Anthony Frank

The CIA had been infiltrated by KGB officers. I exposed them in 1984 and it was never made public, although I am working on publicizing it now. Two of the KGB officers and a double agent (a CIA officers who was working for the other side) were the shooters. At least two of them shot from the front because Kennedy was struck twice from the front.

John, It's the reprehensible partisanship in this country that accounts for an out of control government. Nobody wants to seem soft on defense, and they all want to bring home the bacon to their states and Congressional Districts where the military money is spent. This country is going down the tubes with this partisanship. If the CIA wasn't involved in drug smuggling and exercising control of the US government, maybe the US would use that massive military power to eradicate the coca fields in South America and the poppy fields in Asia. Tony

Why would these particular photos be faked? What is the picture of a bus relevant to in the first place? How does this picture factor into the assassination or the cover up?

Duplicate post deleted...

What about the first shot which struck Kennedy in the throat? Contary to the Warren Commission claim that it came from behind, passed through his neck, and wounded Governor Connally, that bullet came from the front. In fact, the Washington Post reported on December 18, 1963, that a bullet was “found deep in his shoulder,” and the fact is, it was a rifle shot to the front neck that put a bullet “deep in his shoulder.” [Washington Post, 12-18-63, page 3] The fact is, twenty-six days after the President of the United States was violently assassinated, neither the American public nor the American press were entertaining the idea that anyone would claim that one of the bullets passed through President Kennedy and wounded the Governor of Texas. The article on December 18, 1963, also said that the bullet found in Kennedy’s shoulder caused “a hematoma, a pooling of blood inside the neck and shoulder muscles.” But this article was already trying to hammer the point that he was shot from behind. It cited the “unofficial report of pathologists,” which allegedly concurred on the idea that “a fragment was deflected and passed out the front of the throat,” which had allegedly been “explained over television” by “one of the surgeons” from the hospital. Within months of the Warren Commission's new story in September 1963, that the bullet came from behind and passed through Kennedy's throat, the doctors who tried to save his life refuted it. Medical examinations of the neck wound had been made “before a tracheotomy had altered the wound in the front of the President’s neck . . . Doctor Rufus Baxter said the neck wound was ‘unlikely’ to be a wound of exit and ‘would more resemble a wound of entry’ . . . Doctor Charles Carrico described the wound as ‘fairly round, had no jagged edges’ . . . Doctor Ronald Jones had described it as the sort ‘you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient.’” [New York Times, 3-15-65, page 11]

Regis Blahut, a CIA officer who had been detailed to “assist” the House Assassinations Committee, broke into a combination safe at the committee’s offices. The break-in was reported in the news several months after the House Assassinations Committee actually disbanded. [Washington Post, 6/18/79, pages 1 & 6] “The safe was reserved for physical evidence of President Kennedy’s assassination, including the autopsy photos, X-rays, and other articles, such as the so-called ‘magic bullet’ that wounded both Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally.” “Autopsy photos of the head shot that killed Kennedy had been taken out of their cases and were left in disarray inside the three drawer safe . . . There was no doubt that the files in the safe had been tampered with . . . ‘It looked as though someone had just run out.’” Blahut’s fingerprints “were all over the place, on the photos, inside the safe, and on all sorts of different packages.” “The CIA acknowledged that it has dismissed the individual in question. ‘We’re satisfied it was just a matter of curiosity,’ said CIA spokesman Herbert Hetu.” (Blahut obviously made sure that the break-in would be noticed and that the autopsy photos were in disarray. That’s because the CIA does things for a reason, and if the CIA spokesman were to be believed, what he was really saying was, “Yes, the agent we assigned to assist the House Assassinations Committee broke into their safe, but that’s only because he was curious. In fact, we fired him. We’re satisfied.”) “In a telephone interview with the Washington Post, Blahut denied any wrongdoing. He insisted that there was an innocent explanation. He refused, however, to say what that was.” (The Post got its responses from the CIA and Blahut when they publicized the break-in.) Blahut said he worked for the CIA’s Office of Security and he stated, “There’s other things that are involved that are detrimental to other things,” and he refused to elaborate when asked what he meant by that. Blahut went on to say, “I signed an oath of secrecy. I cannot discuss it any further. . . . I’ve already defended myself to my employers. As far as I’m concerned, that’s all cleared up.” He also claimed to have passed CIA lie detector tests over the matter. (It doesn’t sound like he’d been fired. And why did the CIA have an agent with their Office of Security assigned to “assist” the House Assassinations Committee?) A couple of months after the Washington Post publicized that the Committee’s safe had been broken into, a man named Harrison Livingstone claimed that he was selling photographs from President Kennedy’s autopsy. At that time, Robert Blakey, general cousel for the HSCA, said, “There are two things possible here. Either it’s a fraud, or it’s an attempt to sell stolen property.” Harrison Livingstone responded at that time by saying that they weren’t stolen, but the day after he made his claim about trying to sell the photographs, he said he was taking them off the market, still claiming that they weren’t stolen but allegedly claiming that he feared the Justice Department would take action against him. Now everyone knows that the CIA is the source of the photographs that are out there. They had the sloppy break-in perpetrated to make the photos seem as though they were authentic autopsy photos. No wonder the spokesman said the CIA was “satisfied.”

Come on Wim. Are you seriously saying the Cuban Missile crisis was a hoax, a gigantic conspiracy to make Kennedy look good? The Soviets really didn't have missile sites in Cuba? Or they did have missile sites but JFK fabricated the crisis? And I see you solved Marilyn Monroe's murder. Golly! All theses fine Americans with successful careers who were in the Military Industrial Complex were actually despicable murderers who killed the President of the United States, but that's OK. He was apparently a despicable murderer himself who had a Mafioso gangster kill Marilyn Monroe. And his brother, the highest-ranking law enforcement official in the United States, who was running for the Senate, was also a despicable murderer in cahoots with him. Makes a lot of sense when you think about it. So let's not give any thought to the idea that there were KGB officers in the CIA bent on controlling the United States government. What do we need with murderous KGB officers when the entire hierarchy of the United States government is a bunch of despicable murderers?

With regards to Robert Kennedy's silence, let's quote Earl Warren and Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach. The idea to establish the Warren Commission officially came from Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach. The memo that Katzenbach wrote to the White House suggesting a Presidential Commission says that speculation about a Communist conspiracy must end. It also states: “The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.” Earl Warren was interviewed for a PBS television show in December 1972 and he stated that President Johnson was worried “that Soviet Premier Khrushchev and Cuba’s Premier Castro might have been involved in the assassination.” Warren “was invited to the White House by Mr. Johnson who ‘told me he felt conditions around the world were so bad at the moment that he thought it might even get us into a war; a nuclear war.’” [New York Times, 12-9-72, page 25] Two hours before going to the White House, “Mr. Warren said that he had advised the President’s brother, Robert F. Kennedy, that he did not believe a Chief Justice should undertake non-judicial duties while sitting on the Supreme Court.” “Warren also related that Mr. Johnson said he had asked for a report from Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara for an estimate on how many Americans would be killed in a Soviet nuclear attack. He said that Mr. Johnson had told him he was given a figure of 60,000,000 . . . The former Chief Justice said that the President’s concern had caused him to agree to head the inquiry.” When Katzenbach wrote his memo to the White House, he suggested proffering a perspective “which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told, and that a statement to this affect be made now,” and “We should have some basis for rebutting the thought that this was a Communist conspiracy.”

In June 1967, Warren Commission member John J. McCloy, "in his first public comment on the investigation," said that he thinks "the commission should have studied the photographs and X-rays taken of President Kennedy after his assassination." "He said that the Warren Commission had ‘all the facilities we needed’ and made its own choice not to subpoena the photographs." [New York Times, 6-29-67, page 18] He said they made the decision not to because “we were perhaps a little oversensitive to what we understood were the sensitivities of the Kennedy family,” as though it made sense that in the course of investigating a Presidential assassination, they would refrain from looking at the photographs and X-rays based on such bizarre logic. (An army pathologist refrained from dissecting Kennedy’s neck to trace the path of the bullet because “the family wanted no examination of the neck organs,” as if within ten or twelve hours of President Kennedy’s horridly violent and bloody assassination, the Kennedy family actually said something about not wanting the neck organs examined.) “Mr. McCloy, a lawyer and diplomat, nevertheless insists that the seven man commission ‘had the best evidence; the pathology in respect to the President’s wounds.’”

On January 23, 1964, the doctors who worked on Kennedy described the effort to save his life in an article in the Texas State Journal of Medicine. “Dr. William Kemp Clark, a specialist in head injuries, said most of the right side of the back of the skull was gone . . . Dr. Charles J. Carrico, the first physician to see Mr. Kennedy, noted two external wounds, one in the neck and another in his head. In the head wound, he saw shredded brain tissue.” [Washington Post, 1-25-64, page 4] An article on November 23, 1963, the day after Kennedy was shot, said that Dr. Clark had described Kennedy’s head wound as “a large gaping wound with considerable loss of tissue.” [Washington Post, 11-23-63, page 9] On December 18, 1963, the Washington Post reported that the “as yet unofficial report of pathologists who performed the autopsy on the President’s body the night of November 22” says that “the second bullet to hit the President tore off the right rear portion of his head so destructively as to be ‘completely incompatible with life.’” Let's face it. He was hit by a rifle shot to the front. His head would not remain stationary when the bullet impacted with enough force to blast through his head and blow the back of his skull off. Where the shooter was does not matter.

Thanks Ryan! On November 27, 1963, five days after Kennedy was assassinated, the Washington Post reported: “Sheriff Bill Decker of Dallas said he thought a skilled rifleman could reload the rifle in two seconds. With re-sighting, he said, three shots could be fired in less than 20 seconds . . . Olympic rifle champion Hubert Hammerer was quoted by Reuters as saying that any sharpshooter could have targeted the first shot. The process of using the rifle’s bolt action between shots would have made the other shots difficult . . . Leonard Davis, an official of the National Rifle Association, told the Associated Press that ‘a true expert’ could fire three shots in five seconds with accuracy but Oswald’s Marine Corps record hardly bore out a classification as a ‘true expert’ . . . Newspapers in Italy and Austria yesterday quoted rifle experts as saying it was unlikely one man could have fired three shots in five seconds with great precision from the rifle allegedly used to shoot President Kennedy. It is a European-made rifle.” The fact is Oswald was a neurotic malcontent who didn’t appear to be very good at anything. On December 1, 1963, one week after Oswald was silenced, a Washington Post reporter, reporting from Dallas wrote: “Accounts here of his income during the last year and a half of his life indicate that he was bounced from one job to the next and led the life of a harried, penny-pinching common laborer of uncommon mind. He may have been exigent to the point of desperation six weeks or so before the assassination, when he found himself out of a job, his unemployment compensation exhausted, and his wife about to give birth to their second baby.” (Oswald enthusiastically accepted a job offer at the Texas School Book Depository because the CIA orchestrated the situation he was in, with the exception of his wife being pregnant.) The Secret Service didn’t start protecting the President until after President McKinley was assassinated in 1901. After McKinley, there were nine Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, who served sixty consecutive years in the Oval Office without being assassinated. Legislation on the CIA was passed in 1947 and 1949, and in 1951 Truman signed the legislation in which the CIA took over Secret Service duties. On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated, allegedly by a neurotic malcontent who happened to have been working as a stock clerk for five weeks in a building along the President’s motorcade route; a man who allegedly, when he heard where the motorcade route was, decided to bring a rifle to work three days later and assassinate the President of the United States with no problem whatsoever, because this neurotic malcontent, while not very good at anything else, was supposedly a phenomenal marksman. Unfortunately, the neurotic malcontent was killed two days later as he was being moved “basically for his own protection.”

It sounds like these "alterationists" are goofy. It's already been established that JFK was killed in a conspiracy. The thing to do now is to ask who did it and why, and not say, "Look at what I know about photography and photographs. Ooooh! People should listen to me so that they will understand that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK." The only question is: "Who did it and why?"

John, I know you don't believe this but I'm going to say it anyway. Ted Kennedy is in the CIA. He was one of the intelligence officers targeted for political office. He was being handled by the KGB officers that killed his brother Jack and then Bobby. I am an eyewitness to the fact that Ted Kennedy was addicted to cocaine in 1984. Tony

That was a great post John. You make several important points, especially about the information that had people accusing all the various groups of being culpable in the assassination. But I have to ask; Why would you reject the idea that the CIA had been infiltrated by the KGB and that they were exploiting the MIC to destroy democracy in the United States? Does it really make sense that the people in the MIC were murderous criminals who would actually kill the President of the United States? The KGB officers wanted to destroy democracy. They wanted Goldwater as President because they wanted racial conflict in the United States.

Humphrey was a liberal from the extremely liberal state of Minnesota. No state in the South would be going to him, and the conservative mountain states would not go to him either. Just like those states wouldn't be going to liberal Representative John McCormack of Massachusetts, who would have become President had they assassinated Johnson. There is talk right now about postponing the 2004 election in the event of a terrorist attack. "A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda . . . 'I think it's excessive based on what we know,' said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a interview on CNN's Late Edition." The Democrats could not have delayed the election. They couldn't dictate that there would be no election on Tuesday after Johnson was assassinated on Saturday. They would have fielded either McCormack or Humphrey who would lose to the well-traveled, high profile Barry Goldwater. The fact remains that the optimal scenario for the Military Industrial Complex would have been the election of Barry Goldwater, who was very radical, as opposed to Johnson, who supported a good deal of liberal programs after he became President. Then you have the question of why Goldwater even ran, if it wasn't for the idea that his "behind-the-scenes" backers were going to assassinate President Johnson right before the election. If they hadn’t killed Kennedy, Goldwater would not have run for the Presidency. To make that case, I present the following: On August 4, 1963, it was reported that “Senator Barry Goldwater has returned a campaign contribution . . . saying he has no plans to seek the Presidency.” In returning the contribution, he wrote: “I have already announced my intention of seeking a third Senate term in 1964 and have established a campaign organization for this purpose. If you care to resubmit your contribution for this effort, I would of course be most grateful.” On September 22, 1963, Goldwater declined an invitation from the president of the University of New Hampshire Republican Club to visit New Hampshire, which had the first of the presidential primaries in March 1964, and he wrote, “My plans at present are to run for re-election to the US Senate . . . The balance of my schedule for this year has been completely filled for some time,” which undoubtedly included his visit to Texas where he rode from the airport in an open convertible while fans chanted "We want Barry" and waved "Goldwater for President signs" exactly six weeks before Kennedy was assassinated. Back on June 1, 1963, a Washington Post columnist had written a column about Goldwater’s reluctance to seek the Presidency, writing: “I think his reluctance to make the final decision is real. It is not a pose . . . Goldwater cherishes his position in the Senate . . . It is the forum from which he has won the undisputed leadership of the conservative forces in the United States . . . Since he must run for re-election in Arizona next year, he would not relish losing his Senate seat in a possibly futile campaign for the White House.” “He does not assume that President Kennedy cannot be defeated, but he considers at this stage the odds are clearly on the side of the President’s re-election.” On Friday, October 11, 1963, the Dallas Morning News had written an article about Goldwater speaking to reporters in Pennsylvania the night before his high profile trip to Texas on the 11th, and it said: “The Arizona Republican said he really preferred to stay in the Senate and thought his services might be more useful there.” On October 19, 1963, Senator Barry Goldwater stated, “Actually, I’m trying to think of reasons why I should become a candidate and I’m coming up with some negative answers.” On November 10, 1963, Goldwater responded to questions and said: “I don’t intend to announce something I am not yet decided upon doing . . . There are others who are equally insistent that I wait until I am convinced it is something I should do . . . If and when I become a candidate . . . I have not decided to become a candidate . . . I haven’t done any campaigning for myself and won’t unless I decide in January to seek the Republican nomination . . . whether or not I decide to run.” A Harris Survey, published on November 18, 1963, four days before Kennedy was cut down, analyzed the balance between liberals and conservatives and it stated: “The key, however, rests with middle-of-the-road voters . . . It is immediately evident that the balance of power rests with the politically more numerous moderate group . . . President Kennedy, however, already has a substantial edge among moderates. It remains to be seen just how well Goldwater can cut down this advantage.” Now let's look at how Kennedy's death affected the prospect of a Goldwater candidacy. On November 24, 1963, the New York Times wrote: “The prospect of Mr. Johnson’s nomination appeared likely to produce a liberal Republican opponent.” The article said this was to “capitalize” on “the new President’s greatest potential weakness” which was “his lack of appeal to independent and liberal voters.” It even cited “former Vice-President Richard M. Nixon” who is “less readily identified as a liberal,” but whose “considerable vote-getting record in 1960” and whose “political acceptability in diverse wings of the party leadership continue to make him a strong contender.” On December 5, 1963, Washington Post columnists Evans and Novak wrote about the “sharp falloff, sharper than was first apparent, in Senator Barry Goldwater’s strength after President Kennedy’s death . . . Now, even some of his own supporters admit that a totally different kind of candidate is required against President Johnson.” On December 11, 1963, the Washington Post reported: “Politicians in both parties have felt that the Senator’s chances for the nomination were hurt by the accession of President Johnson, a Southerner.” On December 27, 1963, an article in the Washington Post reported that the National Committee for an Effective Congress, “a nonpartisan political committee,” received “a staff report asserting that President Johnson’s accession to the White House had damaged Goldwater’s chances of landing the nomination. It said the Republicans are now looking for a middle-of-the-road candidate.” The article also gave the views of the Republican Mayor of San Francisco, where the Republican convention was being held in 1964. “Republican Mayor George Christopher of San Francisco said yesterday that Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater has lost ground in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.” Christopher stated that there was “a remarkable change in sentiment.” “Christopher, too, said the reason for the change is the death of President Kennedy and the probability that President Johnson will be the Democratic nominee in 1964. Before Mr. Kennedy was assassinated, Christopher said, he had believed Goldwater was the leading contender for California’s 86 GOP national convention votes.” Besides the likelihood of “a liberal Republican opponent” to run against President Johnson, the New York Times also reported on November 24, 1963, that although Johnson “has lost some standing among Southerners . . . he could still fend off a Goldwater challenge in the South more successfully than Mr. Kennedy might have. Without a substantial number of electoral votes in the South, it is considered doubtful that a candidate of the right such as Mr. Goldwater could win.” On Friday, January 3, 1964, exactly six weeks after the KGB officers killed President Kennedy, their man Barry Goldwater announced his candidacy, despite the fact that on October 10th he “said he really preferred to stay in the Senate and thought his services might be more useful there,” despite the fact that on October 19th he was “trying to think of reasons” why he should become a candidate and “coming up with some negative answers,” and despite the fact that Kennedy’s death seemingly sounded the death knell for the impetus that was supposed to push Goldwater into the 1964 race. When he returned the campaign contribution on August 4, 1963, saying that he has no plans to seek the Presidency, he also wrote: “Circumstances might develop which could compel me to alter my present course.” Why did Goldwater "give up his cherished Senate seat in a futile campaign for the White House" if they weren't going to assassinate Johnson right before the election and make sure it wasn't a "futile campaign?"

Why not just order the video? It's probably a good refernce for you. I wouldn't order it because I know who killed Kennedy and why. I didn't even watch Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" until after I had finished my compiling the information for my book.

What's up with this "alteration doctrine"? Do these alterationists have an agenda? If so, what is it?

RFK was in charge of a group that was focused on Castro. Doesn't it make sense that President Johnson's fear of a nuclear war is the reason why RFK went along with the cover up? The CIA manufactured ample information that Cubans did it. Was RFK supposed to go around saying that the Cubans had done it, seeing as how the Warren Commission was established to cover up information that Cubans were involved?

Senator Barry Goldwater was very radical and certainly had no chance of winning a race against President Johnson, but the Military Industrial Complex would have been way better off with Goldwater as President. The only states that went to Goldwater in 1964, besides his home state of Arizona, were five Southern segregationist states; Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina. But as I have cited many times, the people that killed President Kennedy were also planning on killing President Johnson on Saturday, October 31, 1964, so that Goldwater would win the election on Tuesday, November 3, 1964. What stopped them was the fact that the Suffolk County Police discovered their fall guy. On October 31, 1964, Suffolk County Police arrested Robert Babcock 300 yards from Republic Aviation Corporation in New York, where President Johnson stepped from his plane on the company’s airstrip eight minutes later. He was arrested because he had a telescopic rifle on the seat beside him and a loaded shotgun in his trunk. Detectives spotted him in a routine check and took him into custody twenty minutes before the President passed by. [see Dallas Morning News, 11/1/64, page 10, & New York Times, 11/1/64, page 78] “The President’s motorcade had been expected to make a number of stops along the motorcade route . . .” Robert Babcock was questioned by Suffolk County Police and the Secret Service, and “said first that he had been going on a hunting trip when he decided to stop and see the motorcade. He then said he made a bet with barroom acquaintances that he could do what he did without being detected.” “He was charged with disorderly conduct and jailed for the night.” There were no bullets for the telescopic rifle, which would have been conducive to persuading him to take this action, but that would be easily rectified, and Robert Babcock would have found it impossible to understand how the murder weapon could be alleged to have been in his possession, and why the loaded shotgun in his trunk made him look more guilty. The Suffolk County Police gave an alibi to a man who wasn’t supposed to have one, a man who was intrinsic to a Presidential assassination, and the “Secret Service” was so easily appeased because they knew their plans had gone awry and they wanted this to receive as little attention as possible. Where, when, why, and how he obtained the weapons, or if he owned them, was instantaneously of no significance, and the anonymous “barroom acquaintances” that persuaded him to take this action by making a bet with him remained anonymous, while he was simply charged with “disorderly conduct.” The easily duped Mr. Babcock could’ve simply driven to the area of the first scheduled stop after one or more of the “barroom acquaintances” told him where it was. They could have also told him that where he would park wasn’t actually near the first scheduled stop. Or he could have even been told to first park along the motorcade route, and then drive a certain distance behind the motorcade as it traveled to the area of the first scheduled stop as part of the bet. The “barroom acquaintances” were undoubtedly sure that he intended to carry out their plans as he left. As he embarked on his daring venture, his instigators could have also said, “We know nothing’s going to happen but if it does, just get in your car and get out of there,” which would have been very conducive to making it look like he was the assassin. Pulling out their money and saying, “We’ll see you when you get back, and we’ll know if you didn’t do it,” would have affirmed Robert Babcock’s idea that he was going to come into some easy money with a simplistic act. Whatever the exact details of this assassination plan were, one thing is certain; those who assassinated President Kennedy were going to assassinate President Johnson on October 31, 1964, and Robert Babcock was going to be the accused assassin. What is also crystal clear from the details given, is that a man can be paid money to sit along the motorcade route of the President of the United States with a telescopic rifle on the seat beside him and a loaded shotgun in the trunk, and the United States “Secret Service” will do nothing but charge him with disorderly conduct and jail him for the night. After Kennedy was assassinated the prevailing opinion from politicians of both parties and even among Goldwater’s own supporters, was that only a moderate Republican, not the ultra-conservative Barry Goldwater, could defeat President Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 election. Obviously, assassinating President Johnson on Saturday, October 31, 1964, would’ve easily rectified this problem and assured that Barry Goldwater would be elected President of the United States on Tuesday, November 3, 1964. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution, providing for Presidential succession and the appointment of a new Vice President, didn’t become part of the Constitution until February 1967. There was no Vice President on Saturday, October 31, 1964. Representative John W. McCormack of Massachusetts, elected Speaker of the House in January 1962 after House Speaker Sam Rayburn died, would have become President, and no state in the South, nor the state that would elect Ronald Reagan as Governor in 1966, conservative California, “the heart of Western conservatism” that flourished in the mountain states, would be going to the liberal Representative from Massachusetts, who would have two days to convince people that he should be President; two days to convince people that his thirty-four months as Speaker of the House made him more qualified to be President of the United States than the well-traveled high-profile Barry Goldwater. Liberal Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, who was President Johnson’s running mate, certainly wouldn’t have fared much better in a race with Barry Goldwater, and there would have been mass confusion on November 3, 1964, as people voted in a contest between a dead President and Barry Goldwater. People who were determined to vote against Goldwater would have to figure out whether they were trying to elect President McCormack or, if when they voted for the Johnson-Humphrey ticket, they were trying to elect Hubert Humphrey to the Office of President. Were they trying to elect President McCormack while electing Hubert Humphrey to the Office of Vice President, or were they trying to elect one of them to the Office of President while not electing anyone to the Office of Vice President? If Senator Humphrey declared that he had a better chance of defeating Barry Goldwater, or if he declared that he was entitled to be the nominee, it certainly would have compounded the confusion during the two days that “President McCormack” would have had in which to announce his candidacy. Devout opponents of Barry Goldwater would have to tune in to the news, read the newspapers on Sunday and Monday, and try to find out from polling officials just who and what they were voting for as they futilely tried to prevent Barry Goldwater from being elected President. The “Secret Service” would have realized their goal of having Barry Goldwater elected President. Robert Babcock’s story about a bet with “barroom acquaintances” wouldn’t have helped him any more than a letter to “President Goldwater” stating, as a very upset Lee Harvey Oswald once said, “I emphatically deny these charges.” And let's not forget that the fall guy in Kennedy's assassination was encouraged too. On January 19, 1970, “Senator Richard B. Russell, Democrat of Georgia, said today he never believed Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy without at least some encouragement from others . . . The 72-year-old Senator made the statements to newsmen in response to questions prompted by an article in the Washington Post based on a series of taped interviews he recorded . . . Senator Russell said the Warren Commission was not able to investigate specifically the source of such possible encouragement, and he added he could not pinpoint it.” [see New York Times, 1/20/70, page 16] There you have it. They were going to kill Johnson right before the election to make sure Goldwater was elected President, and the Military Industrial Complex couldn't have a better President than the extreme far-right Senator Barry Goldwater. Tony

Please note that my post said, "This corruption has eaten away at the fiber of American democracy for MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS." Democracy didn't die in 1947, even though the CIA was created under the National Security Act that year. After Congress passed the Central Intelligence Agency Act in 1949, democracy began to die a slow death.

John, Some of those photos are pretty risque. I'd rather stay away from stuff like that. You should post a warning about the link. Tony

What was the point of Cootchie Coup's post?

The deep-rooted corruption that resulted in the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy reaches into the upper echelons of the Government and the CIA in our day and time, more than 40 years after Kennedy was killed. This corruption has eaten away at the fiber of American democracy for more than fifty years and caused bipartisan corruption to permeate both the Executive and the Legislative Branches of the United States Government. It is no coincidence that the father and grandfather of President George W. Bush played significant roles in the Goldwater candidacy of 1964, a candidacy that required the assassination of President Kennedy. Bush recently said that the insurgency in Iraq was a "power grab by ruthless extremists." The Bush Presidency is a power grab by ruthless extremists" and so is the candidacy of Senator John Kerry. Nothing has changed since Kennedy was killed, and democracy in America is all but dead.

Did someone on the forum make these claims?

That must be guys who claim that the Pentagon was actually hit by a missile. Or the guys who list many groups that "may have" assassinated JFK, without specifying any, and say that they all had different motives. Or guys who claim that Flight 93 was actually shot down over Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, by the "Happy Holligans." Or guys who claim that "the CIA killed Howard Hughes and created the myth of Hughes as a reclusive hermit so they could control and use his companies and fortune."