W. Niederhut

Robert, On the contrary, most of these murdered witnesses had apparent knowledge that debunked various aspects of the Warren Commission "Lone Nut" narrative. In fact, that seems to be the sine qua non for their murders-- in line with the CIA Executive Order instructing agency personnel to do "whatever is necessary to promote public acceptance of the Warren Commission Report. In some cases, like those of Koethe, Hunter, Mary Meyer, and Killgallen, we don't know precisely what they knew, because their manuscripts, notes, and diaries were confiscated by their killers. Dorothy Killgallen claimed that her interview with Jack Ruby would "break the JFK case wide open." Mary Meyer had purchased the newly published Warren Commission Report shortly before her murder, and was, allegedly, indignant about it. What did she know? She had been a close friend of JFK and her ex-husband was in charge of CIA propaganda (Mockingbird) ops. Why was James Angleton so eager to confiscate her diary? Other murdered witnesses knew things about Oswald, Ruby, Dealey Plaza, forensic evidence, Tippitt's murder, etc., that debunked the WCR.

Robert, There are so many highly suspicious murder cases documented in the book that it would be a long post, indeed, to review all 50 of them. My advice is to forget the inaccurate negative spin on this thread-- by Pat Speer, Ulrik, et.al.-- and study the book. I'll ask you a few brief questions to stimulate your intellectual curiosity. 1) Why was mobster Jack Zangetty found floating dead in a swimming pool with multiple gunshots to the chest, after he told people that Ruby was going to kill Oswald, and Frank Sinatra's son was going to be kidnapped? 2) How did a cop in L.A. manage to shoot journalist Bill Hunter in the heart by dropping his gun on the floor? 3) Why did the karate expert burglar who killed journalist, Jim Koethe, steal Koethe's notes about Ruby and the JFK assassination? 4) Why was Dorothy Killgallen's manuscript about her blockbuster interview with Jack Ruby stolen, after she and her friend, Florence Pritchett Smith, were both murdered? Killgallen was accidentally placed by the killer(s) in her guest bedroom, with her make up on. She never slept in her guest bedroom, and never went to bed with make up on. 5) How did Wistar Janney and Ben Bradlee know "shortly after noon" that Mary Pinchot Meyer had been murdered, (by an expert assassin) when the police never identifed her body or announced her murder until 6 PM? 6) Why was James Angleton in Meyer's apartment, reading (and stealing) her diary after she was murdered?

Well, Robert, nobody's perfect. Have you read the book? The data speaks for itself. One formula for getting murdered 60 years ago was to have contact with, or knowledge about, Jack Ruby. As a Texas guy, you should know that better than anyone. Jack Ruby was like plutonium. The cases are legion-- and not only those of Rose Cheramie, Dorothy Killgallen, Koethe, Hunter, Zengatty, and the Carousel Club murder victims.

Ron, This is a horrifying story, in more ways than one. I think Dr. James P. Cattell was either the uncle or brother of my former psychoanalyst, one of the founders of the Denver Psychoanalytic Institute. I should mention that there are a number of distinguished physicians in the Cattell family, including the famous Harvard surgeon, Dr. Richard B. Cattell, who once operated on British Prime Minister Anthony Eden. But it sounds like Dr. James P. Cattell was an MK-Ultra man... 😬

Pat, I'm responding in red (below.) Pat Speer wrote: I actually have the Belzer book...somewhere. I think he even quotes me in there somewhere, although I don't remember the context. My complaint was that he included too many people, many of whom were only loosely affiliated with the case. Too many? All 50 cases in Belzer's book are linked in some fashion to the JFK assassination, as he cogently explains. For some cases, there were one or two degrees of separation from primary actors -- as in the case of Karyn Kupcinet, whose father, columnist Irv Kupcinet, knew Jack Ruby and some Chicago mobsters, and became silent about the JFK assassination and Ruby after his daughter's shocking murder. As far as the actuarial stuff...I assume you know about the end of the film Executive Action and what happened afterwards. At the end of the movie it quoted a London paper claiming that the odds of the suspicious deaths being a coincidence were billions to one or some such thing. But that this was later debunked. It turned out that the numbers were cooked, essentially. Belzer's opening discussion of the actuarial statistics begins with correcting the erroneous Executive Action probability. (He gives an appropriately sarcastic nod to the newspaper that eagerly debunked the math error. We all know how reliable the mainstream media has been when it comes to debunking the Warren Commission narrative.) But he and Wade then demonstrate that the probability of an estimated 70 unnatural witness deaths occurring in a sample of 1,400 JFK witnesses (from 1963 to 1977) is still infinitesimally small -- in the trillions-to-1 range. As I recall, the original number was created by taking the number of witnesses to testify before the commission, and then adding on a few who died. But this was bad math. The actual number should have been created by the number of witnesses to testify before the commission, and then adding on the thousands of people who were tangentially related to the assassination, who both died and did not die. What are the actuarial probabilities of these unnatural deaths occurring from 1963 to 1977 in a 1,400 person sample? The deaths of those reporters comes to mind. There were literally hundreds of reporters in Dallas on the day of the assassination, and its aftermath. The accidental deaths of a few of them, who never claimed to have top secret knowledge, is not surprising. Jim Koethe and Bill Hunter were two reporters who had actually been in Jack Ruby's apartment that week. They were both murdered shortly afterwards. Koethe was killed by a burglar (and karate expert) who just happened to steal his notes for material he wanted to publish about the JFK assassination. Hunter was shot in the heart by a cop in an L.A. police station who said he accidentally dropped his gun! (Then he changed his story and said he was just horsing around with his gun when it fired, killing Hunter instantly.) Nothing to see here. Move along now. Now, to be clear, the crop of deaths in the mid-70's is a lot harder to dismiss. I remember when I first started researching, and discovering that heck this guy died just before the HSCA and heck that guy died just before the HSCA and so on. The same spike in JFK witness murders occurred during the Warren Commission investigation and during the Garrison investigation. David Ferrie is the most famous example from 1967. And we all know that the CIA and FBI were aggressively sabotaging Garrison's investigation at the time. So I don't dismiss the premise of the book. I just think it was too broad. Too broad for what? We're looking at 14 years of systematic murders of people who knew too much. That's a broad time period involving a broad array of witnesses capable of debunking the Warren Commission narrative. P.S. One of the guys who died surprisingly and prematurely during the HSCA was Manuel Artime. He was only 45 at the time, and was likely to have knowledge about the CIA's attempts on Castro and the possible re-routing of these attempts onto Kennedy. I don't recall. Is he in the Belzer book? Artime is mentioned in the conclusion of Hit List, but he doesn't have his own chapter.

Katie Britt’s false linkage of a sex-trafficking case to Joe Biden www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/09/fact-check-katie-britt-sex-trafficking/ by Glenn Kessler March 9, 2024 *** The Facts Britt’s account of Romero’s experience was a centerpiece of her rebuttal to Biden’s address. The way Britt sets up the story, there is no indication that she is talking about a woman who was working in brothels in Mexico during the George W. Bush administration. This is how the passage unfolds. She first blames Biden for the surge of migrants at the border. Then she says she visited the border shortly after she took office. That would be 2023. At length, she details the story of an unnamed victim that she says she met on her trip. The implication is that the woman recently crossed the border — because of “sex trafficking by the cartels.” She strongly suggests that her abuse took place in the United States: “We wouldn’t be okay with this happening in a Third World country. This is the United States of America, and it is past time, in my opinion, that we start acting like it.” She ends by reinforcing that such alleged trafficking is Biden’s fault: “President Biden’s border policies are a disgrace.” But Biden has nothing to do with Romero’s story. As she testified nine years ago, her mother threw her out of her house at age 12 and she “fell prey to a professional pimp.” She says she then spent the next four years in brothels before a regular client helped her escape when she was 16 years old. There is no indication in her story that drug cartels were involved, though Britt said that in the State of the Union response and has made a similar claim on at least one other occasion. Romero was never trafficked to the United States; instead, she says many men who paid to have sex with her were “foreigners visiting my city looking to have sexual interactions with minors like me.” The Pinocchio Test In a high-profile speech like this, a politician should not mislead voters with emotionally charged language. Romero’s story is tragic and may be evocative of other Mexican girls trapped in the sex trade in that country. But she was not trafficked across the border — and her story has nothing to do with Biden. Britt’s failure to make that clear earns her Four Pinocchios. Four Pinocchios Last Edit: less than a minute ago by DrSchadenfreude Reply Quick Reply

Pat, I've been to a lot of lectures in the Ivy League (Brown and Harvard) during my eight years back East, but I've never been to a JFK conference. What so-and-so said at a conference carries little weight with me, unless I know that the speaker is a knowledgeable, honest expert who isn't selling something. (Perhaps I've attended too many Big Pharma-funded medical lectures during the past 40 years.) This skepticism seems all the more justified in the case of the JFK assassination-- given the plethora of CIA-funded disinformation in our media (including social media.) Honestly, I prefer reading books and articles. It's easier to analyze written arguments and data with precision. IMO, Belzer's book, Hit List, is fairly well written and strictly evidence-based. I'd give it an "A" as an interesting JFKA reference book about the forensic details of 50 JFKA witnesses who died under suspicious circumstances. The authors also include actuarial stats about the astronomical improbability that these clusters of witness deaths occurred by chance. Belzer & Wayne point out that most of these improbable JFKA witness deaths cluster, temporally, around four basic periods; 1) shortly after JFK's assassination, 2) during the Warren Commission investigation, 3) during the Garrison investigation, and 4) during the HSCA investigation. So, withal, I'm somewhat puzzled by the negative opinions of Hit List on the forum, by people who have, apparently, never read the book. It reminds me of the negative spin about Col. Fletcher Prouty's books by several forum members who never read them. Speaking of which, did Belzer's book, Hit List, get Prouty'd by the CIA propaganda people in 2013, possibly on the grounds that he was merely a comedian and actor? We could use similar criteria to dismiss Bob Dylan's song, Murder Most Foul. The fact that Belzer was a popular television actor, if anything, seems like a positive for the JFKA community, in that he had the potential to publicize damning facts about the cover up of the JFK assassination. But, instead of celebrating Belzer's evidence-based contribution to increasing public awareness about the cover up of the JFK assassination, some people around here are erroneously smearing him.

In the few years that I have been a member of this forum, I have always been surprised by the posts of several forum members who consistently deny the obvious evidence about the frontal head shot that killed JFK and blew the back of his skull backward, behind the limo-- and the intimidation and murders of witnesses who had information refuting the Warren Commission's Lone Nut narrative. It's, frankly, bizarre. And I noticed that Mark Ulrik, Bill Brown, et.al. have been silent about the evidence that high level CIA officials had foreknowledge of the assassination of Mary Pinchot Meyer-- several hours before the police identified the body or issued any public announcements about her murder. Can Ulrik and Bill Brown explain how Wistar Janney and Ben Bradlee knew that Mary Meyer was dead "shortly after noon?"

Is it o.k. to post Kafkaesque fiction here? Does it contribute in any meaningful way to our understanding of political reality? My Golf Outing With Donald Trump I was so angry about Donald Trump securing the 2024 GOP nomination for the Presidency on Super Tuesday, March 5, 2024, that I was experiencing chest pain for several hours on Wednesday, and wondered if it might be angina pectoris. (My uncle died of a heart attack when he was three years younger than I am at present.) In any event, I fell into a fitful sleep Wednesday night, then woke this morning from a dream that was so funny I couldn't stop laughing. Carl Jung wrote about “integrative” dreams that tend to facilitate psychic healing. Oddly, I rarely remember my dreams nowadays and, when I do, they are usually some veiled foreshadowing of senility-- I'm lost in a strange neighborhood or haven't completed forms required for some important task, etc. I should mention that I recently read Franz Kafka's Metamorphosis and The Trial for a Great Courses series called, Meeting the Challenge of Great Literature. The "great" course is taught by an old, white-haired professor at Brown University whom I knew about 50 years ago, when he had curly brown hair. So, here is my Kafkaesque tale. I flew from New York to Michigan with Donald Trump, to play golf, on a dark stormy night. I was wearing my expensive blue, worsted wool suit, similar to the one Trump always wears. We both got soaked by the rain while walking to the pro shop to check in for our round of golf. (In reality, my blue worsted wool suit was eaten by moths a few years ago, and I had to throw it out.) As it turned out, the pro shop for the golf course was located in a K-Mart. It took a while for Donald Trump and I to find the kiosk in the K-Mart where we could check in for the golf course. It was late at night and they were short staffed. Trump and I had to rent golf clubs, and the only sets available were used, out-dated clubs, including cheap aluminum drivers and putters. Trump also insisted on renting or buying some dry golf attire, but I decided to save some money and wear my damp suit. Shortly afterward, Trump and I rendezvoused outside of the K-Mart, at a helipad, where we were going to board and ride a helicopter to the Michigan island where the golf course was located. He was dressed in a checkered, 1970s-style polyester leisure suit and a large, black-and-white checkered hat similar to the Australian military hats worn at Gallipoli-- the ones that fold up on one side and have a chin strap. His polyester golf pants were far too tight around his waist and legs, and they were also too short. He looked absolutely ridiculous, and he was very cross about the ridiculous hat and the ill-fitting, polyester golf clothes. I struggled to suppress a laugh. We finally boarded a helicopter and flew, in the dark, to the island where the golf course was located. But, when we arrived at the island, rather than landing at the golf course, or being greeted by a limo, we had to board a crowded, public shuttle bus-- like a large van. Trump and I had to sit in the back row, and we had very little leg room. The van kept stopping at intersections in a working-class neighborhood, and people were exiting and boarding the van near strip malls and run down houses. It looked suspiciously like my childhood neighborhood. Trump was visibly annoyed by the plebians and poverty, and he looked so utterly ridiculous in his Australian hat and leisure suit that I finally couldn't help laughing out loud. My laughter infuriated him, but I couldn't stifle it. His grumpiness only increased my mirth. I finally said, “Hey, don't worry so much about how you look! It's not that important! No one is going to see you out here anyway!” Then he became sullen and silent, refusing to talk or look at me. As we drove on silently through the rainy night, I suddenly wondered how in the hell we were supposed to play golf in the dark. Then I woke up. I felt good. No chest pain. W.N. Denver, Colorado March 7, 2024 e Reply Quick Reply

Mark, Thanks for deflecting attention away from the crucial details about the Domingo Benavides case with your trivial straw man argument about the conflicting dates of his brother's murder. Do you have an idiom about "red herrings" in Denmark? 🤥 Belzer, et.al., have a brief chapter on the Benavides case on pgs. 97-99 of the 2013 edition of Hit List. The gist of the case is that Domingo Benavides clearly identified Tippt's killer as someone other than Oswald. He subsequently received multiple threats about his witness testimony, and he changed his story after his brother was shot in the head. Belzer's conclusion was that the murder of Eddy Benavides could not be definitively linked to the JFK assassination, but that Domingo Benavides had, obviously, been a victim of repeated witness intimidation. Thanks, again, for sharing your invaluable insights about the case.

Robert, I'm glad that you brought up the case of Mary Pinchot Meyer in the context of Hit List. CIA man, Wistar Janney, (Peter Janney's father) called his friend, Ben Bradlee, (Mary Meyer's brother-in-law) "shortly after lunch" to tell him that Mary Meyer was dead. James Angleton, a close friend of Janney, also knew around noon that Meyer had been killed. But the police didn't identify Meyer's body, or issue an APB or announcement about Meyer's death until about 6:00 PM. It was an expert assassination-- a shot to the back of the head at point-blank range, followed by a point-blank shot to the heart-- by an assassin using the alias, "William Mitchell." When Ben Bradlee and his wife, Toni, (Mary's sister) later went to Mary Meyer's apartment, James Angleton was already in the apartment, reading Meyer's diary-- which he confiscated.

I watched Biden's SOTU address but had no stomach for the GOP response. Biden came out swinging, and I was especially gratified by his opening condemnation of the MAGA betrayal of Ukraine and dishonesty about J6. Nor did he pull any punches in denouncing the Republican SCOTUS judges for overturning Roe v. Wade. I noticed that MAGA Mike Johnson and the Congressional Republicans sat like statues for most the address. Frankly, I can hardly stand the sight of those SOBs.

This is sad news, indeed. My heart goes out to Oliver Stone and his family.

Sandy, The Zionist movement originated long before the rise of Naziism in the 1930s. In fact, the Balfour Declaration, which led to the establishment of the British Protectorate in Palestine, (and, ultimately, to the founding of the state of Israel) was promulgated in 1917, during WWI. Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia As for traditional (Orthodox) Talmudic teachings about the goyim, (non-Jews) you might be interested in the writings on the subject by Holocaust survivor, Israel Shahak, a former Professor of Chemistry at Hebrew University. I have read several of Shahak's books, and I'm quite fond of the man-- though he is not popular with militant Zionists. Israel and Anti-Gentile Traditions | My Jewish Learning

Jim, Belzer's hit list of murdered JFKA witnesses is substantial, and the forensic evidence and actuarial probabilities are extremely suspicious-- the diametric opposite of what Pat Speer claimed (above.) All of the identified cases in the book were people who had knowledge about people and events relating to JFK's murder, and many died when they were threatening or scheduled to spill the beans-- e.g., Gary Underhill, the journalist from L.A. (Hunter?) who had been in Ruby's apartment, Mary Pinchot Meyer, Dorothy Killgallen, David Ferrie, William Sullivan, (and a few FBI lab technicians) the officer who filmed the Bethesda autopsy, Giancana, De Mohrenschildt, and dozens more. (I'm naming a few off of the top of my head.) In Lee Bowers case, he was driven off the road by a mystery vehicle into a concrete wall, and he told the EMTs prior to his death that he thought his coffee had been drugged at a local diner, before returning to his car. Bowers had also, reportedly, told family members that he had not reported everything that he witnessed on 11/22/63-- in the parking lot behind the picket fence-- because he was afraid. Curiously, this is the precise opposite of what Pat Speer just claimed (above.) Pat's 0-2 here. My impression from studying the Hit List data is that someone was carefully monitoring these witnesses over time -- tapping phones, etc.-- and ordering hits when they had evidence of impending testimony refuting the Warren Commission narrative. Incidentally, William Sullivan told friends that he thought he was going to be murdered, prior to his Congressional testimony. My hypothesis is that these systematic murders of witnesses were implementations of the 1964 CIA Executive Order instructing Agency personnel to do "whatever is necessary" to promote public acceptance of the Warren Commission Report.

Norman, Thanks for the reference. I can't find any threads in the forum archives about Admitted Assassin, but there are a few threads about Roscoe White, including a 2018 thread by Denny Zartman. White, apparently, got a job with the DPD shortly before 11/22/63, and was accused of (or confessed to?) shooting JFK from the Grassy Knoll. (I, obviously, need to do some remedial reading about Roscoe White.)

Peter Janney also identified the suspected assassin in the Mary Pinchot Meyer case, as I recall. I'd have to look it up, but I think some researchers also identified a suspect in the Dorothy Killgallen case. William Sullivan was murdered by a New Hampshire neighbor in an alleged "hunting accident."

Let me re-phrase my question. Do forum members who have studied the history of the JFK assassination believe that the numerous suspicious deaths of key witnesses enumerated in Hit List (and similar on-line lists) were matters of mere happenstance, or deliberate, systematic murders? In the latter case, should Hit List be part of the canon of evidenced-based reference literature about the cover-up of the JFK assassination op, and a subject of further inquiry? Who were the killers, and who ordered the hits? In Giancana's case, the hit man was, evidently, someone he knew. Also, what are the implications of these systematic murders for the astonishing scope of the assassination conspiracy? Some of them occurred several years after JFK's murder-- typically at times when the homicide victim was on the verge of testifying about JFK's murder.

I started a thread on the forum last year, on the occasion of the death of American comedian, Richard Belzer, who had co-authored the popular book, Hit List, about the suspicious deaths of numerous witnesses with knowledge of the JFK assassination. Belzer, et.al., included forensics data and actuarial estimates in the book. I noticed, in the archives, that Douglas Caddy started a forum thread about Hit List in 2013, but hardly anyone commented on that original thread, or reviewed the book. In any case, I was somewhat surprised recently to hear a JFK researcher deny that there was anything suspicious about all of these untimely deaths-- including those of Dorothy Killgallen, Rose Cheramie, Lee Bowers, Mary Pinchot Meyer, William Sullivan, Sam Giancana, George De Mohrenschildt, et.al. One of the most obvious was the "Omerta" murder of Giancana on the night before his scheduled meeting with members of Congress, almost simultaneous with DeMohrenschildt's "suicide" before his Congressional testimony. Do most forum members consider the Hit List data (also published on various websites) accurate-- i.e., reliable reference material?

The worst POTUS in history re-nominated? Catastrophic wildfires? Gaza genocide? Putin's destruction of Ukraine? Time for one of my favorite downhill skiing/rollerblade/work out songs of the past 40 years. I even recorded a basement studio band cover of the song once-- but it failed, because I'm not Sting. 🤥 When the world is running down, you make the best of what's still around.

And now Time publishes an op-ed by University of Chicago Law Professor Aziz Huq. There appears to be a growing scholarly consensus that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch are corrupt. They are trying to shield Trump from consequences for his J6 insurrection. The Supreme Court's Confused Ruling on the Trump Ballot Case | TIME

So, it looks like Ben has seized the JFKA elephant by the trunk, (the Dealey gunmen) concluding that the beast is a python. And Robert Morrow has seized it by the leg, (LBJ) concluding that it is like a tree. Meanwhile, Robert Montenegro has claimed that it is a big ass beast. Happy hunting, fellas. 🤓

The New York Times is facing backlash over its coverage of Donald Trump and the 2024 election (msn.com) Matt, I've been reading up on this issue overnight. The 5-4 SCOTUS ruling (by Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch) that only Congress can enforce Article 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn't pass the sniff test. The specific language of the 14th Amendment indicates that the statutes (including the Insurrection Clause) are self-executing-- i.e., not requiring Congressional legislation for implementation. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch just pulled a fast one on the American people. The best article that I have read about the dissenting opinion by Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson is at Slate. The Supreme Court’s unanimous Trump ballot ruling is actually a 5–4 disaster. (slate.com)

Robert, I would be interested in hearing more details about your lists of JFKA culprits-- your data sources, references, etc., linking them to the assassination ops. We can see their names, offices, and affiliations, but don't have further details about how they were linked to the assassination op and cover up. From your introductory remarks (above) it sounds like your paradigm for the JFK assassination op is based on some sort of extra-national, military, intelligence, and corporate capitalist network-- rather than on the CIA and/or Pentagon alone. In your paradigm, is there a "mastermind" of the assassination op? A person, or persons, at the center of these networks?

Matt, The three liberal justices on the SCOTUS have, apparently, disagreed with the scope of the ruling as you point out. The majority ruling has rendered the Insurrectionist Clause of the 14th Amendment unenforceable, except by an act of Congress. Rather odd, really. Why is it that the SCOTUS, itself, can't rule that an insurrectionist is ineligible for public office, based on the Constitutional clause in the 14th Amendment? Supreme Court's liberal justices fault scope of Trump 14th Amendment decision - ABC News (go.com)