John Simkin

Covering the Body, by Barbie Zelizer.

http://www.amazon.co...k assassination

Thank you. I have ordered the book.

The Kennedy family was friendly with Joe McCarthy. McCarthy dated one of JFK's sisters. Both JFK and RFK worshiped their father, and although they never shared his right-wing politics, they respected his views and usually followed his advice. Thus, it wasn't surprising that a young Robert Kennedy was given a big break by joining McCarthy's Senate committee. It also wasn't surprising to find JFK torn over how to respond to McCarthy by 1959, given his loyalty to his father.

During McCarthy's last few years, he had become a figure reviled by virtually the entire establishment. It would actually probably have been more politically expedient for JFK to publicly renounce him at that point. I seriously doubt that either of the Kennedy brothers ever shared McCarthy's ideology. However, they certainly must have felt some loyalty towards someone who was a family friend.

So refusing to denounce McCarthy was evidence of JFK's integrity? Kennedy was generally a good person especially at the end of his presidency but this was not one of his shining moments. And '1959' McCarthy died in '57 and was censured in '54. 'It would NOT have been more politically expedient for JFK to publicly renounce him at that point.'

I am sure that if JFK had denounced McCarthyism in 1960 he would have been defeated as Nixon would have described him as sympathetic to communism. It has to be remembered that the blacklist was still in operation in 1960 and virtually all journalists, screenwriters on the left were denied access to the mainstream media. That is one of the reasons why it was so easy for the media to cover-up the JFK assassination.

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She reduced altitude and spotted a man below. She descended a bit more and shouted: 'Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago but I don't know where I am..'

The man below replied, 'You're in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground. You're between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude.'

'You must be an Engineer,' said the balloonist.

'I am,' replied the man, 'how did you know?'

'Well,' answered the balloonist, 'everything you have told me is probably technically correct, but I've no idea what to make of your information and the fact is, I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help at all. If anything, you've delayed my trip by your talk.'

The man below responded, 'You must be in Management.'

'I am,' replied the balloonist, 'but how did you know?'

'Well,' said the man, 'you don't know where you are or where you're going. You have risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise, which you've no idea how to keep, and you expect people beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault.'

Thank you for that Robert.

Does anyone know of a good book that covers the way the media reported the JFK assassination and the publication of the Warren Commission?

I recently came across an interesting story about the media and the JFK assassination. When the publishers were preparing Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment for the printers they sent the manuscript to Rex Stout. In 1965 Stout was an important figure in publishing. Stout's Nero Wolfe novels were extremely popular at the time. He was also the leader of the pressure group, the Authors League of America. Wolfe was one of the few writers in the US to come out as someone who suspected that a conspiracy had taken place. Stout knew about these things as he had a long background in military intelligence. An outspoken critic of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s he had been recruited by British Intelligence in 1940. He joined other American anti-fascist journalists such as Ed Murrow, John Gunter, Dorothy Thompson, Freda Kirchwey, Raymond Gram Swing, Edgar Ansel Mowrer, Leonard Lyons, William Shirer, Walter Winchell, George Seldes, William Allen White, Joseph Alsop, Herbert Agar, Geoffrey Parsons, Ralph Ingersoll, Elmer Davis, Ernest Angell and Carl Joachim Friedrich in helping the British cause.

In April 1941, the British Security Coordination (BSC) asked Stout and another agent, Allen W. Dulles, to establish the pro-intervention Fight for Freedom (FFF) group. This included a dirty tricks campaign against the America First Committee. When the USA came into the war after Pearl Harbor, this group of journalists were handed over to the OSS. In 1947 they came under the control of the CIA.

Stout and Seldes were about the only two who refused to accept the benefits of being protected by the CIA. They were outspoken critics of the CIA and FBI (Stouts FBI file was massive).

Stout was someone who had grave doubts about the Warren Commission Report and that is why the publisher sent him a copy of Rush to Judgment. He liked the book and agreed to write something for the book cover. As a result he came under attack from several people, including George Field, who was one of the intelligence figures who worked with Stout for the Fight for Freedom group. Field condemned Stout for promoting a book that was "undermining confidence in our democratic processes". Stout replied: "If the devil himself writes a book, and the publisher sends me an advance copy, asking for a quotable comment if I think it deserves one, and I read it and find it is a good job, I shall certainly say so. Also I regard Rush to Judgment as a useful contribution to a necessary controversy."

During the 1950s and 1960s Stout was involved in a running battle with Hoover. He went public about Hoover after he described Martin Luther King as the "biggest xxxx in the world". Stout said that: "Hoover is a megalomaniac, although I detest that word. He appears totally egocentric, and in addition to other things he is narrow-minded. I think his whole attitude makes him an enemy of democracy... I think he is on the edge of senility."

Stout decided to take on Hoover in his 1965 novel, The Doorbell Rang. The novel concerns the publication of The FBI Nobody Knows (1964) by Fred J. Cook. In the novel, the wealthy Mrs. Rachel Bruner buys 10,000 copies of Cook's book and sends them to persons of influence, including cabinet members, Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and heads of corporations. Bruner believes that as a result of her actions she is being persecuted by the FBI and employs Nero Wolfe to investigate the organization. Hoover was furious about what Stout said about him in the novel but was unable to do anything about it.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAstout.htm

I do think conspiracy theories are dangerous--but not because they cause people to question "officialdom."

I think they're dangerous because they are equal opportunity employers. The right claims the commies killed Kennedy. The left claims the right killed Kennedy. The right then claims the left railroaded Nixon. The left then claims the CIA railroaded Nixon, on behalf the right. The left then claims Reagan and Bush are murderers. The right then claims Clinton was a murderer. And so on. And so on.

The net effect, then, is of conflicting theories, which allow those interested in these theories to pick whichever one floats their boat, and claim it as the one great truth.

One of the reasons why so many people believe in the JFK assassination conspiracy is that it is open-ended enough to include anyone across the political spectrum. Whatever your political orientation, you can find some sort of evidence that your own political enemies were involved. Therefore there is something for everyone and different conspiracy theories appeal to different political groups: right-wing (Soviets, Castro), left-wing (oil millionaires), Republicans (Lyndon B. Johnson), Democrats (George Bush), racists (Jews), pacifists (Military Industrial Congress Complex), libertarians (CIA or FBI), etc. If you are completely non-political you can always opt for the Mafia.

Eisenhower made his last speech as president on the subject of the Military Industrial Congress Complex in 17th January, 1961. Probably the most controversial speech of his career he gave the American people a serious warning about the situation that faced them: The speech was written by two of Eisenhower’s advisers, Malcolm Moos and Ralph E. Williams. However, this was not the speech they had written. Eisenhower had made some important changes to the original draft. For example, Eisenhower’s speech is a warning about the future. He does not explain how he dealt with this problem during his presidency. After all, Eisenhower gave important posts to John McCone and Robert Anderson, two key figures in the “Military-Industrial Complex”. He was also the president who succumbed to the pressures of Tommy Corcoran to order the CIA to work with United Fruit in the overthrow of democratically elected government of President Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954. Eisenhower also encouraged and benefited from the activities of Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. It was this fanatical anti-communism that fueled Cold War tensions and stimulated the arms race that was such an important ingredient in the development of the “Military-Industrial Complex”.

Another important aspect of the speech is that Eisenhower does not mention the role of politicians in this problem. This is strange as it was only through politicians that the military and the business community got what they wanted. This was one aspect of the speech that Eisenhower changed. In the original draft, Moos and Williams had used the phrase, the “Military-Industrial Congressional Complex”. This is of course a more accurate description of this relationship. However, to use the term “Congressional” would have highlighted the corruption that was taking place in the United States and illustrated the role played by Eisenhower in this scandal.

In 1961 Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson began reporting on Eisenhower taking money from the oil industry. Eisenhower did not take legal action against the journalists and the story did not receive very much publicity. In 1968 Pearson and Anderson returned to the topic in their book, The Case Against Congress (1968). "On January 19, 1961, one day before he left the White House, Eisenhower signed a procedural instruction on the importation of residual oil that required all importers to move over and sacrifice 15 percent of their quotas to newcomers who wanted a share of the action. One of the major beneficiaries of this last-minute executive order happened to be Cities Service, which had had no residual quota till that time but which under Ike's new order was allotted about 3,000 barrels a day. The chief executive of Cities Service was W. Alton Jones, one of the three faithful contributors to the upkeep of the Eisenhower farm."

The authors went on to claim that hree months later, W. Alton Jones was flying to Palm Springs to visit Eisenhower when his plane crashed: "Jones was killed. In his briefcase was found $61,000 in cash and travelers' checks. No explanation was ever offered - in fact none was ever asked for by the complacent American press - as to why the head of one of the leading oil companies of America was flying to see the ex-President of the United States with $61,000 in his briefcase."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAeisenhower.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmicc.htm

John, I can't imagine the amount of effort, imagination and dedication required to found, expand and maintain Spartacus.

You have provided a valuable and free historical resource. Any undertaking like this would surely contain some errors and omissions,

but I think you have always taken positive steps to improve accuracy and completeness.

You know the content of Spartacus better than anyone. Do you yourself have any suggestions for specific subjects or general areas

that might need review for possible updating?

Greg Parker and Tom Scully have both made recent attacks on me for not being more critical of journalists or reporters who have written about JFK's relationship with women. For example, C. David Heymann. I have also been criticised for accepting Peter Janney's account of JFK's relationship with Mary Pinchot Meyer. Although I am not willing to remove these claims I am willing to add to these pages alternative points of view so the reader can make up their own mind.

If people send me their "edits" I suggest that they also post them on the Forum so they can see what I do and do not accept.

As Gordon Novel died last night it might be worth returning to this thread.

In an interview in 2006 Novel rejected the claims that he was a CIA agent: "I’m not a CIA agent. I’m affiliated, I work with, and we have a mutual admiration society based upon my relationship with the individuals I work with.... The CIA has multiple sides but it’s been my experience over the years that they’re basically the only good guys in the entire United States government. They’re really patriots. Most of ‘em are patriots and I’ve never known... I personally have never known them to do anything criminal, ever. And they didn’t kill John Kennedy and they didn’t kill a lot of people that they’ve been accused of causing the death of but I don’t know that to be true. So I can tell you that my experience with ‘em has been like dealing with Eagle Scouts."

http://projectcamelot.org/lang/en/gordon_novel_interview_transcript_en.html

In an interview in 2006 Novel rejected the claims that he was a CIA agent: "I’m not a CIA agent. I’m affiliated, I work with, and we have a mutual admiration society based upon my relationship with the individuals I work with.... The CIA has multiple sides but it’s been my experience over the years that they’re basically the only good guys in the entire United States government. They’re really patriots. Most of ‘em are patriots and I’ve never known... I personally have never known them to do anything criminal, ever. And they didn’t kill John Kennedy and they didn’t kill a lot of people that they’ve been accused of causing the death of but I don’t know that to be true. So I can tell you that my experience with ‘em has been like dealing with Eagle Scouts."

http://projectcamelot.org/lang/en/gordon_novel_interview_transcript_en.html

Gordon Novel died last night.

It was claimed by Jim Garrison that Novel was formerly a member of the Central Intelligence Agency and was an associate of Sergio Arcacha Smith, David Ferrie and Guy Banister. It was also reported that Novel worked with the Cuban Revolutionary Front during the Bay of Pigs operation via the CIA proprietary, the Evergreen Advertising Agency.

According to William Torbitt Novel had been seen by a Dallas attorney having meetings with Jack Ruby and William Seymour in the Carousel Club during October and November, 1963. Another author, Paris Flammonde (The Kennedy Conspiracy), claims that Novel was questioned on five separate occasions following the assassination of Kennedy.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKnovel.htm

It was in fact a comment he made about Michael C. Ruppert but I agree he is making the same point in your quote on 9/11.

David Corn, the author of Blonde Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA's Crusades (1994) has argued "out-there conspiracy theorizing serves the interests of the powers-that-be by making their real transgressions seem tame in comparison." Do you agree?

Edwin Wilson claimed he had been framed and claimed that he was working on behalf of the CIA. He employed David Adler, a former CIA agent, as his lawyer. Adler eventually found evidence that Wilson was indeed working for the CIA after he retired from the agency. In October 2003 a Houston federal judge, Lynn Hughes, threw out Wilson's conviction in the C-4 explosives case, ruling that the prosecutors had "deliberately deceived the court" about Wilson's continuing CIA contacts, thus "double-crossing a part-time informal government agent."

Despite the decision of Hughes, Wilson was not released. Eric Margolis has described him as "America's Man in the Iron Mask". Margolis has always believed Wilson innocent and spoke to him many times in prison. "I was framed by the government," Wilson told Margolis, "they want me to disappear. I know too much."

He was released from prison in 2004. Does anyone know if he ever provided the information that he said he had?

After the assassination of JFK, the CIA's Operation Mockingbird went into action. None of the mainstream newspapers questioned the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. The first newspaper to break ranks was The National Guardian, who on 19th December, 1963, had published an article on the case by Mark Lane. It included the following:

The FBI, having completed its investigation, has submitted what amounts to its findings and conclusions as well. The verdict, deftly and covertly divulged to the press, and then blared forth throughout the world, is impressively simple: “Oswald is the assassin. He acted alone.” This remarkable law enforcement and investigatory agency, unable to solve a single one of the more than 40 Birmingham bombings, is now able to function as investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury. No other American agency has presumed to occupy so many position of trust at one time.

The essential problem is that no investigating agency can fairly evaluate the fruits of its own work. Were the FBI certain of its conclusions it seems likely it would not be so reluctant to permit witnesses to talk with the press. It might not feel the need continually to leak information favorable to its verdict to the press. Most disquieting of all, however, is that the FBI, once wedded to a conclusion conceived before investigation, might be motivated to discover evidence which supports that conclusion. Within a few hours after Oswald was arrested the Dallas police, with the FBI at its side, announced the very same verdict now reinforced by the latest FBI discoveries. Under such circumstances, we fear that evidence tending to prove Oswald innocent might be discarded and evidence proving him guilty might be developed out of proportion or even created.

The National Guardian was established in 1948 by Cedric Belfrage, James Aronson and John T. McManus. The newspaper supported the Progressive Party presidential campaign of Henry A. Wallace in 1948. It also provided positive publicity for Vito Marcantonio and other members of the American Labor Party (Mary Pinchot Meyer was also a member at this time). The newspaper also campaigned against the convictions of Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg.

Cedric Belfrage is an interesting character. In the early 1930s he became the film critic of The Daily Express. Belfrage became a socialist after becoming friends with the novelist and investigative journalist, Upton Sinclair. In 1936 he helped form the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League.

Belfrage joined the American Communist Party in 1937, but withdrew his membership a few months later. He was too much a political maverick to accept the discipline of the party. For example, at one meeting, John Bright, asked V. J. Jerome, the leading party member in Hollywood: "Comrade Jerome, what if a Party decision is made that you cannot go along with?" Jerome replied: "When the Party makes a decision, it becomes your opinion."

Wikipedia claims that FBI files suggest that Cedric Belfrage was a Soviet agent. In fact released files from the British Security Coordination shows that in 1940 he was working for British intelligence along side Allen Dulles in an effort to get the USA into the war.

In 1953 Belfrage was summoned to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). After refusing to name fellow members of the American Communist Party in 1937, he was deported back to England in 1955.

Belfrage published Something to Guard: The Stormy Life of the National Guardian 1948-1967 in 1978. I have just ordered a copy and will tell you if it says anything about the Kennedy assassination.

http://www.spartacus...SPYbelfrage.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKlaneM.htm

See this thread for more information about providing edits to Spartacus.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19554

I believe strongly that assassination related articles/pages on the wikipedia site and on John's Spartacus site should be reviewed and edited in preparation for heightened interest in the 50th anniversary year commencing as early as this coming 22 November, little more than 50 days from now.

I've wondered why more of what is posted in these threads does not appear in revisions of related Spartacus pages and I believe it is mostly because John's focus is on creating new articles.

In a few days time I plan to publish a series of e-books. This will include the title, “The Assassination of John F. Kennedy”. The book will be made up of my current website pages plus a few extras. This will enable students and researchers to study the subject offline. Unlike with traditional books, it is now possible to publish new editions immediately without extra costs. I therefore plan to publish a revised edition in time for the Christmas market.

The JFK assassination section is only a small part of my website. The Spartacus Educational Encyclopaedia has over 11,000 articles (apparently this is the word count of 23 copies of “War and Peace”). It has not been possible to keep my pages updated with the latest evidence. As people like Greg Parker have pointed out, I have not always kept to my intentions of providing in one place the different interpretations of people and events. Although I have expressed strong opinions about the case on the Forum I have tried on the website to provide a balanced view (as an historian I am aware that complete objectivity is not possible).

Over the next couple of months I am giving members the opportunity to suggest changes to the content of my web pages. This is quite an undertaking and therefore I would like your emails to take the following format:

(1) URL, for example: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKoswald.htm

(2) A brief description of why you think the page needs changing.

(3) Number the paragraph and provide the suggested edit or write the paragraph that should be added. This will be more acceptable if you include a quotation, for example: Larry Hancock has argued in his book, Nexus: The CIA and Political Assassination (2011), that “….”

(4) I will be more sympathetic to adding additional interpretations than in removing interpretations that you disapprove of.

(5) You are also free to provide additions to the sources section.

I will notify the member by email if and when the page has been updated. This will be the page that will appear in the new edition of the ebook.

Ten days ago I posted some observations about wikipedia related to JFK Assassination research on an forum thread

started some time ago and titled, "Wikipedia" :

http://educationforu...=15#entry260130

There were no responses to my post except for a still unapproved post by Robert Morrow.

I believe strongly that assassination related articles/pages on the wikipedia site and on John's Spartacus site should

be reviewed and edited in preparation for heightened interest in the 50th anniversary year commencing as early as

this coming 22 November, little more than 50 days from now.

I've wondered why more of what is posted in these threads does not appear in revisions of related Spartacus pages

and I believe it is mostly because John's focus is on creating new articles. Yesterday I came upon a statement by John

on another site, candidly and humbly sharing his own observation that he reacts to criticism in a manner influenced by his

early life experience/social class.

Situations ofter arise in which it is appropriate to assume a defensive posture and embrace the axiom of the best defense is a

good offense. This is not such a situation. I want to support/assist the man who could risk the vulnerability arising from posting

on the internet in so personal and disarming self appraisal. I am not going to post unsolicited suggestions for specific Spartacus pages updates.

It is important that Spartacus and wikipedia articles (especially those relevant to the JFK Assassination) be accurate and up to date as never before. John and Spartacus would benefit from the efforts of a maintenance/update editor(s). This development arises

from the growth and success of Spartacus as a respected historical/biographical reference source.

I've had some success in convincing wikipedia gatekeepers of key assassination articles to approve and then defend edits I have lobbied in favor of. I've offered before to guide anyone who wishes to make an edit that will endure in a wikipedia article.

There are changes I am not making in key wikipedia articles because I do not want my user name to become more of a target than it already is.

Can we organize to make effective wikipedia edits? John, would you consider delegating Spartacus page edits or

encouraging a campaign to solicit suggested updates to Spartacus pages to be considered and implemented if approved, by the

end of March? (Six months from now.)

Is anyone willing to argue that this is not important, not effective, not needed at this time?

If you feel any article on Spartacus needs editing, send it to me by email.

I also started a thread on Joachim Joesten in February 2006. Does anyone have any information on his death?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6089

I see you have Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked in 81st place. Is that because Larry does not state that LBJ was behind the assassination? Also, some of the books, have very little to do with the assassination, for example, Seymour Hersh's The Dark Side of Camelot (listed in 5th place).

Sunday's Ryder Cup was the most sensational day's sport I have ever seen. Who would have thought that José María Olazábal's team could recover from a 10-6 deficit to win the trophy against the United States by 14½ points to 13½. It seemed to me that the US team could not deal with the expectation of the very large partisan crowd. This was especially true of Tiger Woods who seemed to be having a mental breakdown. The US captain realised this and put him last in the final days pairings expecting his result not to matter. However, the early results meant that it did matter and he could not cope with the pressure.

Robert Groden and Gaeton Fonzi

http://www.spartacus...uk/JFKfonzi.htm

No, if you put the quote in Google the only website listed was this thread on the forum. Michael probably got it from one of those old fashioned things called books.

John, It was you and this thread that got me interested in Michael Wheeler's book.

http://educationforu...33

That same day I ordered it from ABE books for four dollars. I haven't finished reading the book, but I read the parts that

pertained to the Kennedy administration the day I got it.

That is where I got it from. It is a very good book and has a lot of information about George Gallup. There is virtually nothing on the web about Gallup's work for the intelligence services or the Republican Party (that is why I have created a page on the man). We must make sure that he does not get away with it. The British Security Coordination secret report on the way they corrupted public opinion polls that was written in 1945 was passed onto the CIA and MI5. I am sure that since then intelligence services have made full use of this strategy.