Terry Mauro
-
Posts
1,791 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Terry Mauro
-
-
TERRY MAURO
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.
AS I more firmly than ever believe in those ideas that I posted relating to RFK's lack of tact, manners and composure, I feel that I stated them clearly enough the first time.
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.
Once again I will state that I mean to retract nothing that I have expressed regarding Robert Kennedy causing turmoil within the administration and without. I feel that he appeard to take pleasure in re aggravating old wounds rather than attempting to rehabilitate them. Frankly, and this is only a personal observation, I feel that Robert and JEH were quite similar in their practices.
If you wish to "worship" the Kennedy's, you perhaps should erect a memorial. But donning blinders does not make any of the Kennedy's perfect or near perfect.
I personally liked JFK very much and the method of his demise has burdened me to the extent, that not one day in the last 35 years, have I not devoted much thought toward the horror and injustice of his murder by those stalwarts of our society.
I had and remain to have very little respect for Robert Kennedy, both before and during his ascendancy to the postion of Attorney General. I maintain that there is little that he did during those years that did not "hasten" his brothers death.
If what I have just said leads you to believe that I am insane, you are really going to flip when you hear of my thoughts of Joe Sr, Ted and even Joseph Jr. And for that matter Rose !
I belong to this forum out of deep respect for John Kennedy. I am not particularly fond of the rest of the Kennedy Clan, and I feel that this "family behavior", for whatever contrived reason, has greatly aided in the cover up of John's murder.
Terry, I suppose that you have surmised that I care very little of your diagnosis of my mental instability ! As a matter of fact, I should take it as a compliment, considering what I feel regarding your assessments in general.
Charlie Black
*****************************************************************
"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.
-
Charles Drago
"Esoteric" does not mean that ideas must be formed in the stratosphere where you "appear" to reside.
Nor does it incorporate some of the circular and venomous illogic which is so characteristic of you when you are unable to logically debate.
Dawn Meredith
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 !
Mine was not a "straw" indictment of Robert, but one which is well documented.
My meaning was, is, and will continue to be, that
Robert's "personal behavior" went far to "broaden"
gaps which were growing "within" JFK's own administration....not to mention the "caverns"
developing elsewhere.
Yes ! I strongly feel that the "overly politically involved" RFK, unwisely went far beyond the boundaries of Attorney General, and that "his" attitudes and actions fueled the fire of conspiracy.
As I mentioned in another post, if even those who were in opposition to JFK, were able to find a different way to address their growing dissatisfaction with the President, the prospect of Robert Kennedy as a "future President" would have killed any such attempt.
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.
He himself even KNEW that !
In the discussion of the JFK assassination, the
"seemingly different" attitude which Robert later seemed to develop, should not be confused in any way, with his actions while his brother was alive.
Charlie Black
**************************************************************
"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.
-
Let's see ... The Kennedys were hit because of "lack of maturity, deplorable manners and arrogant behavior" ...
Ladies and gentlemen, the conspirators have been identified!
Miss Manners and Marth Stewart did it!!!
Then they killed Jack and Bobby.
Hey, it makes as much sense as any of this wretched "they got what was coming to them" disinformation.
Charles
*********************************************************
"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.
-
Hi Terry
A great overall reply and I can understand your feelings of Robert during the hearings. I suppose that he could have sounded like a "gallant Knight" battling ugly dragons.
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!
Charlie Black
**********************************************************
"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...
-
Thank You Bill, Please let me add that Prescott Bush was a trustee/board member of CBS for over 20 years. Dulles and Prescott were friends from the early thirties. Prescott BTW was one of the $$ backers of the FDR Liberty League coup plot. Dulles & Paley were very,very close....EXAMPLE ..did you get the jam? Maybe you and Clover (Dulles) can come over for Christmas.....Now a researcher was told by the private secrertary of Paley that DEMOH worked for Paley at a company called Shelter Rock (the namesake also of his Long Island estate- next to the PAYSON estate were GHWB was called by the Payson children as uncle GEORGIE). Per secretary = inside Shelter Rock was a private assassination group. Now the head lawyer for Paley in 1950s and most 60s latter became CEO of Viacom. Now this lawyers sister was on the phone with Bill Moyers (Bill at WH) and when on the phone the sister was at parade route meeting at Locke-Purnell- discusing parade route. She later was the founder (founder-Publisher) of MS magazine. Of course DEMOHs brother close to the DULLES family. DEMOH close to Prescott and GHW BUSH family. William CASEY was a Dulles operative and also close to the BUSH family . Casey went with CD Jackson to a BIRCHER rally at the Hollywood Bowl (summer 63) that curiously was also attended by AH Belo family member (big time JFK hater) Ted Dealey. As you might recall Bill the fellow who drew the Ambulance away from Dealey Plaza with a in quotes "seizure" worked for AH Belo.......thanks sg +++ The Bechtel family was part of FDR plot. Steve Bechtel and Dulles very ,very close. Now the ultra elite Bechtel Study group had Augustus Long of the Freeport Sulfur board. The Whitney's were the most important at Freeport and PALEY'S wife was related to the Whitneys. see PROBE MAGAZINE SERIES ON FREE PORT SULFUR and below info (PROBE connected SHAW & DAP to working with Freeport)
A new book just published by Author-House entitled "Friendly Fire on Holy Grounds-The Stockpile Conspiracy" by Ira Jesse Hemingway may add another piece to the puzzle to help expain why JFK was murdered.
The scandal over the Eisenhower Administation's handling of the Strategic Materials Stockpiles issue.
This is a synopsis supplied to me by the author.
Synopsis
This synopsis is for my non-fiction book, “Friendly Fire On Holy Grounds: The Stockpile Conspiracy”© the book is complete. I hold all rights to this story both fiction (Screen Play) and non-fiction.
Friendly Fire© chronicles the events that occurred from 1954 through 1972 concerning the cost of a critical material stockpile. It attempts to leave the reader with a clear understanding of a serious cover-up when President Kennedy attempted to remove the shroud of secrecy surrounding this event. All he wanted was financial account ability but instead he ended up dead.
I am not trying to persuade my audience but present facts that are not in the open market at this time pertaining to the assassination of an American President, John F. Kennedy. I leave it in the intellect of the audience to judge the facts.
Upon completion of my research and book, I became aware that a stockpile issue was very important to President Kennedy. He voiced his concerns many times between 1962 and 1963, up until his death. The Warren Commission did not look into the stockpile issue, as members of that commission were deeply involved with the creation of, the 13 billion dollar ruse. I will show that the only logical reason that these specific members were on the Warren Commission was to ensure that information concerning the stockpile was never raised nor released. This information led me to the next logical step, which meant that if in fact that was their duty to avoid the stockpile issue then they committed fraud by failing to disclose the facts. I was then able to uncover information that they committed fraud regardless of their true intentions, they knew about the stockpile.
At the onset of the Warren Commission Lyndon Baines Johnson and the director of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover agreed to obstruct justice by:
A) Meeting Johnson and discussing who should be on the commission and the flow of facts;
The announcement of the commission followed by the FBI director’s statement that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone;C) Directed what the scope and duties of the Warren Commission were. He also directed the FBI to screen all information to the commission. If the Director of the FBI said a certain person did it then it was pretty much case closed.
Both Johnson and Richard Nixon were involved with the increase of the stockpile between 1954 and 1960. It would be elementary to deduct that the escalation of Vietnam had to do with the stockpile cover-up in the sense that billions more had been spent in Vietnam than the public knew.
From my many years of research and an audit conducted before the 1962 Senate Stockpile investigation gave a base for all the material in the stockpile. It was President Kennedy’s assumption that the members of the Eisenhower administration profited from the excessive spending on the stockpile. The profiting from the stockpile transactions was illegal and the methods by which the Eisenhower cabinet members used the stockpile were in violation of many laws. President Kennedy may not have fully realized that half of the material on the books did not exist.
The real reason that President Kennedy was murdered did not surface until 1972 when President Nixon wrote 4.2 billion dollars off the books. The facts will prove that Kennedy was going to use the information from the stockpile investigation, in 1964, to his political advantage in the Presidential elections. If the only thing that occurred were profiting from the stockpile, methods of buying and selling, it surely would not have been politically damaging, as it would be if the material were not purchased at all.
Jesse Hemingway ++++++++PLEASE let me add that one of the main players of this over stockpiling + looting of the Tax Payer was HANA Mining which at one point had as head lawyers and later big investors the DULLES brothers
see http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...752C0A961958260
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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.
-
Charlie,
I can understand your thoughts and feelings regarding Robert Kennedy. Although, I also believe he was a kid at heart and quite possibly tried to over compensatedby being hardnose, arrogant and ruthless at times. I have also never had much use for Ted Kennedy, but some in his state seems to think a lot of him, since he has been a Senator for many years.
I am thinking this might be somewhat unusal, but I have been doing some essays on the past First Ladies. I have done ten, so far, which is on my private website. This has been a curiosity of mine and I am learning things about the past Presidents and their families, that I never knew before. Below, I have added some information in regard to some things I have discovered. Apparently, money, power and prestige affected some Presidents families differently.
First of all, our Fourth President, John Madison married Dolly Madison. She had a son by a previous marriage named John Payne. As John was growing up, they were both much too lenient with him. He was addicted to gambling and was always needing to be bailed out.. But after John Madison died, John Payne lost all he had and caused Dolly to eventually have to sell the Madison Documents and also Montpelier just to pay off debts he had created.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Our Sixth President was John Quincy Adams who married Louisa. John's father was our 2nd Presisdent John Adams and his wife was Abigal. John and Abigal practically raised two of John Quincy and Louisas sons, so they could be educated in the U.S, John Quincy was a Diplomat and he and Louisa were living in Europe. They took their youngest son with them.
Louisa had a most difficuly life being married to John Quincy. Mostly he regarded her as a non-person. Plus John and Abigal also didn't like her, because she was from England and had French schooling and was cultured. She went through much hardship just to be with her husband in his travels. Her years in the Whitehouse were mostly spent in her own quarters in a state of depression. She had both a son and daughter that died when very young which she couldn't seem to get over.
She did play a harp and sang some and entertained when she was able to. She also raised silkworms, which she would collect the silk and wind into yarn for knitting. Yet, she seems to have been a most tragic person, even though she had previously been a lovely, charning young woman. When she saw her First Lady Portrait, she stated that she only looked half alive. Ironically, Pat Nixon chose Louisa's portrait to hang in he White House. Many years later, Louisa's grandson wrote a book about her and how different she could have been if she had not been married to John Quincy Adams.
John Quincy was sarcastic and hated small talk and I believe cut Louisa down constantly. I also believe he was a womanizer, as were his sons. However, after leaving the White House and in later years, John Quincy mellowed out and he did make peace with Louisa. But here is how their three sons turned out.......
George Washington Adams, the oldest son was a brilliant young man who had graduated from Harvard and studied law with Daniel Webster, George was also a rake. He neglected his law practice, ran up huge debts, impregnated and abandoned a young girl, frequently visited prostitutes, had fits of paranoia, suffered hallucinations, used opium, and was suicidal. When his mom (Louisa) found books of pornography in his room, she feared that the young boy looked upon women as mere objects of sexual pleasure. On a steamer bound for New York, George, aged twenty-eight, accused his fellow passengers of plotting against him. The next day he disappeared and his body washed up on shore six weeks later.
The next eldest son, John Adams II, married in the White House on February 25, 1828, which was one of the brightest moments of her time on the White
House. John Adams II, although more stable, had his share of troubles too. He was expelled from Harvard in his senior year for taking part in a student riot. Later, as his father's private secretary, he engaged in a fistfight with an anti-administration journalist in the Capitol Rotunda, causing a special committee to be convened to investigate the assault. Although his opponent was censured, his mother was terribly embarrased. After John Quincy's defeat by Jackson, John Adams II ran a Washington flourmill owned by the family, but his health failed and he died at age thirty-one, suffering from acute alcoholism.
The youngest son, Charles Francis Adams, who lived to become a distinguished diplomat, public servant, and author, shared with his older brothers a common character trait: it seems that all of the Adams men, including John Quincy Adams, were sexually active with prostitutes as young men and read pornographic literature. Louisa Adams criticized all of her sons directly for their willingness to participate in what she termed "loathsome and disgusting pictures of actions . . . that render them . . . unfit for any society but the lowest and most degraded.
__________________________________
Our Eighth President, Martin Van Buren married Hannah. They were married twelve years and had four sons and she died before he ever became President.
This is the description of their sons!
Abraham Van Buren (1807-1873), the eldest, graduated from West Point and served in the army. He resigned from the army in 1837 to serve as secretary to his father during his single term as President. He rejoined the army during the Mexican War, and was promoted for bravery (they gave promotions rather than medals at that time) at the battles of Contreras and Churubusco.
John Van Buren (1810-1866) was a lawyer. He served as secretary of the American legation in London during his father's stint as minister-designate to Great Britain. He was later elected to the U.S. House of Representatives where he emerged as a leading opponent of slavery. He later allied himself with the Barnburner faction of the New York Democratic Party, which opposed all compromise with the South on the issue of slavery.
Martin Van Buren, Jr. (1812-1855) was a student of political science and history. He served as a political aide to his father throughout his career and compiled the information used by the former President in writing his memoirs.
Smith Thompson Van Buren (1817-1876) also served as a political aide to his father. He drafted many of his father's speeches and, as literary executor of his father's estate, edited the Van Buren Papers. He married a niece of Washington Irving.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just something a little dfferent in regard to Presidential families. One more thought though. It seems a lot of Presidents have a renegade brother, that they would just as soon keep hidden...:-)
**************************************************************
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.
-
To all
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".
Not in an attempt to change the views of any of you Robert Kennedy supporters, I felt that his actions before the sub commitee 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.
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 aything 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.
Even though I personally "despise" Hoover and feel that LBJ was a "long time" criminal, I feel that some of the actions of Bobby, whom I refer to "in the early sixties" as a "ridiculous upstart", went far in broadening the gap between these two powerful figures and the President. Someone should have explained to Bobby, the benefits of properly attempted political manipulation. Actually, were he at all qualified, no one would have needed to. I don't feel that it is proper to show a public lack of respect to figures as powerful and prominent as LBJ and JEH. His bother certainly didn't!
I feel that Bobby had progressed "little" at the time of his confrontations with Hoffa. An arrogant lack of respect should be dispayed by "NO PUBLIC FIGURE" ! An Attorney General should behave in a manner deserving his title .....and not as a schoolboy.
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 litle man syndrome".
I certainly feel that there is good reason for Bobby to have entered a state of deep depression following his brother's murder....and considered, I have read, that he felt his (Bobby's) personal conduct may have had a significant role in the plan to murder his brother. If this is true, it may have been his foremost acknowledgement.
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".
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.
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-existant. Yes, you may say that I have a "closed mind" on this issue, and I will agree !
Charlie Black
****************************************************************************
"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".
Although I very much liked John Kennedy, I have NEVER shared the "sheer adulation" that so many on this and other forums seem to display.
To listen to many of you, you often speak of the "double assassination" of JFK. The second being by those of you who seem to feel that some of the unsavory truths about JFK, RFK, and Joe Sr. should be "unmentionables". Often when I post something that is true, though unflattering about the Kennedy's, I feel that there is an attempt by
some/many for me to wash my mouth out and "run, not walk" to confession!
"Lancer" was not a Holy Knight chosen by the almighty to be THE shining example of male American virtue. To the best of my knowledge, neither were any of the Kennedy's, including Rose .
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 "thru 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.
I personally feel that unless you are able to personally disregard the truthful tho less complimentary aspects of the Kennedy's, you are labeled a Kennedy Basher.
I feel that this is a quite immature approach, and a forced reluctance to accept what is quite visible to most. I feel that Jack Kennedy brought a great deal of "Pride and Hope" to this nation during a time of crisis and severe struggle, and I personally felt quite proud for him to be my President and Commander in Chief. And for one to have great respect for The President and the office of The President, does not require that the person holding that office be elevated to "Sainthood".
The Kennedy Bothers were fine young men, as were many in this country, who shared the same strengths and weaknesses as other young men, engaged in some acts that brought pride to their families, and other acts which did not.
They were fortunate to be of a privileged family, and I feel that perhaps it will be said in the final chapter, this "privilege" endowed them with a spirit too reckless and independent, for their own welfare, and that of those whom they served.
I really don't understand why, as a result of certain recent posts by other members, that I should have responded in this manner.
This was initially about the attempted preservation of Kennedy family secrets which they have the right in most cases, to do, as do we all. Whether secrets pertaining to the President's health should be included in this, I cannot judge. I feel that some "little lies" like this had some serious and long lasting effects which influenced decisions as important and damning as JFK's autopsy.
I feel that I have nothing that I would like to retract in my obvious lack of adulation of the Kennedy Family. I never hinted that any of them should have been "fault free", but I feel that privileged position gave them a false sense of security and power, which perhaps was their undoing.
Charlie Black
********************************************************
"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".
Although I very much liked John Kennedy, I have NEVER shared the "sheer adulation" that so many on this and other forums seem to display.
To listen to many of you, you often speak of the "double assassination" of JFK. The second being by those of you who seem to feel that some of the unsavory truths about JFK, RFK, and Joe Sr. should be "unmentionables". Often when I post something that is true, though unflattering about the Kennedy's, I feel that there is an attempt by
some/many for me to wash my mouth out and "run, not walk" to confession!
"Lancer" was not a Holy Knight chosen by the almighty to be THE shining example of male American virtue. To the best of my knowledge, neither were any of the Kennedy's, including Rose .
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 "thru 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.
I personally feel that unless you are able to personally disregard the truthful tho less complimentary aspects of the Kennedy's, you are labeled a Kennedy Basher.
I feel that this is a quite immature approach, and a forced reluctance to accept what is quite visible to most. I feel that Jack Kennedy brought a great deal of "Pride and Hope" to this nation during a time of crisis and severe struggle, and I personally felt quite proud for him to be my President and Commander in Chief. And for one to have great respect for The President and the office of The President, does not require that the person holding that office be elevated to "Sainthood".
The Kennedy Bothers were fine young men, as were many in this country, who shared the same strengths and weaknesses as other young men, engaged in some acts that brought pride to their families, and other acts which did not.
They were fortunate to be of a privileged family, and I feel that perhaps it will be said in the final chapter, this "privilege" endowed them with a spirit too reckless and independent, for their own welfare, and that of those whom they served.
I really don't understand why, as a result of certain recent posts by other members, that I should have responded in this manner.
This was initially about the attempted preservation of Kennedy family secrets which they have the right in most cases, to do, as do we all. Whether secrets pertaining to the President's health should be included in this, I cannot judge. I feel that some "little lies" like this had some serious and long lasting effects which influenced decisions as important and damning as JFK's autopsy.
I feel that I have nothing that I would like to retract in my obvious lack of adulation of the Kennedy Family. I never hinted that any of them should have been "fault free", but I feel that privileged position gave them a false sense of security and power, which perhaps was their undoing.
Charlie Black
********************************************************
"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.
-
After all last evening, difiiculty in posting...I have found the link to the "ratmandu"......the ratman's..site.....
Where he has Colonel Prouty's statement and the copy of Richard Sprague's article, with
some photos, and frames of the Zapruder film....a study.....and in a much more concise form
for all.......If interested....
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html
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 B....
********************************************************************
"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.
-
Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty:
""It was in my own office, in a part of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, in the Pentagon in 1960 that I first saw an early version of the weapon fired. On July 29, 1960 I flew to Fort Detrick, Maryland by helicopter from the Pentagon to see developments of this and other new weapons at that top secret installation. I am able *from personal and official experience* to support the Sprague- Cutler thesis that an umbrella weapon was used as part of the JFK murder plot.
The inventor of the flechette rocket was shown into my office by a fellow staff member, and I was told that he had something he wanted to demonstrate to the military to see if it could be developed into some useful tactical weapon system. In his hand he held several small plastic tubes which looked to me like soda straws, about "thick malt shake" size. Then he showed me a small plastic, nylon perhaps, rocket. It was a perfectly shaped, miniature rocket, complete with tail fins. Inside was a tiny charge of propellant.
Then, without further introduction, the inventor touched a button, and two tiny flechettes zipped out of the "straws" and slammed into the thick soundproofing of the wall across the office. Only their tail fins stuck out from the wall, and the inventor said that it was a good thing he had only a partial charge in them, because they could easily have gone right through a normal wall panel and acoustic board.
This early, unengineered weapon was shaped something like a pistol with a flashlight-size chamber above the grip. The inventor contemplated using about twenty-five or thirty "straws" mounted together and fired all at once or in clusters. This would give a buckshot impact and more effective target coverage. I was impressed.
I called my boss' office and introduced the inventor. Again we went through the demonstration. It was not long before the weapon system was under top secret control and was being worked on by some of the military specialists at Fort Detrick. I heard about the development of the weapon many times later, but I did not see it again until it was exhibited at the Church Committee hearings. Shortly after that, when I saw Cutler's first "Umbrella Man" book (The Umbrella Man: Evidence of Conspiracy), published in October 1975 and describing an "air-rifle" type umbrella weapon, I wrote to him to explain that I thought it much more likely that The Umbrella Man had used the rocket flechette I had seen demonstrated.
It remained for Senseney's Church Committee testimony to close the circle when he stated that he had developed just such an umbrella weapon at the same place I had gone with the earlier weapon---Fort Detrick. The rest of this remarkable story is developed by Sprague and Cutler.
As you read this article, consider this: It is against Secret Service directives for anyone to be permitted along the route of the President carrying something as conspicuous a weapon concealer as an umbrella. Furthermore, it is abnormal for anyone standing close to the President to open an umbrella in sunlight, raise it, lower it, and maneuver it as this man did. Why was this permitted by the Secret Service? Who had the power to arrange that TUM not be apprehended with the umbrella weapon that day?
Consider also that until the day of the JFK assassination in 1963, there was no place that anybody outside of the very small CIA and Special Forces group (perhaps as many as twenty people) could get access to that flechette-launching weapon system or anything like it.
Someone had the power to ensure TUM's nonapprehension and access to the weapon. That person was the murderer. ""
***************************
June 1978 : Gallery Magazine
November 22, 1963, the day President Kennedy was slain, was bright
and sunny in Dallas. Why, then, was there a young man with an open
umbrella on Elm Street, less than 30 feet from the President's car
as it slowly passed by? Presented below is an answer to this
puzzle by a former consultant to the House Select Committee on
Assassinations.
THE UMBRELLA SYSTEM: PRELUDE TO AN ASSASSINATION
by Richard E. Sprague and Robert Cutler
INTRODUCTION:
To the skeptic who refuses to accept the idea that the Central
Intelligence Agency was involved in the assassination of John
Kennedy, nothing could be more convincing than to demonstrate how
one of the CIA's secret poison and weapon systems was used in the
assassination. Such a claim would have been scoffed at by
everyone, but the weapons system itself was made public by Mr.
William Colby, CIA director; Mr. Richard Helms, former CIA
director; and Mr. Charles Senseney, a contract weapons designer
for the CIA in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence (the Church Committee) in September 1975.
The system is based on launching devices of various types, used
to launch a self-propelled, rocket-like dart, or flechette. The
flechette can carry either a paralyzing or fatal poison.
The flechette itself is very simple. It is about the same size
and looks like the tip of a large chicken feather. It is plastic
and has tiny tail fins. Many varieties were developed for
different uses. The great advantage of this weapon is that it is
recoilless, almost silent, and the flechette travels at a high
velocity which increases after launch. The flechettes can be fired
singly or in high-impact clusters.
It is propelled to its target by a solid-state fuel, ignited
electronically at the launcher. It strikes its target, animal or
human, dissolves completely in the body leaving no observable
trace, and totally paralyzes its victim within two seconds.
The launching devices developed by Mr. Charles Senseney at Fort
Detrick, Maryland for the CIA included a cane, a fountain pen, soda
straws, and an umbrella.
The umbrella was used to shoot President Kennedy.
The flechette struck JFK in the throat, causing a small entrance
wound, but leaving no other trace. The missile was about 5
millimeters in diameter, and the wound was 4 millimeters. The size
of the wound as compared to the size of the flechette is consistent
with other findings of this nature. This particular wound,
officially called an exit wound by the Warren Commission, puzzled
medical examiners and critics of the Warren Commission alike. The
critics charged that had the throat wound been an exit wound, it
could not have been so small.
JFK was paralyzed by poison contained in the flechette in less
than two seconds--so paralyzed that the first rifle bullet that hit
him did not knock him down, but left him in a nearly upright
position. A second volley of shots fired at JFK a few seconds
later struck a stationary, visible target. The paralyzing
flechette shot was fired by a man holding the umbrella launcher.
He was in close proximity to an accomplice. Using a radio
transmitter, the accomplice signaled the riflemen through each of
their respective radiomen in the Dal Tex building, the western end
of the Texas School Book Depository building, and on the grassy
knoll.
An exquisitely timed intelligence murder was performed. The
paralytic poison allowed two volleys of rifle shots to be fired
into JFK. He had become a sitting duck.
In what follows, the basic evidence for this sophisticated
murder technique and weapon system will be presented. Much of the
evidence, in the form of photographs, has been under the noses of
assassination researchers for many years. The testimony given by
Colby, Helms, and Senseney opened the minds of a small group of
researchers, who looked at the photographic, medical, and
ballistics evidence in a new way.
The coauthors of this article and researcher Christopher
Sharrett have now been able to clearly show that JFK's
assassination had to have been a carefully planned, well-executed
intelligence operation, using CIA weapons and techniques.
___________________________________________________________________
| |
| Analysis of JFK's Motions and the Shots: |
| |
| Numbers beginning with "Z" are frames of the Zapruder film. |
| |
| |
| Crucial to an understanding of the shots and JFK's |
| reactions to them is an understanding of President |
| Kennedy's hand, head, and upper torso movements at the |
| time he was hit by shots, and the motions of Governor |
| Connally. Contrary to what most media organizations and |
| some researchers state, JFK's hands did not raise to grasp |
| at his throat. The Zapruder film shows quite clearly that |
| just the opposite occurred. Photos #1 through 6, are |
| frames 189, 190, 204, 224, 225, and 227 from the Zapruder |
| film. The President's right hand can be seen making what |
| appears at first to be a slight forward jerk between |
| frames 189 and 190 (1/18 second) and then snapping |
| downward from his forehead to a position well below his |
| throat by frames Z224 and Z225. It also clenches into a |
| fist. His head, during this two-second timespan, snaps |
| into a nearly straight-ahead position, and his left hand |
| raises and clenches into a fist somewhat below his right |
| hand level. His right fist can be seen to be still moving |
| downward between frames Z224 and Z225. |
| The discontinuity between Z189 and Z190 added to the |
| continuous downward, fist-clenching motion of his right |
| hand from Z190 to Z225 has been taken by many researchers |
| as evidence of a shot striking JFK at frame Z189. The |
| theory of discontinuous motion caused by a transfer of |
| momentum from an externally applied force is evident here. |
| Any discontinuity in JFK's motions occurring in the 1/18 |
| second between frames can be taken as evidence of momentum |
| transfer from a projectile, rather than being caused by |
| any internal neurological phenomenon, voluntary or |
| involuntary. What actually occurs between Z189 and Z190 |
| is a backward and upward motion of JFK's head. His right |
| hand remains in a fixed position with respect to the side |
| of the limousine. This indicates a shot from the front. |
| A second such discontinuity occurs between frames Z225 |
| and Z227 (2/18 second), during which time JFK's head and |
| upper torso are driven forward and down into his clenched |
| fists. The fists remain in a fixed position with respect |
| to the side of the limousine. JFK's elbows are flung |
| upward and outward by the force of a rifle bullet striking |
| him in the back. This is the shot that caused the back |
| wound 5 3/4 inches down from the top of his shirt and |
| created holes in his jacket, his shirt, and his back. It |
| did not exit at his throat. |
| A similar analysis of momentum transfer from the rear |
| causing a discontinuity in motion can be made for Governor |
| Connally between frames Z237 and Z238 (photos #7 and 8). |
| Finally, JFK's head motions between frames Z312, Z313, |
| Z314, and Z321 (shown in photos 9 through 12) demonstrate |
| two transfers of momentum--one from the rear, between Z312 |
| and Z313, and another from the right front, between Z313 |
| and Z314 and up to Z321. The latter bullet drove JFK's |
| head and upper torso back and to his left, where he |
| bounced off the rear seat into his wife's arms. |
|_________________________________________________________________|
BASIC QUESTIONS:
Throughout the last fourteen years, a number of questions
arising from the evidence obtained at Dealey Plaza have puzzled
serious researchers. While these questions seem to be unrelated,
all of them are answered in a very logical way by this new
interpretation of the evidence.
The questions concern President Kennedy's throat wound, the
motions of his hands and head before the fatal shot struck, the
timing of the shots, the absence of bullets, the presence of a man
carrying an open umbrella, and the trajectory of an early shot from
in front of JFK. Here are the questions:
The Throat Wound and Trajectory of the Throat Shot:
Assuming the throat wound in JFK to be an entry wound, why was
it so small (4mm)? How could a rifle bullet leave such a small
wound (about the size of a soda straw)?
If a bullet did enter JFK's throat, where did it go? Why was no
trace of a bullet found? The entry wound apparently was not at a
downward angle. If a bullet *was* fired from the grassy knoll,
hitting JFK in the throat at Z189 (frame 189 of the film shot by
Abraham Zapruder), where could it have come from to enter at a
*nearly horizontal* trajectory, while missing everything in its
path, including the Stemmons Freeway sign, Abraham Zapruder, a
small tree, the side of the limousine, Secret Service agent
Kellerman, Governor Connally, and the limousine windshield? Where
did the throat shot come from (see photo #13 [CAPTION READS: "TUM
at lower left of Stemmons sign, The Accomplice farther left. (For
actual photograph, see Warren Commission Hearing and Exhibits, Vol.
XXI, P. 770.])
Why is there a *forward* motion of JFK's right hand between Z189
and Z190, if a shot hit him from the front at that time? Why
didn't that bullet drive JFK violently backward (see photos #l and
2)?
The Motions of JFK's Hands:
Why did the President's hands clench into fists and drop below
his throat as the result of a bullet striking him in the throat?
Why did his head snap around to the front? These motions, which
can be observed in photos #1 to 6, Zapruder frames 189, 190, 204,
224, 225, and 227, appear to be more like a stiffening action,
taking a little less than two seconds, rather than the grasping at
his throat described by many casual observers. JFK did not grasp
at his throat at all.
Why didn't the bullet fired at frame Z225, striking JFK in the
back, knock him down on the seat? Why are JFK's fists still in the
same position after the bullet hits, Z225 to Z227 (see photo #6,
2/18 second after photo #5)? The motions make it appear that JFK's
head, torso, and fists were frozen in position at Z225. The bullet
forced his head and upper torso down and forward into his fists.
It flung his elbows outward as though they were pivoting around his
fists and shoulders. Why?
Why didn't JFK duck or turn or shout after he was hit at Z189?
His mouth opened, but there is obviously no lip or mouth motion
between Z224 and the time of the fatal shots. When Governor John
Connally was hit, he screamed "like a stuck pig," said Jackie
Kennedy, and rolled to the floor of the car. One bullet went
completely through Connally, and he is alive today. If JFK had
been able to fall to the floor after the first, nonlethal bullet
hit him in the back, he might have lived, too. But he could not,
because the flechette's poison had paralyzed him. The people who
thought they heard JFK scream were imagining it.
The Timing of the Shots:
Some witnesses said they heard two volleys of shots separated by
a few seconds. The photographic evidence coupled with other
evidence shows there actually *were* two volleys of shots: The
first volley was timed between Z189, when the throat shot hit, and
Z237, when a shot hit Connally.[1] The back shot hit JFK at Z225.
The shots in this volley occurred over forty-eight frames, or about
two and a half seconds. If the Z189 shot is taken out, the other
two shots were separated by only twelve frames, or about a half-
second. The earliest overseas press reports, such as NZPA-AAP (New
Zealand Press Association) datelined Dallas, said, "Three bursts of
gunfire, apparently from automatic weapons, were heard." These
earliest reports had not been tampered with.
The second volley occurred at frames Z312 and Z313, nearly
simultaneously. The shot that missed could have also been fired at
about this same time (see photos #9 and 10).
The questions are:
Were there two volleys of shots, and if so, why?
How could shots fired from three or four widely separated
positions be timed so accurately? Keep in mind that the earliest
reports said "automatic weapons." On-the-spot witnesses heard
shots so closely timed that they reported them to be from automatic
weapons. This takes precision firing under control.
[1] The authors disagree on the timing of the Connally shot. Cutler
believes it was fired at Z223, Sprague at Z237, a difference of
less than a second. In either case, it was part of the first
volley and was a separate shot from the JFK back shot at Z225.
The Umbrella and The Umbrella Man (TUM):
Questions have always been raised about TUM (The Umbrella Man)
ever since Josiah Thompson and Richard Sprague discovered the open
umbrella in a series of photographs. Photo #13, a picture taken by
Phil Willis at Zapruder frame 202, shows TUM with open umbrella.
Photos #4, 5, and 6 (frames 224, 225, and 227 of Zapruder's film)
show the umbrella protruding from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.
Photo #14 (by Richard Bothun) [CAPTION READS: TA and TUM seconds
after shooting] shows TUM less than a minute after the shots,
sitting on the edge of the grass near his original position, with
another man seated next to him. The umbrella is lying on the
sidewalk. Photos #15 and 16 (by Wilma Bond) [CAPTIONS READ: TA at
left, casually walking down Elm Street. AND, TUM, folded umbrella
in hand, to right of sign.] show TUM a minute later, standing near t
he highway sign holding the umbrella.
The temperature was a cool and breezy 68 degrees F. The sky was
clear blue. No rain had fallen since early that morning. No
natural reason seemed to exist for a fairly young man to be holding
an open umbrella over his head while the President of the United
States was passing by, ten to fifteen feet away (see diagram of
relative positions of TUM and JFK). An examination of the
thousands of photographs taken during the Presidential procession
and in and around Dealey Plaza that day revealed not a single other
open umbrella.
Thompson and Sprague's speculations were that TUM was giving
visual signals--first to go ahead (opening umbrella), then to fire
a second round (raising umbrella). Afterward, the speculation
went, he stayed around to see whether anyone had noticed anything
about the actual shooters.
A closer analysis of the Zapruder film shows that TUM actually
raised and lowered the umbrella very rapidly--too rapidly to have
been a good signal for riflemen as far away as the Dal Tex building
and the grassy knoll (see photos #3, 4, 5, 6, 17 [CAPTION READS:
TA's arm raised at right front of limousene (Z228)]). Why did he
do this?
Analysis also shows that TUM actually rotated the umbrella.
This rotation appears in the original Zapruder film, including
frames up to Z236 that show the umbrella in the space between the
sprocket holes. Measurements of this rotation show that it tracks
JFK's position during his travel down Elm Street at this time
period. Why did TUM rotate the umbrella? If he were an observer,
he would turn his head, not the umbrella.
After the shooting, why did TUM sit down and then stand up,
within a few feet of his position in front of the Stemmons Freeway
sign, when everyone else in that vicinity ran or jumped away in the
direction of the grassy knoll? Everyone, that is, except one man
who sat down next to TUM. Who was he, and where was he when the
shots were fired, and what was he doing with TUM?
____________________________________________________________________
| |
| No natural reason seemed to exist for a fairly young |
| man to be holding an open umbrella over his head |
| while the President was passing by ten or fifteen |
| feet away. |
| |
| Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty of the Defense Department |
| witnessed a demonstration of the flechette-launching |
| weapon system in his office in Washington, D.C. in 1960. |
| Here is his description. |
| |
| |
| It was in my own office, in a part of the Office of the |
| Secretary of Defense, in the Pentagon in 1960 that I first |
| saw an early version of the weapon fired. On July 29, |
| 1960 I flew to Fort Detrick, Maryland by helicopter from |
| the Pentagon to see developments of this and other new |
| weapons at that top secret installation. I am able *from |
| personal and official experience* to support the Sprague- |
| Cutler thesis that an umbrella weapon was used as part of |
| the JFK murder plot. |
| The inventor of the flechette rocket was shown into my |
| office by a fellow staff member, and I was told that he |
| had something he wanted to demonstrate to the military to |
| see if it could be developed into some useful tactical |
| weapon system. In his hand he held several small plastic |
| tubes which looked to me like soda straws, about "thick |
| malt shake" size. Then he showed me a small plastic, |
| nylon perhaps, rocket. It was a perfectly shaped, |
| miniature rocket, complete with tail fins. Inside was a |
| tiny charge of propellant. |
| Then, without further introduction, the inventor |
| touched a button, and two tiny flechettes zipped out of |
| the "straws" and slammed into the thick soundproofing of |
| the wall across the office. Only their tail fins stuck |
| out from the wall, and the inventor said that it was a |
| good thing he had only a partial charge in them, because |
| they could easily have gone right through a normal wall |
| panel and acoustic board. |
| This early, unengineered weapon was shaped something |
| like a pistol with a flashlight-size chamber above the |
| grip. The inventor contemplated using about twenty-five |
| or thirty "straws" mounted together and fired all at once |
| or in clusters. This would give a buckshot impact and |
| more effective target coverage. I was impressed. |
| I called my boss' office and introduced the inventor. |
| Again we went through the demonstration. It was not long |
| before the weapon system was under top secret control and |
| was being worked on by some of the military specialists at |
| Fort Detrick. I heard about the development of the weapon |
| many times later, but I did not see it again until it was |
| exhibited at the Church Committee hearings. Shortly after |
| that, when I saw Cutler's first "Umbrella Man" book ("The |
| Umbrella Man: Evidence of Conspiracy"), published in |
| October 1975 and describing an "air-rifle" type umbrella |
| weapon, I wrote to him to explain that I thought it much |
| more likely that The Umbrella Man had used the rocket |
| flechette I had seen demonstrated. |
| It remained for Senseney's Church Committee testimony |
| to close the circle when he stated that he had developed |
| just such an umbrella weapon at the same place I had gone |
| with the earlier weapon---Fort Detrick. The rest of this |
| remarkable story is developed by Sprague and Cutler. |
| As you read this article, consider this: It is against |
| Secret Service directives for anyone to be permitted along |
| the route of the President carrying something as |
| conspicuous a weapon concealer as an umbrella. |
| Furthermore, it is abnormal for anyone standing close to |
| the President to open an umbrella in sunlight, raise it, |
| lower it, and maneuver it as this man did. Why was this |
| permitted by the Secret Service? Who had the power to |
| arrange that TUM not be apprehended with the umbrella |
| weapon that day? |
| Consider also that until the day of the JFK |
| assassination in 1963, there was *no place* that *anybody* |
| outside of the very small CIA and Special Forces group |
| (perhaps as many as twenty people) could get access to |
| that flechette-launching weapon system or anything like |
| it. |
| Someone had the power to ensure TUM's nonapprehension |
| and access to the weapon. That Person was the murderer. |
|__________________________________________________________________|
THE WEAPON SYSTEM:
The answers to all of these questions and the analysis of the
evidence must begin historically with the development of the weapon
system itself. There is no better way to describe it than to hear
about it from ex-CIA directors William Colby and Richard Helms and
weapon developer Charles Senseney. Here is their testimony before
the Church Committee on September 16 to 18, 1975, as published in
Volume One (1976) of that Committee's final report, under the
title, "Unauthorized Storage of Toxic Agents."
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1975. Testimony of William E. Colby,
director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Committee met at
10 A.M. in the Russell Building.
Present: Senators Church, Tower, Mondale, Huddleston, Morgan, Hart
of Colorado Baker, Goldwater, Mathias, and Schweiker. Also
present: William G. Miller, staff director, Frederick A. 0.
Schwarz, chief counsel, Curtis Smothers and Paul Michel, Committee
staff members.
Chairman Church: The particular case under examination today
involves the illegal possession of deadly biological poisons which
were retained within the CIA for five years after their destruction
was ordered by the President. . . . The main questions before the
Committee are why the poisons were developed in such quantities in
the first place: why the Presidential order was disobeyed; and
why such a serious act of insubordination could remain undetected
for so many years.
William Colby: The specific subject today concerns the CIA's
involvement in the development of bacteriological warfare materials
with the Army's Biological Laboratory at Fort Detrick, CIA's
retention of an amount of shellfish toxin, and CIA's use and
investigation of various chemicals and drugs. . . . Information
provided by him [a CIA officer not directly associated with the
project] and by two other officers aware of the project indicated
that the project at Fort Detrick involved the development of
bacteriological warfare agents--some lethal--and *associated
delivery systems suitable for clandestine use* [emphasis added].
The CIA relationship with the Special Operations Division at Fort
Detrick was formally established in May 1952.
The need for such capabilities was tied to earlier Office of
Strategic Services World War II experience, which included the
development of two different types of agent suicide pills to be
used in the event of capture and a successful operation using
biological warfare materials to incapacitate a Nazi leader
temporarily.
The primary Agency interest was in the development of
dissemination devices to be used with standard chemicals off the
shelf. Various dissemination devices such as a fountain pen dart
launcher appeared to be peculiarly suited for clandestine use. . .
. A large amount of Agency attention was given to the problem of
incapacitating guard dogs. Though most of the dart launchers were
developed for the Army, the Agency did request the development of a
small, hand-held dart launcher for its peculiar needs for this
purpose. Work was also done on temporary human incapacitation
techniques. These related to a desire to incapacitate captives
before they could render themselves incapable of talking, or
terrorists before they could take retaliatory action. [Or to
prevent guard dogs from barking.]
One such operation involved the penetration of a facility abroad
for intelligence collection. The compound was guarded by watchdogs
which made entry difficult even when it was empty. Darts were
delivered for the operation, but were not used.
Church: Have you brought with you some of those devices which
would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people?
Colby: We have indeed.
Church: Does this pistol fire the dart?
Colby: Yes it does, Mr. Chairman. The round thing at the top is
obviously the sight; the rest of it is what is practically a
normal .45, although it is a special. However, it works by
electricity. There is a battery in the handle, and it fires a
small dart. [self-propelled, like a rocket.]
Church: So that when it fires, it fires silently?
Colby: Almost silently; yes.
Church: What range does it have?
Colby: One hundred meters, I believe; about 100 yards, 100
meters.
Church: About 100 meters range?
Colby: Yes.
Church: And the dart itself, when it strikes the target, does the
target know that he has been hit and [is] about to die?
Colby: That depends, Mr. Chairman, on the particular dart used.
There are different kinds of these flechettes that were used in
various weapons systems, and a special one was developed which
potentially would be able to enter the target without perception.
Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved
designing a gun that could strike at a human target without
knowledge of the person who had been struck, but also the toxin
itself would not appear in the autopsy?
Colby: Well there was an attempt--
Church: Or the dart?
Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was
hit.
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1975. Richard Helms' testimony:
Huddleston: Mr. Helms, you said you were surprised, or that you
had never seen the dart gun that was displayed here yesterday.
Would you be surprised or shocked to learn that that gun, or one
like it, had been used by agents against either watchdogs or human
beings?
Helms: I would be surprised if it had been used against human
beings, but I'm not surprised it would have been used against
watchdogs. I believe there were various experiments conducted in
an effort to find out how one could either tranquilize or kill
guard dogs in foreign countries. That does not surprise me at all.
Huddleston: Do you know whether or not it was used, in fact,
against watchdogs? Helms: I believe there were experiments
conducted against dogs. Whether it was ever used in a live
operational situation against dogs, I do not recall.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1975. Testimony of Charles A. Senseney:
Senseney: I worked in the Biological Warfare Section of Fort
Detrick from 1953. . . . I was the project engineer of the M-1
dart launcher and following on microorganism projectiles and so
forth.
Smothers: Is this a device that looks roughly like a .45 caliber
pistol with a sight mount at the top?
Senseney: This was a follow-on. It was to replace the M-1
projectile to go into the Army stockpile. It did look like a .45.
Smothers: Did the CIA have, Mr. Senseney, the wherewithal to
utilize this dart launcher against humans?
Senseney: No, they asked for a modification to use against a dog.
Now, these were actually given to them, and they were actually
expended, because we got all of the hardware back. For a dog, the
projectile had to be made many times bigger. It was almost the
size of a .22 cartridge, but it carried a chemical compound known
as 46-40.
Smothers: And their interest was in dog incapacitation?
Senseney: Right
Baker: Your principle job with the DOD, I take it, was to develop
new or exotic devices and weapons: is that correct?
Senseney: I was a project engineer for the E-1, which was type
classified and became the M-1. They were done for the Army.
Baker: Did you have any other customers?
Senseney: To my knowledge, our only customer was Special Forces
and the CIA, I guess.
Baker: Special Forces meaning Special Forces of the Army?
Senseney: That is correct.
Baker: And the FBI?
Senseney: The FBI never used anything.
Baker: Looking at your previous executive session testimony,
apparently you developed for them a fountain pen. What did the
fountain pen do?
Senseney: The fountain pen was a variation of an M-1. An M-1 in
itself was a system, and it could be fired *from anything*
[emphasis added]. It could be put into--
Baker: Could it fire a dart or an aerosol or what?
Senseney: It was a dart.
Baker: It fired a dart . . . a starter, were you talking about a
fluorescent light starter?
Senseney: That is correct. Baker: What did it do?
Senseney: It put out an aerosol in the room when you put the
switch on.
Baker: What about a cane, a walking cane?
Senseney: Yes, an M-1 projectile could be fired from a cane; also
an umbrella.
Baker: Also an umbrella. What about a straight pin?
Senseney: Straight pin?
Baker: Yes, sir.
Senseney: We made a straight pin, out at the Branch. I did not
make it, but I know it was made, and it was used by one Mr. Powers
on his U-2 mission.
Huddleston: Were there frequent transfers of material between Dr.
Gordon's [a researcher at Fort Detrick] office and your office,
either the hardware or the toxin?
Senseney: The only frequent thing that changed hands was the dog
projectile and its loaders 46-40. This was done maybe five or six
in one quantity. And maybe six weeks to six months later, they
would bring those back and ask for five or six more. They would
bring them back expended, that is, they bring all of the hardware
except the projectile, okay?
Huddleston: Indicating that they have been used?
Senseney: Correct.
Huddleston: But it could have been used on a human being?
Senseney: There is no reason why it could not, I guess.
Schweiker: Mr. Senseney, I would like to read into the record
[from a CIA document] at this point a quote from paragraph nine
[exhibit 6, document 67]: "When funds permit, adaptation and
testing will be conducted of a new, highly effective disseminating
system which has been demonstrated to be capable of introducing
materials through light clothing, subcutaneously, intramuscularly,
and silently, without pain."
Now, I just have a little trouble, Mr. Senseney, reconciling
your answers in conjunction with this project, when the CIA
document makes clear that one of the very specific purposes of the
funding and the operation was to find a weapon that could penetrate
light clothing subcutaneously, which obviously means through the
skin, and intramuscularly, which obviously means through the
muscles of a person. And are you saying that you have absolutely
no recollection at all that tests or programs were designed to use
any of these devices to permeate clothing on people and not dogs?
Senseney: We put them on mannequins.
Schweiker: What's that?
Senseney: We put clothing on mannequins to see whether we could
penetrate it. These were the requirements. You almost read the
exact requirements that the SDR quoted from the Special Forces
there.
Schweiker: I would not expect you to test them on live human
beings. I would hope that you did use mannequins, Mr. Senseney.
Wouldn't that be directed toward people-usage, though? That is the
point we're trying to establish.
Senseney: That is what the Special Forces direction was. You have
to look at it this way. The Army program wanted this device. That
is the only thing that was delivered to them. It was a spin-off,
of course, from the M-1. The M- 1 was a lethal weapon, meant to
kill a person, for the Army. It was to be used in Vietnam. It
never got there, because we were not fast enough getting it into
the logistics system.
Schweiker: What was the most-utilized device of the ones with
which you worked and supervised?
Senseney: The only thing I know that was really used was the dog
projectile. The other things were in the stockpiles. I don't
think anyone ever requested them.
Schweiker: How do you know for certain it was for dogs?
Senseney: Well that is what they asked us to test them against.
They wanted to see whether they could put a dog to sleep, and
whether sometime later the dog would come back and be on its own
and look normal.
Schweiker: Of the devices that came through you, which of these
were utilized in any capacity other than for testing?
Senseney: That was the only one that I know of--the dog
projectile. I call it a dog projectile. We were developing it
because the scenario read that they wanted to be able to make
entrance into an area which was patrolled by dogs, leave, the dog
come back, and then no one would ever know they were in the area.
So that was the reason for the dog projectile.
Church: Thank you Senator Schweiker. I think it is clear that the
CIA was interested in the development of a delivery system that
could reach human beings, since not many dogs wear clothing. And
you would agree with that, wouldn't you?
Senseney: Yes.
Church: Okay.
Schwarz: Along the same line, I assume you must agree that
spending money in order to make darts of such a character that they
cannot be detected in an autopsy does not have much to do with
dogs?
Senseney: No, that would not have anything to do with dogs.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY:
In 1960, the CIA purchased from the Army at Fort Detrick, Maryland
a poison-dart weapon system, consisting of small flechette-type
projectiles, self-propelled by solid-state rocket fuel, and
launched by a series of devices, including umbrellas. The
flechettes were about 5mm in diameter and about an inch long. The
poisons carried were of two types. One was a lethal poison,
apparently used against enemies in Vietnam. The other was a
quick-acting, paralyzing poison that took effect in less than two
seconds and lasted for several hours. This was intended for use
against dogs guarding a secured enemy area. It had to cause
paralysis fast enough to prevent the dog from barking.
The flechette completely dissolved in the body, leaving no
trace, so that enemy agents would not be suspicious. The dogs
recovered after several hours and behaved as though nothing had
happened.
The launching devices did not have to be very accurately aimed
and fired, because the weapon was designed for close range. The
flechette could hit any part of the body of a dog or human and
still cause complete paralysis. The solid-state fuel was ignited
by completing an electrical circuit.
The umbrella used a battery-powered circuit. The battery and
trigger button were located in the handle of the umbrella. Wires
running up the shaft connected the button and battery to the
igniter, which was mounted on the shaft. The trigger button
activated the igniter, firing the solid propellant, which sent the
flechette through the rocket launcher--a straw-sized metal tube--to
its target.
WHAT HAPPENED IN DEALEY PLAZA?
Here is the way the assassination team used the weapon system to
kill JFK.
The Umbrella:
TUM took aim by sighting along the launcher and tracking JFK as he
moved down Elm Street. He continued to track JFK after firing the
flechette at Z189. He quickly raised and lowered the umbrella
after firing. This motion may have been caused by operating a
reloading mechanism in the umbrella to put a second flechette into
the firing position. It could also have been a signal to a
radioman accomplice to transmit a beep, calling for a second volley
of shots (see next section).
The flechette struck JFK in the throat at Z189, entering above
his collar, creating a 4mm entry wound and causing immediate
paralysis. The trajectory can be seen from photo #13 to have
cleared the edge of the limousine. The flechette was traveling at
an angle from the right front of the limousine, and it missed the
other occupants of the car. The paralysis took place in about one
and a half seconds, from Z189 to Z216. By Z224 (see photo #4),
JFK's arms, fists, head, and shoulders had been in a paralyzed
state for a half-second. The flechette made no noise when
launched, so that no one heard a shot at the time of Z189.
The flechette's momentum was small because it was extremely
lightweight. As a result, only a small transfer of momentum
occurred, driving JFK's head only slightly upward and backward.
This can be detected by a careful comparison of photos #1 and 2,
Z189 and Z190. JFK's right hand can be seen to remain in a fixed
position between these two frames (1/18 second) with respect to the
side of the car. His head moves up and back in comparison to his
hand or the car.
The Rifle Shots:
The first rifle shot was fired from the second floor of the Dal Tex
building. It struck JFK in the back, five and three-quarters
inches below his shirt-collar line, at frame Z225. Since JFK's
muscles were paralyzed, he was like a rigid, sitting duck target.
His head and upper torso were driven down and forward, and his
elbows were flung upward and outward, because no muscles would stop
a rotating elbow and arm motion pivoting around two frozen points-
-his fists and his shoulders. (Observe all of these points between
photos #5 and 6, Z225 and Z227--2/18 seconds apart.) If JFK had
been in a nonparalyzed state, the back shot would have knocked him
much farther forward and down.
The flechette dissolved in JFK's body, leaving no trace, except
for the small entrance wound in his neck. The poison would not
have shown up in the autopsy, even if tests for it had been made.
However, because there was no apparent reason to suspect poison, no
tests for it were made.
The Timing of the Shots and The Accomplice:
After Jim Hicks made his statement to Jim Garrison's investigators
in 1968 about being a radio coordinator for the firing team,
researchers were convinced that radio communications were used
between radiomen located near each of the riflemen and some central
coordinating transmitter.
Hicks appears at the center of the plaza on the south side of
Elm Street, near Houston Street. In the Zapruder film, he is seen
during the shooting with both hands showing, no radio transmitter
visible, and no other indication that he is doing anything but
observing at the time of the shots (photos #1, 2, and 3). Hicks'
real role was as the radio system supplier and tester. Later Hicks
shows up with the radio in his back pocket, walking down Elm Street
(see photo #18, taken by Willis [CAPTION READS: Hicks in light
jacket with radio in back pocket (Same as #13 above)]).
In 1977, Cutler, Sprague, and Sharrett discovered the real radio
coordinator in a series of photos. In photo #13 he appears with
raised hand, standing to the left of the Stemmons Freeway sign, on
the north curb of Elm Street. He is about twenty feet away from
TUM. Because his identity is unknown, he will be called TA (The
Accomplice) in this article. His raised hand appears in photos #4,
5, and 6. Early observations of his hand concluded he was waving
at the President. Closer analysis shows he was not waving. His
hand remains raised and motionless, except for a slight clenching.
TA can be seen sitting next to TUM in photo #14 and walking away
down Elm Street in photos #15 and 16. The radio can be seen in
photo #19, taken by Jim Towner [CAPTION READS: TA, radio in back
pocket, heading down Elm Street.], in TA's belt at the back, and
also in photos #14 and 15.
TA undoubtedly was using a button-type beeper transmission
technique for signaling all radiomen to have the riflemen shoot in
volleys. The button was in his raised hand. A wire connection to
the battery-powered transmitter was mounted on his belt at the
back. The first beep was transmitted as soon as TUM launched the
flechette. The second beep was transmitted a second or two ahead
of Z312. The first signal triggered rifle shots from the shooter
in the Dal Tex building and the shooter on the west end of the
sixth floor of the TSBD (Texas School Book Depository). The man on
the knoll did not have a clear shot at that time and did not fire.
The Dal Tex shot hit JFK in the back at Z225, and the TSBD shot hit
Connally at Z237.
Three shots were fired in the second volley--by the Dal Tex
rifleman, whose bullet narrowly missed JFK and hit the south curb
of Main Street; by the TSBD rifleman, whose shot struck JFK in the
head at Z312; and the man behind the fence on the grassy knoll,
who now had a clear path and fired the fatal shot. His bullet
struck JFK in the right temple and exploded at Z313. The fourth
rifleman was positioned right by the octagonal structure at the
west end of the semi-circular wall on the grassy knoll north. He
did not shoot, because the Stemmons Freeway sign and a tree were in
his way. He had a clear shot after the limousine had passed the
sign, but by then JFK was dead. He would have fired had the others
missed their target.
TA and TUM got together, for about two minutes, immediately
after the shots, probably to discuss the results and to observe any
police or Secret Service activity in the area (see photo #14).
Then they went in separate directions, up and down Elm Street (see
photos #15 and 16).
___________________________________________________________________
| |
| ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS: |
| The questions plaguing researchers can now be answered. |
| |
| |
| * The President's small throat wound was caused by a |
| small flechette. |
| |
| * The flechette dissolved, leaving no trace, |
| explaining why no bullet was found. |
| |
| * No bullet was fired from the grassy knoll at the |
| time of the first hit. TUM had a clear shot at Z189. |
| |
| * TUM's flechette was actually moving in a slightly |
| upward trajectory, explaining the backward and upward |
| motion of JFK's head between Z189 and Z190. |
| |
| * The flechette's small momentum explains why there |
| was no violent backward motion. |
| |
| * JFK's fists clenched and his head snapped to face |
| forward while his right hand snapped downward because |
| his muscles were paralyzed quickly by the poison. |
| |
| * The bullet at Z225 didn't knock JFK down, because |
| he was paralyzed. |
| |
| * The paralysis affected the muscles, fixing them in |
| position and preventing those portions of JFK's upper |
| body from moving when he was hit in the back. His |
| elbows were not fixed and were flung outward. |
| |
| * JFK did not make a sound, because his vocal cords |
| were paralyzed (see testimony). |
| |
| * There were definitely two separate volleys of |
| shots. Each of the four gunmen were prepared to |
| shoot twice upon radio coordinating commands. One |
| knoll gunman could not fire the first volley, because |
| of obstructions. The other did not fire at all. |
| |
| * All the questions about TUM and the umbrella are |
| answered by knowing he was using an intelligence |
| weapon system with umbrella launcher and flechette |
| dart. |
| |
| * Raising and lowering the umbrella was a signal to |
| TA for a radio beep to order a second volley. |
| |
| * The umbrella rotated because TUM was tracking JFK. |
| |
| * TUM and TA sat down together to assess what |
| happened. |
| |
| * TA was the radio coordinator and was standing |
| behind TUM, where he could see TUM's signal and |
| transmit a beep to the radiomen, ordering the first |
| volley. |
|_________________________________________________________________|
CONCLUSIONS:
What conclusions can be drawn from this analysis?
FIRST: Some higher-level individuals within the CIA furnished
one of their secret weapons systems to be used in the
assassination. It is doubtful that more than a very few
umbrella launchers were made for the CIA at Fort Detrick.
This may have been the principal reason for the CIA cover-up
that began on November 22, 1963.
SECOND: The degree of sophistication in such a complex
intelligence murder--including the planning for the paralysis,
the radio coordination, the firing positions creating a cross
fire in two volleys, gaining access to the buildings, setting
up a patsy (Oswald), and all of the other techniques used--
indicate that lower-level anti-Castro Cubans, or even Mafia
members, could not have pulled it off without CIA guidance and
supervision. Skill and intelligence training, plus detailed
management, were required from the only organization capable
of running such an operation.
THIRD: The Select Committee on Assassinations and the Senate
Intelligence Committee have a lot more interrogating to do.
They must question the people who designed the weapon system
and those who made it available to the assassination team.
Richard E. Sprague is currently a consultant to the Battelle
Institute, a think tank in Columbus, Ohio, and was formerly a
consultant to the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
He has written numerous books and articles, including the
self-published "The Taking of America 1-2-3."
Robert Cutler is an architect and a assassination researcher.
He has self-published five books on the Kennedy assassination,
the latest of which is "Seventy-six Seconds in Dealey Plaza."
****************************
Below Senator Church and Senator Towner..... with a flechette firing weapon..
The Church Committee ""referrs to the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church (D-ID) in 1975.""
Bill Number: SB 578
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/...9_enrolled.html
CABO Weapons List
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:zZ00Gw...ct=clnk&cd=
B...
****************************************************************
WELL HELLO AND HALLELUJAH!!!
THANK YOU, BERN! You old bean, you! Gotta love that gal!!! And, THANKS TO YOU TOO, PETE!
-
Anything written by Jim Hougan is time well spent, I am more than a little familiar with the topic & can add some quick notes.......Charles Willoughby when he was in Japan, appears to have had more than a passing familiarity with some of the Japanese Secret Societies....See American Shogun......
There is a linkage between David Ferrie and individuals whose names come up in regards to him.
See "The Bishop and the Boys" Peter Levenda's blog
http://sinisterforces.info/blog/index.php?...s-Part-One.html
Note: I cannot vouch for the accuracy of information contained regarding Levenda's work, but a quick perusal seems to be a thumb's up.......
From his website he has this link....
The Domestic Impact of Foreign Clandestine Operations: The CIA and Academic Institutions, the Media, and Religious Institutions, (Section X of the Church Report), p. 202
************************************************************
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.
-
Several key figures with important information on the JFK assassination have died from heart attacks. I believe that many of these, including David Morales, were murdered.
I suspect Morales and others were killed by the "carotid sleeper' method. The murderer stands behind the victim and closes off the carotid artery and therefore starves the brain of oxygen. If the victim is not in good physical condition, they will die of a heart attack within a few seconds. This method leaves little physical evidence that the person has been murdered.
However, sometimes, the person will be able to struggle for around 20 seconds before they die. If the police suspect that the victim had enemies they might organize a detailed autopsy. In that case, the police will discover the victim has died of strangulation rather than of a heart attack. This is what happened in the Bob Woolmer case.
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.
-
Wikipedia has already removed my statement from this page. I wonder if Jimmy Wales will be pleased with the publicity this case will get in the UK media?
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.
-
Several key figures with important information on the JFK assassination have died from heart attacks. I believe that many of these, including David Morales, were murdered.
I suspect Morales and others were killed by the "carotid sleeper' method. The murderer stands behind the victim and closes off the carotid artery and therefore starves the brain of oxygen. If the victim is not in good physical condition, they will die of a heart attack within a few seconds. This method leaves little physical evidence that the person has been murdered.
However, sometimes, the person will be able to struggle for around 20 seconds before they die. If the police suspect that the victim had enemies they might organize a detailed autopsy. In that case, the police will discover the victim has died of strangulation rather than of a heart attack. This is what happened in the Bob Woolmer case.
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.
-
Here's an extract from today's Wikipedia entry on LBJ:
Is this inaccurate?In January 1953, he was chosen by his fellow Democrats to be the minority leader. Thus, he became the youngest man ever named to the post. One of his first actions was to eliminate the seniority system in appointment to a committee, while retaining it in terms of chairmanships. The senate majority leader, Robert A. Taft of Ohio, died July 31, 1953. The Republicans elected William F. Knowland of California as new senate majority leader. In 1954, Johnson was re-elected to the Senate, and since the Democrats won the majority in the Senate, Johnson became majority leader.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 thought you might be interested in reading: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt on rollingstone.com.
I went out and bought the Issue 1022 March 22, 2007 issue, but no story.
No Pink Floyd. No New Clues to JFK murder.
Found it on line above. All BS except for the one paragraph where he connects the dots:
LBJ-Cord Meyer-William Havey-David Morlaes-David Atlee Phillips-Tony Vechina
What's Cord Meyer got to say about this?
BK
**************************************************************
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.
-
Obama is also not a threat to power. He is a Corporate firewall manufactured by corporate media, saying nothing specific, so that everyone can hear what they want to hear. His purpose it to divide the antiwar movement. He is a media op.
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.
-
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) died in a 3 year stretch--more than in all the time since. Of course, shortly afterwards LBJ had a heart attack of his own. Made me kinda wonder...
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?In January 1953, he was chosen by his fellow Democrats to be the minority leader. Thus, he became the youngest man ever named to the post. One of his first actions was to eliminate the seniority system in appointment to a committee, while retaining it in terms of chairmanships. The senate majority leader, Robert A. Taft of Ohio, died July 31, 1953. The Republicans elected William F. Knowland of California as new senate majority leader. In 1954, Johnson was re-elected to the Senate, and since the Democrats won the majority in the Senate, Johnson became majority leader.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.
-
Several key figures with important information on the JFK assassination have died from heart attacks. I believe that many of these, including David Morales, were murdered.
I suspect Morales and others were killed by the "carotid sleeper' method. The murderer stands behind the victim and closes off the carotid artery and therefore starves the brain of oxygen. If the victim is not in good physical condition, they will die of a heart attack within a few seconds. This method leaves little physical evidence that the person has been murdered.
However, sometimes, the person will be able to struggle for around 20 seconds before they die. If the police suspect that the victim had enemies they might organize a detailed autopsy. In that case, the police will discover the victim has died of strangulation rather than of a heart attack. This is what happened in the Bob Woolmer case.
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?
-
The finding of this document could be timed to coincide with the increased coverage of the RFK assassination. Shane O'Sullivan's Newsnight piece would have upset a few in Langley and D.C., perhaps this is a reprisal of sorts. John mentioned the fact that Talbot's book will be coming out soon. And of course the Dealey Plaza UK conference is this weekend, let us not forget that. The Australian press are obviously giving us something to talk about in the pub in Canterbury.
John
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.
-
The level of paranoia and conclusion-jumping in this thread is excruciating to read. A second story in the SMH answers most of the questions posed.
And of what relevance to his credibility is it that Mora is of "Jewish parentage"?
Briefly, at the time he found the document, Mora was researching for a proposed movie to be called Moral Relativity which he describes as a historical thriller.
Since he also does occasional pieces for the SMH, he did what any reporter would do; he filed a story on what he believed was a never-before seen document.
He admits it sounds like the worst tabloid fare. His problem is that despite claiming a lot of experience in document reading, he seems to misunderstand the culture of Hoover's FBI - putting way too much weight on its level of classification and dissemination.
He also gets one or two facts wrong, most notably that RFK gave blanket permission for wiretaps.
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.
**********************************************************
"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.
-
Someone mentioned another book by this author on another thread, so I looked him up. He has also written a book on the corporate media and how it handled the Assassination. I don't think I have seen much mention of him on the forum until now.
Has anyone read this book? Do you know what specific macro economic policies the author focuses on? Do you recommend the book?
So far as macro-economic stuff mostly what I know is of Kennedy's desire to repeal the oil depletion allowance. I am very interested in knowing of other ways in which he may have challenged the Wall Street consensus re: tax policy and other questions concerning economic issues that might seriously effect the distrubution of wealth.
--------
Book Description
More than thirty years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the meaning and the legacy of his presidency are as much the subject of controversy as are the facts of his murder. Was JFK a tool of the Eastern Establishment - of the corporate and banking elites - or was he their bitterest enemy? Did his policies - domestic and international, implemented and unfulfilledserve to continue the domination of the powers-that-be, or did he attempt, and in many cases effect, a break with America's aristocracy? In this intriguing and penetrating analysis, Don Gibson does not simply replay the standard commentaries on the Kennedy presidency, many of which are ill-informed, even if well-meaning. Gibson looks at what JFK himself said, wrote, and did, contrasting that with the words and actions of his enemies-the Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, and the corporate and banking magnates themselves, who, as this book shows, truly despised the President. The current conventional wisdom depicts Kennedy as a cautious, even a conservative president, a Tory Democrat committed to the status quo and to the Establishment. But this book makes a compelling case to the contrary, suggesting that President Kennedy was always willing to do battle for his policies, even in the face of vicious attacks.
With its clear and lively style, this book is a revelation to the general reader and to the specialist. It also contains strikingly original insights into environmental elitism. It adds a new and important dimension to the ongoing debate over the Kennedy presidency. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
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.
Bobby, Marilyn and Jack
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
*************************************************************
"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
+