Thomas Buchanan: Did he solve the JFK case?

[Tim Gratz]

Here is Buchanan's response to the Sauvage article:

By Thomas G. Buchanan

The New Leader, 9 November 1964, pages 8–11

To the Editor:

In my capacity as criminal investigator, there has come to my attention a distressing crime of which you are the luckless victim. I refer to the long article about me (“Thomas Buchanan, Detective”) in your issue of September 28. This article was published—in good faith, I’m sure—under the name of a French writer named Leo Sauvage.

The article, my research has convinced me, was not written by Leo Sauvage, but by his brother, K. O. Leo is, as everybody knows, the U.S. correspondent of Le Figaro, and he is one of France’s most distinguished journalists. His brother, a retired ex-pugilist, now makes a humble living as a stringer for the U.S. Information Service.

Articles by Leo cost a lot of money, but they are well worth it. He has done a great of original investigation of the Kennedy assassination and, since I am totally dependent on such sources and have always said so, I have quoted him in the French edition of my book which Putnam will bring out this month, evaluating the report the President’s Commission has just issued. Articles by Leo’s brother K. O., on the other hand, are relatively inexpensive and indeed I think, if you will make the proper inquiries, you will discover that no fee is needed.

We must not accuse K. O. Sauvage of fraud in selling you an article which he has written on a subject with which he is less familiar than his brother. But I do accuse him of unethical procedure when he charges you the fee which you would normally have paid to Leo.

That the author of this article has misappropriated Leo’s byline will be instantly apparent to you, if you will compare the article you published with authentic work of this distinguished writer. The respected correspondent of Le Figaro, for instance, has a certain subtlety of style. He can be witty and ironic. He does not go swatting gnats with baseball bats like the reporter who prepared your article. On style alone, the substitution is apparent.

In regard to content, one has only to compare the views expressed by the authentic correspondent of Le Figaro with the position of his imitator. The impression given by the article you used is that I am no credit to the human race and ought to be exterminated. I am rather sensitive on this point, since I am now 45 years old, and I have never seen the Orioles win the World Series. I was hoping that I might live long enough to see it happen.

But Leo Sauvage himself is one of the outstanding critics of America’s official version of the Kennedy assassination, and would be among the first reporters to be liquidated, if a purge were started. In Le Figaro of September 28, he wrote as follows:

“No doubt the American authorities, who have been largely concerned with the criticism and sarcasm which their previous statements have provoked in other countries, hope that the large amount of documentation which the Warren Commission has gathered in support of its conclusions will finally crush the skeptics and reduce them to silence. I am very much afraid this hope is doomed to disappointment. This is not only because some forces hostile to the United States have no intention of halting their sarcastic comments. Unfortunately, it is chiefly because the voluminous documentation of the Commission provides no decisive refutation of the serious objections which have been raised against the official theory. In some respects, one may even say that the Warren Report increases the existing doubts about the investigation in Dallas, either by offering interpretations which are even less believable than the official version, or by making additional statements for which there is no proof, or finally by relying on key factors which rest upon a base which is too fragile to support them.”

Leo Sauvage goes on to name these weak points:

1. That many readers will have trouble trying to imagine Oswald, in the last few minutes before Kennedy came into range on Elm Street, patiently assembling his dismantled rifle, wrapped up in a package witnesses insist was too short to have been the murder weapon unless it was disassembled. Sauvage notes that this was in addition to the time he sent building walls of book cartons to hide him.

2. That the Commission has relied too heavily upon the testimony of Marina Oswald that her husband fired at General Walker.

3. The chief objection: “One is rather surprised to read that the Warren Commission attaches any significance at all to the fact that Oswald was identified by witnesses late that night, or the following morning, after television programs had repeatedly carried his picture and all the newspapers had published numerous photographs of him.” Sauvage adds that recognition of the man who had just been arrested, after offering resistance, had been further simplified by the fact that when the police put Oswald in the lineup, he was quite conspicuous because he had a swollen eye and a fresh cut where the police had struck him.

I am in agreement with Sauvage on each point that he mentions, and I have some other reasons for suspecting that the President’s Commission has not given us convincing answers to the questions both of us are asking. But before I name them, let me first plead guilty to the charge that my original report in L’Express in February did contain some errors and—worse still—I cannot even claim to have produced these errors from my own imagination. I did no original research in Dallas. I have never claimed to. The material I studied was the work of hundreds of reporters, some of whom occasionally were mistaken. None of us is better than our sources, as Mr. Sauvage himself will best appreciate if he will read the article attributed to him in the New Leader, in which he is quoted:

“The only version that can be considered official since November 23 states that the description of Oswald was transmitted to police cars after Roy Truly, head of the Depository, had noticed—and had informed one of the detectives—that the employe seen in the second-floor lunchroom a few minutes after the attack had disappeared. Buchanan mentions this version elsewhere in charging against his windmill, but without stopping and without telling us why he does not pause there. To me, the Truly explanation appears completely plausible, and I thus have no need of Buchanan’s Accomplice Number 3.”

Unfortunately for our poor friend K. O., Truly’s explanation, which seemed plausible to him, did not seem plausible to the Commission and the very week your magazine appeared, the President’s Commission came out with a new official version: “Howard L. Brennan was an eyewitness to the shooting.…Brennan described the man to the police. This description most probably led to the radio alert sent to police cars at approximately 12:45 p.m.…The police never mentioned Oswald’s name in the broadcast descriptions before his arrest.…His absence was not noticed until at least one-half hour later.…It was probably no earlier than 1:22 p.m., the time when the rifle was found.”

I should be more sympathetic to K. O. Sauvage and pass discreetly over his misfortune, had he not accused me of one error I consider just a bit insulting. He insinuates that I mistook the town of Irving for a private residence. I did not. That mistake was made by one of my translators. It will not be found in the Italian, German, Dutch, or any of the other simultaneous editions of the series. I need scarcely add that the unfortunate young man who made this blunder is no longer working at L’Express; there are some limits, even to the patience of Françoise Giroud.

We are now better placed to analyze official findings, since they have been irretrievably committed to official paper and cannot be modified and shifted to meet each new criticism. I suggest the theory of the lone assassin rests upon a series of official speculations appearing in the Warren Report, variously labeled “probable” or “possible” or sometimes just “conceivable.” Here are some of the most important, (italics mine):

Speculation: “Two bullets probably caused all the wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally.…One shot passed through the Presidents neck and then most probably passed through the Governor’s body.…The alinement of the points of entry was only indicative and not conclusive that one bullet hit both men.…The evidence indicated that the President was not hit until at least frame 210 and that he was probably hit by frame 225.”

Fact: Refer to Commission Exhibit 893 (frame 210). Observe location of the crosshairs, showing where the President was shot. Note that a shot that passed through Kennedy at the position indicated would have struck the Governor in the lower portion of his back or hip, after first penetrating the car seat on which the Governor was sitting. Now refer to Commission Exhibit 895 (frame 225). Note that the car has turned toward the right, and that a shot fired at the point shown at the intersection of the crosshairs, after passing through the President, not only would have hit the car seat but would then have hit the Governor at the extreme left lower portion of his body or, if he were turning at that time, would have missed the Governor completely. Thus at no time between these two points could a shot have passed through Kennedy and then, while falling at an angle the Commission estimates at more than 17 degrees, “traversed the Governor’s chest at a downward angle…and exited below the right nipple,” as reported in the section dealing with the wounds. The evidence shows that two bullets hit the President, and that a third one hit the Governor of Texas.

Speculation: “Eyewitness testimony…supports the conclusion that the first of the shots fired hit the President.…If the first shot did not miss, there must be an explanation for Governor Connally’s recollection that he was not hit by it. There was, conceivably, a delayed reaction between the time the bullet struck him and the time he realized that he was hit.…”

Fact: The Commission has provided its own answer to this speculation. The remainder of the sentence I have cited totally invalidates the first part: “—a delayed reaction…despite the fact that the bullet struck a glancing blow to a rib and penetrated his wrist bone.” Flesh wounds can, of course, remain unnoticed for a certain time; a bone wound would produce an instant shock. The evidence shows that the shot which hit the Governor of Texas took place after Kennedy was hit.

Speculation: “It was entirely possible” for one shot to have been fired between Kennedy’s two wounds, although “the gunman would have been shooting at very near the minimum allowable time to have fired the three shots within 4.8 to 5.6 seconds.”

Fact: “A minimum of 2. 3 seconds must elapse between shots,” the report has stated. It must be remembered that this minimum is based on the best possible performance of the greatest rifle experts in the world; an ordinary shot like Oswald, barely qualifying with 191 out of 250 the last time he fired in the Marines, would take much longer. One shot in the interval between the President’s two wounds would have to have occurred “almost exactly midway in this period.…On the other hand, a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not evenly spaced.” Two shots between the ones producing Kennedy’s two wounds would mean the speed with which one man could fire these shots had been exceeded. Testimony of the Governor of Texas indicates that he heard shots before and after he was hit. His wife confirms this. Testimony of the witness injured by the wild shot indicated he also heard shots both before and after he was hit. He cannot have been struck by any fragment of the bullet that hit Connally, since it was found intact. The evidence shows there were four or more shots, two of which were fired between the ones by which the President was wounded.

Speculation: “Based on the known facts of the assassination, the Marine marksmanship experts, Major Anderson and Sergeant Zahm, concurred in the opinion that Oswald had the capability to fire three shots, with two hits, within 4.8 to 5.6 seconds.…On the basis of Oswald’s training and the accuracy of the weapon as established by the tests, the Commission concluded that Oswald was capable of accomplishing the second hit even if there was an intervening shot which missed.”

Fact: The Report states that six “expert riflemen” attempted to repeat the feat of the assassin. It appears that they fired at a stationary target, not one that was moving; the report, however, is ambiguous on this point. “Three marksmen, rated as master by the National Rifle Association, each fired two series of three shots. In the first series the firers required time spans of 4.6, 6.75 and 8.25 seconds respectively. On the second series they required 5.15, 6.45 and 7 seconds.” Subsequently, “three fbi firearms experts tested the rifle in order to determine the speed with which it could be fired. The purpose of this experiment was not to test the rifle under conditions which prevailed at the time of the assassination but to determine the maximum speed at which it could be fired. The three fbi experts each fired three shots from the weapon at 15 yards in 6, 7, and 9 seconds.” The evidence shows that in 7 cases out of 9, these experts took longer than the maximum time which has been attributed to Oswald; that their average for three shots was 6.75 seconds and they would, accordingly, have needed three more seconds to have fired a fourth shot.

Speculation: “Constable Deputy Sheriff Weitzman, who only saw the rifle and did not handle it, thought the weapon looked like a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle.…After review of standard reference works and markings on the rifle, it was identified by the fbi as a 6.5 millimeter model 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.…[District Attorney Henry Wade] repeated the error that the murder weapon had been a Mauser.”

Fact: The Commission notes the murder weapon “is inscribed with various markings, including ‘MADE ITALY,’ ‘CAL. 6.5,’” etc. No consultation of the “standard reference works” was required to exclude the possibility that it was (a) a Mauser, which is German-made, or ( a caliber other than 6.5. The error which has been attributed to Weitzman, therefore, could have gone no farther. It would necessarily have been corrected minutes later at the first inspection of the rifle. The report states, “The rifle was identified by Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day, who were the first to actually handle it.” The evidence shows that the statement of District Attorney Wade was made after this first inspection of the rifle by the chief of homicide, a man who certainly can read the writing on a weapon.

The authorities in Dallas have informed us solemnly that Kennedy was murdered by a Mauser. The men who made this first statement did so after an examination of the weapon. I believe them. They informed us later that the President was killed by a Carcano. I believe that, also. I am forced to conclude that there were two weapons. I deduce that there were two assassins.

That, Mr. Sauvage, is mathematics.

I assure, you, my dear sir, of my distinguished sentiments.

Thomas G. Buchanan

Detective

[John Simkin]

The following two photographs appeared on the book jacket of Who Killed Kennedy? and in the Miami Herald (both 1964).

[Tim Gratz]

From reading the commentary it seems clear that Buchanan is asserting that Officer Tippit shot JFK from the TSBD.

But we now know enough about Tippitt's whereabouts to demonstrate that Tippit was not in the TSBD at 12:30 (Dallas time) on November 22, 1963:

http://www.mcadams.posc.mu.edu/car10.htm

Buchanan either created his whole scenario out of whole cloth, or he had a private source (which he fails to disclose) giving him the information. His private source (if any) was clearly wrong about who shot President Kennedy.

I see no reason to believe Buchanan's informant (if any) was more accurate and reliable re who financed the assassination.

Edited January 10, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Why might the Communist Party have wanted to propogate in 1964 a false theory blaming the assassination on a Dallas oilman?

Two possible (and obvious) reasons.

First, the KGB actually did it so the Communist Party apparatus needed to divert attention to some rich old American.

Second, although the Soviet Communist Party was as clear as the driven snow, there was enough suspicion being cast on the Soviet Union due to the defection of LHO, etc. that it still needed to direct attention to a different suspect.

So, whether guilty or not the KGB had reason to want to plant disinformation.

It is precisely because the KGB, guilty or not, had reason to dissemble that a book written by a member of the Communist Party deserves close scrutiny.

Edited January 10, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Why might the Communist Party have wanted to propogate in 1964 a false theory blaming the assassination on a Dallas oilman?

Two possible (and obvious) reasons.

First, the KGB actually did it so the Communist Party apparatus needed to divert attention to some rich old American.

Second, although the Soviet Communist Party was as clear as the driven snow, there was enough suspicion being cast on the Soviet Union due to the defection of LHO, etc. that it still needed to direct attention to a different suspect.

So, whether guilty or not the KGB had reason to want to plant disinformation.

It is precisely because the KGB, guilty or not, had reason to dissemble that a book written by a member of the Communist Party deserves close scrutiny.

I accept that it is important to know the political opinions of the author of a book. It may well be that Buchanan was a member of the Communist Party in 1964. It is difficult to say. However, is it anymore relevant than finding out if say Harold Weisberg was a member of the Republican Party?

The problem is that McCarthyites like Kenneth Rahn is that they use the term “Communist” as a smear. That we should not take what Buchanan says seriously because he is a Communist. Rahn takes the same position with the other early opponent of the lone gunman theory, Joachim Joesten. He openly called him a Communist and a KGB agent. Joesten had indeed been a Communist in Germany in the 1930s. As a result he was forced to flee to the United States. He remained on the left and was another victim of McCarthyism in the 1950s. It is because of McCarthyism that there were so few left-wing journalists left in America in 1963. Maybe that is the reason it was so easy to keep American journalists quiet after the assassination.

Rahn also dismisses Sylvia Meagher, Mark Lane, Vincent Salandria, Peter Dale Scott, Josiah Thompson, Bertrand Russell, Ralph Schoenman as “leftists” or “extremists” (interestingly he does not see Billy James Hargis as an extremist, I suppose because he supports his extreme right-wing views)

The reason Rahn describes these people as communists, leftists or extremists is because it allows him to criticise them without looking at the evidence they put forward. The emphasis is always on the question: “Why are they saying this?” This encourages people like Tim Gratz to suggest that someone like Buchanan must be KGB. This is completely to misunderstand those researchers on the left and the way the KGB work. The vast majority of people on the left are just as critical of Soviet communism as they are of capitalism. In fact, most viewed the Soviet Union as "State Capitalism" rather than "Communism". Josephy McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover did not understand this view of the left. To them, anyone on the left must be a communist.

I have spent sometime studying the way the KGB worked. The one thing they did not do was recruit people who were members of the Communist Party. You don’t have to be very intelligent to realise why this was. The best spies are those appear to be supporters of the current system. Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt, etc. were all recruited into MI5 and MI6 while members of right-wing groups. The KGB knew that the British intelligence services recruited from these groups. Maxwell Knight, head of recruitment, was in fact a former member of the British Fascist Party. He recruited likeminded people. That meant that KGB agents had to pose as members of right-wing groups. (They had all showed signs of holding left-wing views at public school and university and were recruited at this stage and trained to become sleepers).

If you want to discover KGB agents writing conspiracy books on the JFK assassination I suggest you look at those who on the surface appeared to be holding right-wing views.

[Tim Gratz]

It is a smear to call someone a Communist who is not a Communist. Whether true or not, Sen. Joseph McCarthy was accused of labeling people as Communists who were not in fact Communists. (I suggest it is a smear as despicable to charge someone with being a participant in a murder when there is no basis for such a charge).

It is not a smear to call someone a Communist who is in fact a Communist. Nor is it a smear to assert that Buchanan cannot be trusted because he is a Communist. Not all liars are Communists, but all Communists are liars. Liars in the sense that what matters to a Communist is not the truth of what he is saying but whether it supports the Party's then official line on the position.

John writes: ". . .s it anymore relevant [to know that Buchanan was a Communist] than finding out if say Harold Weisberg was a member of the Republican Party?" What this rhetorical question demonstrates is that John does not understand that there is a difference in kind, not in degree, between being, for instance, a member of the Communist Party and a member of the Labor Party, or the Republican Party, or any other non-totalitarian party. The difference, as I say below, depends upon whether truth is made subservient to an official party position. To a Communist, it is. To a Laborite, to a Republican, to a Democrat, it is not ever.

Arguably, it is relevant to identify the political leanings of any historian or political writer because his or her political leanings may very well influence his or her world view and how he or she views historical events. It is therefore useful to know, say, that John is a liberal (or leftist) and I am a political conservative.

The fact that John's politics differs from mine does not mean I disbelieve everything John writes: I differ with his opinions, but not with his facts. I believe John to be a man of intellectual integrity who would not make a factual representation he knows to be false, even if the falsehood supports his political position. If John is mistaken about a fact he is willing to be corrected on it, as I am. John is also willing to change his opinions based on newly discovered facts.

Disciplined Communists are different than democrats, however. To a moral democrat, advancing one's political philosophy must always be subservient to telling the truth. To a Communist, the truth is, and must always be, subservient to advancing the Party line. Therefore, the difference between a Communist party member and the member of any democtratic party (regardless of where it lies on the political spectrum) is as different as night and day. So to say Buchanan cannot be trusted since he was a Communist is not a smear; it is simply a fact.

John states that I suggested that Buchanan was a KGB agent. I never asserted that Buchanan was a KGB agent as such but if he was a disciplined Communuist he would support the KGB's position on any issue, and would be prepared to lie to support that position. If a Western journalist could be counted on to always support the CIA position, he could probably be characterized as a CIA "asset". In that sense, any disciplined Communist writer is a "KGB asset".

An opinion is, of course, a different matter than a fact. It is John's opinion that the MICC (or members thereof) planned the assassination of President Kennedy. As far as I can tell, however, that is only his opinion and he has offered no facts whatever to support that opinion (other than that members of the MICC had an economic interest (or thought they did) in replacing JFK with LBJ). But as Paul Hoch once commented, the cui bono argument is of little value in the Kennedy assassination because there were so many groups who had an interest in removing Kennedy from office: the MICC; Southern racists; organized crime; pro-Castro Cubans; anti-Castro Cubans, and the list goes on and on. You could literally have had shooters standing in line behind the picket fence to take their shot at JFK. I think there are moral problems suggesting specific indivuals may have participated in the conspiracy without any facts to back up the assertion. It is as wrong as a "McCarthy smear", is it not?

So what is the difference between a Communist and a member of a traditional political group, be it left-wing or right-wing? Simple. It is the Communists' proclaimed philosophy that the end justifies the means; there is no morality except what advances the party line. It is justified to murder, to steal, to lie, to advance the cause. Moreover, a party member is expected to follow party discipline and if the party orders the indiviidual to do something, the member is expected to obey. In traditional parties, members are free to exercise their conscience and are expected to apply their own morality to their political activity. If the ruling member of John's party came to him and asked him to insert a lie into the Forum, I know John would tell that person to go to a place of eternal punishment (even though he doesn't believe in the existence of the place his point would still be made).

This does not mean that every statement told by a Communist is a lie. It means that to the Communist it makes no difference if the statement is true or not; it only matters if it helps the cause. For this reason, no factual representation of a Communist should be accorded any weight. Note again not every statement made by a Communist is a lie. If so, one could give weight to Communist statements: the opposite of the statement would be true.

Now John himself recognizes this, I believe. Note that he was concerned that he thought I was implying that he knew Buchanan was a Communist but failed to disclose that. The disclosure would be of little or no importance if it was simply that Buchanan's politics were left-of-center. Indeed, as John knows. Leo Sauvage, who so devestatingly demolished Buchanan, was himself a well-respected leftist.

I think Buchanan has been effectively demolished as a creditable source. Buchanan is obviously making some statements in his book that he attributes to an unnamed source or sources. Law enforcement calls such sources "informants" and places great stock in whether the informant has proven reliable in the past. Let us judge Buchanan's book by whether the factual representions he makes can be proven true or false. (One of the reasons John liked Buchanan's book was because Buchanan made a factual assertion to back up John's theory that a rich oilman financed the assassination. Buchanan made this assertion as a fact, not an opinion, clearly implying that he had a source for the information. This "fact" woulld be the first fact to back up John's theory that the MICC not only had a reason to want JFK replaced, but that it acted on that reason.)

I have read Buchanan' s defense to Sauvage and would point out that when Buchanan is only offering an opinion, we can evaluate his opinion with our own logic--i.e., the judgment of a person's opinion can be made regardless of the person's factual veracity. It is Bucanan's opinion, for instance, that the single bullet theory does not hold up. I would agree with that opinion. That his OPINION on the SBT theory is correct has, of course, no bearing on the truth of his factual assertions. In other words, that logic almost compels a conclusion that there were two shooters does not mean that Buchanan knows who the two shooters were.

Let us look at one of the most important "facts" asserted by Buchanan. Buchanan apparently offers the factual assertion that Officer J. D. Tippitt shot Kennedy from the TSBD. It can be demonstrated, however, that J. D. Tippitt was no where near the TSBD at the time of the assassination. This means one of two things: either Buchanan had no source for his assertion (that is, he made it up, he is a xxxx) or he had a source and the source was a xxxx. If Buchanan is a xxxx, his statement that an oilman financed the assassination should be discredited as coming as that of a xxxx. If Buchanan's source for the Tippitt story was a xxxx, then that source should also be disbelieved for the oilman part of the story. Simply put, if Buchanan does not know who the shooter was, he probably does not know who paid the shooter either.

The bigger problem is a factual representation made by Buchanan himself. It is Buchanan's assertion, set forth in the preface of the book, that he was in contact with Sen. Ted Kennedy who put him in contact with Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach regarding the information he presents. This story is incredible on its face. It males no sense that Sen. Kennedy would work through a European Communist. Moreover, Sen. Kennedy is still alive and can verify or refute the statement. I have suggested that John write to Sen. Kennedy and find out whether or not Buchanan told the truth in his preface.

Another problem with Buchanan's book, of course, is that he does not identify his secret source or sources so his information can be verified. Nor does he name names. It is only a vague, unsupported allegation. Who was Buchanan's source re the oilman? How did the source come opon the information? Was the source part of the conspiracy, or did the source hear the information from a third party? If so, how reliable was the third party? None of this can be verified. Unidentified, unverifiable assertions of fact are of no value whatsoever.

In summary, Buchanan's book, as proof that an oilman financed the asasssination to prevent the repeal of the oil depletion allowance, is, IMO, worthless. (I would also point out that Kennedy's assassination would be the first in recorded history motivated by a difference of opinion over a provision in a tax code.)

Let me add that since certain members of the CIA made false statements in respect to the assassination (or, in Richard Helms' case, in a different matter, before a congressional committee) I would not accept their statements at face value either.

The assassination of President Kennedy was, of course, one of the most important events in modern American (world) history. I believe that most if not all members of this Forum are serious researchers and persons of integrity. We must be careful, I respectfully assert, to examine the source of all factual assertions about the assassination. Respect for the slain President demands such intellectual discipline--and it is only through such discipline that we will find the truth.

Edited January 11, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

It is a smear to call someone a Communist who is not a Communist.  Whether true or not, Sen. Joseph McCarthy was accused of labeling people as Communists who were not in fact Communists.  (I suggest it is a smear as despicable to charge someone with being a participant in a murder when there is no basis for such a charge).

It is not a smear to call someone a Communist who is in fact a Communist.  Nor is it a smear to assert that Buchanan cannot be trusted because he is a Communist.  Not all liars are Communists, but all Communists are liars. Liars in the sense that what matters to a Communist is not the truth of what he is saying but whether it supports the Party's then official line on the position.

I completely reject your idea that the views of all communists cannot be trusted. The comment that “all Communists are liars” is ridiculous. However, much we might disagree with someone political philosophy to believe that everything they say is a lie is daft. For example, the philosophy I hate most of all is fascism. However, I would never say that “all fascists are liars”. They are wrong about many aspects of their philosophy but they are not wrong about everything. As Churchill once said, Mussolini got it right about the importance that trains run on time.

The intention of Rahn’s smear is to convince his readers that Buchanan must be lying because he is a communist. That seems to be your position. Let us for a moment accept your premise that all “communists are liars”. Then we have to answer the question: Is Buchanan a communist? Rahn says he is but how does he know? Has he seen his FBI/CIA file? Maybe he has. He definitely seems to be a CIA asset.

The evidence Rahn supplies is that Buchanan was “fired by the Washington Evening Star in 1948 when they learned that he was a member of the Communist party.” As I pointed out before, most people who were sacked and blacklisted during McCarthyism were not current members of the Communist Party. They had been members during the early 1930s but had left because of the behaviour of the Soviet Union during the Spanish Civil War and after the signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

What these former Communist Party members refused to do was inform on their former comrades. I would like to think I would have behaved in a similar way. If Buchanan refused to do this, he is to be admired and his credibility as a researcher is increased.

To Rahn the important thing is that Buchanan had been a “leftist” (see his comments about Mark Lane, Vincent Salandria, Peter Dale Scott, Josiah Thompson, Bertrand Russell, Ralph Schoenman, etc.). It is not important to inquire if Buchanan is still a member of the Communist Party. Once a communist, always a communist, is his philosophy.

All this of course is irrelevant when discussing the JFK assassination. (It is of course relevant in exposing Rahn’s prejudices and non-academic approach to the subject).

The important thing is to discuss the evidence that Buchanan provides for his theories. I will be doing this in this and other threads.

[John Simkin]

From reading the commentary it seems clear that Buchanan is asserting that Officer Tippit shot JFK from the TSBD.

But we now know enough about Tippitt's whereabouts to demonstrate that Tippit was not in the TSBD at 12:30 (Dallas time) on November 22, 1963:

http://www.mcadams.posc.mu.edu/car10.htm

Buchanan either created his whole scenario out of whole cloth, or he had a private source (which he fails to disclose) giving him the information.  His private source (if any) was clearly wrong about who shot President Kennedy.

I see no reason to believe Buchanan's informant (if any) was more accurate and reliable re who financed the assassination.

Rahn is of course wrong to suggest that Buchanan said that Tippit was the gunman in the Texas School Book Depository. Nor did he say the gunman was a member of the Dallas Police Force. What he said was that the gunman was probably wearing a police uniform. Therefore what John McAdams has to say of Tippit’s movements are clearly irrelevant.

Buchanan has a great deal to say about Tippit in his book. I think this deserves a thread of its own so we can all add our views on this aspect of the case.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2862

I will also be starting a thread on the possibilities of the Soviet Union or Cuba being behind the assassination.

[Tim Gratz]

John said:

Rahn is of course wrong to suggest that Buchanan said that Tippit was the gunman in the Texas School Book Depository. Nor did he say the gunman was a member of the Dallas Police Force.

That Buchanan claimed Tippitt was the TSBD gunman I got from the Sauvage article. I can believe that the killer was wearing a police uniform. What easier way to make an escape? I have thought that perhaps the assassins even made use of a faked Dallas police car.

Can you name a suspect in the Kennedy case who was once involved in an aborted assassination scheme involving fake military uniforms? (I'll post this information tomorrow.)

The "Car 10 Where Are You?" article was not written by McAdams although I did find it on his web-site. Do you agree that from what is known of Tippit's movements he was not near the TSBD at or near the time of the assassination?

With respect to my point about the Tippit claim being important to verify Buchanan's credibility, it does make a difference if he made that assertion in his newspaper articles but abandoned it in his book. I trust your representation that Buchanan does not make the claim in his book. Do you know wheher Buchanan did assert in the newspaper articles that Tippit was in the TSBD?

Edited January 11, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

The comment that “all Communists are liars” is ridiculous. However, much we might disagree with someone political philosophy to believe that everything they say is a lie is daft. For example, the philosophy I hate most of all is fascism. However, I would never say that “all fascists are liars”.

John, I believe that all communists and all fascists are liars in the sense that they subvert the truth to the advancement of their political philosophy. It is one facet of the amoral totalitarian philosophy that "the end justifies the means". I suggest that Lenin and Stalin would agree with me that if a man is not willing to lie to advance the communist cause, he is not a "good communist", so perhaps I should amend my statement to say "all good communists are liars".

This does not mean that everything a good communist says is a lie. It does not mean a good communist is a pathological xxxx for whom lying is like a psychological disorder. It means simply that truth does not matter to them. They will lie when it supports the party cause and they will tell the truth when it supports the party cause.

Therefore, one can never accept the word of a communist because whatever he or she says could be a lie.

I agree with you, of course, that a philosophy of "once a communist, always a communist" is ridiculous. Many times a former communist, having experienced the evils and lies of the system, will become a strong anti-communist. Forum member Nathaniel Weyl is of course a prime example.

I do not know for a fact that Buchanan remained a communist in the 1960s but that is the implication of the article from Rahn's web-site. I agree it would be important to know whether he had renounced communism.

I do not know whether Rahn discounts the word of all leftists, but I do not. Although I disagree with their political philosophy, I have great respect for certain leftists such as Mark Lane, Carl Oglesby--and you. Again, there is a difference between a democratic leftist who elevates truth over the need to advance a political philosophy, and a communist, who does the reverse.

John, I think deep down you youself acknowledge the validity of my points. You took offense when you thought I was implying you knew Buchanan was a Communist but did not disclose it. Had Buchanan been nothing but a socialist, and had I said, "John, you never told us Buchanan was a socialist", you would have laughed at me and said (rightly): "So what?" But you knew the Forum members would want to know if Buchanan was indeed a Communist. If Buchanan was a communist in 1964 the proper response would not be "so what?"; but rather "oh, that is important."

And of course what makes the matter all the more salient is that two Communist states have been accused of being participants in the assassination. Therfore, Buchanan's communism would be all the more important. It would be similar, for instance, if it was discovered that Trento was paid by the CIA to write his book.

Edited January 11, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

That Buchanan claimed Tippitt was the TSBD gunman I got from the Sauvage article.  I can believe that the killer was wearing a police uniform.  What easier way to make an escape?  I have thought that perhaps the assassins even made use of a faked Dallas police car.

With respect to my point about the Tippit claim being important to verify Buchanan's credibility, it does make a difference if he made that assertion in his newspaper articles but abandoned it in his book.  I trust your representation that Buchanan does not make the claim in his book.  Do you know wheher Buchanan did assert in the newspaper articles that Tippit was in the TSBD?[/color]

I have course not read the articles in L'Express but I think it is unlikely that he did state that Tippit was the gunman. The date of the Sauvage article suggests he was reviewing the book rather than the articles. In the book Buchanan makes it clear the role that he thinks Tippit played. Sauvage is clearly trying to mislead his readers with this claim. As I have already pointed out, the article was not actually written by Leo Sauvage. This again indicates that some group (CIA?) was using this article in an attempt to discredit Buchanan. As most of the readers had not read Buchanan's book (it was only available in Europe at the time) the tactic was successful. It is still being successful, hence your comments. The reason being that Buchanan is also labelled a communist. This of course influences the prejudices of most readers and obtains the required response.

You can find what Buchanan actually said here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2862

[Tim Gratz]

John, looking at your link, in this case Buchanan is not making many factual representations (or the factual representations he makes are easily verifiable from public sources). Therefore, it makes no difference that Buchanan is a communist in evaluating the inference he draws from verifiable facts.

I would like verification that it was a Dallas rule that all radio police cars were supposed to have two police officers.

With respect to why Tippit stopped Oswald, the reply is that Oswald's movements may have been suspicious. For instance, there is some evidence Oswald changed his course when he saw the police car. Also, from what I understand there were few people on the Dallas streets in the aftermath of the assassination.

The fact that originally Oswald and Tippit exchanged friendly words seems irrelevant. Many police officers are friendly.

It is true, of course, that Tippit was outside of his assigned area and this has raised suspicions.

With respect to the claim that Oswald knew Ruby, how does that relate to Tippitt being part of the conspiracy? I would think what would be relevant was if Tippit knew Ruby and/or Oswald.

At this point I remain an agnostic concerning whether Tippit was part of the conspiracy or its second tragic victim.

Edited January 11, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

John, do you agree that in evaluating Buchanan's veracity it would be important to determine whether he told the truth about his contacts with Senator Kennedy and Deputy AG Katzenbach?

John, as you yourself commented:

The reason being that Buchanan is also labelled a communist. This of course influences the prejudices of most readers and obtains the required response.

Obviously, Buchanan's communist affiliations (or even his communist background) made him suspect.

This makes it, I believe, highly unlikely that the Kennedys would use Buchanan as a "backchannel". And if Buchanan lied in his preface, about such an important matter, is he not discredited from the get-go, so to speak?

Edited January 11, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Pat Speer]

A few points about this thread. One is that not all communists are sworn liars and it is ridiculous to think so. Someone honest enough to declare themselves a communist is likely to be honest about a lot of other things. Another point is that the KGB and French Intelligence did spread false stories about the assassination in order to try and weaken American support abroad. We'd have done the same. While I don't have any evidence that "proves" this point, it makes perfect sense to me and is supported by a number of things I've read over the years. For example, I remember reading that the so-called "Hunt letter" was acknowledged by a KGB officer to have been a fake. He said they were trying to make people distrust the CIA, but were surprised to find that so many assumed the Hunt was H.L., not Howard.

On the other hand, the "commies can't be trusted" card has been played by too many as a way of deflecting a possible conspiracy. Richard Helms, in his autobio, for example, embraces the idea that the Jim Garrison investigation was a KGB operation. I believe Ted Shackley, whose own memoirs are due in a few weeks, has also embraced such nonsense. The Trento book was written as an expression of the ideas and recollections of a number of CIA veterans, including James Angleton. I'm pretty sure his "Russia did it" argument is included as a tribute to Angleton. I believe Epstein was also seduced by the mysterious James Jesus Angleton.

As for the Buchanan book, I believe the Warren Report itself acknowledged it and attacked it in its section entitled "Speculations and Rumors." Buchanan mirrors their format to try and defend himself in the letter posted by Tim written shortly after the Warren Report's release.

Finally, the gambler reference was to Hunt, who got started as a poker player. One of his partners once upon a time was rumored to be none other than Al Capone.

Edited January 11, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, Communists cannot be trusted.

Neither, in my opinion, would I trust Richard Helms or certain other people affiliated with the CIA.

Have you read Trento's book? Do you know it was renounced by the CIA establishment (see its review in the official CIA organ "Studies in Intelligence").

I suspect James Jesus Angleton was right about many things, including Yuri Nosenko. Angleton was highly suspicious of Cubela, as was Shackley. Shackley even got in a shouting match with Fitzgerald about the advisability of proceeding with Cubela.

Ironically, if the views of the CIA officials that some people in the assassination research community consider likely suspects (e.g. Angleton, Shackley and Harvey) had prevailed in the Cubela matter, John Kennedy would probably be alive today. It was the rash decisions of Helms and Fitzgerald that, IMO, cost JFK his life.

I don't know what would have happened in Vietnam had Kennedy not been killed, but I am convinced he would have invaded Cuba, done it right the second time, put in power people such as Manuel Artime and Harry Williams, and this would have guaranteed his re-election. Then he would have assured that the lunar landing occured prior to the 1968 election, probably guaranteeing the election of his designated successor.

Edited January 11, 2005 by Tim Gratz