announced: "Well now that he's dead, we're going to change policy. So here we go, let's now execute a U turn." Obviously, that didn't happen; but the course-change is evident nonetheless. McNamara and possible "second thoughts" By the last half of 1967, McNamara (and it is hard to believe RFK, with whom he was very close, wasn't kept fully informed about all this) ordered the secret study (later to become known as the Pentagon Papers) in which 40 analysts with top secret clearances (and higher) were assembled to get to the bottom of just how things had gone that far. They were to have access to ALL cable traffic. Every piece of paper. Nothing would be withheld. Notably, McNamara ordered that Secretary of State Dean Rusk be excluded from any knowledge of that study. The notion that a Secretary of Defense would order such a study--with secret orders issued to exclude the Secretary of State--is unprecedented. What I am suggesting is that McNamara was not just doing this out of an abstract devotion to history, and truth, but because there was genuine suspicion--at the highest levels--as to what the heck had gone on, for events to have gotten to the point they were; and to unearth evidence of any secret plan, if there was such a thing lying in plain view. Also note, and this again concerns McNamara and LBJ: in the documentary, Fog of War, and because of the splendid research done at the LBJ Library by the producer, one can hear, on the soundtrack, one or more critical conversations between Johnson and McNamara in February, 1964. In that conversation, Johnson very clearly states that he was against the JFK October, 1963 pullout order. That conversation--which anyone can hear by buying FOG OF WAR on DVD--is tantamount to the new President telling the Sec Def that he didn't agree with his former boss, JFK, and that these were his thoughts on the matter. When this evidence is appraised in context, and assembled in its entirety--and that includes the detailed documentation on the phased withdrawal plan, spelled out in the Pentagon Papers, and the periodic McNamara trips to Honolulu, to assure its implementation-- I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that it wasn't JFK's intention to disengage, and that it wasn't LBJ's intention to escalate. Because LBJ became President, we know how he "did it." Because JFK was murdered, we don't know exactly how he would have micro-managed the disengagement. His life was cut short, but his intention seems clear enough. The Lone-Nutters and the Vietnam Issue It is very obvious to me that those who propound the false view that Oswald killed JFK alone, have a vested interest in denuding the assassination of its true political meaning. This is accomplished by removing a key political motive for a high level plot, and treating Johnson as some kind of Texas innocent, who was simply following the advice of JFK's advisers. Of course, this involves ignoring the fact that one of those advisers, Dean Rusk, was even termed a "plant" by Kennedy's own secretary, Evelyn Lincoln; and, according to Schlesinger, was to be replaced. It also ignores the manner in which LBJ manipulated the political situation after JFK's death, both to get the legal warrant to prosecute the war, and manipulate the political situation to get a consensus, of sorts. But, all that having been said, in the final analysis this is more than just about policy--it is also about misunderstanding the man, John F. Kennedy, and what he represented. It also ignores a trajectory of growth that occurred after the April, 1961 Bay of Pigs, his suspicion of the military, and an innate caution evolving from his having been so badly misled. The false view of JFK as some kind of secret Vietnam hawk is promoted by using evidence very selectively, and by "connecting the dots" in a completely incorrect manner when it comes to basic data pertaining to the Vietnam escalation, and a failure to properly assess a variety of data bearing on JFK's true intentions. If one chooses to live in that world, then Oswald killed Kennedy alone, Johnson became President, and there was no change in foreign policy. Dallas was a quirk of fate, and the 60s was simply a decade of happenstance. For all practical purposes, JFK might as well have taken a bad fall in the bathtub, and met his end that way. It must be comforting to live in that world, a tidy world of 3 shots, 3 shells, and no change in foreign policy. If the same mentality was brought to bear on the events of 9/11, I'm sure the conclusion would be that one plane went through both towers. Speaking only for myself, I believe that subscribing to the view of "Oswald and the 3 shots" is akin to believing in Goldilocks and the three bears. Each to his own. DSL Word Count: 3800 Sec 3: Previous post (of Rex Bradford, and before that, Gus Russo) * * * BELOW HERE. . PREVIOUS EMAIL * * * From Rex Bradford. . . Gus, Well, I agree with some of what you say. The Cuba policy was disastrous and the White House was responsible for the main policy, though it is all more complex than simply "Kennedy vendetta driven". The Vietnam policy, particularly around Diem, was conflicted and JFK only turned toward withdrawal in 1963 after almost two years of escalation. In any case, the main reason I'm responding is that this caught my eye: Martin (interviewer): There was never any consideration given to pulling out? Kennedy: No. Since it is a matter of public record that a 1000-man pullout was ordered via NSAM 263 on Oct 11, and since documents declassified in 1997 confirm that the planning for complete withdrawal was put on paper as early as May 1963, RFK's statement seems very curious. It is one thing to say that Kennedy was driven to win and would have changed his mind about drawing down forces as things unraveled; it is quite another to say that no consideration was given to pulling out, when it was (partially) announced in the New York Times. RFK is simply not telling the truth in this quote, or is using a shorthand "no" to describe a much more complex view. Pages from the May 1963 SecDef conference: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...22&relPageI > d=109 > > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...22&relPageI > d=107 > > (Entire document): > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...22&relPageI > d=1 > > Rex > * * * On 3/22/07, Gus Russo <rusgus4@earthlink.net> wrote: Sorry, I'm not convinced. Kennedy's words and actions were consistent from day one. Claiming that he kept Krulak in the dark is not proof that he did. You should ask Krulak about that proposition. I can hear him laughing now. (his old numbers: (619)224-3353; also Copley News (619)293-1818 - if he's still alive). Likewise, claiming that only his inner circle -- the same inner circle that created the Camelot myth -- knew the truth, is just that: a claim. This was the same inner circle that advised LBJ to escalate the war. Johnson regretted keeping them on board until the day he died. It was his greatest regret, in fact. And how can anyone trust what McNamara says after sending thousand of young people to their deaths in a war he now claims he knew all along was a disaster (he just didn't feel it necessary to tell the 18-year-olds. His kids, of course, were exempt)? Saying that Kennedy was diplomatic in private goes against what everyone who had to carry out the Cuba project says - it was the WHITE HOUSE that was PRIVATELY cracking the whip, not vice versa. I see absolutely nothing "heroic" about Kennedy and Cuba; the evidence is overwhelming that the brothers tried to murder Castro by any means possible, and for no reason other than that their family pride was hit by the BOP atrocity. I also see nothing heroic about Kennedy personally authorizing the coup that killed the Diem brothers. Even Bobby came to realize the mistakes they made. See his 1967 Senate speech on Vietnam" "If fault is to be found or responsibility assessed, there is enough to go around for all – including myself." Was he still engaged in the hypothetical "shadow dance" in 1967? And regarding Cuba, RFK said in 1968: "If the policy was wrong, it was ot the product of the CIA, but of each administration. We must not forget that we are not dealing with a dream world, but with a very tough adversary." Are we to suppose that near the end of his life, he was STILL worried about the dastardly generals and CIA agents, and that he was still enacting a ruse? These are far from "cherry-picked" quotes. One can find a multitude of them. But where are the multitude of quotes to the contrary? Better yet where are the actions (other than the rumored ones). It's one thing to say that all of Kennedy's hawkish actions and words were just a ruse (an old theory which few in DC believe) and another to discount what Bobby said in his oral history that was private, only opened many years after his death. (below) Was this also part of the elaborate "shadow dance"? Was Bobby still trying to trick the Pentagon's bad guys? What you are saying sounds overly apologetic, not to mention theoretical, in the face of Kennedy's words and actions. I give RFK credit. I am certain that he at least came to realize the folly of his and his brother's foreign policy blunders. What is interesting to me is that his apologists haven't caught up to him. Ironically, the Camelot myth seems to have had stronger hold on many writers than it did on Bobby himself. And before the onslaught of responses that think I am a JFK hater, let me say that I am not. I am just realistic. He is to be admired for the Peace Corps, the Alliance for Progress, his (belated) support of the civil rights movement, the American University speech, and the way he inspired young people to get involved in politics. On the other hand, his foreign policy was a disaster. Sorry. Kennedy's horrible death blinded people to the truth. For many he will always be a saintly, peace-loving martyr. I would bet anything that if JFK could chime in, even he'd (like his brother) admit more of his errors than his biographers do. Martin (interviewer): There was never any consideration given to pulling out? Kennedy: No. Martin: …But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . . Kennedy: Yes. Martin: . . . and couldn't lose it. Kennedy: Yes. Martin: And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to? Kennedy: Well, we'd face that when we came to it. On Mar 22, 2007, at 8:55 PM, David Talbot wrote: Gus: With all due respect, I don't believe you are correct on this. JFK was keeping his military men -- including Krulak -- in the dark about his true intentions regarding Vietnam, which was to withdraw following the 1964 presidential election. His closest advisors -- including O'Donnell, McNamara and Sorensen -- were aware of his true plans. (As McNamara and Sorensen confirmed to me, and as O'Donnell wrote in his memoir.) But throughout his presidency -- particularly after the Bay of Pigs -- Kennedy did a shadow dance with his national security apparatus, rarely committing his real plans to paper, because he knew this sort of transparency risked provoking a sharp backlash from the hardliners in his administration. Gareth Porter gets this Kennedy two-step right in his excellent book, "Perils of Dominance" -- talk tough in public but work behind the scenes diplomatically to avoid military confrontations. I think the hardliners began to see through this artful Kennedy dance -- on Cuba, Vietnam etc -- and grew increasingly fed up with it. You can see how they might regard this as cowardly and duplicitous behavior on Kennedy's part. Although -- when you consider what the CIA's own analysts predicted would occur if the US launched an all-out assault on Cuba (an intelligence estimate that calls to mind with startling similarity what happened decades later in Iraq) and what of course happened in Vietnam -- you can also consider Kennedy's machinations heroic. David Talbot JFK to Walter Cronkite Sept 2, 1963: "But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a mistake. That would be a great mistake." One week later, on Sept. 9, 1963, Kennedy explained to David Brinkley that he believed in the domino theory in Southeast Asia. "I believe it. I believe it," the President repeated and then expressed his categorical opposition to withdrawing from Vietnam: "What I am concerned about is that Americans will get impatient and say because they don't like events in Southeast Asia or they don't like the government in Saigon, that we should withdraw. That only makes it easy for the communists. I think we should stay. We should use our influence in as effective a way as we can, but we should not withdraw." At a news conference on Sept. 12, 1963, Kennedy emphasized that "what helps to win the war we support. What interferes with the war effort we oppose." [The] president felt that the. . . . He had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam. Martin (interviewer): What was the overwhelming reason? Kennedy: Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall. Martin: What if it did? Kennedy: Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam. Martin: There was never any consideration given to pulling out? Kennedy: No. Martin: But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . . Kennedy: Yes. Martin: . . . and couldn't lose it. Kennedy: Yes. Martin: And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to? Kennedy: Well, we'd face that when we came to it. *** Schlesinger, who promulgated the Kennedy hagiography, even said that Kennedy kept the troops dying needlessly for political reasons: Regarding withdrawal, Schlesinger claims Kennedy said: "But I can't do it until 1965--after I'm reelected." For my take on it, please see my essay on historymatters.com: JFK, Vietnam, and Oliver Stone Gary Aguilar November, 2005It's at: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/vietnam/ JFK,%20Vietnam,%20and%20Oliver%20Stone/ JFK,%20Vietnam,%20and%20Oliver%20Stone.htm As a postscript to my piece, Rex added: editor's note: for a forceful presentation of the argument that JFK was indeed proceeding with an unconditional withdrawal from Vietnam in 1963, see James K. Galbraith's essay Exit Strategy at http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.5/galbraith.html]. On 3/21/07, Gus Russo <rusgus4@earthlink.net> wrote: > On 3/20/07, Gus Russo <rusgus4@earthlink.net> wrote: >> > From: Gary Aguilar [mailto:garaguilar@gmail.com]>> > On 3/18/07, Paul Hoch <paulhoch@berkeley.edu> wrote:>> >> From: Gus Russo [mailto:rusgus4@earthlink.net]>> >> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1586484052/ Attachment converted: David's Powerbook G4:Supermob cover 2.jpg

************************************************************** I still wouldn't believe ANYTHING coming out of Hunt's mouth. Not for one minute would he ever implicate himself, nor his pay masters. His job was to invent the dirty tricks, and formulate the myths. He was a talented writer, and a spinner of tales. When Prouty spoke of "actors," Hunt stands out as the boldest of them all. He's a xxxx and a fake, and so damned good at it, he'd have a bunch of supposedly intelligent people ready to believe him, hands down. Not on your life! But, that's JMHO.

Thanks Nathaniel. I was writing the post about Guiliani, then remembered Obama but not his name. When he speaks, there are thousands of white people in the crowds. Then I heard he was Black Muslim. I don't mean to offend anyone, but Louis Farrakhan has a mother ship that follows him around disguised as a cloud. Muslims believe that black people invented white people a long time ago, and that we were an experiment gone wrong. When I lived in the NY area, this was on the news everynight. One of my heroes is Muhammed Ali. I went to see him fight George Forman in a theater through closed circuit TV decades ago. And he won just as he predicted, in the 8th round. Anyway, I don't want people to get the wrong idea, when I posted and couldn't remember the candidate's name. I take him seriously, but I was falling asleep. I will look him up. Kathy ********************************************************* "I don't mean to offend anyone, but Louis Farrakhan has a mother ship that follows him around disguised as a cloud. Muslims believe that black people invented white people a long time ago, and that we were an experiment gone wrong. When I lived in the NY area, this was on the news everynight. One of my heroes is Muhammed Ali. I went to see him fight George Forman in a theater through closed circuit TV decades ago. And he won just as he predicted, in the 8th round." Kathy, you need to stop believing everything you read in the Operation Mockingbird driven commercial news media outlets, nor of the "talking heads" on O.M.'s commercial, cable, and satellite hook-up visual services. There are private consortiums and salons run out of NBC, one by the name of John Train, CBS, and ABC, whose reporters and news contractors are assigned the specific jobs of character assassination of certain individuals who threaten the status quo. They'll go out of their way to invent lies, go to unlimited extremes for obtaining scandalous, incriminating, and slanderous information on people they decide to eliminate from public forum and debate. Why? Because these individuals, such as a Louis Farrakhan, or a Malcolm X, or a Muhammad Ali, are considered "threats" to the white Anglo-American "Aryan" race. Why? Because they're extremely intelligent, as well as the fact that they're great orators, appealing to the oppressed masses. Some of them, athletes in particular, are also positive role models who motivate people of color and give them a sense hope and pride in their lives, and in themselves. The last thing the White Anglo-American Establishment wants in its face is an organized group of people of color, who can no longer be intimidated by them, or their propaganda machine. There are also certain organizations Operation Mockingbird will utilize and hide behind, in order to get their "dirty tricks" campaigns set in motion against black organizations that refuse to follow the Uncle Tom/Step 'n' Fetchit roles assigned to the NAACP, or the AME Churches. Some of these are known as the Cult of Awareness, the JDL, and the ADL, and The Heritage Foundation, which are aligned with Mockingbird to bring accusations of anti-semitism against those black affiliations, and their white democratic supporters, who refuse to kowtow to White Eastern Establishment Elite. Whether you realize it or not, you're beginning to sound like a white racist, Kath. "Anyway, I don't want people to get the wrong idea, when I posted and couldn't remember the candidate's name. I take him seriously, but I was falling asleep. I will look him up. Kathy" Maybe, you shouldn't be posting while you're asleep, or falling asleep. It definitely will not serve you well, here. Your credibility will suffer when you try to use excuses like that one. And, I'm not trying to be mean here, either.

I didn't know that LBJ became majority leader as a result of a death. That's incredible, considering all the other lucky breaks which peppered LBJ's career. LBJ must have had direct access to Murder Inc. Could Pat please spell this out a little please? Which deaths helped elevate Johnson to Senate majority leader? It wasn't a direct lead-in. But in 1952, LBJ was just another Senator, and by 55 he was Majority Leader. Between 51 and 55 there were 9 deaths, as I remember, of active Senators. Most of them were old. There was one suicide, as I remember. Another one. Brion McMahon I think was his name, was fairly young. He was replaced by Prescott Bush, who'd lost an election just two years earlier due in part to his support of eugenics. At one point, I wrote all this stuff down. I may have created a thread on it even. As far as LBJ gaining power from this... when someone dies mid-term he can be replaced on a temporary basis by the Governor of his state. The Governor inevitably picks someone from his own party, which may or may not be the party of the deceased. The Senate was in a virtual deadlock in this period. As a result, the replacement of one senator with one from another party could change the balance of power. This change-over occurred three or four times in this period. There was no stability until LBJ emerged as the big dog in 55. Ironically, he had a heart attack very soon after. It all seems a bit suspicious to me. If I hadn't got sucked into studying the medical evidence, I was thinking of writing a screenplay about a secret history of the U.S., where Senators were murdered to change the balance of power, and where the see-saw only came to a stop when an iron man took control, only to have him get saddled with the vice-presidency. You know what happens next. I think you are drawing a long bow on this Pat. Here's an extract from today's Wikipedia entry on LBJ: Is this inaccurate?If not, why leave out the significant fact that Johnson was elected as minority leader in January 53 - and naturally became majority leader when the Senate became Democrat dominated in January 55? *********************************************************** "Here's an extract from today's Wikipedia entry on LBJ:" Excuse me? I'm not attempting to hi-jack this thread, but I was under the impression that Wikipedia, or Fakepedia, as I choose to term them, was no longer considered to be that reliable a source of information. Especially, due to the proclivity of its originator to continually condone the allowance of misrepresentation by, as well as, refuse to supply sufficient background checks of, their supposedly qualified (?) contributors. And, since this issue has recently come to light regarding this site, how can one continue to reference this organization as one from which its articles should be able to stand as factual? Or, has a truce been recently called between Spartacus and that particular site, of which I am unaware, at present? In other words, has Spartacus finally become an acceptable link offered by Wikipedia, or are we still being "dissed?" Just wondering.

John, as I remember the CIA had a program in the fifties and sixties that studied the toxicological effects of every form of poison. I think this was a spin-off of MKULTRA. Anyhow, they were looking for poisons that could simulate heart-attacks. I believe they were successful. The KGB had similar poisons. Somewhere I remember reading about a Soviet turncoat being murdered in London in the early seventies. It looked like a heart attack. The coroner, once tipped off that it was a possible murder, did a re-inspection, and found a small needle-mark on the man's arm (as I remember). Somebody had bumped into him on the street, and stung him with a tiny needle. Within a few minutes he was dead. Without a trace. After reading this, I remembered that Adlai Stevenson dropped dead on the streets of Paris after denouncing the Vietnam War on a radio show. Made me kinda wonder.... At another point I looked into a series of Senatorial deaths and heart attacks. As a result of this quick series of deaths, Prescott Bush became a U.S. Senator and LBJ became majority leader. Something like 9 sitting Senators (of 96) dropped dead in a 3 year stretch--more than in all the time since. Of course, shorty afterwards LBJ had a heart attack of his own. Made me kinda wonder... {Strange I put up a response on this tread earlier in the day...and saw it..now it isn't here.} Anyway...what I said then was, the CIA and others had developed as mentioned drugs that could simulate heart attack and even all but the most suspicious and qualified forensic pathologist would be likely fooled....more so if they didn't do chromatography on the blood and body fluids....I even once heard a name attached to this set of drugs 'digitoxin'. Remember what Angleton said 'assasination had been developed to a science'! I belive many, many more persons than most think were murdered this way to make it look like a natural death. If you look at just the JFK case alone and all the people who had heart attacks at the most 'convenient' times.....that alone would make a statistician take pause...as it does me. Yes, people naturally die of heart attacks and other natural things...but, yes, the intelligence community has also developed nearly undetectable simulators of 'natural' death - i.e. they mimic natural death. (interesting to note that the Mockingbird mimics also). ******************************************************** "Yes, people naturally die of heart attacks and other natural things...but, yes, the intelligence community has also developed nearly undetectable simulators of 'natural' death - i.e. they mimic natural death. (interesting to note that the Mockingbird mimics also)." I could swear we had a thread going here a couple of months back regarding the occurrence of heart attacks-at-the-wheel of a car, in seemingly otherwise, "healthy" individuals, that were possibly the result of a chemical, DMHO [although I could have the chemical compound's I.D. mis-transposed, here]. This agent could be rubbed on the steering wheel of the victim's car, and go unnoticed. It supposedly could cause aneurysms to form on arterial walls, and it would appear that a undiagnosed pre-existing condition could have been in the process of developing over a period of time, pre-disposing the victim to a heart attack or other form of cerebral attack, or stroke. It was speculated that this could have been what happened to Karen Silkwood. Does anyone remember what thread this appeared in?

And then Bugliosi's book will be coming out... on President Kennedy's birthday, May 29. So the propagandists are ramping up big time. ****************************************************** "And then Bugliosi's book will be coming out... on President Kennedy's birthday, May 29. So the propagandists are ramping up big time." You got that right, my friend. Operation Mockingbird, ready to kick in at full tilt boogie.

********************************************************** "Part of the shame of this thread is that it mirrors the disrespect MM had as a human being. Her life and death, it seems is somehow less important than who gets blamed for the latter. This is evidenced by the fact that the SMH story was first linked to in the appropriate subforum, only to be later posted to and discussed in the JFK section." I couldn't agree with you more. And, after reading about this in the subforum, I've come to the conclusion that anything relevant about MM, as to the person and human being she actually was, will continue to be sacrificed on the altar of sensationalism. For instance, with regard to her unfortunate childhood and humble beginnings, the blatant exploitation of her image by the studios, her attempts to educate herself in her craft and raise herself above the role of a sex goddess, her talent as an actor. These facts and issues seem to no longer apply, as long as this incessant, vulture-like analysis of the forensics report is allowed to overshadow what's left of her memory. And, any attempts to portray her as some kind of modern day Mata Hari are ridiculous. As far as I can see, all we have managed to do is relegate poor Marilyn's memory to the status of a pork-belly commodity. Elton John had a better grasp of who Marilyn Monroe really was.

Nathaniel! You're talking about one of the best books there is on our subject. I put Battling Wall Street up there with Deep Politics and Prouty & Garrison; one of the best--if not the best--big picture books. In other words I recommend it. In other words I consider it essential. It's the best. I've only read the first two thirds 'cause it was an interlibrary loan and it was overdue and they were charging me $153 as overdue fees. So I had to return it and get those fees removed. But I immediately ordered it again so I can finish the last sections. Anyway I mentioned Battling Wall Street in a couple of threads. And I posted a long quote from it here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8052&st=15 I've pasted it below. "I'm starting to think that it's not terribly important whether or not President Kennedy bypassed the Federal Reserve bank to print US treasury notes. I mean, it's interesting, and the actual notes would be great metaphors (and evidence), but it already seems clear enough that he was at odds with the banking establishment. I'm reading "Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency." http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battling-Wall-Stre...y/dp/1879823101 It's remarkable. Totally bypasses the subject of which drooling thug aimed a gun at the President, and points to the people who likely bought the bullets. Here's a passage, Pg 73 on: "During Kennedy's presidency, David Rockefeller was emerging as one of the leaders of the financial community and of the upper class in general. He was president of Chase Manhattan Bank--in line to become its chief executive--and he was vice-president of the Council on Foreign Relations. In July of 1962, Life magazine featured an exchange of letters between David Rockefeller and President Kennedy. In this public and somewhat polite airing of differences, Rockefeller offered praise for some of Kennedy's actions, but he ultimately located the source of the country's economic problems in the president's policies. Claiming to reflect the concerns of bankers in the U.S. and abroad, Rockefeller advised the president to make a "vigorous effort" to control government spending and to balance the budget. He also suggested to Kennedy that interest rates were being kept too low and too much money was being injected into the economy. In his reply, Kennedy either rejected or ignored these arguments. Rockefeller's concern for what he called "fiscal responsibility" was also expressed in a report issued around this time by another influential group with which Rockefeller was involved. This was the Committee for Economic Development, which was created in the early 1940s and largely made of of leaders from the major non-financial corporations in the U.S., including two of the directors of Time [magazine]. ... The commission wanted to make free trade and private initiative central to U.S. foreign policy. ... When David Rockefeller ventured to publicly condemn Kennedy's policies he was adding his personal prestige to the campaign run by Morgan-Rockefeller related media. These interests were also represented within the Kennedy administration, and they attempted to steer Kennedy in certain directions, with little success. As noted above, there was a clear split within the Kennedy administration over economic policy. The Kennedy group, which included Walter Heller and FDR Jr., opposed the Dillon-Federal Reserve group, which spoke for the major banks. Dillon was a close associate of David Rockefeller's and a director of the Chase Manhattan Bank. The Federal Reserve, particularly the New York regional bank, has always been tightly interconnected with Morgan and Rockefeller banking. William McChesney Martin, the Fed's chairman, would become supervisor of the Rockefeller family's trust fund. ... In these conflicts, as well as those discussed earlier, Kennedy was coming up against those people variously referred to as the East Coast Establishment, Wall Street, finance capital, the higher circles, etc. The label is not important. In the end they all refer to Morgan interests, the Rockefellers, and the many other wealthy and influential families allied with them (including Harriman, Cabot, Lodge, Dillon, Bundy). Kennedy's ideas about the responsibilities of the presidency, his attitude about economic progress and the role of the federal government in achieving that progress, his view of foreign aid and foreign policy, and his recommendations and actions in a variety of specific areas disrupted or threatened to disrupt established order. In that established order, in place for most of the century, major government decisions were to serve or at least not disrupt the privately organized hierarchy. Many in the upper levels of this hierarchy, most emphatically those in and around Morgan interests, were--and still are--involved in a relationship with the British establishment. Their ideas about the world are similar to, if not direct imitations of, those of that older British elite rooted in inherited wealth and titles and organized in the modern world around control of finance and raw materials. In this world view, the Anglo-American upper class should maintain its global position by suppressing progress elsewhere and by preventing or containing disruptive changes within England and the United States. Important decision-making power should be kept in private hands, or, if necessary, in government agencies under their influence. From this perspective, Kennedy must have looked like a wild man. Economic growth, scientific and technological progress, expanding opportunity, development in the Third World, and social justice were the goals for Kennedy, not preservation of the class structure. Not only were the government policies he undertook intended to further this disruptive agenda; in many specific instances those policies meant that decision-making power was being taken over by the author of that agenda. Even where Kennedy's efforts only meant changes in the rules, these changes were intended to alter investment patterns and tax burdens in a way not in tune with upper-class interests. Seen in this context, the rhetoric of the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Life and Newsweek makes sense. Also understandable is the unusual spectacle of a private establishment figure such as David Rockefeller going public to personally challenge the president. Rockefeller's Life magazine admonishment was polite; the polemics elsewhere were not. To label a popular president a cultist, a reactionary, a threat to freedom, was to engage in serious conflict with the democratically elected leader of the Republic. It suggested great anger, and it indicated a frustration produced by Kennedy's failure to heed the criticism. President Kennedy's refusal to surrender to the pressures from such powerful forces was a demonstration of courage. In discussing the meaning of courage Kennedy said: "A man does what he must--in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures--and that is the basis of all human morality." His repeated efforts on behalf of economic progress and justice demonstrated the highest form of morality." I cannot recommend this book highly enough. I would love to see those letters exchanged between Rockefeller and the President, and the Committee for Economic Development report. Anyone got a lead on them?" Also, I took pages of notes. That's how great this book is. So even though I don't have the book right now, my notes show that the book's main focus is on the many clashes between the President and the Ruling Class/Rockefellers/Bankers. The book discusses: Wages, Foreign Investments, Foreign Tax Credits, Economists such as Milton Friedman & Adam Smith, Latin American Economic Policy and Private interests in Latin America, Globalization, the fact that Kennedy wanted to bypass private banks for foreign aid (!), the attacks on Kennedy for not following policies of the World Bank, "Free Trade," how the IMF was forced on countries... One thing I got from the book is that the takeover of the country by bankers was an ongoing process when Kennedy became president and he interrupted it, and the bankers were not pleased. Another nugget--The director of the CFR was McGeorge Bundy's brother.... ******************************************************************** Let me reiterate here by bold-ing certain passages I find to be of utmost importance, as well. To make this crystal clear, so there'll be absolutely no doubt left in anyone's mind. "Here's a passage, Pg 73 on: "During Kennedy's presidency, David Rockefeller was emerging as one of the leaders of the financial community and of the upper class in general. He was president of Chase Manhattan Bank--in line to become its chief executive--and he was vice-president of the Council on Foreign Relations. In July of 1962, Life Magazine featured an exchange of letters between David Rockefeller and President Kennedy. In this public and somewhat polite airing of differences, Rockefeller offered praise for some of Kennedy's actions, but he ultimately located the source of the country's economic problems in the president's policies. Claiming to reflect the concerns of bankers in the U.S. and abroad, Rockefeller advised the president to make a "vigorous effort" to control government spending and to balance the budget. He also suggested to Kennedy that interest rates were being kept too low and too much money was being injected into the economy. In his reply, Kennedy either rejected or ignored these arguments. Rockefeller's concern for what he called "fiscal responsibility" was also expressed in a report issued around this time by another influential group with which Rockefeller was involved. This was the Committee for Economic Development, which was created in the early 1940s and largely made up of leaders from the major non-financial corporations in the U.S., including two of the directors of Time [magazine]. ... The commission wanted to make free trade and private initiative central to U.S. foreign policy. ... When David Rockefeller ventured to publicly condemn Kennedy's policies he was adding his personal prestige to the campaign run by Morgan-Rockefeller related media. These interests were also represented within the Kennedy administration, and they attempted to steer Kennedy in certain directions, with little success. As noted above, there was a clear split within the Kennedy administration over economic policy. The Kennedy group, which included Walter Heller and FDR Jr., opposed the Dillon-Federal Reserve group, which spoke for the major banks. Dillon was a close associate of David Rockefeller's and a director of the Chase Manhattan Bank. The Federal Reserve, particularly the New York regional bank, has always been tightly interconnected with Morgan and Rockefeller banking. William McChesney Martin, the Fed's chairman, would become supervisor of the Rockefeller family's trust fund. ... In these conflicts, as well as those discussed earlier, Kennedy was coming up against those people variously referred to as the East Coast Establishment, Wall Street, finance capital, the higher circles, etc. The label is not important. In the end they all refer to Morgan interests, the Rockefellers, and the many other wealthy and influential families allied with them (including Harriman, Cabot, Lodge, Dillon, Bundy). Kennedy's ideas about the responsibilities of the presidency, his attitude about economic progress and the role of the federal government in achieving that progress, his view of foreign aid and foreign policy, and his recommendations and actions in a variety of specific areas disrupted or threatened to disrupt established order. In that established order, in place for most of the century, major government decisions were to serve or at least not disrupt the privately organized hierarchy. Many in the upper levels of this hierarchy, most emphatically those in and around Morgan interests, were--and still are--involved in a relationship with the British establishment. Their ideas about the world are similar to, if not direct imitations of, those of that older British elite rooted in inherited wealth and titles and organized in the modern world around control of finance and raw materials. In this world view, the Anglo-American upper class should maintain its global position by suppressing progress elsewhere and by preventing or containing disruptive changes within England and the United States. Important decision-making power should be kept in private hands, or, if necessary, in government agencies under their influence. From this perspective, Kennedy must have looked like a wild man. Economic growth, scientific and technological progress, expanding opportunity, development in the Third World, and social justice were the goals for Kennedy, not preservation of the class structure. Not only were the government policies he undertook intended to further this disruptive agenda; in many specific instances those policies meant that decision-making power was being taken over by the author of that agenda. Even where Kennedy's efforts only meant changes in the rules, these changes were intended to alter investment patterns and tax burdens in a way not in tune with upper-class interests. Seen in this context, the rhetoric of the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Life and Newsweek makes sense. Also understandable is the unusual spectacle of a private establishment figure such as David Rockefeller going public to personally challenge the president. Rockefeller's Life magazine admonishment was polite; the polemics elsewhere were not. To label a popular president a cultist, a reactionary, a threat to freedom, was to engage in serious conflict with the democratically elected leader of the Republic. It suggested great anger, and it indicated a frustration produced by Kennedy's failure to heed the criticism. President Kennedy's refusal to surrender to the pressures from such powerful forces was a demonstration of courage. In discussing the meaning of courage Kennedy said: "A man does what he must--in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures--and that is the basis of all human morality." His repeated efforts on behalf of economic progress and justice demonstrated the highest form of morality." I cannot recommend this book highly enough." DITTO!!! Thank you again, Myra, for putting this up. Apparently, there are many folks out there who still haven't gotten the message. I know I've included mention Donald Gibson's book(s) in any list of books I've posted as recommended reading, on at least three other forums, including this one. I guess we'll just have to keep shouting out the word until it's finally heard by everyone else concerned, or at least embedded in their collective consciousness. Because, not only should this be mandatory reading as a straight shot to understanding the driving force behind all of the assassination(s), it also leads directly to the sources by naming the actual names of the perps. Those, who stood to lose the most, had JFK lived and been allowed to exercise his presidential powers in the manner in which they were intended. But, also those, who had the collateral to contract the deed, as well as the unlimited funds with which to cover the trail that led right back to them, and their financial and media-driven enclaves.