John Geraghty

I didn't lock the thread Jack; it's still open and has never been closed.

I have not censored any of your posts (either via editing or deleting).

It is YOU who is doing the slandering.

OH, YEAH?...THE POSTING ABOVE HAD AN IMAGE ATTACHED.

IT HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED. I DID NOT REMOVE IT. WHO DID?

I suggest that we not review this whiners work until it is posted with image numbers, whenever that may be. If Jack can not extend the simple courtesy to post image numbers for the members of this forum he deserves to be ignored.

Can we dispense with the name calling please, thinking it is sufficient.

No Thanks.

Civility costs nothing and buys everything. -Mary Wortley Montague

If at least only for your own sense of decorum Craig.

I didn't lock the thread Jack; it's still open and has never been closed.

I have not censored any of your posts (either via editing or deleting).

It is YOU who is doing the slandering.

OH, YEAH?...THE POSTING ABOVE HAD AN IMAGE ATTACHED.

IT HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED. I DID NOT REMOVE IT. WHO DID?

I suggest that we not review this whiners work until it is posted with image numbers, whenever that may be. If Jack can not extend the simple courtesy to post image numbers for the members of this forum he deserves to be ignored.

Can we dispense with the name calling please, thinking it is sufficient.

I'm attempting to embed the clip Myra referred to, fingers crossed.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRjZR8j4-z4"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRjZR8j4-z4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRjZR8j4-z4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Michael,

You got there before me. Many of us suspected Lugovoi. I found it particularly convincing when I heard that he was formerly the bodyguard of former Russian PM Yegor Gaidar, who was poisoned in my University shortly after Litvinenko (see my article posted on a previous page). Lugovoi will still maintain that he was set up and the Russians will refuse to extradite him.

John

Indeed we will Myra.

All the best,

John

Myra,

The moderators use the same methods of contact as you do. All of the moderators live in different time zones, so it is likely that we will check private messages and respond to them before we take a look at the forum.

None of us want to see insults on the forum, but unless you suggest we take pre-emptive action, there is not much we can do apart from respond to them after the fact. I'm not planning on constantly consulting with Antti in Finland or Evan in Australia as I simply have not got the cash, so we are just going to have to live with that.

I suggest that we simply drop the issue, as there is not going to any resolution as long as people consistently engage in ridiculous arguments. I suggest that people (whoever) take the high ground and walk away from this matter. Give me a PM if you want to discuss it further.

I just want to see a resolution to this by the end of the day, whatever time zone we are in.

All the best,

John

You can always start home brewing Bill, I tried it once before.

The point of this exercise that Steve and myself have been discussing would be most beneficial for UK and European researchers, who would feel uncomfortable meddling in a legal capacty in another nations history. At the very least, an exercise such as this would organise researchers who would ordinarily only commit only to a perihperal reading of the case. In creating this framwork for a specific project, we can then call upon it for future projects with a more defined end.

Any suggestions as to how we can contribute to the legal methods that you previously outlined?

John

John, Walt Sheridan is indeed a key figure in the Kennedy story. He was RFK -- and later Ted Kennedy's -- ace investigator. And as I show in my book, he was the man whom Bobby was going to rely on primarily to reopen the investigation into JFK's murder if RFK had made it to the White House in 1968. He was the man Bobby most relied upon to dig into the darkest corners of American power.

And yes I did interview Sheridan family members (Walt himself died years ago) -- I talked to his widow Nancy a number of times over two or three years, as well as two of his sons. Nancy, in particular, was very helpful in illuminating the relationship between Bobby and Walt, and their secret pact to break the JFK case.

Very interesting David. I would think that Walter Sheridan has discussed his findings and views with Ted Kenedy. It would be interesting to see whether Sheridan prepared anything in writing for Bobby or whether it was a reasonably unofficial investigation. In the same book that I prevously mentioned, there were several instances when the author remarked upon some of the Kennedy childrens conspiratorial mind-set with regard to the assassinations. Another anecdote recalls how Ted Kennedy, while drunk, said that 'they' were going to kill him like they had killed his brothers.

John

I propose that Mr. Burton be removed as a "moderator".

He has accused me of frivolity, insincerity, and dishonesty in reply

to a serious posting I made.

He is clearly using his position to threaten me in favor of his known

bias against me.

Jack

Jack,

I think that it is very fair to say that the 'threats' have been a two way affair, consisting mostly of requests of factual clarifications from both sides, in this case, the posting of information on the identity of photographs. It is my personal opinion, and my opinion as a moderator, that no threats have been made. Evan said that he would lock down a thread based on the fact that there has not been an identification of an image, thus making the discussion somewhat useless if their veracity can not be verified. I would not question the veracity of the photographs, as I would find it unlikely that you would lie.

The political conspiracies section is awash with Apollo material that is confined to discussion between 5 or six people on opposing sides of the argument. I hardly feel that the interest in tis topic warrants the voume of threads, thus a narrowing of focus should be undertaken. I would, however, not close threads for this reason alone, I would simply ask that we move the discussion onto one overall thread encompassing the topic as a whole.

I would not support Evan's removal as a moderator and I find using the term 'threat' somewhat harsh. Moderators will of course not tolerate any real threats, but so far as I a concerned, this is not a threat.

All the best in the discussion friends,

John Geraghty

Mr. Talbot,

This may be of some iterest to you, although I have not read your book yet. I found a reference to Walter Sheridan in the book 'The Senator' by Richard Burke, Ted Kennedy's former chief of staff. In it Burke says that he (Burke) felt threatened at one point, Ted Kennedy called Walter Sheridan to help him out. This was in or around 1980/81. The reference reads as follows,

"In fact, as soon as the Senator hung up, he phoned Walter Sheridan, the ex-FBI agent who had worked as a security consultant for Robert Kennedy and, later, for the Senate Judiciary committee." p 308

This would infer that Sheridan remained an ally or 'go to man' for the Kennedys, even after Bobby's death. I thought that this may have some relevance in the discussion of Sheridan's relationship with the Kennedys.

Did you have a chance to interview any of Sheridan's family?

All the best,

John Geraghty

http://www.youtube.com/group/assassination -all the assasination videos you could ever want.

John

There has been a considerable amount of favourable publicity for what we already know of late. The Hunt affair may be gathering steam, this research paper, David Talbots book and a few favourable articles in the Times and in other newspapers.

It is encouraging that we are amking somewhat of an impact.

John

Pat,

Yes I had noticed the discussion going on. I pointed out to Von Pein that he was praising a book that was not released yet. He responded by proclaiming that Bugliosi's reputation ensured a great book.

This would be anther arena where these issues could be tackled and rebuttals posted.

Perhaps a list of recently released books that require reviews. For those in the reseach community that see themselves in a publiciy role, this would be ideal.

John

Steve,

I had the idea of getting COPA or DPUK members active in taking a chapter each and taking it apart, whether it be Bugliosi or Poser and setting up a single purpose website wih each chapter critique.

A lot of people in DPUK feel that we are more a social club than anything else. There are a lot of well read members of the organisations and of this forum that do not necessarily conduct any research.

I will hopefully knock out an article for the DPUK echo on the issue of collecive research and then post a relevant extract here.

John

Due to time constraints I was not able to write the type of presentation that I would have been proud of. This, unfortunately is a summary argument of the presentation that I gave some weeks ago. I received a 2.1 grade for my presentation, being 2% away from a first. I lost marks due to my presentation, which is usually a strong point for me. I was not working from a written product and was ad libbing throughout. Essentially I used my ow interpretation of primary documents.

Here is the finished product.

The primary documents that I have used for this presentation are National Security Action Memorandum No.263 of October 11th, 1963, National Security Action memorandum No.273 of November 26th, 1963 and the report of the CINCPAC meeting of May 8th, 1963. A compound analysis of these documents, along with the additional commentary from members of the Kennedy administration, provide an established argument that President Kennedy was in the process of withdrawing U.S. troops from Vietnam before his assassination. In using NSAM 263 and NSAM 273, I intend to show the distinct difference in policy towards Vietnam between the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Until recently, discussion of Kennedy’s withdrawal from Vietnam has been branded wishful thinking by Kennedy apologists within his administration and admirers from without. However, following the publication of Dr. John Newman’s seminal work ‘JFK and Vietnam’, there has been increased discussion of the documentary record released under the JFK records act in the early nineties. Historians such as Professor Peter Dale Scott of the University of Berkeley, California, have argued that a combination of documentary and testimonial evidence points towards the conclusion that Kennedy was indeed poised to remove U.S. troops from Vietnam, starting with 1,000 by the end of 1963. James K.Galbraith, son of Kennedy advisor John Kenneth Galbraith, argued in an article in the Boston Review that he too believed Kennedy to have been making these plans. The three core documents, as I have mentioned above, clearly point to a marked shift in the policy towards an exit from Vietnam following the assassination of President Kennedy.

The CINCPAC meeting of May 8th 1963 was a communication between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara, with an additional copy having been sent to the Central Intelligence agency. The topic of discussion was the proposal for the removal of 1,000 U.S. troops from Vietnam by the end of 1963, the continual removal of troops thereafter, and the tactical and monetary support to be left in Vietnam to support the South Vietnamese army. The CINCPAC document states

‘Ú.S., as we withdraw, should consider leaving behind for GVN use where latter can absorb, materials such as C-123’s, helicopters, AC&W equipment, and troposcatter communication equipment’.

Direct reference is made to the withdrawal of U.S. troop and the provisions to be made in their stead. The document goes on to list the monetary assistance that should be afforded to the South Vietnamese army. Only direct quotation from the document can describe the matter of fact manner in which this document was written, it’s purpose being clear and preordained.

‘Part IV. Withdrawal of U.S. forces. As a matter of urgency, a plan for the withdrawal of about 1,000 U.S. troops before the end of the year should be developed based upon the assumption that the progress of the counterinsurgency campaign would warrant such a move. Plans should be based upon withdrawal of US units (as opposed to individuals) by replacing them with selected and specially trained RVNAF units’.

This paragraph could be treated as simply the formulation of a contingency plan if it were not followed by the following paragraph,

‘PART V. Phase-out of US forces. SECDEF advised that the phase-out program presented during 6 May conference appeared too slow. In consonance with PART III request you develop a revised plan to accomplish more rapid phase-out of US forces.’ The haste with which the Secretary of Defence wishes this removal of troops to go through indicates that the plan was indeed to remove all U.S. forces from Vietnam by the start of 1965. This plan gives a clear guideline on how the withdrawal should be achieved, removing US forces, but replacing them with South Vietnamese trainees and equipping them with US armaments.

The clear preparations for the removal of U.S. troops should now be interjected into the differing proposals set out by NSAM No.263 and NSAM No.273. NSAM No.263 is a short document that simply confirms the Presidents authorisation of the implementation of the previously formulated plan. The memo includes the line that the President ‘directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.’ This line explains President Kennedy’s coy attitude towards the question of Vietnam. A differentiation must be made between the actual actions of the White House and the political doublespeak that is employed in order to give no definite answer on an escalation or de-escalation. In an interview with Walter Cronkite President Kennedy plays both sides of the argument, acknowledging that it was, ultimately, a Vietnamese war and it was up to them to fight it, but conceded that they would not abandon the Vietnamese people. At this point Kennedy has approved the withdrawal of U.S. troops and does not seem to want to announce his position, lest his credibility as a cold warrior president suffer. NSAM No.273 was circulated on the 26th of November, 4 days after the assassination of President Kennedy. The difference between the documents could not be starker, NSAM 273 promoting an increased presence in Vietnam. NSAM 273 makes no reference to NSAM 263 and basically ignores its premise, citing only a continuation of the policy outlined in a White House statement of October 2nd, which was 9 days before the drafting of NSAM 263. In describing the renewed military effort, the document reads

‘This concentration should include not only military but political, economic, social, educational and international effort. We should seek to turn the tide not only of battle but of belief…’.

Unlike NSAM 263, NSAM 273 has no document previous to it that set forth the military aims of the campaign. NSAM 263 was simply a Presidential confirmation of an existing plan, NSAM 273 was the formulation of a new plan, and was thus a much lengthier document. NSAM 273 makes more provisions for the inclusion of the Central Intelligence agencies involvement in Vietnam, several mentions being made to the winning of hearts and minds and the waging of an effective propaganda campaign.

The dichotomy of ideas expressed in the two opposing documents gives a clear indication that the policy towards Vietnam enacted on 26th November 1963 was not the one that was in place previous to Kennedy’s assassination.

Bibliography

Dale Scott, Peter, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, (California, 1996)

Newman, John, JFK and Vietnam: Decpetion, Intrigue and the Struggle for power, (1992, New York)

Galrbraith, James K., Exit Strategy, Boston Review, October, 2003

Bill,

I was talking to Mike about the website yesterday, I will begin design on it after my exams (they finish on May 28th- Women in early Irish literature). I will do a mock up and send it on to Mike to see if there is anything he can add in the way of design. We can have a brainstorm as to what you want on the site. I was thinking about a database of COPA articles and related feaures. We can also have a video and audio page, linking from youtube and google videos. On the homepage we can have links to the facebok and youtube groups. If you have any of the early documents relating to the formation of COPA and its membership, that would be great, though I suspect John Judge has most of that.

Mike is currently starting work on John Judge's site.

John

I found this nugget while looking at campaign contributions, Priscilla McMillan donated $1,000 to an organisation called Democracy for America. Ironic, considering she assisted in its demise (democracy that is).

http://www.campaignmoney.com/journalists.asp

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

She also donated to Ned Lamont's Senate run, the Democratic National Committee,Van Hollen for Congress and the Council for a Liveable World candidate fund (http://www.clw.org/).

http://www.campaignmoney.com/finance.asp?p...19&cycle=06

These donations for 2006 alone amount to $6,750

You can search other people at, http://www.campaignmoney.com . There is also an option to view the donations of journalists and celebrities etc. The records only go back to 2000. If only they went back to the 50's, that would be a real coup. An online resource like that would be invaluable.

John

Hi Gil,

I watched the video. For anybody else readng, in the first part of the presetation Vince plays a few clips of Kennedy quips and Nixon slips. They are very entertaining.

I would advise people to set up a youtue account, then you can subscribe to Gil's channel. This means that every time you go onto youtube.com you will be presented with the latest updates fro the channels you are subscribed to.

John

I'm very saddened to hear this. Tim was always very responsive to questions I had concerning the assassination in the last few years. He also has a good sense of humour, I remember a video that he posted of Bush's speeches edited into his own endition of John Lennon's imagine. I am glad that I got to know Tm, even partially, through the forum. Although most of us have never met, I do feel as if I know some peoples personal character traits and feel as if I know them personally.

Give Tim my best Dawn. Thanks for posting this, it was definitely worth doing. Please let Tim know that we have been responding to this and that we wish him the best.

If there is anything I can do, please let me know.

All the best,

John

You can view the documentary 'Fog of War' online here, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...=the+fog+of+war

In it McNamara describes his relationship with Curtis Lemay duing the second world war and how they would have been tried as war criminals had the U.S. lost the war.

John

You can watch Shooter for free online here. http://www.tv-links.co.uk/show.do/4/1528 I found it interesting at points, but only because of my interest in the assassination. As a cinematic experience, I found it quite poor. The plot was loose and the plot holes were many. Watch the first 45 minutes for the JFK parallels, everything after that it at your own expense.

John

For those interested, membership has jumped up to 37, which is not insignificant.

John

News piece on Posada Carilles, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx_P8B4X5Xc

I have added footage from both the Reagan and Ford assassination attempts onto the group. I find John Judge's take on the Reagan assassination to be quite interesting, you can find it here, http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/112600.html

Reagan assassination attempt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Of1F5KBoU

Ford assassination attempts

The groups url is http://www.youtube.com/group/assassination . There are over 80 members and over 160 videos available on the group.

All the best,

John

I'm just bumping this, as the new post didn't register.

John