Terry Mauro

How does busting up that international cartel of bankers and their financial houses, also known as, The Federal Reserve, sound to you? I believe when Bill Clinton had plans of a similar dismantling, or at best, an attempt to disempower this group of usurers, is about the same time that Whitewatergate and Monicagate was initiated into the public's apperceptive mass. How could they possibly pull off another physical assassination of a president after JFK, except to resort to an all-out character assassination, instead? State of the art for the 21st Century. There were alot of factors involved, as many entities felt threatened by JFK's plans to run the country as it was meant to be; of the people, by the people, and with a leader of the same mind as Lincoln and FDR. He was also opening dialogue for disarmaments with Kruschev, and his American University commencement speech made in June of 1963 was one that Kruschev admired and made a requirement for all Russian university students to study. It spoke of hope that both powers might come to a peaceful accord and work together for the good of mankind and for the future generations of the earth. There was also talk of a meeting being planned to take place with Castro in the hope of opening a new dialogue with both Cuba and the USSR. These were the very aspects abhorred and feared by the fascist elements surrounding the M.I.C., as well as the loss of those gambling casinos belonging to the same people who helped JFK get elected. But, those casino owners were actually the long-time associates of Old Joe from his rum-running days during the Prohibition Era. And, old contacts are hard to shake when they've felt their investment has seemingly turned the tables on them. There are also RFK's enemies that need to be taken into consideration, as he was not well-liked on the hill by Hoover. His prior senate rackets investigations into gangland's Murder, Inc. afiliations, didn't win him friends, nor influence for those very people who helped get his brother elected, either. The godfathers had also sent their sons to the same Ivy League institutes of higher learning that Old Joe had sent his progeny, in an attempt to one day legalize their money-laundering and off-track betting rooms into those of a legitimate business front. Hence, the Teamsters, and Long Shoremens unions were brought into line when the docks and transportation of goods came under the auspices of the new generation of families. JFK was also an astute negotiator with the union bosses, which did not sit well with corporate America, who sought to bust up the unions and bring them to their knees, which was the eventual outcome that exists today. You see, from what I've read and observed regarding this "changing of the guard" that took place that day in Dallas, is that this country's future, along with its constitution, and basic premise for existence, has been usurped by this global monetary cartel. These financial barons are at the top of the scale when it comes to the pecking order of underlings, such as oil, minerals, pork bellies, future commodities, and so forth. These financial houses could not allow some idealistic upstart, such as JFK, to dismantle their poweful stranglehold on the world's finances. Everything would fall like a "house of cards", or in a domino effect, forever altering this scheme of a few monied houses, and their control over the world, and its minions. That's a pretty powerful incentive for planning and carrying out the assassination of a president possessing the attractive charisma and youthful following such as JFK had. There were alot of money, industrial, oil, and military contracts at stake had JFK been allowed to change the financial infrastructure set up by the privileged five-percenters in the human food chain. That's my opinion FWIW, and it has its flaws, but that is the way I observed it from my perspective.

That may have all been well and good for that article to state, but what the M.I.C. forgot about was "We the people...", in their arrogant assumption that WE wanted to be in somebody else's damned war. I remember my fiance, who had just completed his aviation mechanics school, getting his "Greetings" from the draft board. He opted to join the Navy, instead. But, what I couldn't understand was, where this place called Laos was, and when did they attack us? Why did our guys have to go over to a place nobody'd ever heard of, especially if they hadn't openly attacked the U.S., or any U.S. territories. In my eighteen year old mind, it would have had to have been something on the scale of a Pearl Harbor for them to be sending our guys over there to fight. I guess what I'm trying to say is when my generation came of age, we had been promised a world where we wouldn't have to go through what our fathers did in WW II, yet we still had to grow up with the Hydrogen and Atomic bombs hanging over our heads, and Sputnik spying down on us. Now, I can only speak for myself when I say that I was pretty damned fed up with all this talk of war, let alone the thought of losing my brothers, friends, and fiance over some rice paddy I couldn't hardly find on a map. And, when I did finally locate it, I figured it had already belonged to the Soviets, anyway. After reading about it, and finding out that it had really been a colony of France for 200 years, I thought they should be given their freedom to do what they wanted, and if it meant going with Russia or China, so what! If the French couldn't take care of it, maybe the folks over there didn't want to be taken care of by them, either. So be it. I was very young and idealistic. But, I knew Kennedy had our better interests at heart and figured it would all be taken care of by Christmas, it seemed like such waste of time that I truly believed it wouldn't amount to another WW II. Then, when they killed him, like a sitting duck, and then tried to pass off that poor excuse of a single bullet six months later, I knew our own government was lying to us. And, when they told us they were going to "escalate", the war in what they now referred to as Viet Nam, I never regained faith in any leader, or any sorry excuse for a leader, they'd attempt to placate us with, ever again. Why? Because they lied to us then, and they continue to lie to us now, forty years after the fact.

I must tell you that I was 6 years old in 1951 when the Rosenbergs first came to my attention via the newspaper accounts of their indictments and trials, plus the various accounts broadcasted on the 6:00 TV news broadcasts of NBC and CBS, at the time. But, what eventually began to traumatize me was the New York Daily News' vivid, blow by blow report, of what I'd consider today to be sensationalized and biased journalistic license. During that era, there was a zealous form of blood-thirstiness permeating every form of information distribution to the American public. No media affiliate gave an objective perspective of what was really going on except maybe, the NY Times, but even they were cautious as to how they should temper their reportage with anti-communist hyperbole. "They got what they deserved.", and so forth. I was overwrought at the thought of their execution, so much so, that my mother forbid my father to leave any newspapers around that, too literally, played up the sentencing and executions. I was distraught for the two sons, and who was going to take care of them. The overkill of the whole media circus atmosphere surrounding it disturbed my sleep with too many nightmares for someone my age. My father would chide me about being overly sensitive for such a little girl, but when I cried for the children and explained how I would feel if I was in their shoes, he later regretted having allowed the exposure to the event enter into our daily lives to the extent that it was distressing me to this point. But, it wasn't totally his fault because with the coming age of television, there was very little anyone could do to avoid the intrusion of unpleasant events into their lives via the 6:00 News broadcasts, short of turning it off. Too many people were mesmerized by their TV sets to ever think of doing just that. I find this a problem today, with the trash being consumed by the masses, especially the tripe broadcasted between channels 2 through 13 via the U.S.A. and its broadcasting hype giants. We even had the Vietnam War served to us with the our dinner on the 6:00 evening news, for the first time and "IN LIVING COLOR", by the NBC Peacock during that siege in the 60's and 70's. Now we have Iraq, and beheadings, and hanging, burning bodies. Therefore, is it any wonder that I find myself turning away from what I now refer to as, the broadcast of "The Daily Blues". I prefer to get my news from the foreign news services these days. How's that for progress and ingenuity? And, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out, either. LOL http://foia.fbi.gov/roberg.htm

Yes, there sure was alot going on at that time. The missile crisis really scared the h-e-double-toothpicks out of alot of folks. Remember, people were building fall- out shelters in their backyards during the latter part of Eisenhower's last term in office. As children in elementary and high school, besides the requisite fire drill, we also went through air raid drills, where we had to sit under our desks at the sound of the siren, every Friday morning at 09:30. I had always been an avid reader on all things Nuclear from the time I began to understand what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So, it always seemed insane, in my little mind, while participating in these drills, especially after having viewed the test films taken at Yucca Flats, NV and White Sands, NM, which were shown on TV every so often. Well, I just couldn't understand how the teachers and the Principal could think that by having us crouch under our desks, that we'd somehow be protected from a thermo-nuclear blast! I even knew, at the tender age of 9, that you needed to be at least 25 miles away, from what we now refer to as ground zero, in order to stand a chance of minimally surviving a bomb similar to the ones they were testing at Bikini Atoll, in the Pacific Ocean. And, they were talking about 100 Megatons, a much larger load than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. I remember Kennedy questioning the reasoning behind this race to keep building these nuclear warheads, when "we already had enough to blow up the Earth seven times over". He wanted an end to Above Ground Testing because he stated that he had children to raise, and didn't appreciate the idea of fall-out raining down on their heads into perpetuity. He may have been a Cold Warrior, by some peoples' standards, but he realized the ramifications of unbridled atmospheric testing. His misgivings about it, surely didn't help him to win friends and influence people in the MIC. Therefore, when this Cuban Missile Crisis took place we took it very seriously. Though, I was not surprised to find out that Kennedy was planning on opening communications with Castro after this happened initially, because of Kennedy's concerns regarding the future generations of this planet. And, even though the propaganda mills liked to play up the differences between Kennedy and Kruschev, little mention did they make of the "red phone" set up between Moscow and D.C., and then, only after the fact. And, throughout his tenure as leader of the U.S.S.R., Premiere Kruschev made Kennedy's speech to the commencement class at the American University in June 1963, a mandatory requirement for the political science classes in Russia's universities. This, I recognized as an "olive branch" being extended by the Soviet Premiere to Kennedy, and I feel that had JFK been allowed to enter a second term as President of the United States, we would have seen an end to the Vietnam conflict, the end of the Federal Reserve Bank and its strangle-hold on America's middle and poorer classes, and the re-structuring of the intelligence community, as well as the Military Industrial Complex, Eisenhower had warned Kennedy about. But, what's really dismaying about the whole thing is how the upper 5 percent have been allowed to take over our government through the aiding and abetting of the major entertainment and news media services and outlets, who've been allowed to participate in the largest scaled psy-ops ever perpetrated on a mass of humanity, in history. And, the irony of it is, the majority of folks don't even realize what has happened, nor what continues to happen on a daily basis, through their own televisions via cable, or the commercial airwaves. "Who'd have thunk it?" Straight out of George Orwell.

The study of history is always about the present and not the past. Historians help us understand the situation we find ourselves in. It is because we need to understand the situation in Iraq today that we need to study events like the assassination of JFK. Here are a few quotations that make this very important point: “The aim of the historian, like that of the artist, is to enlarge our picture of the world, to give us a new way of looking at things.” (James Joll) “The disadvantage of men not knowing the past is that they do not know the present.” (G. K. Chesterton) “Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe” (H. G. Wells) “More history is made by secret handshakes than by battles, bills and proclamations.” (John Barth) “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (George Santayana) “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.” (Voltaire) Over the last few years I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to understand current events without understanding our “secret history”. Since the emergence of democracy and the mass media it has become vitally important for those in power to hide certain information from the public. The intelligence services have played a very important part in this attempt to conceal this information from the public. So much so that they have become an important political force. In fact, they have become a crucial aspect of what Dwight Eisenhower called in January, 1961 the military-industrial complex. I am afraid most of the general public have not grasped this point and still believe the information provided by the government. I think there are psychological reasons for this desire to believe that our government tells us the truth. If the government is using the intelligence services to manipulate the truth, do we actually live in a democracy? The war in Iraq is a good example of this. Blair would never had been able to order troops into Iraq if the British people had the full facts about WMD. Anybody who has spent anytime at all in studying this issue will be aware that MI5 and MI6 worked closely with the Blair government to conceal the truth about WMD. The CIA and FBI did similar things in the United States. In most cases the security services work in the interests of the government of the day. However, on occasions, these organizations have worked independently of the government. In some cases, they have followed a policy that has attempted to undermine the government. For example, we now have evidence that this happened in Britain during the governments of Ramsay MacDonald (1923-24) and Harold Wilson (1964-70) and (1974-76). It is clear that a similar thing was going on during 1962-63 in America. This resulted in the assassination of the democratically elected president. To my mind you could not have a more important event to study. Not because it is vitally important to find out who fired the actual shots. The most important aspect of this case is to find out who ordered this assassination and who was involved in covering it up. Until this is done the CIA and the FBI will not be brought under democratic control. The same is true in Britain. MI5 and MI6 and our corrupt government will not be brought under control until we find out the full facts about how they manipulated public opinion over WMD in Iraq. "I am afraid most of the general public have not grasped this point and still believe the information provided by the government. I think there are psychological reasons for this desire to believe that our government tells us the truth. If the government is using the intelligence services to manipulate the truth, do we actually live in a democracy?" Thank you, John. I think you hit the nail on the head with that paragraph. It sure has away of putting those of us who chose to question the Warren Report when it was first released, at loggerheads with, dare I say, with the majority who chose to accept the government's word, regardless of the discrepancies that I, for one observed to be totally inaccurate, especially the supposed trajectory of that bullet of Spector's. And, I was only 19 years old at the time. This only served to make me feel betrayed, or insecure in the fact that some people who were supposed to be our leaders, or protectors, would try to pass off this blatantly false, albeit ridiculous statement as if it were fact. I no longer trusted my government to be out for the general well-being of its citizens, and the escalation of the Viet Nam War, only went to seal my distrust for the rest of my life. Until this government comes clean with what happened November 22, 1963, this country will forever be wearing blinders, and continue to bungle its way through the rest of the 21st Century until some other, more brutal form of government levels it, because that will be the eventual outcome, just like in Nazi Germany, which is how I equate the present regime in Washington, D.C.

Granata was not a player at all, never said he was. But that seems to be a problem with many commentators: Lack of information does not inhibit them to form and advocate an opinion. Yes, they were small players, if you are of the opinion that the shooters and operatives were small players. I'd be curious to learn what exactly the "hearsay" would be? Did Files hear it say for example that Ruby met with Johnny Roselli in a pancake house in Ft. Worth on the early morning of 11/22/1963? Or did he just make that part up in violation of the general consencus on Ruby's whereabouts, despite of the allegation that Files must have studied the case well? Did he hear that Oswald took a leave from work every day in the week of the assassination, again in violation of the general consencus? Did he hear that a shell casing with dentmarks had been found on the grassy knoll? If so, from whom? Who told him the mark was a dentmark and how could that person have known it was a dentmark? Did he hear that a guy of whom he has a picture, actually killed Tippit? Is this guy dead? Do you have a reason why this man or his family have not come forward to deny Files' hearsay? Or do you think he or his family have never been informed about that picture? Did Files spin his tale around those of Plumlee and Holt? Or are they Holt and Plumlee in on the Jimmy's sham? Was Files tortured to near death for Nicoletti's diary as Files say? Or was this just a mob thing? If so, why was he not killed? Why did the New Orleans authorities want to speak with James Files about the death of David Ferrie? Why did Seymour Hersh want to speak to James Files? Okay, the last two are a little unfair on my part, since you didn't know that yet. Wim Let me say this about that, Wim. It's not the shooters per se, who I consider to be the heavy hitters here. The shooters could have been any mercenary, hot-shot, contracted agents, IMHO. I'm after the higher eschelon who made the deal, contracted the killers for hire, and paid for the coup to go down the way it did. And, I'm not referring to the already theorized and hypothecized oil barons, Wall Street financial houses, and/or bottom feeders. I'm talking about the chess players above the Rockefellers, above the Rothschilds, whom BTW, I consider to be mere lackeys to the orchestration of what went down in Dallas. No, I truly believe there are those whose names are never going to roll off the tongues of any investigator of this crime, for the world to be privy to their identities, because they are the true barons controlling the world's economy to their own advantage. JFK's first mistake was to try and smash their lieutenants and legal cartels by busting up their "so-called" Federal Reserve club of international money-changers, and firing their lapdog, Allen Dulles. But, this was still only at the bottom-feeder level. I seriously doubt that JFK actually knew what forces he was up against. And, although I'd love to see this crime solved in order that this country finally be allowed closure on it, I don't believe the true players who set this thing in motion, will ever be held accountable for his murder. They have too much collateral and power that goes beyond any idealogy set up two hundred years ago, and by which Americans have been brainwashed into believing. There is no Santa Claus, Virginia. And, there hasn't been one since Lincoln, FDR, JFK, MLK, or RFK. So, what are you going to do about it?

Wim - 1. No, I am not still allied with Rich, and haven't been for over a year now. 2. Chauncey Holt, Tosh Plumlee, James Files, and Granata, IMHO, had they been players in the assassination, were more than likely small ones. 3. There were many variables at work that day in Dallas, with a myriad of interconnecting liabilities to deal with. If these people were actually involved, why are they still alive today to talk about it? Are they seeking immunity from the law, by somehow coming out to admit their collaboration in this egregious act? I need more hard evidence than supposed hearsay, which is what I'm picking up from their stories. Yes, I believe they were/are involved in covert operations, but what they had to do directly with the JFK assassination seems to be more on the fringe of what actually happened than directly related to it, if that. Sorry, but this always seemed to take the people trying to do research on a wild goose chase, if I remember correctly, with no one ever giving a straight answer, or getting their whole story out without them having to take off for parts unknown. Maybe someday, but I'm not holding my breath.

And, you obviously didn't catch the sarcasm in my reply to you, either. As I was actually mocking the fact that we're supposed to be living in a democratic republic, when that is one of the furthest things from the truth. I agree to disagree with one of your opinions, which have to do with your frequent referrals to James Files. But, you are entitled to your own ideas, as I am entitled to not putting too much endorsement into the James Files story. Other than that, I can pretty much understand where you're coming from.

I think this is one of the finer sites set up for the study of the assassination. I especially appreciate the way you've set up the names of the witnesses, investigators, perps, and committees within easy access for those who wish to refresh their memories as to who, what, when, where, and how. I think you've chosen an outstanding expert in James Richards to help set up the photo archives. Way to go, guys!

"The distance isn't really as far as some people think from that overpass to the RR yard. The photos and assassination films makes the distance look further away than it really is to the naked eye." Yes, I was surprized to find how small Dealey Plaza really is compared to the perception one gets from viewing the photos of the area. And, as far as Ed Hoffman being given misinformation regarding his request to take a lie detector test after the assassination: I'm not at all surprized at the dragging of feet being demonstrated by those who misinformed him. It only served for the allowance of more time to pass, and for Hoffman to eventually develope a heart condition, as most people do as they age. This would, as you pointed out, render the the option of a polygraph's test results to be considered as insurmissable due to the medications he was now required to take in order to maintain stasis. Too bad, especially nowadays when the requisite attention to detail is all the more tantamount with maintaining one's credibility.

And, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and the freedom to be able to express them in civilized discourse. That's one of the attributes of a true democratic republic, wouldn't you say?

That is an excellent point you bring up regarding the acuity of the senses when one of them is compromised. It is common knowledge that a blind person's hearing is substantially more acute than that of a person who has all of his faculties intact. Consequently, the same can be expected of a deaf person's visual acuity as opposed to someone with their senses uncompromised, unless of course they had been diagnosed with myopia as a child. In this case, we have Ed Hoffman not needing glasses, and most likely wouldn't need them until later in life, and then only if presbyopia became an issue as it sometimes does in middle age, IMHO.

Which only goes to show you that G. Dubya has an I.Q. of only 11 points above that of a moron, which is ranked at 80. Although, I had read somewhere else that his I.Q. was only 90, but that was a couple of years ago. At any rate, still as unimpressive as his father's, and both at the bottom of the barrel to boot. Money can buy you anything!

Rush to Judgement Accessories After the Fact Best Evidence The Secret Team On The Trail of The Assassins Plausible Denial Murder In Dealey Plaza The Whitewash Series Never Again Deep Politics The Man Who Knew Too Much