McAdams melts down

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff, How do you know which evidence is fabricated and which is geniune? You appear to be someone who simply ignores "evidence" if it conflicts with their preferred beliefs. I have published three books that are dedicated to the separation of the genuine from the fabricated. Have you read them? Are you familiar with David Mantik's studies of the autopsy X-rays? Bob Livington's on the substitution of another brain? The massive, detailed, and through analysis of the recreation of the Zapruder film by David Mantik, Jack White, John Costella, David Healy, and David Lifton? Because if you are not familiar with their work, then you haven't a clue. And it is apparent to me from your posts here that you haven't a clue! Their names, in case you missed them, are ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). While you are at it, you might also take a look at Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), and, of course, Doug Horne, INSIDE THE ARRB (2009). How you can have the never to post when you are clearly massively ignorant of the most important research on the authenticity of the evidence is beyond me. The whole case revolves about this question.

Hi Cliff,

Doug Horne has an errata page on his blog if you have any corrections to make about his book, which you apparently haven't read since you are quoting what other people have said.

No, I'm not that interested, frankly. I restrict my studies to authentic evidence,

and it sure looks to me like Horne concentrates on fraudulent evidence.

Charles Barkley once said of basketball beat writers, "The more they watch the

game the less they understand."

I fear this is true of JFK assassination researchers: the more they study the

head wounds the less they understand.

I don't know about you, but after many years, decades of studying this case, my research is coming together, and the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fall in to place.

And the CIA are Patsies as much as Oswald.

Bill Kelly

Bingo!

It was a pan-organizational effort, people whose backgrounds were incidental to

their common goal, which, according to my reading of history, was the establishment of

a Laos-to-U.S. heroin pipeline thru Vietnam and Havana.

More and more it becomes clear (to me, at least) that JFK was murdered in a

manner designed to pin the blame on Castro, to provide a rationale for an invasion

of Cuba.

Hanging the crime on "the CIA" or "the Mafia" or "the FBI" only because various

perps had backgrounds in these various organizations is the wrong way to look

at the case, imo.

There is a history of blue-blood elites being involved in the dope trade, after all.

Edited January 17, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

And the CIA are Patsies as much as Oswald.

Bill Kelly

------

I gotta hear this one. Bill please correct me if I am mistaken but in the past you have warned others about blanket statements re entire agencies, based on the involvement of some of its members? Again, please correct me if I am mistaken, I could be mixing you up with another forum member.

Personally, I have trouble with this innocence by compartmentalization approach, given the extremely undemocratic nature of the organization itself, and the fact that even pure members are such only by their knowingly being boxed out from many of the consequences of their actions. However, it is certainly open to debate given the need for intelligence agencies in the modern world.

Now you come up with the above very strong statement: " And the CIA are Patsies as much as Oswald".

If that was meant to be provocative, well, I'm all ears. I just hope you can defend such a position fully, and apply the same degree of skepticism about overgeneralizations to this one!

Edited January 17, 2010 by Nathaniel Heidenheimer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff, Maybe I am being to harsh with you. Do you agree with me about the

back wound as I discuss it in "Reasoning about Assassinations", which you

can find via google or archived at http://assassinationscience.com? Thanks.

Hi Cliff,

Doug Horne has an errata page on his blog if you have any corrections to make about his book, which you apparently haven't read since you are quoting what other people have said.

No, I'm not that interested, frankly. I restrict my studies to authentic evidence,

and it sure looks to me like Horne concentrates on fraudulent evidence.

Charles Barkley once said of basketball beat writers, "The more they watch the

game the less they understand."

I fear this is true of JFK assassination researchers: the more they study the

head wounds the less they understand.

I don't know about you, but after many years, decades of studying this case, my research is coming together, and the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fall in to place.

And the CIA are Patsies as much as Oswald.

Bill Kelly

Bingo!

It was a pan-organizational effort, people whose backgrounds were incidental to

their common goal, which, according to my reading of history, was the establishment of

a Laos-to-U.S. heroin pipeline thru Vietnam and Havana.

More and more it becomes clear (to me, at least) that JFK was murdered in a

manner designed to pin the blame on Castro, to provide a rationale for an invasion

of Cuba.

Hanging the crime on "the CIA" or "the Mafia" or "the FBI" only because various

perps had backgrounds in these various organizations is the wrong way to look

at the case, imo.

There is a history of blue-blood elites being involved in the dope trade, after all.

Edited January 17, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, How do you know which evidence is fabricated and which is geniune?

Glad you asked!

It's a simple matter: was the evidence properly prepared, collected,

and produced according to the prevailing protocols?

If the evidence was properly acquired, it rightly belongs in the historical

record.

If the evidence was improperly acquired, it is rightly dismissed.

I dismiss the autopsy photos because they were not produced according to

proper autopsy protocol, there is no chain of possession (thank you for that

one, Doug Horne!), and even the HSCA concluded they were "deficient as

scientific evidence" and prima facie inadmissible in court.

I dismiss anything related to the head wounds, given the evidence

of pre-autopsy surgery to the head.

I dismiss the final autopsy report, which did not follow proper autopsy protocol

in the listing of the back wound.

I dismiss the measurements written in pen on the autopsy face sheet because

proper autopsy protocol requires using a pencil.

What do I regard as properly prepared, collect, and produced evidence?

Burkley's death certificate, which listed the back wound according

to its vertebral level -- T3 -- according to proper autopsy protocol.

Boswell's face sheet diagram and the verification of same was

filled out in pencil, according to proper autopsy protocol.

The FBI autopsy report was prepared according to proper

FBI protocol, and the FBI SAs in attendence supplemented

their report with sworn affidavits in 1978.

The contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors were

properly prepared.

You appear to be someone who simply ignores "evidence" if it conflicts with their preferred beliefs. I have published three books that are dedicated to the separation of the genuine from the fabricated. Have you read them? Are you familiar with David Mantik's studies of the autopsy X-rays?

I have discussed my problems with Mantik with Jack White in another thread.

Mantik presents the T3-back-wound/throat-entrance-wound as open questions, exactly

the kind of equivocation that so angered Vincent Salandria about Tink Thompson.

Any study of the autopsy photos and x-rays is a study in fraudulent evidence

that may tell us a lot about the cover-up but tells us nothing about the killing

Bob Livington's on the substitution of another brain?

Another study of fraudulent evidence.

I'm far more interested in what actually happened in Dealey Plaza.

The massive, detailed, and through analysis of the recreation of the Zapruder film by David Mantik, Jack White, John Costella, David Healy, and David Lifton?

I have put this to these gentlemen, and yourself, many times: show me the

fakery in Z186-Z255.

Otherwise, you are ignoring crucial evidence of how JFK was killed because

you have a fetish for evidence that doesn't show how he was killed.

I don't think this makes you a bad guy, Jim, it just means we're studying

different cases.

Because if you are not familiar with their work, then you haven't a clue.

I'd rather be familiar with the actual evidence, Jim, then muck about in evidence

we all agree is a fraud.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

How you can have the nerve to post when you are clearly massively ignorant of the most important research on the authenticity of the evidence is beyond me. The whole case revolves about this question.

This research to which you refer speaks to the lower levels of the cover-up.

I am far more interested in research related to the actual killing of JFK,

and what the high level cover-up tells us about the perps.

You guys are mucking around in minutia; and excuse me if I'm not impressed

with the shabby way the low-back-wound/throat-entrance-wound is handled

by "experts."

Edited January 17, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, Maybe I am being to harsh with you. Do you agree with me about the

back wound as I discuss it in "Reasoning about Assassinations", which you

can find via google or archived at http://assassinationscience.com? Thanks.

Jim, I know you are on the side of the angels in regard to the

back wound.

Jack White, as well, at least as far as the wound being at T3.

I may not be on your guys' side in your main issue, but you

guys are on my side with my main issue.

I think you need to re-visit your characterization of the clothing

evidence.

You wrote (my emphasis):

...According to the official account,[diagram] h1, the bullet hit the President

at the base of the back of his neck, as the "magic bullet" hypothesis

requires. If h1 were true, then the probability of holes in the shirt and

jacket about 5 and 1/2 inches below the collar would be low, but not

impossible if, for example, they had been "bunched."

This is factually incorrect. The tandem 2+" movement of JFK's shirt

and jacket is flat-out impossible and cannot be replicated using

properly worn custom-made clothes.

First of all, JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, leaving a visible shirt

collar and fraction of an inch jacket folds.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

How could 2 inches of JFK's shirt and 2 inches of his jacket bunch

up entirely above the inshoot at the base of his neck without pushing

up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck?

It can't happen.

Second of all, in the field of clothing design, the term of art for clothes bunching

is -- "ease."

Any movement of clothing involving more than an inch of fabric is termed

"gross ease." The gross ease of fabric is caused by exaggerated

body movements, like stretching for an object on a high shelf.

Contrary to "gross" movements of clothing/body, are "casual" movements,

like lifting your arm to wave at someone.

Casual movements of the body ALWAYS result in fraction-of-an-inch

movements of clothing -- casual ease. The immutable law of

"casual ease" precludes the Gross Ease Fallacy required by the SBT.

From Love Field to downtown Dallas JFK's jacket eased up into his

hairline as seen in the Jefferies film.

It then dropped -- a fraction of an inch at a time -- over the last 90 seconds

of his life.

Thirdly, JFK wore a tucked-in custom-made shirt. Such shirts only have

a fraction of an inch of available slack.

That's why Bunch Theory has never been replicated.

Other than that, Jim, your article does a fine job of making the prima facie case

for conspiracy!

Edited January 17, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Jack White]

Cliff, Maybe I am being to harsh with you. Do you agree with me about the

back wound as I discuss it in "Reasoning about Assassinations", which you

can find via google or archived at http://assassinationscience.com? Thanks.

Jim, I know you are on the side of the angels in regard to the

back wound.

Jack White, as well, at least as far as the wound being at T3.

I may not be on your guys' side in your main issue, but you

guys are on my side with my main issue.

I think you need to re-visit your characterization of the clothing

evidence.

You wrote (my emphasis):

...According to the official account,[diagram] h1, the bullet hit the President

at the base of the back of his neck, as the "magic bullet" hypothesis

requires. If h1 were true, then the probability of holes in the shirt and

jacket about 5 and 1/2 inches below the collar would be low, but not

impossible if, for example, they had been "bunched."

This is factually incorrect. The tandem 2+" movement of JFK's shirt

and jacket is flat-out impossible and cannot be replicated using

properly worn custom-made clothes.

First of all, JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, leaving a visible shirt

collar and fraction of an inch jacket folds.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

How could 2 inches of JFK's shirt and 2 inches of his jacket bunch

up entirely above the inshoot at the base of his neck without pushing

up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck?

It can't happen.

Second of all, in the field of clothing design, the term of art for clothes bunching

is -- "ease."

Any movement of clothing involving more than an inch of fabric is termed

"gross ease." The gross ease of fabric is caused by exaggerated

body movements, like stretching for an object on a high shelf.

Contrary to "gross" movements of clothing/body, are "casual" movements,

like lifting your arm to wave at someone.

Casual movements of the body ALWAYS result in fraction-of-an-inch

movements of clothing -- casual ease. The immutable law of

"casual ease" precludes the Gross Ease Fallacy required by the SBT.

From Love Field to downtown Dallas JFK's jacket eased up into his

hairline as seen in the Jefferies film.

It then dropped -- a fraction of an inch at a time -- over the last 90 seconds

of his life.

Thirdly, JFK wore a tucked-in custom-made shirt. Such shirts only have

a fraction of an inch of available slack.

That's why Bunch Theory has never been replicated.

Other than that, Jim, your article does a fine job of making the prima facie case

for conspiracy!

Just to make sure my beliefs are accurately conveyed by anyone.

1. I believe JFK was struck in the back at the 3rd thoracic vertebra (T3). I do not

believe the stretcher bullet caused this wound, but cannot imagine what did. The

wounding bullet did not exit the throat and strike Connally.

2. I believe the shirt and coat accurately reflect a back wound location about 6 inches

down the back and to the right of the spine, not striking bone.

3. I allow for the possibility that a "fake wound" may have been created at Bethesda;

in the autopsy photos, the ruler may have covered the real wound; the fake wound

if it existed could have been made by a surgical instrument.

4. I believe all the medical evidence is suspect, so the exact nature of the back

wound may never be knowable.

Jack

[Craig Lamson]

First of all, JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, leaving a visible shirt

collar and fraction of an inch jacket folds.

Except for that pesky 3+ inch horizontal fold seen in Betzner...which is unimpeachable Cliff, as you know VERY well.....

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff, I have made the point about custom-made clothing in many forums, including, I think, the article, "Reasoning about Assassinations". But you seem to have a blind spot. Don't you understand that the alteration of the X-rays, substitution of another brain, and recreation of the Zapruder film could only have been done by high-level government officials, including agents of the Secret Service, medical officers of the US Navy, and the president's personal physician, in the case of the former, or by agents of the Secret Service and technical experts, such as those at "Hawkeyeworks" in Rochester, NY, in the cased of the film? It appears to me you have not thought this through. Consider the following.

The Mafia, for example, could not have extended its reach inside Bethesda Naval Hospital and altered X-rays under the control of agents of the Secret Service, medical officers of the US Navy, and the president's personal physician. Neither pro nor anti-Castro Cubans could have substituted another brain for that of JFK. And even if the KGB had an ability to alter or recreate films comparable to that of the CIA or Hollywood, it could not have got its hands on the Zapruder. Nor could any of these things have been done by Lee Oswald, who was incarcerated or already dead! So I am afraid that you are cutting yourself off from consequences that follow from considering who could have altered this crucial evidence.

Cliff, Maybe I am being to harsh with you. Do you agree with me about the

back wound as I discuss it in "Reasoning about Assassinations", which you

can find via google or archived at http://assassinationscience.com? Thanks.

Jim, I know you are on the side of the angels in regard to the

back wound.

Jack White, as well, at least as far as the wound being at T3.

I may not be on your guys' side in your main issue, but you

guys are on my side with my main issue.

I think you need to re-visit your characterization of the clothing

evidence.

You wrote (my emphasis):

...According to the official account,[diagram] h1, the bullet hit the President

at the base of the back of his neck, as the "magic bullet" hypothesis

requires. If h1 were true, then the probability of holes in the shirt and

jacket about 5 and 1/2 inches below the collar would be low, but not

impossible if, for example, they had been "bunched."

This is factually incorrect. The tandem 2+" movement of JFK's shirt

and jacket is flat-out impossible and cannot be replicated using

properly worn custom-made clothes.

First of all, JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, leaving a visible shirt

collar and fraction of an inch jacket folds.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

How could 2 inches of JFK's shirt and 2 inches of his jacket bunch

up entirely above the inshoot at the base of his neck without pushing

up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck?

It can't happen.

Second of all, in the field of clothing design, the term of art for clothes bunching

is -- "ease."

Any movement of clothing involving more than an inch of fabric is termed

"gross ease." The gross ease of fabric is caused by exaggerated

body movements, like stretching for an object on a high shelf.

Contrary to "gross" movements of clothing/body, are "casual" movements,

like lifting your arm to wave at someone.

Casual movements of the body ALWAYS result in fraction-of-an-inch

movements of clothing -- casual ease. The immutable law of

"casual ease" precludes the Gross Ease Fallacy required by the SBT.

From Love Field to downtown Dallas JFK's jacket eased up into his

hairline as seen in the Jefferies film.

It then dropped -- a fraction of an inch at a time -- over the last 90 seconds

of his life.

Thirdly, JFK wore a tucked-in custom-made shirt. Such shirts only have

a fraction of an inch of available slack.

That's why Bunch Theory has never been replicated.

Other than that, Jim, your article does a fine job of making the prima facie case

for conspiracy!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

OK, you have read my article. But I am troubled that you say nothing about my books. So, have you read my three books?

Because they do more in sorting out authentic from fabricated evidence than any other source prior to Doug Horne's books.

Cliff, Maybe I am being to harsh with you. Do you agree with me about the

back wound as I discuss it in "Reasoning about Assassinations", which you

can find via google or archived at http://assassinationscience.com? Thanks.

Jim, I know you are on the side of the angels in regard to the

back wound.

Jack White, as well, at least as far as the wound being at T3.

I may not be on your guys' side in your main issue, but you

guys are on my side with my main issue.

I think you need to re-visit your characterization of the clothing

evidence.

You wrote (my emphasis):

...According to the official account,[diagram] h1, the bullet hit the President

at the base of the back of his neck, as the "magic bullet" hypothesis

requires. If h1 were true, then the probability of holes in the shirt and

jacket about 5 and 1/2 inches below the collar would be low, but not

impossible if, for example, they had been "bunched."

This is factually incorrect. The tandem 2+" movement of JFK's shirt

and jacket is flat-out impossible and cannot be replicated using

properly worn custom-made clothes.

First of all, JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, leaving a visible shirt

collar and fraction of an inch jacket folds.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

How could 2 inches of JFK's shirt and 2 inches of his jacket bunch

up entirely above the inshoot at the base of his neck without pushing

up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck?

It can't happen.

Second of all, in the field of clothing design, the term of art for clothes bunching

is -- "ease."

Any movement of clothing involving more than an inch of fabric is termed

"gross ease." The gross ease of fabric is caused by exaggerated

body movements, like stretching for an object on a high shelf.

Contrary to "gross" movements of clothing/body, are "casual" movements,

like lifting your arm to wave at someone.

Casual movements of the body ALWAYS result in fraction-of-an-inch

movements of clothing -- casual ease. The immutable law of

"casual ease" precludes the Gross Ease Fallacy required by the SBT.

From Love Field to downtown Dallas JFK's jacket eased up into his

hairline as seen in the Jefferies film.

It then dropped -- a fraction of an inch at a time -- over the last 90 seconds

of his life.

Thirdly, JFK wore a tucked-in custom-made shirt. Such shirts only have

a fraction of an inch of available slack.

That's why Bunch Theory has never been replicated.

Other than that, Jim, your article does a fine job of making the prima facie case

for conspiracy!

Edited January 17, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, I have made the point about custom-made clothing in many forums, including, I think, the article, "Reasoning about Assassinations".

You equivocate. You allow for the possibility of something wholly impossible.

But you seem to have a blind spot.

No, you're fixated on the cover-up, I'm more interested in the murder.

Don't you understand that the alteration of the X-rays, substitution of another brain, and recreation of the Zapruder film could only have been done by high-level government officials, including agents of the Secret Service, medical officers of the US Navy, and the president's personal physician, in the case of the former, or by agents of the Secret Service and technical experts, such as those at "Hawkeyeworks" in Rochester, NY, in the cased of the film? It appears to me you have not thought this through. Consider the following.

What you describe are actions of the cover-up of the murder. At that

level the cover-up cannot tell us anything about what actually happened.

My interest in the cover-up goes well above the pay grade of the people to

whom you are referring.

The leaders of the cover-up revealed themselves within hours of the crime.

To me this is not a mystery. I'm more interested in the connections of

the people who actually killed Kennedy.

McGeorge Bundy called Lyndon Johnson while Air Force One was enroute to

DC and informed the new President that the lone assassin had been captured.

Was McGeorge Bundy the mastermind of this treasonous fiction?

In all of the following emphasis mine

Joseph Trento, The Secret History of the CIA, pg 334-5:

(quote on)

Having served as ambassador to Moscow and governor of New York,

W. Averell Harriman was in the middle of a long public career. In 1960,

President-elect Kennedy appointed him ambassador-at-large, to operate

“with the full confidence of the president and an intimate knowledge of

all aspects of United States policy.” By 1963, according to [Pentagon aide

William R.] Corson, Harriman was running “Vietnam without consulting

the president or the attorney general.”

The president had begun to suspect that not everyone on his national security

team was loyal. As Corson put it, “Kenny O’Donnell (JFK’s appointments

secretary) was convinced that McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor,

was taking orders from Ambassador Averell Harriman and not the president.

He was especially worried about Michael Forrestal, a young man on the

White House staff who handled liaison on Vietnam with Harriman.”

(quote off)

From JFK's taped notations on the Diem coup:

http://tapes.millercenter.virginia.edu/cli...nam_memoir.html

(quote on)

President Kennedy: Opposed to the coup was General [Maxwell] Taylor, the

Attorney General [Robert Kennedy], Secretary [Robert] McNamara to a somewhat

lesser degree, John McCone, partly based on an old hostility to [Henry Cabot] Lodge

[Jr.] which causes him to lack confidence in Lodge's judgement, partly as a result

of a new hostility because Lodge shifted his [CIA] station chief; in favor of the

coup was State, led by Averell Harriman, George Ball, Roger Hilsman,

supported by Mike Forrestal at the White House.

(quote off)

Via PD Scott:

http://www.history-matters.com/pds/DP3_Chapter5.htm#_ftn41

"Assassinations Report, 173. Cf. FRUS, #320; 777 (Bundy memo of April 21, 1963).

The other two documents are not in FRUS."

(quote on)

As early as January 4, 1963, Bundy proposed to President Kennedy that the

possibility of communicating with Castro be explored. (Memorandum, Bundy

to the President, 1/4/63). Bundy's memorandum on "Cuba Alternatives" of

April 23 [sic, i.e. April 21], 1963, also listed the "gradual development of some

form of accommodation with Castro" among policy alternatives. (Bundy

memorandum, 4/21/63) At a meeting on June 3, 1963, the Special Group agreed

it would be a "useful endeavour" to explore "various possibilities of establishing

channels of communication to Castro." (Memorandum of Special Group meeting,

6/6/63).

(quote off)

David Talbot's Brothers, pg 226:

(quote on)

When Lisa Howard told [envoy William] Attwood that Castro would like to

restore communications with Kennedy and offered to set up an informal meeting

at her apartment between him and Cuba's UN representative, Carlos Lechuga,

the diplomat responded enthusiastically. In a memo he wrote for [Adlai]

Stevenson and Averill Harriman -- who he was told was the best direct channel

to Kennedy -- Attwood suggested that "we have something to gain and nothing

to lose by finding out whether in fact Castro does want to talk"...Stevenson took

the proposal to Kennedy, who gave him clearance to pursue the dialogue.

Harriman too said he was "adventuresome enough" to like the idea...

(quote off)

ad·ven·ture (ăd-vĕn'chər)

n.

1.

1. An undertaking or enterprise of a hazardous nature.

2. An undertaking of a questionable nature, especially one involving

intervention in another state's affairs.

Brothers, pg 217:

(quote on)

By the time Vietnam began to reach a crisis point late in Kennedy's term, much

of his national security bureaucracy -- weary with the president's sly maneuvers

to avoid war -- was in flagrant revolt against him. The Pentagon and CIA were

taking secret steps to sabotage his troop withdrawal plan. And even trusted

advisors like Harriman, the Moscow-friendly globe-trotting tycoon whom Kennedy

thought he could rely on to help broker a deal on Vietnam, were brazenly

undercutting his peace initiatives.

(quote off)

Vincent Salandria's "The Tale Told by Two Tapes":

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...art=#entry31073

(quote on)

In November of 1966, I read Theodore H. White's The Making of the President, 1964...

[O]n page 33 I read the following about the flight back to Washington, D.C. from Dallas:

On the flight the party learned that there was no conspiracy, learned of the

identity of Oswald and his arrest; and the President's mind turned to the

duties of consoling the stricken and guiding the quick.

...* The Situation Room of the White House first fingered Oswald as the

lone assassin when an innocent government, with so much evidence

in Dealey Plaza of conspiracy, would have been keeping all options open.

Therefore this premature birth of the single-assassin myth points to the

highest institutional structure of our warfare state as guilty of the crime

of killing Kennedy. Such a source does not take orders from the Mafia

nor from renegade elements. But such a source is routinely given to

using the Mafia and supposedly out-of-control renegade sources to do

its bidding.

* McGeorge Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room and was spending

that fateful afternoon receiving phone calls from President Johnson, who

was calling from Air Force One when the lone-assassin myth was

prematurely given birth. (Bishop, Jim, The Day Kennedy Was Shot,

New York & Funk Wagnalls, 1968), p. 154) McGeorge Bundy as the

quintessential WASP establishmentarian did not take his orders from the

Mafia and/or renegade elements.

(quote off)

Max Holland's The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, pg 57:

(quote on)

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten-minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright

(D-Arkansas) and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign

involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year

Soviet sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow

during World War II, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and

offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. governments top Kremlinologists.

None of them believe the Soviets had a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald

association.

(quote off)

"The Secret Origins of Skull & Bones":

http://www.voxfux.com/features/scull_bones_opium.html

Partial roster of Yale club "Skull & Bones":

W. Averell Harriman ('13)

McGeorge Bundy ('40)

So, no, the cover-up just ain't that much of a mystery to me.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Peter McGuire]

My interest in the cover-up goes well above the pay grade of the people to

whom you are referring.

The leaders of the cover-up revealed themselves within hours of the crime.

To me this is not a mystery. I'm more interested in the connections of

the people who actually killed Kennedy.

McGeorge Bundy called Lyndon Johnson while Air Force One was enroute to

DC and informed the new President that the lone assassin had been captured.

Was McGeorge Bundy the mastermind of this treasonous fiction?

So, no, the cover-up just ain't that much of a mystery to me.

Me either. Let's focus on folks like Bundy.

a viewer writes:

"McGeorge Bundy was appointed US National Security Adviser in 1961; he and his father were colleagues of Robert Lovett who advised JFK to appoint McGeorge to run the NSC. Lovett was also a director of the Freeport corporation (a Rockefeller interest) which needed the Dutch colony of West Papua to be sold to Indonesia so Freeport could mine the world's richest gold & copper deposits."

Edited January 18, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Cliff Varnell]

My interest in the cover-up goes well above the pay grade of the people to

whom you are referring.

The leaders of the cover-up revealed themselves within hours of the crime.

To me this is not a mystery. I'm more interested in the connections of

the people who actually killed Kennedy.

McGeorge Bundy called Lyndon Johnson while Air Force One was enroute to

DC and informed the new President that the lone assassin had been captured.

Was McGeorge Bundy the mastermind of this treasonous fiction?

So, no, the cover-up just ain't that much of a mystery to me.

Me either. Let's focus on folks like Bundy.

a viewer writes:

"McGeorge Bundy was appointed US National Security Adviser in 1961; he and his father were colleagues of Robert Lovett who advised JFK to appoint McGeorge to run the NSC. Lovett was also a director of the Freeport corporation (a Rockefeller interest) which needed the Dutch colony of West Papua to be sold to Indonesia so Freeport could mine the world's richest gold & copper deposits."

Robert Lovett is a key figure, indeed.

Kennedy kitchen cabinet.

Skull & Bones ('18).

During WW2 as assistant secretary for air in the War Department he developed the

doctrine of massive bombardment of enemy civilian centers. Right after WW2 he

spear-headed the formation of an intelligence branch to replace the OSS. As

Sec. of Defense under Truman he oversaw a massive build-up of American nuclear

capability.

His Dad ran the Harriman railroad interests.

Robert Lovett, C. Douglas Dillon, and W. Averell Harriman used to sit

around their Jupiter Island estates and run the American Imperial game

in the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50s, and 60's.

When Nixon came in, the day-to-day operation of the Harriman/Walker/Bush

crime family was turned over to George H. W. Bush.

Or so I'd wildly speculate!

[Pat Speer]

Really, fellas, what's any of this to do with John McAdams' refusal to answer a simple question? Must we turn every thread into an extended argument over who among us is the purest of all CTs, and who is a disinfo agent?