Vince Salandria on "false sponsers" (Castro/ Mob)

[Ron Ecker]

In his 2003 special on the assassination, Peter Jennings said they could prove that Oswald acted alone to anyone who was not "beyond the pale."  I assume this is the same special John alluded to as being broadcast in Britain disguised to appear as being from the BBC.  "Beyond the pale!!!"  In other words we're hopeless and our opinions don't matter.

The president of Texas A&M University must have watched that program. A professor emeritus at A&M, economist Morgan Reynolds, recently stated that the evidence points to controlled demolition of the WTC twin towers on 9/11. This was significant in that Reynolds is a former Bush Administration official, the first such official to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job.

The A&M president issued a statement saying that any suggestion of a 9/11 government conspiracy was "beyond the pale."

The A&M president is Robert Gates, former director of the CIA.

Ron

[John Simkin]

The following is part of the text of Vincent Salandria's speech to the Coalition on Political Assassinations, delivered in Dallas, Texas on November 20, 1998. The full text can be found here:

http://home.earthlink.net/~jkelin1/vs_text.html

I began to examine the post-assassination events as they unfolded. I took note of the reports coming in about the alleged assassin. I wondered whether his alleged left-wing credentials were bona fide. Very early in my work in the peace movement, I learned that some ostensible peace activists were infiltrating government agent provocateurs who were not what they at first blush appeared to be. May I suggest that some of our critics of the Warren Report are government agents. Can we honestly expect that the powerful elements in our society who dispatched our President with that deadly Dealey Plaza fusillade and then sought to cover up the reasons why he was killed would leave to ordinary citizens to inform the public about the real meaning of the assassination of President Kennedy?

On November 23, 1963 I discussed the assassination with my then brother-in-law, Harold Feldman. I told him that we should keep our eyes focused on what if anything would happen to the suspected assassin that weekend. I said that if the suspect was killed during the weekend, then we would have to consider Oswald's role to be that of a possible intelligence agent nd patsy. I told him if such happened, the assassination would have to be considered as the work of the very center of U.S. power.

I sensed that there was a need to be quick in formulating conclusions from the killing of Oswald. A successful political assassination is carried out to produce policy changes. Those policy changes generally take effect quickly. Consequently, it behooves a democratic citizenry to come promptly to their own reasoned conclusions about the killing of their head of state. Citizens cannot leave to their government, which under republican principals is their mere servant, to shape their thinking on such a vital subject. Nor can the citizenry await the work of the academic establishment before formulating its conclusions.

When Oswald was served up on camera as disposable Dealey Plaza flotsam and jetsam and was killed by Jack Ruby I saw a subtle signal of a high level conspiracy. There is every reason to think that intelligence agencies, when they choose a killer to dispose of a patsy, make that choice by exercising the same degree of care that they employ in selecting the patsy. Their choice of Jack Ruby much later would - by providing a fall-back position for the government - serve the interests of the assassins. As the Warren Report would unravel, a deceased Ruby's past connections to the Mafia produced a false candidate for governmental apologists to designate as the power behind the killing.

Immediately following the assassination I began to collect news items about Lee Harvey Oswald. A pattern began to emerge. Oswald's alleged defection to the Soviets, his alleged Castro leanings as the sole membe of a Fair Play for Cuba chapter in New Orleans, his posing with a rifle and a Trotskyist newspaper, his writings to the Communist Party USA, his study of the Russian language while in the Marine Corps, told me that he was not a genuine leftist, but rather was a U.S. intelligence agent.

It was apparent to me that no legitimate leftist straddles so many diverse political fences in a fractionalized American left. I saw Oswald's alleged leftist baggage as an effort on the part of the killers to send an intimidating message to the American left. The left was being signaled by the killers to be silent or to suffer a possible pogrom against it. The Cubanization of Oswald was a further signal to the left that the American military if provoked by criticism might seek to employ the Oswaldian Cuban tableau as an excuse to invade Cuba. For a summary of Oswald and his obvious connections to our intelligence community, see Professor Christopher Sharrett's "Oswald and U.S. Intelligence" in the appendix to Dr. E. Martin Schotz's book, History Will Not Absolve Us.

Similarly, I saw Oswald's membership in the ACLU as a device to send a message to frighten liberals into silence. As it turned out, the ACLU did not see any civil liberties issues in substituting for a legal inquest on the killing of President Kennedy a series of non-public and secret sessions by the Warren Commission. The ACLU had taken the bait.

After I began to write on the assassination, the ACLU privately assumed a position against my work. The national office expressed displeasure with me for writing on the subject and in so doing identifying myself as what I was, a long-time volunteer lawyer for the ACLU. The executive director of the Philadelphia ACLU branch, with whom I had over many years a fine working relationship and friendship, conveyed to me the National Office's displeasure with my writings on the assassination. My offer to resign was accepted with alacrity.

The use of a Mafia-related killer to dispatch the patsy while in custody, and that patsy's patently false left-wing and liberal guises, convinced me that the assassination was the work of U.S. intelligence. Keenly aware of the dangers which our Cold War national security state posed to the planet, I determined to continue the quixotic work of investigating the assassination. I sought to learn from and to help those who were willing to investigate and write on the criminality of their government in the assassination and its cover up.

In this effort I was supported and guided by my friends, Fred J. Cook, Robert Dean, Dave Dellinger, Jim DiEugenio, Harold Feldman, Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Garrison, Reverend Steve Jones, Professor Thomas Katen, Christopher Kefalos, Barbara LaMonica, David S. Lifton, Mark Lane, Staughton Lynd, Ray Marcus, Sylvia Meagher, Professor Joan Mellen, Dr. Michael Morrissey, Marguerite Oswald, Fletcher Prouty, Mort Sahl, Professor Chris Sharrett, Dr. Anita Schmuckler, Gary Schoerner, Dr. E. Martin Schotz, John Suchardt, Tink Thompson, and Harold Weisberg. Their dedication to democracy and truth served to sustain me.

Armed with an exploratory model of explanation that the Kennedy assassination was a Cold War killing, I began to sift through the myriad facts regarding the assassination which our government and the U.S. media offered us. What I did was to examine the data in a different fashion from the approach adopted by our news media. I chose to assess how an innocent civilian- controlled U.S. government would have reacted to those data. I also envisioned how a guilty U.S national security state which may have gained control of and may have become semi-autonomous to the civilian U.S. governmental structure would have reacted to the data of the assassination. The use of this simple method of analysis applied to the assassination data and the reactions to those data by our national security state and its civilian allies thoroughly convinced me that my model of explanation was correct. No other interpretation adequately explained how our government, our media and our establishment reacted to the facts relevant to President Kennedy's killing.

I submit that the manner in which the data were handled by our government demonstrate that: (1) the national security state at the very highest level of its power killed President John F. Kennedy for his efforts at seeking to develop a modus vivendi with the Soviets and with socialist Cuba, (2) subservient U.S. government, civilian establishment and mainstream media persons criminally and systematically aided the warfare state in covering up the assassination, and (3) in light of this criminal cover-up by the American power elite that there is no logical way we can conclude that the assassination was not the product of our warfare system. There was also no way rationally to conclude that the assassination was a result of the labor of the Soviets, Castro, the Mafia, J. Edgar Hoover, President Johnson, or that any lower level U.S. governmental operatives had been solely responsible for the execution of President Kennedy.

As I examined the evidence I was confronted with an unvarying pattern. Whenever evidence of a conspiracy emerged - and mountains of facts were supplied by the government for us to scrutinize - the government refused to act on that evidence. On the other hand, whenever any data emerged, no matter how thoroughly incredible, which could possibly be interpreted as supporting a lone assassin theory - the government invariably and with the greatest solemnity declared that such data proved the correctness of the lone assassin myth. That is not the earmark of an innocent, blundering government.

I posited that an innocent civilian government would have in an unbiased fashion accepted, made public, and protected all of the assassination data. An innocent government would have fairly evaluated the data irrespective of whether or not they supported a particular conclusion. An innocent civilian government would never have accepted an improbable explanation of data while other probable explanations were extant.

I concluded that only a criminally guilty government which was beholden to the killers would reject a probable explanation of the evidence coming into its possession and instead would seize upon an improbable explanation for the evidence. Most importantly, I concluded that only a guilty government seeking to serve the interests of the assassins would consistently resort to accepting one improbable conclusion after another while rejecting a long series of probable conclusions. In short, while purporting to tell the truth, our government turned probability theory on its head. In an unvarying pattern it consistently accepted any data that even remotely supported a single-assassin concept and rejected data which incontrovertibly supported a conspiracy.

[Dawn Meredith]

John:

Thank you for posting this WONDERFUL speech. I saw it in person and that was the first time I ever met Vince. We became friends that evening and have corresponded since. He is just the nicest man imaginable. Brilliant, but not at all an ego maniac.

I am so glad that everyone on the forum can read (and re-read) this masterpiece from one of the community's true stars.

Dawn

[Chris Cox]

The following is part of the text of Vincent Salandria's speech to the Coalition on Political Assassinations, delivered in Dallas, Texas on November 20, 1998. The full text can be found here:

A note on Dallas, since you mention it John. COPA will be holding a meeting there as well. Both conferences are illuminating. I've presented at both events to great groups. Logistically tough but doable.

Enjoyed this post. Salandria quite astute, his work inspires a few thoughts FWIW.

Salandria rightly concludes we must deal with these things when they occur. An Asian (forgot name) coroner guy said in Nov. on Hist Channel pgrm that the murder scene is all lost facts, corrupted investigation cannot recover from this. Right about that part. What's done is done and what remains can be demanded and reviewed as it was following the JFK movie.

The public is learning to be quicker in its response to coverups. 911 families example of this.

I had a reaction to LHO arrest and killing similar to V.S. but I was very young with only a kid's gut instinct of a familiar landscape. A day with boxes in Nara archives will convince anyone of the importance of the topic that fills rooms with evidence, in spite of the fudged investigations and fumbled committees. Dallas horror made the other stuff tumble out like LHO's patsy talk.

Salandria may not have known this at time but families were individually addressing the issue of covert ops that dovetailed with Dallas prior to the murders. Kennedy(s) knew these things. Mil, CIA, FBI, Thompson (NJ) and Dodd (CT) Cabell, Dulles and Russell (GA) to name few more. Many sidebars were evident in press and government investigations and our letters confirmed the deeds. Did Vince see those letters? Files released to us later confirm and shape the larger story the investigators also found.

The little folks didn't have those govt documents but officials did. No surprise to the youngsters or politically naive. JFK had our letters RFK and Hoover their copies our congresspeople our various reps and attys were quietly aware and --many knew already what Vince/others were digging up. Some even collected secret compensation along with their cover stories in name of political expediency like dust under the rug. So it begs the question, why the mock surprise of the heavies, the connected and priviledged? The letters to our families from these men were answered in form, in turn and individually when they should have been viewed collectively. This was, ultimately, deliberate and deadly official policy.

[John Simkin]

Thank you for posting this WONDERFUL speech.  I saw it in person and that was the first time I ever met Vince. We became friends that evening and have corresponded since. He is just the nicest man imaginable. Brilliant, but not at all an ego maniac.

Do you think Vince would be willing to join us on the Forum? It would be fantastic if he was willing to share his great knowledge on the case with us.

[Dawn Meredith]

Thank you for posting this WONDERFUL speech.  I saw it in person and that was the first time I ever met Vince. We became friends that evening and have corresponded since. He is just the nicest man imaginable. Brilliant, but not at all an ego maniac.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you think Vince would be willing to join us on the Forum? It would be fantastic if he was willing to share his great knowledge on the case with us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

_______________________

I will send him an email and ask him, but I do not think he participates in any forums. He and his old pal Marty Schotz have a group that participates in emails on this and other relevent issues. But I seem to recall he was reluctant to come onto a forum. But won't hurt to ask.

Dawn

[William Kelly]

As Waldman and Russo continue their promotion of the Mob and Castro as suspects, I thought this response by Salandria needs reviving.

Thanks to Dawn for calling attention to this COPA speech.

BK

[Dawn Meredith]

As Waldman and Russo continue their promotion of the Mob and Castro as suspects, I thought this response by Salandria needs reviving.

Thanks to Dawn for calling attention to this COPA speech.

BK

BK I like to plug COPA any chance I can get. It is the best org. around now. Last year it was just incredible.

Not sure I will be able to make it this year however, due to a family committment out of state.

I also think your grand jury idea is our last and best shot at getting this thing solved and at best history put right. Anything new going on there? Thanks for all you do. And to John Judge, the soul of COPA for so long now.

Dawn

[David Andrews]

I'm thinking that the only guiltiness Mr. Salandria left out was in the coming Vietnam war. If it was only about the Caribbean, then this would only be a revenge killing. It's the money and foreign policy influence yet to be lost that mattered - that and the side effect of derailing Bobby.

Otherwise, observers feel in the history, media coverage, and commission cover-ups exactly what Mr. Salandria put words to.

Edited October 6, 2010 by David Andrews

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Many people like Vincent Salandria's speech The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_Issue/vs_text.html

Note: The following is the complete text of Vincent Salandria's speech to the Coalition on Political Assassinations, delivered in Dallas, Texas on November 20, 1998.

The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes

by Vincent J. Salandria

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Dr. Gary Aguilar, and the other members of the Coalition on Political Assassinations for affording me this privilege. I accepted your invitation because I feel that the point of view for which I and thousands of unsung others have stood for thirty-five years is important. I believe that for us to be free to work for a more decent society we must come to accept the point of view which I will now explain.

For one half of my seventy years, from almost the very date of the assassination, I have been convinced that the killing of President Kennedy was a patent Cold War killing --- the bloody work of the U.S. military-intelligence system and its supporting civilian power elite.

For us to allow thirty-five years to pass, while debate rages on the subject, is not only an abdication of the required work of a democratic citizenry, but the debate itself actively serves the interests of the assassins. Such debate masks the damage done to the constitutional structure by the extra-constitutional firing of the President.

To understand fully the nature of the assassination and its coverup one has to view it from an historical perspective. We must look back at least to the year 1898 to examine the militarizing of this country --- a process which eventually led to President Kennedy's assassination.

In 1898 President William McKinley, pursuant to a congressional resolution, authorized the use of United States armed forces to engage the Spanish forces in Cuba. This congressional resolution was followed by a declaration of war against Spain. This splendid little war led the way to an American Empire built upon the strength of the U.S. military. We acquired through this imperialistic effort Puerto Rico, and the Philippine Islands, and we subjected Cuba to a semi-colonial status.

Those conquests failed to satiate our hunger for empire. In the continuing quest to expand our imperialist power we truncated democracy in our nation. Political reform efforts of the progressive period were abandoned. Our oligarchs saw the acquisition of an empire as a means of diverting the American people from the struggle for political reform.

This process of militarism continued to evolve and grow in the period preceding our entry into World War I. The American people desperately wanted to avoid intervention into the bloody horrors of the war. But President Woodrow Wilson, while promising to keep us out of war, deceitfully led us into that terrible slaughter and supported the development of a large military establishment.

Our college history texts do record that Wilson's deceit included the propagandizing of our people through the first media-supported mobilization of U.S. and world public opinion. Congress by act of April 14, 1917 established the Committee on Public Information. Wilson's appointed chairman, George Creel, and his committee sought to mind-manipulate our people and the people of the world. Creel employed one hundred million pieces of written propaganda, jingoistic speeches by seventy-five thousand persons called four-minute men, professorial writings defining the true nature of the "Hun," thousands of pre-written editorials, faked atrocity stories and other devices to bring about a consensus about World War I. His propaganda produced a tight conformity in public opinion about the Germans which foreshadowed our Cold War thinking about the Soviets.

From our participation in World War I our nation suffered a tragic loss of democratic freedom. The Espionage Act of 1917 effectively snuffed out free speech by making felons of persons who exercised their First Amendment rights. The Socialist Party's presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs, was given a ten year prison sentence. His crime? He had simply spoken the truth. He had stated that the war had an economic basis. The war started the FBI on its path of gathering millions of files on people and organizations. Following World War I we saw political reaction sweep over our country in the course of which Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were judicially murdered by the American establishment.

Only by the war production of World War II were we brought out of the great depression. It was not difficult to discern that we were artfully thrust into the war. I can recall that at the time of Pearl Harbor I was in the 8th grade of Vare Junior High School in Philadelphia. On December 8, 1941, in my math class, our teacher, Miss Wogan, suggested that rather than do our math we should discuss current events.

I went to the front of the classroom and informed my classmates that I could not accept as plausible President Roosevelt's assertion that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise, sneak attack. I pointed out that all of us had known for months about the tension between the U.S. and Japan. I asked how, in light of those months of crisis and tautly strained relations between the two countries, could the battleships at Pearl Harbor have been lined up so closely together, presenting perfect targets for the Japanese? How could the planes I saw in the newspapers burning on our airfields have been positioned wing-tip to wing-tip?

I reminded the class that President Roosevelt had promised that he would not send our troops into a foreign war. I then offered my conclusion that inviting the Pearl Harbor attack was President Roosevelt's duplicitous device to eliminate the powerful neutralist sentiment in our country while thrusting us into the war.

Later, some of our country's most distinguished historians, Charles Beard, William Henry Chamberlain, George Edward Morganstern, Robert A. Theobald, John Toland and others came to this same conclusion. We know now that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had told his War Cabinet many days before December 7, 1941 that he was convinced that war with Japan was immediately imminent. Therefore, it is unimaginable that we could have been surprised by Pearl Harbor.

But the truth about Pearl Harbor did not and does not get addressed in our high school and college text books. Following the Cold War our historians have not seen fit to review and to learn from the true history of Pearl Harbor. Our historians show no interest in revealing how Pearl Harbor served to militarize further our nation. They show no interest in revealing how through Pearl Harbor President Roosevelt secretly manipulated and controlled our foreign policy. Instead we learn that the Central Intelligence Agency's creation was a necessity in order that we should not be again surprised as we were at Pearl Harbor. In failing to confront the truth we got the CIA. By our unwillingness to embrace hard truth about how power works in our nation, we pay a horrible price in the loss of democracy.

Pearl Harbor led to the establishment of a Presidential Commission to examine into the events of that attack. This Commission was the precedent for the establishment of the warren Commission. It was headed by a distinguished Associate Supreme Court Justice, Owen J. Roberts, and the Commissions work product was named the Roberts Report. The Roberts Commission concluded that the responsibility for the debacle at Pearl Harbor did not lie with President Roosevelt but with Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and General Walter C. Short. They were solely responsible. Their "derelictions of duty and errors of judgment" were "the effective cause for the success of the attack."

When Owen J. Roberts retired from the Supreme Court, he assumed the job of Dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School while I was a student there. He impressed me as a kindly man of considerable integrity. I did not confront him for the errors of the Roberts Commission. Why not? To answer that question is to explain why persons who have a say or who would hope to have a say in the United States political system will not openly espouse the point of view which I now present.

Armed with this historical perspective, on November 22, 1963, I began to examine the post-assassination events as they unfolded. I took note of the reports coming in about the alleged assassin. I wondered whether his alleged left-wing credentials were bona fide. Very early in my work in the peace movement, I learned that some ostensible peace activists were infiltrating government agent provocateurs who were not what they at first blush appeared to be. May I suggest that some of our critics of the Warren Report are government agents. Can we honestly expect that the powerful elements in our society who dispatched our President with that deadly Dealey Plaza fusillade and then sought to cover up the reasons why he was killed would leave to ordinary citizens to inform the public about the real meaning of the assassination of President Kennedy?

On November 23, 1963 I discussed the assassination with my then brother-in-law, Harold Feldman. I told him that we should keep our eyes focused on what if anything would happen to the suspected assassin that weekend. I said that if the suspect was killed during the weekend, then we would have to consider Oswald's role to be that of a possible intelligence agent nd patsy. I told him if such happened, the assassination would have to be considered as the work of the very center of U.S. power.

I sensed that there was a need to be quick in formulating conclusions from the killing of Oswald. A successful political assassination is carried out to produce policy changes. Those policy changes generally take effect quickly. Consequently, it behooves a democratic citizenry to come promptly to their own reasoned conclusions about the killing of their head of state. Citizens cannot leave to their government, which under republican principals is their mere servant, to shape their thinking on such a vital subject. Nor can the citizenry await the work of the academic establishment before formulating its conclusions.

When Oswald was served up on camera as disposable Dealey Plaza flotsam and jetsam and was killed by Jack Ruby I saw a subtle signal of a high level conspiracy. There is every reason to think that intelligence agencies, when they choose a killer to dispose of a patsy, make that choice by exercising the same degree of care that they employ in selecting the patsy. Their choice of Jack Ruby much later would --- by providing a fall-back position for the government --- serve the interests of the assassins. As the Warren Report would unravel, a deceased Ruby's past connections to the Mafia produced a false candidate for governmental apologists to designate as the power behind the killing.

Immediately following the assassination I began to collect news items about Lee Harvey Oswald. A pattern began to emerge. Oswald's alleged defection to the Soviets, his alleged Castro leanings as the sole membe of a Fair Play for Cuba chapter in New Orleans, his posing with a rifle and a Trotskyist newspaper, his writings to the Communist Party USA, his study of the Russian language while in the Marine Corps, told me that he was not a genuine leftist, but rather was a U.S. intelligence agent.

It was apparent to me that no legitimate leftist straddles so many diverse political fences in a fractionalized American left. I saw Oswald's alleged leftist baggage as an effort on the part of the killers to send an intimidating message to the American left. The left was being signaled by the killers to be silent or to suffer a possible pogrom against it. The Cubanization of Oswald was a further signal to the left that the American military if provoked by criticism might seek to employ the Oswaldian Cuban tableau as an excuse to invade Cuba. For a summary of Oswald and his obvious connections to our intelligence community, see Professor Christopher Sharrett's "Oswald and U.S. Intelligence" in the appendix to Dr. E. Martin Schotz's book, History Will Not Absolve Us.

Similarly, I saw Oswald's membership in the ACLU as a device to send a message to frighten liberals into silence. As it turned out, the ACLU did not see any civil liberties issues in substituting for a legal inquest on the killing of President Kennedy a series of non-public and secret sessions by the Warren Commission. The ACLU had taken the bait.

After I began to write on the assassination, the ACLU privately assumed a position against my work. The national office expressed displeasure with me for writing on the subject and in so doing identifying myself as what I was, a long-time volunteer lawyer for the ACLU. The executive director of the Philadelphia ACLU branch, with whom I had over many years a fine working relationship and friendship, conveyed to me the National Office's displeasure with my writings on the assassination. My offer to resign was accepted with alacrity.

The use of a Mafia-related killer to dispatch the patsy while in custody, and that patsy's patently false left-wing and liberal guises, convinced me that the assassination was the work of U.S. intelligence. Keenly aware of the dangers which our Cold War national security state posed to the planet, I determined to continue the quixotic work of investigating the assassination. I sought to learn from and to help those who were willing to investigate and write on the criminality of their government in the assassination and its cover up.

In this effort I was supported and guided by my friends, Fred J. Cook, Robert Dean, Dave Dellinger, Jim DiEugenio, Harold Feldman, Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Garrison, Reverend Steve Jones, Professor Thomas Katen, Christopher Kefalos, Barbara LaMonica, David S. Lifton, Mark Lane, Staughton Lynd, Ray Marcus, Sylvia Meagher, Professor Joan Mellen, Dr. Michael Morrissey, Marguerite Oswald, Fletcher Prouty, Mort Sahl, Professor Chris Sharrett, Dr. Anita Schmuckler, Gary Schoerner, Dr. E. Martin Schotz, John Suchardt, Tink Thompson, and Harold Weisberg. Their dedication to democracy and truth served to sustain me.

Armed with an exploratory model of explanation that the Kennedy assassination was a Cold War killing, I began to sift through the myriad facts regarding the assassination which our government and the U.S. media offered us. What I did was to examine the data in a different fashion from the approach adopted by our news media. I chose to assess how an innocent civilian- controlled U.S. government would have reacted to those data. I also envisioned how a guilty U.S national security state which may have gained control of and may have become semi-autonomous to the civilian U.S. governmental structure would have reacted to the data of the assassination. The use of this simple method of analysis applied to the assassination data and the reactions to those data by our national security state and its civilian allies thoroughly convinced me that my model of explanation was correct. No other interpretation adequately explained how our government, our media and our establishment reacted to the facts relevant to President Kennedy's killing.

I submit that the manner in which the data were handled by our government demonstrate that: (1) the national security state at the very highest level of its power killed President John F. Kennedy for his efforts at seeking to develop a modus vivendi with the Soviets and with socialist Cuba, (2) subservient U.S. government, civilian establishment and mainstream media persons criminally and systematically aided the warfare state in covering up the assassination, and (3) in light of this criminal cover-up by the American power elite that there is no logical way we can conclude that the assassination was not the product of our warfare system. There was also no way rationally to conclude that the assassination was a result of the labor of the Soviets, Castro, the Mafia, J. Edgar Hoover, President Johnson, or that any lower level U.S. governmental operatives had been solely responsible for the execution of President Kennedy.

As I examined the evidence I was confronted with an unvarying pattern. Whenever evidence of a conspiracy emerged --- and mountains of facts were supplied by the government for us to scrutinize --- the government refused to act on that evidence. On the other hand, whenever any data emerged, no matter how thoroughly incredible, which could possibly be interpreted as supporting a lone assassin theory --- the government invariably and with the greatest solemnity declared that such data proved the correctness of the lone assassin myth. That is not the earmark of an innocent, blundering government.

I posited that an innocent civilian government would have in an unbiased fashion accepted, made public, and protected all of the assassination data. An innocent government would have fairly evaluated the data irrespective of whether or not they supported a particular conclusion. An innocent civilian government would never have accepted an improbable explanation of data while other probable explanations were extant.

I concluded that only a criminally guilty government which was beholden to the killers would reject a probable explanation of the evidence coming into its possession and instead would seize upon an improbable explanation for the evidence. Most importantly, I concluded that only a guilty government seeking to serve the interests of the assassins would consistently resort to accepting one improbable conclusion after another while rejecting a long series of probable conclusions. In short, while purporting to tell the truth, our government turned probability theory on its head. In an unvarying pattern it consistently accepted any data that even remotely supported a single-assassin concept and rejected data which incontrovertibly supported a conspiracy.

Now let us briefly review some of the evidence. The Secret Service stated that at the time of the assassination there were no Secret Service assigned to or in Dealey Plaza other than those attached to and who remained in the motorcade. There are no existing records which support any other federal agents having been present in Dealey Plaza. Yet, we know from the evidence that at the time of and immediately after the assassination, there were persons in Dealey Plaza who were impersonating Secret Service agents. This was clear evidence of both the existence of a conspiracy and the commission of the crime of impersonating federal officers. But our government showed no interest in pursuing this compelling evidence of the existence of a conspiracy nor in prosecuting the criminals who were impersonating federal officers. In refusing to pursue the evidence of conspiracy and in failing to pursue the criminals who were impersonating federal officers, the Warren Commissioners, their staff, the Attorney General's Office, and the FBI became accessories after the fact and abetted the killers.

The U.S. government was immediately confronted with the observations of many eyewitnesses, including skilled observers such as police officers and the Secret Service Agents in the motorcade. They had heard shots coming from --- saw smoke emanating from --- saw a man fleeing from --- and smelled gunpowder in the grassy knoll area of Dealey Plaza. Let us assume arguendo that all of the eyewitnesses who had concluded that shots were fired from the grassy knoll were dead wrong. But an innocent government could not and would not at that time have concluded that these good citizens were wrong and would not have immediately rushed to declare a far-fetched single assassin theory as fact.

The Parkland Hospital doctors, after having inspected the body of our murdered President, promptly offered their professional opinions that the President had been hit in the throat by a penetrating bullet. They concluded that this neck hit was a wound of entry and therefore necessarily resulted from a shot delivered from the front of the President. Let us posit that all of those doctors may have been mistaken in their conclusion. But given their professional medical opinions, no guiltless government would have chosen so quickly to close its options and to have declared at that point that the assassination was the work of a single person. For if any one of those doctors was correct, then a conspiracy to kill the President was proven. The government officials who immediately chose to designate each Parkland Hospital doctor as wrong were criminal accessories after the fact.

No staff member at Parkland Hospital reported seeing a small bullet entry wound in the back of the President's head. Instead they saw and reported a large avulsive wound in the occipital area of the President's head. Again, let us presume for the purpose of argument that they were all wrong in their observations. Nevertheless an innocent government would have been obligated to hold its options open on the issue of whether one or more hits had been delivered to the President's head from the front and not from the rear. This was so since an avulsive wound in the occipital region indicated a wound of exit and not of entry. For governmental officials to have ignored the Parkland Hospital doctors findings made those officials accessories after the fact.

No viable democratic government that was free of guilt and that was in the control of civilian authorities would have permitted a sham autopsy of the President's body. In accepting the orders of the generals and admirals not to probe the neck wound of the President the military doctors who were performing the autopsy effectively aborted it. Those doctors were guilty of malfeasance. The admirals and generals present in the autopsy room who were responsible for those orders were simply criminals, guilty of the crimes of conspiracy to obstruct and obstruction of justice. They were also criminal accessories after the fact to the murder of the President.

Our U.S. government had in its possession, on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, the Zapruder eight millimeter film which demonstrated that the President, after having been struck by a shot or shots to his head, had been thrown leftward and backward and bounced off the back seat of the Presidential limousine. Now there might have been an explanation for that phenomenon which was other than that this was an impact response from a hit delivered by a gunman positioned to his right front. But that dramatic movement of the Presidents body appeared to contravene conclusively any theory that all the shots had been delivered from a single vantage point to the rear of the President.

An innocent government, having come into possession of the Zapruder film on the afternoon of November 22nd, 1963, once its operatives had examined that film, would necessarily have come to the conclusion that the assassination was most probably the result of a conspiracy. Those governmental operatives who examined the Zapruder film at that time and who did not cry out an alarm of probable conspiracy were guilty of obstruction of justice and were criminal accessories after the fact.

But that Zapruder film, instead of being shown immediately to the whole world, was kept by the government and Life and not shown to the public at large. We will now relate how Life magazine served our military-intelligence community. Time Inc., the owners of Life, bought the rights to the Zapruder film in 1963 and withheld it from public viewing. Please pardon me for not believing that this censorship was designed to enlighten our people. We shall see that Life both censored the Zapruder film and lied about its contents. In its September 6, 1964 issue Life sought to explain away the wound in President Kennedy's neck as follows:

...it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm. film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed --- toward the sniper's nest- -just before he clutches it.

But we now know that the Zapruder film tells us that the President did not turn his body far around to the right, and that his throat was not exposed toward the alleged sniper's nest. So Life was not only censoring the Zapruder film, but while having it in its sole possession, was lying about its content and therefore obstructing justice through censorship and falsification of the Zapruder film's content.

My October 2nd, 1964 issue of Life magazine contained a color reproduction of frame 313 of the 8 millimeter Zapruder motion picture showing the moment of bullet impact on President Kennedy's skull. The caption for that Zapruder frame read: "The assassins shot struck the right rear portion of the President's skull, causing a massive wound and snapping of his head to one side." To me it appeared that striking a head from the rear and causing it to snap to one side ran counter to a Newton law of motion. So, I decided to collect oher copies of the same issue of Life.

In the next copy I acquired I found that Life had changed the caption to read: "The direction from which shots came was established by this picture taken at instant bullet struck the rear of the President's head, and passing through, caused the front part of his skull to explode forward." But in this copy of the magazine Life had changed the Zapruder frame to a later one which showed that the President's whole body had been driven not only leftward but also backwards against the back seat of the limousine by a shot supposedly fired from the rear. That frame with that caption impressed me as causing even more difficulty for the Warren Report.

The next copy of Life that I found put together the exploding-forward caption with Zapruder frame 313. Life finally got the deception right. I reported these findings in my March, 1965 articles in Liberation magazine.

Later, in 1966, I inquired of Life about the three versions of the same issue. Edward Kern, a Life editor, replied in a letter to me dated November 28, 1966. In his reply he said: "I am at a loss to explain the discrepancies between the three versions of LIFE which you cite. I've heard of breaking a plate to correct an error. Ive never heard of doing it twice for a single issue, much less a single story."

Well, unlike Edward Kern, I was not at a loss to explain the three versions. To me the three versions of Life and Life's lies about what the Zapruder film revealed show in microcosm an elegant example of how the U.S. media criminally joined with U.S. governmental civilian personages, and with the national security state apparatus to employ deceit in seeking to prop up the Warren Report.

Henry R. Luce created Life magazine. He was an ardent Cold Warrior having championed the American Century and having lobbied for the National Security Act of 1947. His widow, Claire Booth Luce, was a former member of the House of Representatives and a former ambassador to Italy. She was one of Allen Dulles' lovers. In his book, The Last Investigation, my dear friend, Gaeton Fonzi, who worked for U.S. Senator Richard Schweiker while the Senator was investigating the Kennedy assassination, told how Claire Booth Luce lead them on a wild goose chase. She effectively used up their governmentally-paid-for time by sending them on a fruitless search for fanciful persons.

Congressman Gerald R. Ford, who had been a Warren Commissioner, and who was later to become President, signed that October 2, 1964 Life article. He concluded this article with the following statement: "This report is the truth as we see it, as best we know it, and on this, we rest."

The three versions of Life demonstrate clearly the criminal conspiratorial joining together of the U.S. intelligence community, the civilian aspects of our government, and our media to support the Warren Report. They were and still are all in bed together.

Let us now return to the events which occurred at Parkland Hospital on the afternoon of November 22, 1963 where a hospital orderly had discovered the bullet which was designated as CE 399. CE 399 was an intact bullet, undeformed except for a slight extrusion in the back. It weighed essentially what a pristine bullet would have weighed. It had no blood nor tissue on it. Would not that to any open mind have appeared to be a bullet planted to implicate someone?

But the FBI concluded that CE 399 was not a planted bullet. Rather, the FBI found that the bullet that had entered President Kennedy's back, had not passed through his torso but rather had fallen out and had been recovered at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. The FBI Sibert-O'Neill Report of November 27, 1963, confirmed that the autopsy doctors at Bethesda on November 22, 1963 found that the shot which entered President Kennedy's back had not exited from the front of his body. The FBI Report to the Warren Commission dated December 9, 1963 and the FBI Supplemental Report of January 13, 1964 had concluded likewise.

Astoundingly, the Warren Report does not mention and the Commission's exhibits make no reference to these critical documents. Their omission from the Warren Report and the Commissions documents constitutes obstruction of justice since the double hit on the President and the Governor with the same bullet, CE 399, was the sine qua non of the Warren Report.

Consider this. For weeks the FBI finding upon which the Warren Commission was expected to base its report was that CE 399 had not pierced President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Rather, the FBI had concluded and had so advised the Commission that separate shots had hit the two men. Therefore, the FBI for weeks had rested on a finding that compelled a conclusion that only three shots and no more could not have explained all the bullet damage at Dealey Plaza. Of course, this fact required the further conclusion that there had been more than one gunman firing on the President. Yet, we will see that during these weeks immediately following the assassination, while the FBI findings were informing our government that the magic bullet theory at that juncture had been rejected, the government remained steadfastly committed to a single assassin fantasy and criminally persisted in characterizing Oswald as the sole assassin.

Later, the U.S. government secretly and sharply shifted gears and married the single-hit theory. It therefore concluded that the FBI findings had been all wrong. Instead in its Warren Report our government insisted that CE 399 had wounded JFK by entering in a downward trajectory of 17 degrees, coursing through his custom-fitted jacket from the rear at 5 and 3/8 inches down from its collar and 5 and 3/4 inches down from the collar of his custom-made shirt.

The government concluded that somehow or other the custom- made jacket and custom-made shirt of President Kennedy had at the moment of bullet impact become mysteriously bunched together high up on his neck area. The government theory was that CE 399, the magic bullet, had passed through President Kennedy without having struck bone. This bullet in exiting had then pierced his necktie knot. Although it would have appeared to be exiting in an upward trajectory, the government had deduced that CE 399 had turned in mid air as it had emerged from the necktie knot of President Kennedy and had struck Governor John B. Connally in the right side of his back.

According to the government, CE 399 had then traveled downward through the right side of Connally's chest and had smashed his fifth rib. The government concluded that CE 399 exited below his right nipple, and passing through his shattered right wrist, spewing metal as it went, had entered his left femur depositing therein a fragment.

In so concluding, our Cold War government in the context of the assassination had declared a moratorium on the science of physics and had declared the occupations of custom-shirt making and custom tailoring to be guilty of horrendous incompetence. I take particular umbrage about the government's shameless attack on the custom-tailoring trade. My deceased great father had been a proud practitioner of that honorable trade. He would have been horrified by the suggestion that one of his fellow coat makers had fitted President Kennedy's suit jacket in such a way that it had bunched up about four and one-half inches as the President raised his right hand no higher than his shoulder to greet the Dealey Plaza crowd. Arlen Specter and others who had promulgated this theory and who had failed to produce as witnesses the custom suit and shirt makers who had been in the service of President Kennedy were guilty of more than maligning their occupational skills. They were also guilty of malfeasance and misfeasance in office, and obstruction of justice. They were accessories after the fact and were criminal conspirators historically forever joined with the murderers of President Kennedy.

On October 23, 1964, Arlen Specter was quoted in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin regarding what he had told a Bar Association meeting at which I had questioned him. He was quoted as stating: "The people are going to have to rely on the conclusions and the stature of the men of the Commission."

I replied to him in my November 2, 1964 article in The Legal Intelliaencer: 'We know that Mr. Specter did not mean by the above statement that the Warren Commission was ever meant to be construed as a "ministry of truth." Nor would the members of the Commission, as public servants in a democracy, ever consider that their "stature" insulated their interpretations and findings from public criticism.'

In fact Specter was telling us that evidence had to give way to stature. He was instructing us that he and the Commission were in reality a ministry of truth and could and would criminally conceal the truth with impunity.

But let us posit arguendo that the Warren Commission and its staff had considered themselves a benevolent ministry of truth. Let us assume that they had conceived of themselves as having spared us from a thermonuclear war. Although there was no evidence when the Warren Report was issued, that such a war was imminent. But with the demise of the Soviet Union, that is no longer a legitimate concern. Can we not now ask why Senator Specter should not come clean and finally tell us why the Warren Commission had concealed the truth? But to ask the question is to answer it. Senator Spector must in a criminal fashion continue to serve the national interest as he sees it by obstructing justice in order to conceal that we are in the same banana-republic status that we were as of November 22, 1963.

In my January, 1965 article in Liberation I reported that when Jacqueline Kennedy testified before the Commission she had spoken of the wounds inflicted on her husband. She above all was qualified to speak of these wounds, since she had been the first to see up close the terrible work of the butchers who had cut down her husband. But in the transcript of her testimony presented to the Commission, we were provided only with the comment: "Reference to the wounds deleted."

J. Lee Rankin, the Commissions General Counsel, was reported in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin of November 23rd, 1964, to have declared that Classified material involving national security was withheld from the volumes of transcript." Does that not tell us in plain language that we were denied the testimony of the deposed first lady in order to protect the killers of her husband, our national security state? Had not J. Lee Rankin in assenting to such a crucial deletion committed the crime of obstruction of justice?

This same J. Lee Rankin, in answer to my article in the January, 1965 issue of Liberation magazine on January 3, 1965, reported in the New York Times that "there was no credible evidence to support a theory that more than three shots had been fired." Is it not clear that in so stating, Mr. Rankin had criminally obstructed justice? Do not the mounds of incontrovertible evidence of a multiple assassin killing which we are now reviewing and to which he had been privy not put the lie to Mr. Rankin and render his statement criminal?

Theodore H. White, in his book The Making of the President, 1964, told us that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, the Presidential party on Air Force One "...learned that there was no conspiracy, learned of the identity of Oswald and his arrest..." Air Force One had landed at Andrews Air Force Base, at 5:59 P.M. on November 22, 1963. In correspondence with me, Mr. White stated that this message was sent to the Presidential party from the Situation Room of the White House. This same message was confirmed by Pierre Salinger in his book With Kennedy. Mr. Salinger received that same message while on the Cabinet Plane which was flying over the Pacific Ocean. Mr. Salinger tried to get those data to me and had instructed the National Archives to provide them for me, but they disappeared from the National Archives. My inquiries to the White House Communication Agency requesting a copy of the Air Force One Tapes were dismissed in a letter sent to me by James U. Cross, Armed Forces Aide to the President. He wrote on January 2, 1968, that the logs and tapes of the radio transmissions "...are kept for official use only. These tapes are not releasable, nor are they obtainable from commercial sources."

But the contents of this message to Air Force One was confirmed in 1993 by Robert Manning, Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs who was on the Presidential plane on its return trip from Love to Andrews Air Force Base. He reported having heard the same account of Oswald being designated as the presumed assassin. (Gerald S. and Deborah H. Strober Let Us Begin Anew, An Oral History of the Kennedy Presidency, Harper Collins Publisher, 1993)

That, my good people, is conclusive evidence of high-level U.S. governmental guilt. The first announcement of Oswald as the lone assassin, before there was any evidence against him, and while there was overwhelmingly convincing evidence of conspiracy, had come from the White House Situation Room. Only the assassins could have made that premature declaration that Oswald was the assassin. This announcement had been made while back in Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade was stating that "preliminary reports indicated more than one person was involved in the shooting..." (Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963)

I have asked and ask again, can there be any doubt that for any innocent government, taken by surprise by the assassination --- and legitimately seeking the truth concerning it --- the White House Situation Room message was sent too soon? The government could not have known at that time that Oswald was the killer and that there was no conspiracy. The persons on Air Force One and the plane carrying the cabinet members over the Pacific who heard that message and who do not come forward at this time to fill in the now deleted portion of the tape from the Situation Room of the White House, are they not accessories after the fact?

The person who on November 22, 1963 had been in direct control of the White House Situation Room, the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, was McGeorge Bundy. Bundy was a hard-liner on foreign policy. He had been a student of CIA's covert operations chief, Richard Bissell, who had been fired by President Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. Bundy in 1948 had worked for Bissell on the Marshall Plan. Bundy was a man of considerable intelligence. He did not out of stupidity inform the Presidential party that Oswald was the lone assassin before there was any evidence against him and while there was compelling evidence of conspiracy. Did he not do this to inform the Presidential Party who had been in the motorcade that this was a matter of state, the importance of which rose higher than Anglo-Saxon principles of justice?

Therefore, at Bundy's direction instructions were given to the party on the Presidential plane and on the Cabinet plane. What they had heard, smelled and seen in Dealey Plaza was of no consequence. The patsy had been selected, and the conclusion of conspiracy had been ruled out. Bundy was indirectly instructing the Presidential party and the cabinet members that he was speaking for the killers. He was directing the Presidential party and the cabinet that what they had observed in Dealey Plaza was merely evidence, and that the needs of state rose above evidence. He was informing the Presidential Party that those among them who had witnessed the triangulation of fire which had brought down the President should not imagine that a few nuts in Dealey Plaza had gotten lucky. They were being circuitously informed that the assassination had been committed by a level of U.S. power that was above and beyond punishment.

Bundy, in the service of our warfare state and the U.S. establishment of which he was an honored member, committed the crime of being an obstructor of justice and was a critical accessory after the fact to the murder of our President. Bundy was rewarded for his brazen cover-up work by remaining with President Johnson as one of his leading hawkish advisers on Vietnam. Bundy is now deceased. But I provided this information about him in a speech I made in Boston, Massachusetts, on October 23, 1971 before the New England Branch of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. My unrealized purpose was to cause him to institute a libel action against me. He apparently did not see fit to file one. This preeminent establishment man was in my judgment unquestionably criminally involved at least in the cover up of the assassination of President Kennedy. He owed his allegiance to the U.S. establishment --- the murderers of the President.

Governor Connally, although purporting to support the Warren Commission, testified before the Warren Commission that it was not conceivable that he had been hit by the same bullet which had struck President Kennedy. His wife testified similarly. They never retracted their testimony. The Zapruder film supports their conclusion. My dear friend, Raymond Marcus, has demonstrated in his works The Bastard Bullet and Addendum B incontrovertible proof that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were hit by separate bullets. The government had immediately espoused the single-bullet theory against the compelling testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally who had testified that separate bullets had hit President Kennedy and Governor Connally. This governmental dismissal of the Connally evidence which compelled the finding of conspiracy, constituted obstruction of justice.

Our government had allowed the clothing of Governor Connally to be dry cleaned and pressed. This action made it impossible to determine from the examination of his clothing whether he had been hit by a pristine bullet or one that had passed through President Kennedy. Those officials who permitted that dry cleaning and pressing and consequent destruction of vital evidence were clearly guilty of obstruction of justice. The Warren Commission did not suggest that there was anything culpable about this obvious criminal act. Therefore, the Warren Commission in failing to condemn this wanton and criminal destruction of evidence was guilty of malfeasance and misfeasance in office, and the Commission and its staff members became accessories after the fact.

Since the government had promulgated a single assassin theoy in which the assassin had fired a bolt action rifle no more than three times, the total ammunition supply of the government was three bullets. The government, undeterred by the implausibility of its conclusion of a single assassin theory, and undisturbed by the torrent of evidence against it, immediately accepted as fact the myth that three bullets fired within 5.6 seconds had inflicted all the carnage on Dealey Plaza. we will demonstrate that this premature embracing by the government of the single assassin theory proved that the highest level of our military intelligence was the criminal force which killed our President.

James T. Tague, a bystander, in Dealey Plaza, had also been struck by fragments of a missile in that fusillade. So three bullets and only three bullets had to account for the: (1) wounding of the President in the back, neck and head (2) wounding Governor Connally in the back, fracturing a rib, fracturing his right wrist and depositing a fragment in his left femur (3) wounding James T. Tague (4) causing impact damage on the front windshield and front metal of the Presidential limousine and (5) on the street curbing. The government, as we have already noted, had operating against and belying its single assassin three- bullet theory a drastic shortage of ammunition.

This was especially true since the FBI Report, upon which the Warren Commission was to rely, set forth, and I quote verbatim from Volume 1, page 18 of the FBI report:

Immediately afer President Kennedy and Governor Connally were admitted to Parkland Memorial Hospital, a bullet was found on one of the stretchers. Medical examination of the President's body revealed that one of the bullets had entered just below his shoulder to the right of the spinal column at an angle of 45 to 60 degrees downward, that there was no point of exit, and that the bullet was not in the body...

So the FBI had concluded that the bullet that had struck President Kennedy in the back had not exited. Therefore, the U.S. government, immediately following the assassination, had according to its own findings, an impossible ammunition shortage. That shortage should have convinced an innocent government that more than one junk rifle had been responsible for all of the bullet impact damage inflicted in Dealey Plaza. Yet, the impossible single assassin theory was the concept to which the U.S. Government remained criminally and irrevocably joined. The governments hasty and unshakable embrace of the lone assassin theory was pregnant with guilt. It served as a scanty fig leaf the purpose of which was to legitimatize our national security state which had shot its way into absolute power.

The Presidential limousine, with bullet-impact damage to its chrome and windshield and splattered with brain tissue, was criminally removed from the crime scene and shipped out of Dallas. Then our government refitted the vehicle and in the process destroyed the enormous and vital forensic evidence contained therein. The removal from Dallas of the vehicle and the evidentiary eradication by means of refitting of the vehicle clearly constituted criminal obstruction of justice.

Unlike the excuses that were made for the criminal removal of President Kennedy's body from Dallas, there can be no innocent explanation for what happened to the Presidential limousine, loaded as it had been with vital forensic evidence. The only plausible explanation was the need for the government to conceal its guilt. An innocent government would have insisted that the Texas authorities place the limousine under tight guard while it remained where it in accordance with the law belonged, in Dallas, the jurisdiction of the crime. Instead, our Cold war government arrogantly shipped the presidential limousine out of Dallas for purposes of relieving it of the rich evidentiary load it had carried.

At the Bethesda Naval Hospital, Commander James J. Humes prepared autopsy notes, unquestionably the most important autopsy notes ever. On November 24, 1963 he signed a certificate: "I, James J. Humes, certify that I have destroyed by burning certain preliminary draft notes relating to Naval Medical School Autopsy Report A63-272..." In destroying the autopsy notes he committed the crime of obstruction of justice. I readily concede that the greater criminal or criminals was the superior officer or officers who ordered him to obstruct justice by destroying the precious original autopsy notes. Is it not a certainty that Dr. Humes would not have committed such a criminal act without having been directed by none other than his military superior or superiors to do so? Would any innocent government not have made short work of the military officials who ordered and carried out the destruction of those notes? Our guilty government did nothing to address this criminal behavior of its admirals and generals.

All of you know about the November 25, 1963 memorandum from Nicholas Katzenbach instructing Bill Moyers:

"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and the evidence was such that he would have been convicted a trial..."

In light of the evidence we have just reviewed, how could Mr. Katzenbach have known that Oswald was guilty of committing the crime alone? How could he at that time as a rational man and given the state of the evidence have considered Oswald's guilt to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Mr. Katzenbach's criminally premature conclusion leaves us no alternative but to see him as having had full knowledge that he was seeking to prevent the revelation of the guilt of the mightiest power ever created, our warfare state. He was acting in the place of the Attorney General. Instead of serving justice in accordance with his sworn duty to uphold the constitution of the United States, he was criminally obstructing justice.

And in that same memorandum he said "We should have some basis for rebutting the thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy..." In Cold War United States, such solicitude for the Communist world was not common in our governmental circles. Apparently the Communist world did not view itself suspect. Rather it was accusing us of a right-wing conspiracy. Even Mr. Katzenbach dismissed as incredible Oswald's left-wing baggage when he stated that "...the facts on Oswald seem almost too pat --- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.)" In having been so quick to dismiss Oswalds false Marxist, Russian and Cuban connections, what did Mr. Katzenbach know about Oswald's U.S. intelligence connections that wasn't being revealed by our government?

On December 9, 1963, Mr. Katzenbach sent a similar memorandum to Chief Justice Earl Warren who had been appointed to head the Commission which had as its ostensible function to ascertain the truth in the assassination. Let us see how Chief Justice Earl Warren was treated by Mr. Katzenbach.

First, Mr. Katzenbach told Chief Justice Warren that "At the direction of President Johnson, I am transmitting herewith to you and to the other members of the Commission copies of the report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the assassination of President Kennedy..." But the FBI report had stated "...that one of the bullets had entered just below his shoulder to the right of the spinal column at an angle of 45 to 60 degrees downward, that there was no point of exit..." Therefore, as of December 9, 1963, an innocent government could not have accepted as truthful a three-bullet, sole-assassin theory. Then why, given the ammunition shortage of the government's scenario, if the government were innocent, did Mr. Katzenbach not concede to Chief Justice Warren that there was compelling evidence of a conspiracy?

Mr. Katzenbach further instructed Chief Justice Warren: "...the latest Gallup poll shows that over half the American people believe that Oswald acted on (sic) part of a conspiracy in shooting President Kennedy... I think, therefore, the Commission should consider releasing --- or allowing the Department of Justice to release --- a short press statement which would briefly make the following points:

(1) The FBI report through scientific examination of evidence, testimony and intensive investigation, established beyond a reasonable doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy on November 22, 1963... The FBI had made an exhaustive investigation into whether Oswald may have conspired with or been assisted by any organization, group or person, foreign or domestic, in carrying out this dastardly act... To date this aspect of the investigation has been negative...

Would Chief Justice Warren have been the recipient of these orders which Mr. Katzenbach should have hesitated to give to a callow law clerk for any purpose other than to be of service to our national security state? Again, historical perspective aids us in coming to a sensible conclusion. Chief Justice Warren had in the past proven himself to be loyal to the perceived needs of our warfare state. He had been a prime mover in establishing the first racial concentration camps in America when the U.S. entered World War II. He had interpreted our constitution as permitting the incarceration of innocent U.S. citizens of Japanese descent.

By accepting these orders from Mr. Katzenbach, Chief Justice Warren was doing a service to the state and a disservice to the constitutional concept of separation of powers. By not making public disclosure of these orders which ran counter to his appointed duty as a fact finder, he was showing his contempt for the majority of the American people who in every public opinion poll had shown that they had understood the assassination to have been the work of a conspiracy. Now they were to be mislead and confused by the commission which bore Warren's name. Chief Justice Warren was compelled by his dedication to our state to conduct a charade of pretending to look for the truth in the slaying of President Kennedy, when he had already been force-fed and had accepted as manna the U.S. government's historical fantasy that Oswald had been solely responsible for the assassination. Were not Messrs. Katzenbach and Warren in sending and receiving this memorandum without informing the public of the lies contained therein, guilty of the crimes of obstruction of justice and being accessories after the fact?

On January 21, 1964, there was a secret executive session of the Warren Commission. The Commission was dealing with a serious problem. Marina Oswald was going to give evidence that Oswald was a Soviet agent. Commissioner Richard Russell commented, "That will blow the lid if she testifies to that." Then Commission member Allen Dulles interceded, stating he knew Isaac Don Levine, an old Cold warrior, who was assigned by Life Magazine to write an article with Marina Oswald. Of course the article was never published. Mr. Dulles stated "I can get him in and have a friendly talk." Does that not sound like Allen Dulles was planning to suborn to perjury and to obstruct justice?

Why was this consummate Cold Warrior, Allen Dulles, so eager to exonerate the Soviets? History records that Allen Dulles and his brother, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, had been quite willing to carry us to the brink of thermonuclear war many times in post World War II years. Then why the reluctance on the part of this Cold Warrior in a secret session of the Warren Commission, to entertain the possibility of Soviet involvement?

If you read Mr. Gaeton Fonzi's fine book, The Last Investigation, you will learn that he traced the assassination to the CIA from which Mr. Dulles had been fired by President Kennedy. Must we not conclude therefore that Mr. Dulles, in seeking to cover up the possibility of Soviet involvement, had certain knowledge that Oswald was a patsy, and that the CIA had carried out the assassination? The CIA was the agency over which he had presided and from which he had been fired by President Kennedy for his betrayal of the President in the Bay of Pigs venture. Did not Allen Dulles have an interest in protecting the agency which had been so dear to him? Did he not have cause to hate the President for having fired him from the CIA and for the President's courageous opposition to the military and intelligence services on Cold War policy? In appointing Allen Dulles to the Warren Commission, did not President Johnson demonstrate judgment that was so bad as to amount to misfeasance in office and to obstruction of justice?

For any disinterested observer, the information that came to light on Oswald clearly established him as having all of the earmarks of a U.S. intelligence agent. To have described Oswald as a Marxist and not as the U.S. intelligence agent that he was, was to join with the murderers as accessories after the fact and to obstruct justice. That false Marxist garb of Oswald was utilized to exacerbate Cold War tensions. Oswald's phony Marxist trappings were a lever that could be, and I believe was used to press down the lid on possible Soviet reaction to the obvious banana-republic status of the U.S. government. The government operatives who had invented the phony Marxist cover of Oswald were the likely assassins. In publicizing without criticism this false Marxist cloak of Oswald the American press joined the criminality of our U.S. intelligence assassins as accessories after the fact.

Oswald's family was brought to the Dallas area by Ruth Paine. Ruth Paine had been instrumental in getting Oswald a job at the Texas Book Depository. The Manlicher Carcano, the alleged murder rifle, had supposedly been stored in a garage of the Paines. Following the assassination, Ruth Paine was called by Oswald during his detention to have her obtain a lawyer for him, a task which she failed to complete much to the benefit of the assassins.

Once a conspiracy was deemed to exist, and even our government in the House Select Committee concluded that there was a probable conspiracy, the Paines had to be viewed as having been involved in it. An assassination Gestalt with the patsy serving as a lightning rod, cannot be successfully completed unless the patsy is delivered to the scene of the killing. Ruth Paine accomplished the crucial twin assassination tasks of getting Oswald into the Dallas area and arranging to get him a job in the Texas Book Depository Building. Therefore, the Paines, albeit on a need-to-know basis, were involved in the plot.

In whose service were the Paines? Michael Paine came from families which were in the Boston Brahmin society --- the Cabot and Forbes families. He was an heir of his maternal grandmother, Elise Cabot Forbes. He was not likely to be controlled by the Soviets, Castro or the Mafia. He had top secret clearance in his job at Bell Helicopter despite the fact that his father, George Lyman Paine, had been a Trotskyist. In Cold War United States to get such clearance when your father had been a Trotskyist, a quid pro quo had to be provided. Ruth Paine's father was William Avery Hyde, an official in the Agency for International Development, which frequently provided cover for overseas intelligence operations. According to the excellent work of Steve Jones, Barbara LaMonica and Carol Hewett, Ruth Paine's sister, Sylvia Hoke, had CIA affiliations. Ruth Paine was friendly with George DeMohrenshildt, a sophisticated White Russian exile and CIA operative who, although thirty-five years Oswald's senior, became Oswald's closest friend in Dallas. According to recent research in the 1980s Ruth Paine assisted illegal anti-socialist activity in Nicaragua.

Ruth and Michael Paine could not have been Soviet, Castro or Mafia agents. They had to be agents of the killing force, our U.S. intelligence. If they had been Soviet or Castro agents, an innocent government would have swooped down on them and seen them as clear beacons leading to the killers. Our government did not cause them any trouble. The Paines are criminal co-conspirators in the killing of President Kennedy and would and should now be prosecuted by a guiltless government.

There is no rational manner in which we can strip away the guilt of the highest levels of our national security state. The government's consistent criminal pattern of ignoring a whole series of data indicating conspiracy and consistently twisting the meaning of evidence to support a single assassin killing compels the conclusion that the U.S. national security state killed President Kennedy. President Kennedy himself had posited that he might be killed by the national security state, as reported in Paul B. Fay, Jr.'s book, The Pleasure of his Company. Given the simplicity of the above analysis, the conclusion is inescapable that the American civilian media failed in its First Amendment task of seriously examining the killing of President Kennedy by the military-intelligence community. The U.S. media chose instead to serve the interests of state. That rightfully earns them the title of accessories after the fact.

Please do not seek comfort in the probability that the killing of President Kennedy was the work of a low-level conspiracy. Chief Justice Warren, Allen Dulles, McGeorge Bundy, all of the other government operatives, the U.S. media, the U.S. historians, would not have failed to perform the work which we have just performed in order to protect the Mafia or some small group not associated with the center of U.S. power. If the killers had not been in the very center of the National Security State and therefore beyond reach of punishment, the President's family, having considerable wealth and power, would have insisted upon a fair investigation and punishment of the conspirators. Our government at this time would not have its very legitimacy at issue throughout the world in order to protect rogue elements who had committed this crime thirty-five years ago.

What has been the effect on the people of this country from having been bombarded by our government with evidence which speaks to a high level conspiracy, while this same government issued a Warren Report that concluded a single assassin was responsible for the killing? What is the effect on our people when this same government through the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that President Kennedy was probably assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald in a conspiracy with other unknown individuals? What is the effect on our people when that House Committee's Chief Counsel, Robert Blakey, announced that the Mafia did it? What is the effect on our nation when the power structure of this country and its employees have demonstrated a pattern of willingness to commit crimes in order to cover for and to defend the assassins?

The effect of the government's deceit has been to create a confused and extremely protracted debate designed to hide the simple truth of a high level warfare-state conspiracy. The government has served on us, the people, who have always by a large majority disbelieved the Warren Report, a notice that we are powerless. President Kennedy, a popular, beloved world leader of independent wealth, was dispatched without a common-law inquest. Enormous evidence was released that he was killed by a conspiracy. Yet the government persisted in contending that the killing was accomplished either by a lone nut or by some Italian gangsters.

In providing us with a commitment to a sole assassin killing or an assassination by the Mafia, Castro, Soviet or low-level rogue U.S. group, while providing us with extensive evidence of a high-level conspiracy, the national security state seeks to paralyze our thinking processes. Through Orwellian doublethink the government successfully involved us in years of fruitless debate as to the microanalytic details of how the assassination was executed and what obscure meaning the assassination had on our lives. Through this Orwellian doublethink the government sends us clear signals. It instructs us that if bullets could remove a constitutionally-elected president, and the murderers go unpunished, then we should not take seriously U.S. politics. It instructs us that we should not entertain hopes of accomplishing a truthful explanation of the meaning of the killing.

Our government by issuing as truth the obvious lies of the Warren Report named after and attributed to a liberal Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, impressed upon us that we could not rely on our court system to accomplish justice.

Notwithstanding that all public opinion polls demonstrated that the U.S. public believed that a conspiracy had brought down the President, Congress remained silent for 13 years on the assassination. When finally in 1979 Congress spoke in the voice of the House Select Committee, that voice was a muffled whisper informing us that probably the mob did it. Through this hushed and cowardly utterance the people were told that they could not rely on the Congress to represent their interests.

For years, not satisfied with having merely killed President Kennedy, the U.S. media have been busy endeavoring to assassinate his character by publishing a series of books designed to demonstrate that he was a flawed and perverse person so that we might conclude that he deserved his fate. A man who had sacrificed his life for world peace was shot down and then pilloried with defamation for years by a contemptuous and arrogant U.S. establishment.

The assassination of President Kennedy and its handling by the government and its compliant media were designed to accomplish not only the firing by gunshots of a President, but also were aimed at mind-manipulation and paralysis of our people. The fact that we have been debating this assassination for thirty-five years demonstrates that the national security state has enjoyed considerable success in accomplishing its goal. By debating the meaning of the assassination of President Kennedy we have served the purpose of our military-intelligence complex to mystify the obvious.

What are we to do? We must accept as no mystery the question of why the assassination occurred. President Kennedy was killed for seeking to reduce the planet-threatening tensions of the Cold War. He was killed for accomplishing the test-ban treaty. He was killed for his eloquence in espousing peace. In his 1963 American University speech he urged:

...my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace... And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights --- the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation --- the right to breathe air as nature provided it --- the right of future generations to a healthy existence? While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both."

President Kennedy was killed because he had refused to bomb and to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, although the Joint Chiefs and the CIA were much for this course of action. Later he had refused, when opposed by the Joint Chiefs and the CIA, to consent to invading Cuba during the missile crisis. Instead of invading Cuba, against the expressed wishes of the Joint Chiefs and the CIA, he had chosen to negotiate with the Soviets over a commitment not to invade Cuba. He had then moved for the normalization of relations with Cuba. Those relations have still to be normalized. He had established a back-channel communication system with the Soviets. Because of his quest for world peace and his struggle to preserve the human race from a devastating thermonuclear war, President John F. Kennedy was killed by the highest levels of our national security state.

Was President Kennedy's Vietnam policy one of the reasons why he was killed? There has been much speculation and debate on what President Kennedy would or would not have done in Vietnam had he not been killed. If I were to engage in speculation, I would tend to believe that the man who twice refused to submit to the Joint Chiefs and the CIA on bombing and invading Cuba a mere ninety miles from our shore would not have consented to sending hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops half way around the world to slaughter Vietnamese peasants.

But there is no need to speculate on the issue of whether President Kennedy's policy towards Vietnam was changed immediately following his death. It was. The historical record is clear. President Kennedy did order the beginning of a withdrawal of all U.S. personnel which withdrawal would be completed in two years. To undermine that policy, just two days after his assassination the CIA produced, as per assassination agnostic Professor Noam Chomsky in his book, Rethinking Camelot, "radically revised assumptions on which the withdrawal plans has been conditioned."

Yes, Dealey Plaza's crackling rifle fire was directly connected to the scorching of Vietnam flesh by napalm and the millions of deaths our invasion caused. For more on Vietnam and President Kennedy, my friend, Dr. Michael Morrissey, will have more to say in his future writings.

We now understand the deep significance of President Kennedys killing. Our cities blight while we build B-2 bombers and an unattainable but military-industrial-profit-generating anti-ballistic missile system. Our poor suffer miserable existences as we continue to fatten the military-industrial complex for protection against imagined or impotent enemies. Our public schools in the urban areas decay while we maintain military bases throughout the globe. We desperately search for terrorists and weak nation states which we can designate as "rogue states" and therefore make them necessary targets for our Pentagon to show off its newest weapons systems.

By coming to understand the true answer to the historical question of who killed President Kennedy and why, we will have developed a delicate and precisely accurate prism through which we can examine how power works in this militarized country. By understanding the nature of this monumental crime, we will become equipped to organize the struggle through which we can make this country a civilian republic in more than name only. Until we understand the nature of the Kennedy assassination, and until we express the truth openly on this vital aspect of our history, we will continue to be guilty participants in the vast amount of state criminality involved in the killing of President Kennedy and its cover up.

We cannot consider ourselves a free and democratic people until we understand and address the evil nature of the warfare- state power which murdered President John F. Kennedy. Until then we cannot begin the vital work of ridding the world of the terror produced by our mighty war machine that crushes hopes for true substantive democracy here and elsewhere.

We can no longer afford to shield ourselves by asserting that the murder of President Kennedy is a mystery. There is no mystery regarding how, by whom, and why President Kennedy was killed. Only when we strip away our privileged cloak of denial about the truth of the killing will we be able to free ourselves for the hard global work of changing our unfair and brutal society to one that is more equitable and less violent.

Thank you.

[William Kelly]

Just saw two excellent pieces by Vince Salandria. I am going to post them here for the benefit of our Castro did it poster.

Perhaps the clear thinking offered by the inimitable Salandria can get Tim's own thinking on track.

Dawn

______________________________

THE TALE TOLD BY TWO TAPES

May 2001

by Vincent Salandria

On March 26, 2001, I was instructed by my personal computer that I had e-mail. I was bemused to learn that the e-mail was "a courtesy of the Washington Post." My confusion was compounded when I learned that the courtesy e-mail transmission was an article by a nemesis of mine, George Lardner, Jr.

Why is Lardner my nemesis? In a June 2, 1991 Post article attacking Oliver Stone's movie JFK Lardner described me as "an assassination critic full of far-out theories that Garrison regarded highly." I will write an article shortly in response. In this future piece I will show that the work I did for Jim Garrison, which Lardner describes as a "far-out theory," was neither a theory nor far out, and that Garrison used my work for a good purpose.

Let us examine the recent Post article forwarded to me "courtesy" of Lardner entitled: "Study Backs Theory of 'Grassy Knoll' New Report Says Second Gunman Fired at Kennedy." In this article Lardner recounts how D.B. Thomas, a British government scientist, examined the tape of a police dictabelt which had recorded the sounds in Dealey Plaza when the fusillade felled President John F. Kennedy. Thomas, the article tells us, believes that the shot from the knoll killed the president.

In his article Lardner quotes G. Robert Blakey, former chief counsel to the House Assassinations Committee, who headed the investigation, as stating that Thomas' work was an "honest, careful scientific examinationthat's beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Lardner adds that James Barger, Mark Weiss, and Eric Aschkneasy, House Committee experts, "have always held firm to their findings of a shot from the knoll."

What is the import of Lardner's article? It tells us that the House Assassination Committee's investigation of the Kennedy killing had arrived at scientific proof of a conspiracy. Lardner quotes Blakey as stating, "It shows that we made mistakes, too, but minor mistakes."

In the article, Lardner tells us that one of those House Committee "minor mistakes" was the conclusion that the shot from the picket fence had missed the President. Lardner tells us that the National Academy of Sciences, which after the House Committee had closed down had been assigned to do studies of the acoustic evidence, mistakenly disputed the evidence of a fourth shot.

What is the reason for Blakey calling the House Committee's failure to find that the shot from the picket fence had struck the President a "minor mistake"? The reason is that if the House Committee made a mistake in this regard, then the Warren Commission could also have "mistakenly" gotten this wrong. The plain fact is that neither governmental body made a mistake in that regard. In reality both the Warren Commission and the House Assassination Committee were government bodies which consciously produced fraudulent reports aimed at covering up the fact that the existence of the conspiracy was completely obvious. Both bodies were in this and many other regards plainly fraudulent in the manner in which they interpreted their own evidence, a manner which was not only irrational but was also fraudulent.

The anthology of my work on the Kennedy assassination includes a series of articles, which make clear that a microanalysis of the Warren Commission's own evidence compels the conclusion that a shot had struck Kennedy from the right front. (False Mystery, An Anthology of Essays on the Assassination of JFK, Vincent J. Salandria, self-published, available at the Last Hurrah Bookshop, 937 Memorial Avenue, Williamsport, Pa. 17701, (570) 321-1150 (phone/Fax)) There were no mistakes made by our governmental investigating bodies. There was no mystery. There was just fraud designed to conceal the fact that President Kennedy was killed by government agents acting on orders from the center of our warfare state.

With respect to the integrity of the House Committee, there was none. My friend Gaeton Fonzi who served on that Committee as a field investigator demonstrates this. He revealed its fraudulent nature in his fine book, The Last Investigation, Thunder's Mouth Press, 1993. Indeed, Fonzi reveals in this book how Blakey played a crucial role in undoing the work of the staff members of the Committee who were actually attempting to carry out an honest investigation.

So, the Lardner article seeks to depict Blakey as a truth hunter employing a scientifically correct interpretation on the microanalytic details of how Kennedy was killed. Lardner describes Blakey as successfully dispelling the supposedly legitimate mysteries which surrounded the killing of Kennedy. Lardner depicts Blakey, a representative of our government, as concluding that there was scientific proof that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

Lardner tries to convey to the reader that the government and its operatives are now willing to confront the troubled past. Lardner would have us believe that because of its passion for truth our "democratic" government has honestly struggled to achieve historical precision on the Kennedy assassination. Lardner proudly proclaims that our government and its operatives are now willing to reveal and to confess having made honest mistakes, albeit minor, in interpreting data that remained mysterious until addressed with a scientific precision not previously available to our truth-seeking government.

I submit that Lardner's piece is false and is an opening salvo to a new series of lies by the U.S. government in its ongoing effort to obscure the Cold War nature of the President's assassination...

It is false when Lardner labors to paint for us a picture of the mainstream media reporting on a democratic government's honest efforts over decades to pursue truth regarding the Kennedy killing. It is false with respect to failing to confront the fact that the national security state killed Kennedy. It is false in seeking to conceal the aid that the mainstream media offered our warfare state in concealing the true nature of the Kennedy assassination. It is false when it seeks to verify the U.S. House Committee's work as aimed at attaining historical truth.

It is false when by sending that article to the critics as a courtesy, the Post was appearing to acknowledge that our democratic government and free press were aided in their joint search for the truth by the hard work of the assassination critics. It is false when it appears to be telling the critics that over the many years in which they have maintained their painstaking research into the many "legitimate mysteries" surrounding the Kennedy killing they have been nestled in the warmth of our free society. I submit that the truth is that ever since President Kennedy's murder we as citizens have experienced proof that the fearful warnings of President Dwight D. Eisenhower about the dangers of our military industrial complex have been realized, and civilian rule has succumbed to the perceived needs of our garrison and warfare state.

Where does this new torrent of lies spelled out in the Lardner article aim to drive us? To answer this question, let us turn our attention back to Lardner's hero of his piece, truth hunter G. Robert Blakey. As students of the assassination research know, Blakey coauthored with Richard N. Billings, a book which purports to explain who killed Kennedy and why. That book is entitled The Plot to Kill the President-Organized Crime Assassinated J.F.K. the Definitive Story. N.Y. Times Books (1981). That book ascribes the killing of President Kennedy to the Mafia, and tells us that the U.S. government was free from responsibility for the killing. Blakey in that book admits that the government, in interpreting the data of the assassination, made "mistakes". But he instructs the reader that there is no doubt that the U.S. government was not responsible for the killing nor for engaging in any systematic cover-up of the killing.

Lardner and Blakey seek to have our citizenry believe that the above-described Dealey Plaza dictabelt was the scientific evidence that the government was eagerly waiting for so long so as to be able to determine the truth about the assassination.

In my November 20, 1998 Dallas speech before the National Conference of the Coalition of Political Assassinations (included in False Mystery) I detailed how an innocent U.S. government would have acted after the killing of Kennedy. I sharply contrasted that course with how our guilty national security government acted. I would urge those seriously interested in the question of how high into the institutional structure of our national security state the killing of Kennedy reaches to read that speech.

In that speech I espoused the thesis of a high-level national security state plot to kill President Kennedy. I explained why any concept of a renegade or Mafia conspiratorial killing was irrational. On November 23, 1998, I sent a copy of that speech to Professor Noam Chomsky, the world's leading linguistic scholar, who had long declared a high-level conspiracy to be irrational. I wrote him: "I have that kind of perverse nature that only benefits from negative criticism. Could you find time to provide some?" On February 16, 1999, Professor Chomsky replied: "It [the speech] is a lucid presentation of the conclusions that you and others have reached." Lucid in dictionaries and for linguists is defined as rational. Therefore, Professor Chomsky no longer shares the view that a high-level institutional conspiracy explanation of the assassination is irrational.

A high-level national security state crime to kill Kennedy for Cold War reasons is indeed rational. We will prove that Lardner and Blakey are involved in efforts to hoodwink the public in their efforts to dismiss a high-level national security state plot to kill Kennedy. For proof, we now turn our attention to another audiotape that puts the lie to the conclusions at which they arrive from their analysis of the audiotape discussed above. This other audiotape convincingly proves that the most recent effort to explain the killing of President Kennedy as a Mafia crime is irrational and disingenuous. The purpose of the myth that Mafia and renegade elements killed Kennedy is simply an endeavor to exculpate the guilt of the U.S. national security state, which as a matter of simple ascertainable facts killed Kennedy for Cold War reasons. The audiotape which we will now discuss bears critically on the question of who killed Kennedy and why.

My 1998 Dallas speech contains many data that compel the conclusion of a high-level national security conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. I will excerpt one concept from that speech. It involves, like the Lardner article, an audiotape. I submit that this audiotape disproves the theory espoused by Blakey that the Mafia and/or renegade elements killed Kennedy.

Readers will no doubt recall the 18 - minute gap in the Watergate tapes which served to prove the guilt of and brought down President Richard M. Nixon and his cohorts. I will demonstrate how the U.S. national security state destroyed not 18 - minutes of tape, but about 5 - hours of three tapes, which proved their guilt in the killing of President Kennedy.

In November of 1966, I read Theodore H. White's The Making of the President, 1964. On page 9 of the book I came across the following:

There is a tape recording in the archives of the government which best recaptures the sound of the hours as it waited for leadership. It is a recording of all the conversations in the air, monitored by the Signal Corps Midwestern center "Liberty," between Air Force One in Dallas, The Cabinet plane over the Pacific, and the Joint Chiefs Communications Center in Washington.

Then on 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.

I knew that on November 23, 1963, The Dallas Morning News had informed its readers that the Dallas District Attorney, Henry Wade, stated: "Preliminary reports indicated more than one person was involved in the shootingthe electric chair is too good for the killers."

Despite the evidence of conspiracy of which Dealey Plaza reeked, the White House Situation Room had informed President Johnson and the other occupants of Air Force One that, notwithstanding what they may have smelled, seen and felt in Dealey Plaza which spoke of a conspiratorial crossfire, Oswald was to be designated as the lone assassin.

I wrote to Mr. White. Mr. White replied by letter that the communications to Air Force One and to the Cabinet Plane were "By government radio-all relays go through a big Signal Corps center In the Midwest-and the White House was in constant communications with the plane."

I then wrote to Dr. Robert Bahmer, Archivist of the United States, requesting access to the tape. Dr. Bahmer replied:

We have no knowledge of the existence or location of the tape recording mentioned by Mr. White, despite having made some efforts since the receipt of your letter to obtain some information about it.

I then noted that Pierre Salinger in his book, With Kennedy, (Avon Books, New York, New York 10019 (1969) reported what the party on the Cabinet Plane heard:

The message kept coming off the wire service machine and finally one started grinding out the story of Lee Harvey Oswald and his previous life in Russia (pp. 27-28)

So, I wrote to Pierre Salinger on December 3,1966:

In your fine work, With Kennedy, you make mention of radio communications between the White House and the cabinet plane over the Pacific on November 22, 1953 (p. 10) You identify "Stranger" as Major Harold R. Patterson.

Theodore H. White, The Making of the President, 1964, also refers to taped conversations but particularly those related to dialogues with the Presidential plane, Air Force One.

I have asked the National Archives for a copy of this tape. Dr. Bahmer, the excellent Archivist of the United States, cannot locate it, although Mr. White states on page 9 of his book: "There is a tape recording in the archives of the government." I enclose Dr. Bahmer's letter; Mr. White will not provide any further information.

Specifically what I am about is the verification of what Mr. White states was on the tape, to wit: "On the flight the party learned that there was no conspiracy; learned of the identify of Oswald and his arrest; and the President's mind turned to the duties of consoling the stricken and guiding the quick." If such was said, before there was any evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin, and while there was overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy, then the White House is in the interesting position of being the first to designate Oswald as the assassin and the first to have ruled out in the face of impressive evidence to the contrary, that there could have been a conspiracy.

Now, Mr. Salingerthat tape is being denied only to the American public Will you render this service to civilian rule and democracy for which President Kennedy gave his life?

Respectfully yours,

signed) Vincent J. Salandria

Mr. Salinger replied on December 26. He was most willing to serve civilian rule and democracy:

The section of my book dealing with the conversations between the White House and the Cabinet plane were taken from a transcript of the tape of those conversations made by the White House Communication Agency. I have never either read or heard the tape to which Mr. White refers, i.e. the conversations with Air Force One. Since the tape with which I worked was provided by the White House Communication Agency, it would seem to me that the tape of the conversation to which you refer would emanate from the same source, if such a tape, in fact, exists.

As to the conversation with the cabinet plane, the transcript of that conversation is in my personal files, which have been turned over to the National Archives for placement in the Kennedy Library. I certainly have no objection to your seeing that transcript.

I again wrote to Dr. Bahmer, who replied:

After receipt of your letter of December 28, a careful examination was made of the papers that Mr. Salinger has sent to us for storage. We have not, however, been able to find anything in the nature of a transcript of the tape recording that you are searching for.

So I wrote directly to the White House Communication Agency requesting access to the tape recording. James U. Cross, Armed Forces Aide to the President, replied:

I have been asked to respond to your letter, addressed to theWhite House Communication Agency, concerning a tape recording to Air Force One, November 22, 1963.

Logs and tapes of the radio transmission of military aircraft, Including those of Air Force One, are kept for official use only. These tapes are not releasable, nor are they obtainable.

I am sorry my response cannot be more favorable.

Of course, Cross lied. They were obtainable by Theodore H. White and Pierre Salinger for non-official use.

Robert Manning, Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of State, who on November 22, 1963 was on the Cabinet plane over the Pacific, confirmed the content of these messages in 1993 for Public Affairs. He reported having heard the same account of Oswald being designated as the presumed assassin. (Gerald S. and Deborah H. Strober, Let Us Begin Anew, An Oral History of the Kennedy Presidency, Harper Collins Publisher, 1993)

Mr. Douglas P. Horne, a staff member of the Assassination Records Review Board, spoke at the Lancer conference in Dallas in November, 1999. He spoke at length of the Review Board's fruitless attempt to locate the audio taped communications to Air Force One. He informed the audience that it was a shame that the 6 or 7 hours of three separate tapes appears to be gone from this world. 18 - minutes of missing tapes was a fatal matter which caused the Nixon Presidency to unravel. A 90-minute, edited tape of Air Force One communications is extant and can be purchased commercially. The disappearance of some 5 - hours of this vital tape which was made to disappear by the U.S. military leaves our national security state, the force behind the assassination of a peace-seeking President John F. Kennedy, undisturbed and still the preeminent power extending U.S. military hegemony throughout the globe.

We know from the three sources (which we have supplied) what is contained on those three tapes and what is proven by those tapes with respect to the institutional involvement of our national security state in the killing of President Kennedy.

What else do we know from the U.S. military's criminal withholding of tapes which I early advised them was direct evidence that the national security state had planned and carried out the execution of President Kennedy?

* Oswald was framed by the U.S. military as the lone assassin.

* 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.

* The U.S. military, in causing the Air Force One and Cabinet Plane audiotapes to disappear, demonstrated that it could involve itself without fear of punishment in obstruction of justice because Kennedy's assassination was a high state crime and the warfare state institutions which committed the crime were above punishment.

* A crime was committed in taking of the transcript of the Cabinet plane from the possessions of Pierre Salinger who had assigned those documents to the National Archives for transmittal to the Kennedy Library, and a lack of respect in committing this crime was shown to the Kennedy Library and the Kennedy family. But we state again that successful state crimes which effectively transfer and/or reorganize governmental power are crimes without punishment, and the criminals have no need to show respect to the deposed leader and his family.

* James U. Cross, Armed Forces Aide to the President, lied to me, and in so doing obstructed justice. But I understand that he was doing so under orders from higher military authority. I understand well that in the killing of Kennedy there will be no successful prosecution of the killers. There never are in state crimes committed by the world's superpower while it continues to maintain its hegemony over the globe.

What can we expect to follow from Lardner's tale of the Dealey Plaza tape? Let us make some predictions:

* The Mafia and/or renegade C.I.A. myth will be pushed by Blakey and others.

* The shop-warn and indefensible Warren Report single-assassin myth will be at least partially retired as no longer fit for prime time. It will be viewed by our media as "honestly mistaken," which it was not, rather than "clearly fraudulent," which it certainly was.

* The United States news media, while parading as a free press, will continue to work closely with U.S. military intelligence to pretend that there are mysteries surrounding the killing of President John F. Kennedy when the identity of the killers and their motives could not be clearer.

This is what we learn from an analysis of the tapes.

[William Kelly]

Note: The following is the complete text of VincentSalandria's speech to the Coalition on Political Assassinations, delivered in Dallas, Texas on November 20, 1998. It is reprinted here bypermission.

The JFK Assassination:

A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes

by Vincent J. Salandria

http://www.acorn.net...ue/vs_text.html

TheodoreH. White, in his book The Making of the President, 1964, told us that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, the Presidential party on Air Force One"...learned that there was no conspiracy, learned of the identity of Oswald and his arrest..." Air Force One had landed at Andrews Air Force Base, at 5:59 P.M. on November 22, 1963. In correspondence with me, Mr. White stated that this message was sent to the Presidential party from the Situation Room of the White House. This same message was confirmed by Pierre Salinger in his book With Kennedy. Mr. Salinger received that same message while on the Cabinet Plane which was flying over the Pacific Ocean. Mr. Salinger tried to get those data to me and had instructed the National Archives to provide them for me, but they disappeared from the National Archives. My inquiries to the White House Communication Agency requesting a copy of the Air Force One Tapes were dismissed in a letter sent to me by James U. Cross, Armed Forces Aide to the President. He wrote on January 2, 1968, that the logs and tapes of the radio transmissions "...are kept for official use only. These tapes are not releasable, nor are they obtainable from commercial sources."

But the contents of this message to Air Force One was confirmed in 1993 by Robert Manning, Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs who was onthe Presidential plane on its return trip from Love to Andrews Air Force Base.He reported having heard the same account of Oswald being designated as the presumed assassin. (Gerald S. and Deborah H. Strober Let Us Begin Anew, An Oral Historyof the Kennedy Presidency, Harper Collins Publisher, 1993)

That, my good people, is conclusive evidence of high-level U.S. governmental guilt. The first announcement of Oswald as the lone assassin, before there was any evidence against him, and while there was overwhelmingly convincing evidence of conspiracy, had come from the White House Situation Room. Only the assassins could have made that premature declaration that Oswald was the assassin. This announcement had been made while back in Dallas District Attorney Henry Wadewas stating that "preliminary reports indicated more than one person was involved in the shooting..." (Dallas Morning News, November 23, 1963)

I have asked and ask again, can there be any doubt that for any innocent government, taken by surprise by the assassination --- and legitimately seeking the truth concerning it --- the White House Situation Room message was sent too soon? The government could not have known at that time that Oswald was the killer and that there was no conspiracy. The persons on Air Force One and the plane carrying the cabinet members over the Pacific who heard that message and who do not come forward at this time to fill in the now deleted portion of the tape from the Situation Room of the White House, are they not accessories after the fact?

The person who on November 22, 1963 had been in direct control of the White House Situation Room, the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, was McGeorge Bundy. Bundy was a hard-liner on foreign policy. He had been a student of CIA's covert operations chief, Richard Bissell, who had been fired by President Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. Bundy in 1948 had worked for Bissell on the Marshall Plan. Bundy was a man of considerable intelligence. He did not out of stupidity inform the Presidential party that Oswald was the lone assassinbefore there was any evidence against him and while there was compellingevidence of conspiracy. Did he not do this to inform the Presidential Party whohad been in the motorcade that this was a matter of state, the importance of which rose higher than Anglo-Saxon principles of justice?

Therefore, at Bundy's direction instructions were given to the party on the Presidential plane and on the Cabinet plane. What they had heard, smelled and seen in Dealey Plaza was of no consequence. The patsy had been selected, and the conclusion of conspiracy had been ruled out. Bundy was indirectly instructing the Presidential party and the cabinet members that he was speaking for the killers. He was directing the Presidential party and the cabinet that what they had observed in Dealey Plaza was merely evidence, and that the needs of state rose above evidence. He was informing the Presidential Party that those among them who had witnessed the triangulation of fire which had brought down the President should not imagine that a few nuts in Dealey Plaza had gotten lucky. They were being circuitously informed that the assassination had been committed by a level of U.S. power that was above and beyond punishment.

Bundy,in the service of our warfare state and the U.S. establishment of which he was an honored member, committed the crime of being an obstructor of justice and was a critical accessory after the fact to the murder of our President. Bundy was rewarded for his brazen cover-up work by remaining with President Johnson asone of his leading hawkish advisers on Vietnam. Bundy is now deceased. But I provided this information about him in a speech I made in Boston, Massachusetts, on October 23, 1971 before the New England Branch of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. My unrealized purpose was to cause him to institute a libel action against me. He apparently did not seefit to file one. This preeminent establishment man was in my judgment unquestionably criminally involved at least in the cover up of the assassination of President Kennedy. He owed his allegiance to the U.S. establishment --- the murderers of the President.

Edited November 15, 2011 by William Kelly

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Everything that Vincent Salandria has written is a MUST READ for people seeking to understand the 1963 Coup d'Etat. Salandria knew that the JFK assassination was a coup d'etat in real time and his work on this issue is some of the best in the field.

[William Kelly]

Everything that Vincent Salandria has written is a MUST READ for people seeking to understand the 1963 Coup d'Etat. Salandria knew that the JFK assassination was a coup d'etat in real time and his work on this issue is some of the best in the field.

And he doesn't try to dump the whole schmiel on LBJ.

He does blame it on such general entities as the CIA and "national security state" and federal government, when I believe it can and should be more specific.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Everything that Vincent Salandria has written is a MUST READ for people seeking to understand the 1963 Coup d'Etat. Salandria knew that the JFK assassination was a coup d'etat in real time and his work on this issue is some of the best in the field.

And he doesn't try to dump the whole schmiel on LBJ.

He does blame it on such general entities as the CIA and "national security state" and federal government, when I believe it can and should be more specific.

I did not want to be negative on Salandria, but his weakness is not fully appreciating the critical role of Lyndon Johnson in the JFK assassination. I think that some researchers turned their minds off in the 1970's. The most revealing and damaging stuff about Lyndon Johnson started coming out in the 1980's with the revelations of Madeleine Duncan Brown, Billie Sol Estes and Barr McClellan. Not to mention Charles Crenshaw (early 1990's) and what Noel Twymann discovered about Johnson personally calling Will Fritz on 11/23/63 and telling him to quit investigating. There were also further revelations about LBJ calling his stock broker within hours of the JFK assassination in the book Family of Secrets by Russ Baker.

I could expand further, but you get the point.

Having said that, Vincent Salandria is a must read and he will get you far along in understanding the JFK assassination.