Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents
HomeMembers LoginLatest NewsRefer A LawyerMessage BoardOnline StoreAffiliatesAbout UsContact Us
Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents Worldwide!
Site Navigation
Visit Our Store
Refer A Lawyer
Link To Us
Latest News
Top Secret Documents
Make A Donation
Important Case Law
Members Login
Message Board
Legal Information
Advertise your AD, Book or Movie

Informants and Agents?Who's a Rat Message Board


Courtney Brown – Death in Dallas: Remote Viewing JFK Part Two

December 23, 2015
Courtney Brown 8.2

Farsight Institute director Courtney Brown discusses their latest remote viewing project The JFK Assassination. This is a two part interview. Part one is here.

Part one probes the identity of the shooters, while part two examines who or what was behind the


also see


December 28, 2015 | Peter Dale Scott
Why CIA’s Richard Helms Lied About Oswald: Part 3
Not Ancient History -- But Preamble to the Present
Former CIA Director Richard Helms Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from CIA Library

Former CIA Director Richard Helms Photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from CIA Library

This is a rumination on lies — layer upon layer of lies — told by US intelligence agencies and other officials about what Lee Harvey Oswald, or someone pretending to be him, was allegedly doing in Mexico City just weeks before the Kennedy assassination. The original goal, it seems, was to associate Oswald, in advance of the events of Dealey Plaza, with the USSR and Cuba.

The essay focuses on tales told by Richard Helms, a top official of the CIA in 1963 who later became its director — and is based on a talk given by Peter Dale Scott.

Scott is the popularizer of the expression, “Deep Politics,” and a virtuoso when it comes to what sometimes seems like grabbing smoke — capturing proof, however elusive, of motives and objectives that could explain the machinations of US intelligence agencies — and then analyzing the residue.

Not all of the chicanery Scott describes is subtle. For example, in an apparent attempt to bring the Russians into the picture, someone delivered to the FBI’s Dallas office a purported audiotape of Oswald calling the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. That failed, though, when FBI agents decided that the voice did not seem to be Oswald’s.

Then, two days later, the FBI joined the subterfuge by falsely reporting that “no tapes were taken to Dallas.” Because of this lie, an investigation more than a decade later by the House Select Committee on Assassinations would erroneously declare that there was no “basis for concluding that there had been an Oswald imposter.” (The existence of an Oswald impersonator in the months before the president’s murder would in and of itself have been prima facie evidence of a conspiracy in Kennedy’s death.)

And then there was the attempt to set up a Soviet agent…

You will probably not be able to keep up with each tall tale, nor does it matter. They have a cumulative effect, one that explains why it is impossible to study these documents without coming away believing in conspiracy.

There is dark humor here — reminiscent of the television sit-com of the 1960’s, “Get Smart” —

about a secret agent who was always telling one lie after another, blissfully unaware that each new lie not only undermined the last one, but any new one that came after:

Smart: I happen to know that at this very minute seven Coast Guard cutters are converging on this boat. Would you believe it? Seven.

Mr.Big: I find that pretty hard to believe.

Smart: Would you believe six?

Mr.Big: I don’t think so.

Smart: Would you believe two cops in a rowboat?

Would you believe that the US intelligence community has been telling us the truth all of these years?

Essay based on talk given by Peter Dale Scott at Third Annual JFK Assassination Conference in Dallas, 2015. (Produced by TrineDay Books, Conscious Community Events, and the JFK Historical Group.)

—WhoWhatWhy Introduction by Milicent Cranor

(This is Part 3 of a three-part series. For Part 1, please go here, and for Part 2, go here.)
The CIA’s Obstruction of Justice in 2015

Now let us compare the CIA’s lying performance in 1964 with its lying performance in 2015. In the wake of the Kennedy assassination, members of many U.S. agencies, including also the FBI, the Office of Naval Intelligence, the U.S. Air Force, and the Secret Service, withheld relevant information from those investigating the murder.[1] But to my knowledge there is in 2015 only one U.S. agency that is still actively maintaining the cover-up – and that is the CIA.

I am referring to the CIA’s declassification and release of a previously classified CIA study by CIA historian David Robarge, “DCI John McCone and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.”[2] The essay is worth reading, and it contains interesting information on such matters as McCone’s relationship with Robert Kennedy. It is also significantly selective: it does not mention for example that McCone only learned late on the night of November 22 that “the CIA had known beforehand of [the alleged] Oswald’s trip to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City,” nor that as a result McCone “was enraged, ripping into his aides, furious at the way the agency was run.”[3]

Buried within Robarge’s discussion of John McCone and the Commission – a pertinent but hardly central topic – are a more important thesis statement and conclusion about the CIA itself. In the light of what I have just said about Helms, I would charge that both of these statements are false – so false indeed as arguably to constitute, once again, obstruction of justice.

The thesis statement on page 8 is that “Under McCone’s and Helms’s direction, CIA supported the Warren Commission in a way that may best be described as passive, reactive, and selective.” This claims that the CIA’s deception of the Warren Commission was a sin of omission. But no, the CIA was not just passive. Helms perjured himself, just as he lied again in the 1970s.

Worse, the article focuses on the failure of the CIA to tell the Warren Commission about its plots to assassinate Castro, which may very well have been relevant; but in so doing it deflects attention away from the CIA’s suppression of its own LCIMPROVE operation in October involving “Lee Oswald” (or “Lee Henry Oswald”), which unquestionably was of very great relevance.

Worst of all is the article’s conclusion:

Max Holland, one of the most fair-minded scholars of these events, has concluded that “if the word ‘conspiracy’ must be uttered in the same breath as ‘Kennedy assassination,’ the only one that existed was the conspiracy to kill Castro and then keep that effort secret after November 22nd.”
Fidel Castro Photo credit: Library of Congress / Wikimedia

Fidel Castro Photo credit: Library of Congress / Wikimedia

Of the many things wrong with this sentence, the worst service to truth in my mind is the skillful effort to divert attention away from the Angleton operation involving Oswald, and to focus instead on plots to kill Castro. This is an old ploy dating back to 1965, following in the footsteps of old CIA veterans and friends like Brian Latell and Gus Russo. It allows a writer like Philip Shenon to quote from the Robarge study the old red herring question “Did Castro kill the president because the president had tried to kill Castro?”[4]
Public Attacks in 1963-64 on the CIA’s Operational Capacity

Some people have deduced, from the fact that CIA officials lied, that the CIA killed Kennedy. I myself believe only that some CIA individuals were involved, along with others in other agencies. As I indicated earlier, my working hypothesis is not that the killing was a CIA operation, but that the plot was piggy-backed on an authorized CIA covert operation that was not under secure control and may in part have been outsourced.[5] Some CIA actions before the assassination, notably the protection of Oswald by suppressing the reported allegation that he had been in contact with Kostikov, suggest to me that some members of the CIA CI staff, and in particular CI Chief James Angleton, may have participated to some degree in the piggy-backed plot.

At a minimum, we can say that the CIA, through its Oswald operation, was sufficiently involved in the facts of the assassination to have been embarrassed into a cover-up. We have to recall that in late 1963 the CIA’s covert operations were coming under increasing criticism and attack, initially because of the 1961 Bay of Pigs Operation against Cuba, a total fiasco, but now also because of the developing chaos in Vietnam, particularly after the assassination on November 1, 1963, of Vietnamese president Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother.

We do not know just how aware the CIA was of Kennedy’s expressed vow to friends, first revealed a decade later, “to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”[6] But objections to the CIA’s covert operations were beginning, to an unprecedented degree, to be voiced in the U.S. media.

On November 20, 1963, the New York Times published a letter, dated November 7, that argued, as did some Congressmen of the period, that “One of the very first steps … should be to strip the CIA immediately of all operational and policy-making powers and confine it to its original function – namely the gathering of information.”[7]

One month earlier, on October 2, Washington News correspondent Richard Starnes had published a blistering attack on the CIA from Saigon (possibly inspired by U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, who was already preparing to be a Republican candidate for president in 1964):

SAIGON, Oct.2 – The story of the Central Intelligence Agency’s role in South Viet Nam is a dismal chronicle of bureaucratic arrogance, obstinate disregard of orders, and unrestrained thirst for power….

Other American agencies here are incredibly bitter about the CIA. “If the United States ever experiences a ‘Seven Days in May’ it will come from the CIA, and not from the Pentagon,” one U.S. official commented caustically. [“Seven Days in May” is a fictional account of an attempted military coup to take over the U.S. Government.][8]

These complaints swelled to a crescendo after November 22. Exactly one month later, President Truman himself wrote in the Washington Post,

“I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency…. For some time, I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas. I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.”[9]

As David Talbot notes in The Devil’s Chessboard,

“Truman’s explosive piece in The Washington Post, which instantly caught fire and inspired similar anti-CIA editorials in newspapers from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Sacramento, California. Syndicated columnist Richard Starnes, a bête noire of the spy agency, used the Truman op-ed to launch a broadside against the CIA, calling it ‘a cloudy organism of uncertain purpose and appalling power.’ Meanwhile, Senator Eugene McCarthy, another agency critic, weighed in with an essay for The Saturday Evening Post… bluntly titled, ‘The CIA Is Getting Out of Hand.’”[10]

And by the time of Helms’s testimony even McCone, the outside CIA Director appointed by Kennedy, “kept saying that he wanted to get out of the cloak-and-dagger business.”[11]

In other words, Helms’s motives for perjury in 1964, involved far more than the technicality that he had sworn an oath to protect the agency’s secrets. At risk in these crucial months was the preservation of the agency itself, or at a minimum the preservation of its operational capacity. The choice confronting him was not between two conflicting oaths. It was a choice between the survival of the CIA as he knew it, or the survival of America’s justice system and the rule of law as we then knew them.

Helms’s choice was unambiguous, as it was again in 1973, when he “falsely testified [to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee] that the CIA had not passed money to the opposition movement in Chile”.[12] He lied, at the expense of justice, to ensure that the CIA would survive. In this he would assuredly have had the support of Angleton. Angleton later testified to the Senate Church Committee that “it is inconceivable that a secret intelligence arm of the government has to comply with all the overt orders of the government.”[13]
The 1960s and 1970s Conflict: Public State versus Deep State

In Dallas ’63 I argue that these two decades, the sixties and seventies, were a crucial period in American history, two decades in which the American constitutional state and its structural deep state (including the CIA) were opposing each other and struggling to see which power would prevail over the other.[14]

It is noteworthy that in 1973, when Helms perjured himself again, not only the agency’s but his own personal career were again at risk.[15] In December 1972, after the Watergate break-in, Nixon believed Helms “was out to get him;” and accordingly he banished Helms to be Ambassador in Iran. He then he gave orders to Helms’s replacement, James Schlesinger, “to turn the place inside out.”[16]

In The American Deep State, I argue that, by banishing Helms to Iran, Nixon had heightened a conflict between the two forms of power (the state and the deep state), a conflict in which he, and not Helms, would become the victim. I believe that Tehran became a new center for Helms’s machinations, in conjunction with the intelligence agencies of Iran, France, and Saudi Arabia.

In 1976, after it became evident the new president Carter would resume the efforts to trim the agency, Helms became part of an organized offshore network (the so-called “Safari Club”) of these foreign intelligence agencies, which resumed the covert operations (notably in Angola) that were being curtailed by the combined efforts of the president and Congress.[17] Then, in 1980 (in the so-called Republican October Surprise), CIA veterans combined with leaders of the Safari Club to defeat Carter’s bid for re-election, and elect instead Ronald Reagan,[18]

Given this evolution of events, I conclude that Helms’s perjuries significantly affected the history of this country. They were a vital part of an on-going process whereby, after the Reagan Revolution of 1980, the constitutional deep state was now subordinated to the needs and priorities of the structural deep state (including, but not limited to, the CIA). One of these needs, ever since 1963, has been to preserve the threadbare fiction that Lee Harvey Oswald by himself killed the president, and no one in the CIA was involved in any way.

How can we make the American people more aware that elements of the CIA lied about the assassination in 1964, and are still lying today? How are we to deal with the widespread climate of denial in our media and academies?

To pursue the truth about these matters is to position oneself outside the mainstream-supported structure of ideas. And we have learned from experience that there are severe limits to the amount of assistance we can expect in that pursuit from either Congress or the courts.

The truth, however, can be a powerful political weapon. So can justice. So I hope we will all continue to dedicate ourselves to this very slow, but undying and rewarding effort, to make truth and justice prevail.


[1] See Scott, Dallas ’63.

[2] David Robarge, “DCI John McCone and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol .57 No. 3 (September 2013), http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB493/docs/intell_ebb_026.PDF.

[3] Weiner, Legacy of Ashes, 224; cf. 239: “McCone kept saying that he wanted to get out of the cloak-and-dagger business.” The response of Thomas Karamessines, Helms’s Assistant Deputy Director of Plans, was to order that no more messages “to DCI [McCone]… too confusing” (Handwritten CIA record, “Document Concerning Name Trace Requests and Results,” NARA #104-10015-10013

[4] Philip Shenon, “Yes, the CIA Director Was Part of the JFK Assassination Cover-Up,” Politico, October 6, 2015, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197. I have described this suggestion that the assassination was a plot that “backfired” as a “Phase Three” story, following (but not in time) the Phase One Story that Castro (or the KGB) did it, and gthe Phase Two Story that “Oswald acted alone.” See Peter Dale Scott, “William Pawley, the Kennedy Assassination, and Watergate: TILT and the “Phase Three” Story of Clare Boothe Luce,” GlobalReseearch.ca, November 28, 2012, http://www.globalresearch.ca/william-pawley-the-kennedy-assassination-and-watergate-tilt-and-the-phase-three-story-of-clare-boothe-luce/5313486.

[5] For my similar hypothesis that the 9/11 plot was piggy-backed on an authorized operation, see Scott, The American Deep State (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2014), 133.

[6] Tom Wicker et al., “C.I.A.: Maker of Policy, or Tool?” New York Times, April 25, 1966; quoted in James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2014), 15; cf. Jack Anderson, San Francisco Chronicle, March 3, 1967.

[7] New York Times, November 20, 1963, letter from Harold W. Thatcher, of Forty Fort, Pa,; cf. http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/04/rex-blows-collins-radio-cia-cover.html

[8] Richard Starnes, Washington News, October 2, 1963. As James Douglass points out, the Starnes story was discussed at a National Security Council meeting the same day: “The President then asked what we should say about the news story attacking CIA which appeared in today’s Washington Daily News. He read a draft paragraph for inclusion in the public statement but rejected it as being too fluffy. He felt no one would believe a statement saying that there were no differences of view among the various U.S. agencies represented in Saigon. He thought that we should say that now we had a positive policy endorsed by the National Security Council and that such policy would be carried out by all concerned.”

[9] Harry S. Truman, “Limit CIA Role To Intelligence,” Washington Post, December 22, 1963, http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman’s%20CIA%20article.html.

[10] David Talbot, The Devil’s Chessboard (New York: Harper, 2015), 569.

[11] Weiner, Legacy of Ashes, 239.

[12] Melvin Allan Goodman, Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008), 286.

[13] Mangold, Cold Warrior, 351.

[14] Scott, Dallas ’63, 170-78. Cf. Scott, The American Deep State, 101-08.

[15] President Nixon had long mistrusted both Helms and the CIA, and was looking for ways to be less dependent on them. Meanwhile Helms was very close to former CIA officer Howard Hunt, now working for Nixon; and Hunt may well have been informed Helms of Hunt’s trip to Miami in April 1971, to recruit Cuban exiles for a new operational group, outside the CIA, that would be backed by the Nixon White House. See Stanley Kutler, The Wars of Watergate (New York: Knopf, 1990), 113, 200-03 (“close to Hunt); E. Howard Hunt, Undercover: A Memoir of an American Secret Agent (New York: Berkley, 1974), 144; cited in Lamar Waldron, Watergate, the Hidden History (Berkeley: Counterpoint, 2012), 472 (“operational group”).

[16] Weiner, Legacy of Ashes: 374; Scott, Dallas ’63, 174.

[17] Scott, American Deep State, 26-27.

[18] Scott, American Deep State, 27-29, 103-06.

also see

Can FBI be held liable for targeting Irvine Muslims for surveillance?
Orange County Muslims

Orange County Muslims gather in prayer in the parking lot of Angel Stadium in Anaheim for Eid al-Adha to mark the end of the annual pilgrimage to Mecca known as Hajj on Sept. 23. 2015


Craig Monteilh told the imam that he wanted to embrace his French and Syrian heritage and convert to Islam.

Monteilh adopted an Islamic name, donned Muslim robes and a skull cap, and attended prayers vigilantly. The Islamic Center of Irvine embraced him — until he began talking of violent jihad.

Congregants reported him to the FBI and Irvine police, and then obtained a restraining order against him. Only later did they discover Monteilh was working for the FBI.

A federal appeals court is now considering whether the FBI can be held liable for allegedly indiscriminately targeting Muslims for surveillance. If the court decides the FBI cannot defend itself without revealing state secrets, the court likely would uphold the dismissal of a class-action lawsuit brought by Southern California Muslims.

The review by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals comes at a time of heightened fear of terrorism and incidents of backlash against innocent Muslims.

Judge Marsha Berzon, in a hearing this month, acknowledged the sensitivity of the matter as she struggled to understand what constituted a state secret. The state secrets doctrine bars litigation of a case if it would expose or threaten to expose matters of national security.

"I just am having real trouble seeing where the line is drawn in this very difficult situation we are in now," Berzon, a Clinton appointee, told a government lawyer.

The government argued it could not defend itself without disclosing state secrets. U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney agreed with the government in 2012, dismissing the bulk of the lawsuit on the grounds it would require disclosure of matters vital to national security. Carney reviewed classified information before his decision.

The Southern California Muslim community, represented by the ACLU of Southern California, believes the FBI targeted people solely because of their religion and should be held accountable.

Muslim leaders complained that the spying mission eroded trust in law enforcement at a time when the government needs help from the Muslim community to fight terror.

"The fundamental question is will we be viewed as partners or suspects?" said Edina Likovic, speaking for the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council. "The fear here is that we are being treated publicly as partners and privately as suspects."

About 500,000 Muslims live in Southern California, with more than 120,000 in Orange County, the second-largest population of Muslims in the United States.

Monteilh, who had a falling out with the FBI, has been working with the ACLU.

"I am the principal witness," said the Irvine resident, 53. "All the information they got came from me."

Monteilh said the FBI paid him $177,000 to infiltrate about 12 mosques in Orange, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties over the course of 14 months, starting in June 2006. He said his job was to gather as many cellphone numbers and email addresses as possible and to find Muslims who could be compromised because of immigration, sexual or business issues.

Posing as a fitness consultant, Monteilh frequently worked out with Muslims at the gym and secretly recorded them, he said.

"This surveillance was so fruitful that Monteilh's handlers eventually told him they were seeking approval to have him open a Muslim gym," the suit said.

When he agreed to attend prayers at dawn four days a week, he received a pay increase, the suit said. His handlers told him to write down the license plate numbers of the cars in the parking lot, he said.

But at times his devotion raised eyebrows. He attended lessons in Arabic — a language he didn't speak.

He also appeared to be extremely absent-minded. Congregants remembered that he was forever leaving his keys or his cellphone behind. Monteilh later said his phone and a fob on his keys contained recording devices.

During the hearing, a lawyer for the FBI agents said Monteilh had signed a contract saying he would not leave listening devices unattended. Monteilh said he signed no such contract, and the agents knew what he was doing.

Monteilh said he secretly videotaped Muslims through a camera hidden in a button in the front of his shirt.

His identity was revealed during a court hearing. He had a criminal record, and the FBI helped him get off probation early, according to a court transcript.

Monteilh later accused the FBI of breaking promises to him. The FBI has said it does not target people because of their religion and that Monteilh signed a confidentiality agreement.

Monteilh, who unsuccessfully sued the FBI, said he has no regrets about his undercover work. He learned about FBI techniques and methods and policies and now works as a consultant on counterterrorism, he said. His mission unveiled the government's scrutiny of Muslims, he said.

"If I didn't work that case, they would never know they were being spied on 24 hours a day," Monteilh said.

He said his work identified terrorists overseas, although it did not lead to convictions of local Muslims. Monteilh also said he understands why the FBI conducted the surveillance.

"Let's face it, they have to," he said. "That is the only method they can use to be preemptive."

It could take several months before the 9th Circuit rules.

Berzon was the only judge on the panel who asked questions during the hearing. The other two reviewing the case are 9th Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould and Judge George Caram Steeh III, a district judge from Michigan, both Clinton appointees.

Although she was skeptical of both sides, Berzon told attorneys for the government that their arguments were "circular."

She also observed that another circuit court had found that the government could not invoke the state secret privilege in a lawsuit unless the secrets were an integral part of the government's "meritorious defense," not just a possible defense, an issue a court would have to determine.

"We certainly can't do that if you can't tell us your defense," she said.

Monteilh said he has remained a Muslim, though his conversion initially was a ruse. He said he prays five times a day, studies the Koran and fasts.

But he does not attend a mosque.

"People would freak out if they saw me," he said. "I am a former FBI informant, and that will always be with me."q
Quote 0 0
radio, television and the print media have done to our minds what industry has done to the land.
we now think like New York city looks.

mason williams

two taxpayer funded reads on your tax dime

Deck Hughes, 80, FBI agent diligent in cases of murder and kidnapping
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
        Published on: 02/28/08                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

In the annals of civil rights, Deck Hughes' name is forever linked to martyrs to the cause: Viola Liuzzo, Michael Schwerner, Lemuel Penn. An FBI agent based in Atlanta, Mr. Hughes investigated their murders in the 1960s.

He was at the center of two of Georgia's most notorious kidnapping cases, too: Atlanta Constitution editor Reg Murphy in 1974, and Emory University student Barbara Jane Mackle in 1968. She was buried alive for three days before Mr. Hughes and other agents rescued her.

Family photo
Deck Hughes had a weakness for Varsity chili dogs and onion rings.

"He was very logical in his thinking," said retired FBI agent Richard Hamilton of Winder. "He could dig through the unimportant things and get to the point of the investigation."

As a leader, Mr. Hughes brought a balance to the chaos and carnage of agents' jobs, said retired agent Ned Myers of Macon. He was conscientious, a capable investigator, an excellent interviewer and a practical joker, Mr. Myers said.

Mr. Murphy — kidnapped from his home, held for two days and released after a $700,000 ransom was paid — said Mr. Hughes was calm, careful and thoughtful in investigating his kidnapping.

"He was an integral part of that kidnap rescue team and an integral part of the follow-up team to find the kidnappers and recover the money and bring them to trial," said Mr. Murphy of Sea Island. "He was a diligent man. He was part of the group that came to the motel to pick me up after I was released and escorted me to FBI headquarters."

The memorial service for Declan Joseph Hughes, 80, of Alpharetta is 1 p.m. Thursday at All Saints Catholic Church. He died of pancreatic cancer Saturday at Hospice Atlanta. The body was cremated. Cremation Society of the South is in charge of arrangements.

Mr. Hughes became an FBI agent in 1956, retired in 1979 and joined the Coca-Cola Co. security team. He provided Coke and its employees protection all over the world, including Olympics venues.

He collected and proudly displayed his Olympic pins, especially security pins, said his wife, Mary Bruce Hughes.

Another pleasure was pairing wines with Italian dinners he prepared.

His secret pleasure, though, was loaded Varsity hot dogs.

"He wasn't really supposed to eat hot dogs," his wife said. "But when he was out running errands, he would sneak by for a chili dog and rings."

He was just as sneaky about one of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's dictates to overweight agents.

When the director ordered that all agents were to be weighed by an inspector on medically balanced scales, Mr. Hughes was concerned that he and other agents would fail, Mr. Myers said.

They borrowed scales from the Marines, and Mr. Hughes rigged the scales to weigh 8 pounds light to make the agents in his office come in under the limit. There was no question they would meet the minimum weight limit.

The day of the weigh-in, all the agents arrived wearing the least amount of clothing they could, Mr. Myers said, except for one.

"We looked at our agent in charge, a real skinny guy, and thought, 'My God, he won't ever qualify.' So Declan made him wear a gun when he got weighed, and he made it.

"We all passed," Mr. Myers said.

"That was Deck. He could do things like that."

Other survivors include two daughters, Susan Fox of Milton and Erin Crawford of Roswell; two sons, Gregory Hughes of Mashpee, Mass., and Declan Hughes Jr. of Denver; and 10 grandchildren.

2nd read
Sunday, June 26, 2005
The Informant: The FBI, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Murder of Viola Liuzzo, by Gary May

It was an apropos end to an exciting week when I received Gary May's email yesterday, announcing the publication of his new book, The Informant: The FBI, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Murder of Viola Liuzzo. I haven't mentioned this yet, but in addition to traveling to Mississippi for the 41st annual Chaney Goodman Schwerner Memorial on the land of civil rights pioneers Cornelius and Mable Steele, I traveled to Montgomery, Alabama and spent time with former SNCC workers Scott B. Smith and Linda Dehnat. ScottB took me all around Montgomery, Lowndes County and Selma, to teach me about his work with the Lowndes County Freedom Organization in the 1960s. I will get into more of the details very soon, but it was just Tuesday that I stopped with ScottB at the memorial to Viola Liuzzo on Rt. 80, outside Selma, where she was murdered by Klansmen after she'd traveled from Detroit to march with all the others in the Selma to Montgomery March. (A good account of the story is here.)

Here's an excerpt from a recent review by Murray Polner:

    The Informants is a model of painstaking historical research coupled with an exemplary writing style, vivid, dramatic, and suspenseful. Serious historical writing May proves need not be dull.

    What is new and different about the book are May’s portraits of Klan members and primarily the FBI informant, Gary Thomas Rowe, a violent, angry liar, who loved nothing better than hanging around cops, was planted inside the Klan, in Bessemer, Alabama, where many members and sympathizers worked in the steel mills, their activities often approved, subtly and otherwise, by Birmingham’s ruling elite. (Readers might also turn to Diane McWhorter’s fascinating Carry Me Home: Birmingham, Alabama, the Climactic Battle of the Civil Rights Revolution)....

    The problem, as May points out, is that Rowe, a member of Eastview Klavern No. 13 in Bessemer, rose rapidly within Klan ranks. He joined in meting out savage beatings of blacks and white sympathizers. When the Klan beat Freedom Riders badly in the Birmingham bus terminal in 1961, none of the attackers, including Rowe, were deemed culpable, because local police were in on the plot. The FBI, which had advance knowledge about the assault, refused to intervene because they wanted Klan members to trust Rowe. May speculates that Rowe may well have been involved in the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham where four small black girls died. “Hoover,” May goes on, “blocked persecution…in part to protect Rowe” and another FBI snitch, who was even more dangerous than Rowe.

He also suggests, but cannot prove, that while Rowe was present in the automobile shadowing Liuzzo’s car, he urged another Klan member to kill Liuzzo. Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center once accurately portrayed Rowe as “a loud, bragging, know-it-all thug who had been made a hero for what would have sent most men to prison.”

    But thanks to Gary May, we do know that the murder of Viola Liuzzo took a devastating toll on her family. Some misguided Americans wrote her family obscene and bigoted letters and castigating their husband and mother for going South to help other Americans.

    For May, this business of using criminals as spies raises “the use of questionable, even illegal means to achieve a beneficial end,” a question he later suggests raises a new set of questions in today’s “war against terrorism.”

    During the sixties, the FBI claimed to have 2,000 Rowe-like informers inside various Klan groups. Much about them is still secret. The FBI will not allow researchers access to their files, information how well or badly they did, and what crimes, if any, they committed while serving as informers. “It is unlikely that such records will become available to historians in the near future,” May explains, “because the Bureau fiercely guards informant identities and activities.”

And here is Gary May, himself, expanding on the issue of using informants, noted by Polner:

    My research in FBI, Justice Department and the Liuzzo family attorney’s records convinced me that the Liuzzo Case was unique and offered important lessons for our current war against terrorism. Unlike the other well known Civil Rights murders, the crime was quickly solved because one of the four Klansmen who shot Liuzzo on an Alabama highway following the conclusion of the 1965 Voting Rights March, was an FBI informant. As soon as Gary Thomas Rowe could get away from his associates, he quickly reported the murder to his FBI handler and, within hours, the Klansmen were apprehended. President Lyndon Johnson announced their arrest over nation-wide television. In none of the other civil rights murders was an FBI informant so deeply involved and an examination of Rowe’s career led to disturbing conclusions about the role of informants then and now-- their activities can actually produce the very tragedies they are supposed to prevent....

    Although the Klansmen would later charge that Rowe himself murdered Liuzzo, which led her family to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the FBI in the 1980s, a judge ruled against them and evidence I uncovered indicated that another Klansmen fired the fatal shots. The Klansmen responsible for Liuzzo’s murder are dead as is Rowe and the case is officially closed, but—in fact, it deserves to be examined and discussed for what it tells us about the dangers of recruiting informants and putting them into terrorist groups. To reassure their associates that they are truly committed to their cause, they too must commit brutal acts. And to hide their association with despicable characters, intelligence agencies become silent partners in the crimes their informants commit. I hope that as the U.S. seeks better “human intelligence” in the war on terrorism, The Informant will provide a cautionary tale about the role played by informants in that struggle. Along with the newly reopened case of Emmett Till and the start on June 13 of the trial of Edgar Ray Killen, accused of killing James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner in 1964, I recommend opening, intellectually if not legally, the case of Viola Liuzzo. It has too much to teach us to be closed forever.

Viola Liuzzo Memorial, Rt. 80, outside Selma, AL
Text of memorial reads:

VOTE..... MARCH 25, 1965



Viola Liuzzo with her children, UPI Photo, hosted by Civil Rights Movement Veterans
Viola Liuzzo Memorial, Rt. 80, outside Selma, Alabama, by Benjamin T. Greenberg

Posted by Benjamin T. Greenberg on Sunday, June 26, 2005 at 03:30 PM in Books, breaking news, civil rights movement, race and racism, women and feminism | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Informant: The FBI, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Murder of Viola Liuzzo, by Gary May:

» Ex-Klansman's Request for New Trial Denied from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
A judge on Monday denied a new trial for one time Ku Klux Klan leader Edgar Ray Killen, convicted la [Read More]

      Send me email:

      minorjive at gmail dot com

      The views expressed on this site are mine, and those of my guest authors, and do not represent my employer, Physicians for Human Rights.

Quote 0 0
Pardon me if I stretch out here. We all have our own way of interpreting
reality then transforming that information in ways that make our
communities better places to live .
Some of us already know J Edgar Hoover and other FBI agents collaborated
in the planning and cover-up of the Martin Luther King-JFK assassinations.

( google the words barr mcclellan you tube)

We also know the original organizational model for the FBI was
a death squad. Prior to the FBI , corporations relied on the Pinkerton
Detectives to carry out their political spying and union busting .
You remember the Pinkerton detectives don't you? They were the people guarding Abraham Lincoln when he was assassinated.
In the late 1800's some people got fed up with the Pinkertons and an event called the Homestead massacre forced Congress to pass laws prohibiting the Pinkertons from engaging in certain illegal and unconstitutional activities.
The corporations were not to happy and bidded their time waiting for the
right moment when they could create an organization that would do the
work of the Pinkertons and have the added bonus of taxpayers picking up the costs associated with the work of this death squad.
The year this happened was 1920 when the FBI was created.
The taxpayer funded FBI lost no time in forming alliances with the
Mafia whom they relied on heavily to carry out their union busting
and political assassinations. FBI agents got smart and realized by contracting out these activities to 3rd party vendors they could
distance themselves from the event and have a plausible denial alibi
if confronted with any charges.
google this pair of words to see the tip of the FBI-MAFIA collaboration.

paul rico fbi
devecchio clemente
john connolly bulger
mafia kingfish davis

Fast forward to the late 1980's and the so called impending collapse
of Communism.
FBI agents were sweating profusely. Their main reason for being
since their creation in 1920 , was to fight the evils of communism.
This mantra " fighting communism" was successfully embedded
into American consciousness which provided the necessary smokescreen
to allow FBI agents to help assassinate President Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Allard Lowenstein and others.
Now faced with loosing their mantra ," fighting communism" , the FBI
came up with a long term fix for the problem. communism would be replaced with "terrorism".
Within months of the fall of the Berlin Wall we had the 1st World Trade Center explosion, created by an FBI agent provocateur and funded with your tax dime.
floyd anticev fbi

Shortly later, on a reenforcement schedule that behavioral psychologist B F Skinner would be proud of, taxpayer funded FBI agents created the Oklahoma city bombing, again using an FBI agent provocateur.

(side note Harvard Professor B F Skinner and the father of "operant conditioning " taught pigeons how to play ping pong using his techniques
of operant conditioning. Imagine what humans could be taught to do
if these same techniques were used on humans.)

google these 3 words together

nichols potts trentadue

911 was the last event needed by FBI agents to force the passage
of the Patriot Act and codify into law and make legal all the criminal behaviors FBI agents had been engaging in since 1920.

also read the new book THE SHELL GAME by Wolf.

time to segue with two reads. One about how taxpayer funded FBI agents
will now have to periodically create artificial events to make it seem
they are here to protect us against terrorists.
Secondly they will continue to squash anyone who connects FBI
agents to helping assassinate President Kennedy.

cyril wecht kennedy assassination

1st read
Miami Terrorism Case Built on Wiretaps Crumbles, Again
By Ryan Singel EmailApril 16, 2008 | 8:32:45 PMCategories: Spooks Gone Wild

For the second time in five months, a jury has deadlocked over charges against an inept group of Miami cultists, a massive setback for the Justice Department who accuses the group of plotting to topple the Sears Tower in Chicago.

The Justice Department built the case using paid informants and numerous wiretaps, but the six men on trial (one was acquitted) say they only pretended to want to wage jihad in order to swindle $50,000 from a government informant. The supposed ring-leader of the so-called Liberty City 7 Narseal Batiste was known for roaming Miami streets in his bathrobe to find recruits.

When the indictments were announced in 2006, FBI Deputy Director John Pistole described the arrests as "yet another important victory in the war on terrorism" and a "grim reminder of the persistent threat environment that exists here at home and underscores the need for continued vigilance and cooperation."

THREAT LEVEL is reminded of a snippet from FBI wiretapping documents that trumpeted the surveillance of the group, saying the wiretaps led to other leads and more than 50 intelligence reports.

We provided continuing support for a FBI Miami counterterrorism case which during this time period [October 2005 through September 2006] has intercepted in excess of 1800 telephone calls. Intercepted communications and call data records provided by the system that HAT [High-Capacity Access Team] installed, operates and maintains allowed for the identification of a previously unknown terror organization and individuals operating in the United States. This information has supplied the probable cause for additional case and FISA initiations at other FBI divisions. The derived intelligence has been disseminated to the intelligence community, via approximately 50 IIRS [Intelligence Information Reports], as well to allies of the United States.

One can only imagine the contents of the 50 intelligence reports about a group whose idea of secrecy was to station a guy in a military uniform with a mask on outside their warehouse when having 'meetings.'

2nd read
Judge refuses to step aside or delay Cyril Wecht retrial
4/17/2008, 7:34 a.m. EDT
The Associated Press                

PITTSBURGH (AP) — A federal judge denied he is biased against former Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht and refused to step aside or delay a retrial of the celebrity pathologist on fraud and theft charges.

U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab issued his order just hours after Wecht's attorneys forwarded an open letter from 33 prominent western Pennsylvania leaders and others to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey on Wednesday.

The letter asked Mukasey to intervene and dismiss the charges against Wecht. The 77-year-old doctor was last coroner from 1996 to 2006. He has also earned millions from a private practice investigating deaths including those of JonBenet Ramsey, Elvis Presley and Vince Foster.

Schwab scheduled a retrial for May 27. He had declared a mistrial when the jury in Wecht's first trial was deadlocked without a verdict on April 8.

Wecht's attorneys have said they plan to ask the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to remove Schwab from the case, which could delay the trial despite Schwab's refusal to postpone it.

In his ruling late Wednesday, Schwab accused the defense of "repeated and improper attempts at judge-shopping and disruption of the proceedings."

Wecht's defense team twice sought to remove Schwab from the case before the first trial, which lasted seven weeks. The appeals court refused, but noted that Schwab unnecessarily complicated the trial by allowing reams of documents into evidence over defense objections.

Schwab also chided the defense for what he called a "carefully orchestrated and massive media campaign" to make him appear biased against Wecht.

The letter to Mukasey, given to The Associated Press by Wecht's attorneys, was signed by political leaders, attorneys, a retired FBI agent and some media members. The signees include Wecht's original defense attorney in this case, J. Alan Johnson, a former U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh.

The letter echoes arguments by Wecht's defense that the hung jury showed the government's case is weak. The letter notes that one anonymous juror told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that a "majority" of jurors favored acquitting Wecht.

"You brought your case to the people. The people have spoken. You have discharged your duty," the letter says. "Do not now summarily dismiss the findings of this jury, but rather dismiss the indictment."

U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan and a spokesman for Mukasey noted that retrying a case after a hung jury is not unusual and that the decision to press on is based on evidence alone.

Buchanan said she will not respond to the Wecht camp's allegations in the media, but her assistants have been critical of the Wecht camp's allegations in court filings.

In one filing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Stallings disputed defense claims that prosecutors pushed hastily for a mistrial merely to persecute Wecht.

Stallings said the jury first indicated it was deadlocked on April 3, so prosecutors had five days to weigh the decision to retry Wecht before a mistrial was declared.

"Yet in the parallel fictional universe created by defendant and amplified by the media, the government literally 'jumped' up in the air in haste, without 'one second of reflection' as part of some 'orchestrated' conspiracy with the court to 'vindictively' retry the defendant," Stallings wrote.

Under federal speedy trial rules, a new trial date had to be set within 70 days, Stallings wrote.

Wecht remains charged with wire fraud and theft for allegedly misusing his county staff to benefit his private practice and for allegedly trading unclaimed county morgue cadavers for office and lab space at a university where he taught. Wecht is also charged with mail fraud for allegedly overbilling his private clients, including other Pennsylvania prosecutors, for bogus travel expenses.

Wecht's attorneys argued the charges were administrative oversights — 24 wire counts involve faxes that cost the county $3.96 to send — that didn't rise to the level of federal crimes.
Quote 0 0
Quote 0 0
By now some of you know why I like Ed Tatro's research on the President Kennedy assassination. I liked it so much we brought him to speak twice at our local college.

He appears in the documentary THE GUILTY MEN made by the History Channel . It was the last part in a 9 part series called THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY.
Each part is 1 hour long.
The History Channel pulled it off the air after only airing it a couple of days after FBI agents complained it implicates them in the President Kennedy assassination.
The History Channel refuses to sell this program.
You can watch the program on YOU TUBE.
Here is a 8 minute taste.
Quote 0 0

Quote 0 0

Gang Stalking = COINTELPRO = STASI decomposition


The FBI and all law enforcement agencies are currently using a psychological warfare protocol like "COINTELPRO" which is almost identical to the STASI "decomposition". This is what people are referring to as Gang Stalking.


The earliest forms of this that I know of are from Egypt, Greece and Rome. Each of these societies had pervasive spy/informant networks that were spying on each other as well as looking for spies inside of their own empires. Anyone who did not feel that their own respective empire was the most perfect society could be considered a traitor. In other words they were looking for anyone who had thoughts beliefs and attitudes that were not approved of by the state that could instigate revolt or subversive activity or otherwise make them a danger to the empire. This obviously created a snitch culture and there were bound to be abuses. If a person was not liked by another then it was easy to persuade others to make a complaint and get that person killed or exiled. No one dare say or do anything that was politically incorrect and thus the rulers were able to maintain power and control over the people. Blatant execution or exile is common in an empire but in a democracy it is not as easy to accomplish these punishments so modern psychological operations were developed to accomplish these goals and in this way an empire can masquerade as a democracy.


The STASI decomposition protocol is an excellent example of how these modern psychological operations work. The STASI decomposition is almost identical to the FBI’s COINTELPRO. Here is a link to a document that shows an overview of the STASI decomposition.

·         http://www.scribd.com/doc/71863415

·         http://www.mediafire.com/?5w80dni99qc1c8w


Law enforcement agencies in concert with government and corporations are using bribery, deception, coercion & blackmail to create an informant & saboteur network out of criminals of all kinds, extremist groups, cults, patriotic zealots, the poor, the homeless, friends, family, neighbors, repair men, fire men, police, military personnel and agents to target individuals and groups that have beliefs and attitudes (such as civil rights and animal rights.) that may cause them to commit acts of terrorism at some future time or motivate others to commit terrorist acts or incite revolt. This pre-crime approach has existed numerous times throughout American history but has reared its ugly head again due to 9/11.

Unfortunately, according to former FBI agent Mike German, many post 9/11 targeted individuals are nothing more than a training exercise.




·         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO












Here is a lecture by Noam Chomsky that uncovers the root mindset in America that predicates the targeting of groups and individuals.



The real power behind gang stalking and many other terrible things is the minority of the opulent but the front group making all the policy changes these days is the neoconservatives. Neoconservatisim is a cult ideology that has been bankrolled and nurtured by the opulent just like all of the other cult ideologies created or co-opted by the opulent for their machinations.

·         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century


·         http://www.newamericancentury.org/


·         http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm


·         http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm


·         http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm


·         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative


·         http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/


·         http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/foreignpolicy2011


·         http://www.abovetheswamp.com/articles/political-issues/74-the-neocon-mind


Stalin and Hitler were fanatical leaders inspired by a gang mentality and by the concept of "historic mission." They believed that intolerance and large scale brutality were necessary ingredients of social order. Each of them was also supported by the “cult of personality.” The neocons are strikingly similar.


What are the components of gang mentality?



·         Extreme concern with reputation both inside and outside of the ideology. Neocons are this way.



·         Extreme concern with respect both inside and outside of the ideology. Neocons are this way.



·         No challenge will go unanswered. It is so with the neocons as well.


What is the concept of “historic mission”?


In a well documented conversation, Adolf Hitler berated the Austrian Chancellor Schuschnigg and stated…

"That is what you say!...But I am telling you that I am going to solve the so-called Austrian problem one way or the other...I have a historic mission, and this mission I will fulfill because Providence has destined me to do so...I have only to give an order and all your ridiculous defense mechanisms will be blown to bits. You don't seriously believe you can stop me or even delay me for half an hour, do you?"


Prominent neocon Michael Ledeen stated…

“Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”


What is the cult of personality?


The cult of personality is explained pretty well here…

·         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality


The Straussian philosophy is a cult of personality and the neocons follow the Straussian philosophy

·         http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13145.htm


If you select 1 percent of a population (Whistle blowers, dissidents, artists, those that look funny, and act or dress funny) and punish them severely for little or nothing, then you will gain the compliance of the other 99 percent either through fear or because they’ve been conned by the COINTELPRO/STASI type propaganda in to believing that the TI’s must be removed from society for the common good. Then you can implement the social, political and financial changes you want on a grand scale in a relatively short period of time. I.E. advance your historic mission. This has been done enumerable times throughout history.


When the average person considers what the Nazis or Stalin did, they are naturally horrified. When a banker considers what the Nazis or Stalin did they have dollar signs in their eyes. MONEY is the real reason this is happening!!! The bankers know that a one world government is not possible. Empire building has been going on for centuries and a global empire has never been realized. But if you understand finance, history, politics and the military industrial complex, then it is clear to see that it is the EXERCISE of building empires and large scale wars that redistributes the wealth of nations into the hands of the banking elite and keeps the masses under control.


Unfortunately most human beings don't understand how their own minds work nor are they well educated in multiple disciplines. Most of the people that perpetrate these crimes against humanity aren't fully aware that there is such a big conspiracy going on. It’s just that most human beings have so many inherent psychological weaknesses and such a deep lack of education that if you alter the socioeconomic landscape in just the right way, you get what you see here in America today.



·         http://brainz.org/ten-most-revealing-psych-experiments/



Here are a few very credible documentaries that will help you to understand what’s really going on and hopefully survive…


·         http://metanoia-films.org/psywar/#watch


·         http://metanoia-films.org/human-resources/#watch










One of the biggest mistakes people make when they become TI’s is to attempt to create a counter spy network against those that are surveilling them. This is something that the neocons and the banking elite are OK with. A global spy counter spy network is much like the cold war and the cold war was extremely profitable for the banking elite not to mention a powerful pretext to control people. The global war on terror needs a global terrorist network and since there really is not one, many targets will be manipulated into acting out in ways that can classify them as terrorists thus creating the impetus for law enforcement agencies to demand more tax payer money to fight the war on terror. Targets are all better off contacting a civil rights group and explaining that they have reason to believe they have been placed on the terrorist watch list.


Do yourself a favor and learn as much about economics and finance as possible. It will help you survive. This is all the info you will need to be an educated investor. It’s not a get rich quick thing, just a solid economics and investing education.


·         http://www.mediafire.com/?f0ep3y537y6hlxy


·         http://www.mediafire.com/?7jyqc3yjoy78uqr


·         http://www.mediafire.com/?hrxa7ca24n7h0uk



Also, listen to as many lectures by Professor Noam Chomsky as possible. They are all over the internet. He is brilliant and has been exposing the machinations of the opulent (Rothschild, Rockefeller etc) for decades. His research is very credible and will help you to separate the facts from the propaganda and give you a measure of mental clarity and peace. Utilizing his research will also help you gain some of your credibility back with others.


Try to explain all of this to your friends and family. Usually when people see the mission statement of the neocons from their websites (PNAC & FPI) they start listening.


According to anti-communist author Ludwik Kowalski

“Mass murder occurs when brutal and sadistic criminals, to be found in every society, are promoted to positions of dominance, when propaganda is used to dehumanize the targeted population and when children are inoculated with intolerance and hatred. It occurs when victims ("inferior races" or "class enemies") are excluded from the norms of morality, when ideological totalitarianism is imposed and when freedom is suspended. Fear and violence, the preconditions of genocide, are likely to be found in societies with large numbers of thieves and informants.”


Here is some info on how to take care of your physical health.

·         http://www.mediafire.com/?obd4zl5rrjbvwr1


Visit this YouTube channel and watch everything on it. You will gain a clear understanding of what’s really going on.

·         http://www.youtube.com/user/phrygian20

Quote 0 0

The first edition of LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination has been withdrawn from the new book market, as of May 31, 2011. The manuscript for the book has been substantially revised and updated with new material which makes the case against Johnson even more compelling than was true of the earlier edition. The new (second) edition of the book will be introduced in November, 2011 by the new publisher, Skyhorse Publications. The book is available for pre-orders at various book store websites.


THE SINGLE BEST VIDEO EVER RECORDED about the real history of the JFK Assassination! This is about 45 minutes long, but every minute contains incredibly important background information which is key to understanding what really happened. I owe my entire "Reawakening" in 2003 about this case to having seen the original (and ONLY) broadcast by the History Channel and realized my long-time suspicion about Johnson was correct (but the Johnson sycophants forced the History Channel to never rebroadcast it) . It was this realization that caused me to decide, three years later, to write the book. I should have acknowledged this within the book but neglected to do so, instead citing only the original sources for the same material that was used here, but it was this film that was the single "proximate cause" of the eventual book. So, Kudos to Ed Tatro, Walt Brown, Greg Burnham, Nigel Turner and all others associated with the production of this video!

Quote 0 0
On the April 28th, 2007 edition of Coast to Coast Live hosted by Ian Punnett, an audio tape sent to Saint John Hunt contained his fathers recounting of the persons who were involved in the Kennedy Assassination. In the tape, Hunt named Cord Meyer, Frank Sturgis, David Morales, Dave Atlee Phillips as participants in the assassination with Vice-President Lyndon Johnson apparently approving the assassination for political gain.

A clip of this tape can be heard here;

Quote 0 0
see link for full story

RFK assassination witness tells CNN: There was a second shooter
Author: By Michael Martinez and Brad Johnson CNN
Apr 28 2012

As a federal court prepares to rule on a challenge to Sirhan Sirhan's conviction in the Robert F. Kennedy assassination, a long overlooked witness to the murder is telling her story: She heard two guns firing during the 1968 shooting and authorities altered her account of the crime.

Nina Rhodes-Hughes wants the world to know that, despite what history says, Sirhan was not the only gunman firing shots when Senator Kennedy was murdered a few feet away from her at a Los Angeles hotel.

"What has to come out is that there was another shooter to my right," Rhodes-Hughes said in an exclusive interview with CNN. "The truth has got to be told. No more cover-ups."

Her voice at times becoming emotional, Rhodes-Hughes described for CNN various details of the assassination, her long frustration with the official reporting of her account and her reasons for speaking out: "I think to assist me in healing -- although you're never 100% healed from that. But more important to bring justice."

"For me it's hopeful and sad that it's only coming out now instead of before -- but at least now instead of never," Rhodes-Hughes told CNN by phone from her home near Vancouver, Canada.

Sirhan, the only person arrested, tried and convicted in the shooting of Kennedy and five other people, is serving a life sentence at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California.

The U.S. District Court in Los Angeles is set to rule on a request by the 68-year-old Sirhan that he be released, retried or granted a hearing on new evidence, including Rhodes-Hughes' firsthand account.

At his 1969 trial, Sirhan's original defense team never contested the prosecution's case that Sirhan was the one and only shooter in Kennedy's assassination. Sirhan testified at his trial that he had killed Kennedy "with 20 years of malice aforethought," and he was convicted and sentenced to death, which was reduced to life in prison in 1972.

Their current battle has prosecutors and Sirhan's new lawyers engaging directly the merits of new evidence -- as well as witness recollections such as Rhodes-Hughes' account -- never argued before a judge.

Prosecutors under the attorney general are contending that Rhodes-Hughes heard no more than eight gunshots during the assassination. In court papers filed in February, Harris and prosecutors argue that Rhodes-Hughes was among several witnesses reporting "that only eight shots were fired and that all these shots came from the same direction."

Sirhan's lawyers are challenging those assertions.

In a response also filed in federal court in Los Angeles, the defense team led by New York attorney William Pepper contends that the FBI misrepresented Rhodes-Hughes' eyewitness account and that she actually had heard a total of 12 to 14 shots fired.

"She identified fifteen errors including the FBI alteration which quoted her as hearing only eight shots, which she explicitly denied was what she had told them," Sirhan's lawyers argued in February, citing a previously published statement from Rhodes-Hughes.

The FBI and the California attorney general's office both declined to comment to CNN on the controversy over Rhodes-Hughes' witness account since the matter is now being reviewed by a federal judge.

Rhodes-Hughes was a television actress in 1968 who worked as a volunteer fundraiser for Kennedy's presidential campaign.

The FBI report indicates that Rhodes-Hughes was indeed inside the kitchen service pantry of the Ambassador Hotel during the crucial moments of the Kennedy shooting, but she contends the bureau got details of her story wrong, including her assertions about the number of shots fired and where the shots were fired from.

Rhodes-Hughes, now 78, tells CNN she informed authorities in 1968 that the number of gunshots she counted in the kitchen pantry exceeded eight -- which would have been more than the maximum Sirhan could have fired -- and that some of the shots came from a location in the pantry other than Sirhan's position.

Robert Kennedy was the most seriously wounded of the six people shot inside the hotel pantry on June 5, 1968, only moments after the New York senator had claimed victory in California's Democratic primary election. The presidential candidate died the next day; the other victims survived.

The Los Angeles County coroner determined that three bullets struck Kennedy's body and a fourth passed harmlessly through his clothing. Police and prosecutors declared the four bullets were among eight fired by Sirhan acting alone.

Rhodes-Hughes tells CNN the FBI's eight-shot claim is "completely false." She says the bureau "twisted" things she told two FBI agents when they interviewed her as an assassination witness in 1968, and she says Harris and her prosecutors are simply "parroting" the bureau's report.

"I never said eight shots. I never, never said it," Rhodes-Hughes told CNN. "But if the attorney general is saying it then she's going according to what the FBI chose to put into their report."

"There were more than eight shots," Rhodes-Hughes said by phone. She says that during the FBI interview in her Los Angeles home, one month after the assassination, she told the agents that she'd heard 12 to 14 shots. "There were at least 12, maybe 14. And I know there were because I heard the rhythm in my head," Rhodes-Hughes said. She says she believes senior FBI officials altered statements she made to the agents to "conform with what they wanted the public to believe, period."

"When they say only eight shots, the anger within me is so great that I practically -- I get very emotional because it is so untrue. It is so untrue," she said.

Contacted by CNN for comment, Sirhan lead attorney William Pepper called the alleged FBI alteration of Rhodes-Hughes' story "deplorable" and "criminal" and said it "mirrors the experience of other witnesses."

Other witnesses also mentioned more than eight shots

Law enforcement investigators have always maintained that only eight shots were fired in the RFK assassination, all of them by Sirhan. His small-caliber handgun could hold no more than eight bullets.

But released witness interview summaries show at least four other people told authorities in 1968 that they heard what could have been more than eight shots. The following four witness accounts appear not in FBI reports but in Los Angeles Police Department summaries:

-- Jesse Unruh, who was speaker of the California Assembly at the time, told police that he was within 20 to 30 feet behind Kennedy when suddenly he heard a "crackle" of what he initially thought were exploding firecrackers. "I don't really quite remember how many reports there were," Unruh told the LAPD. "It sounded to me like somewhere between 5 and 10."

-- Frank Mankiewicz, who had been Kennedy's campaign press secretary, told police that he was trying to catch up to the senator when he suddenly heard sounds that also seemed to him to be "a popping of firecrackers." When an LAPD detective asked Mankiewicz how many of the sounds he'd heard, he answered: "It seemed to me I heard a lot. If indeed it had turned out to have been firecrackers, I probably would have said 10. But I'm sure it was less than that."

-- Estelyn Duffy LaHive, who had been a Kennedy supporter, told police that she was standing just outside the kitchen pantry's west entrance when the shooting erupted. "I thought I heard at least about 10 shots," she told the LAPD.

-- Booker Griffin, another Kennedy supporter, told police that he had just entered the pantry through its east entrance and suddenly heard "two quick" shots followed by a slight pause and then what "sounded like it could have been 10 or 12" additional shots.

An analysis of a recently uncovered tape recording of the shooting detected at least 13 shot sounds erupting over a period of less than six seconds. The audiotape was recorded at the Ambassador Hotel by free-lance newspaper reporter Stanislaw Pruszynski and is the only known soundtrack of the assassination.

Audio expert Philip Van Praag told CNN that his analysis establishes the Pruszynski recording as authentic and the 13 sounds electronically detected on the recording as gunshots.

"The gunshots are established by virtue of my computer analysis of waveform patterns, which clearly distinguishes gunshots from other phenomena," he said in an e-mail. "This would include phenomena that to human hearing are often perceived as exploding firecrackers, popping camera flashbulbs or bursting balloons."

Van Praag's Pruszynski recording findings are now a major point of controversy among new evidence being argued between the two sides in the Sirhan federal court case. Harris contends that his findings amount to an "interpretation or opinion" that is not universally accepted by acoustic experts.

CNN initially reported on Van Praag's audio analysis in 2008 and then with additional details in a BackStory segment in 2009.

Shots fired from two different locations

California prosecutors have argued that witnesses heard shots coming from only one location, but Rhodes-Hughes tells CNN that while the first two or three shots she heard came from Sirhan's position several feet in front of her, she also heard gunshots "to my right where Robert Kennedy was."

According to the autopsy report, the coroner concluded that the senator's body and clothing were struck from behind, at right rear, by four bullets fired at upward angles and at point-blank range. Yet witnesses said Sirhan fired somewhat downward, almost horizontally, from several feet in front of Kennedy, and witnesses did not report the senator's back as ever being exposed to Sirhan or his gun.

In his analysis of the Pruszynski sound recording, Philip Van Praag found that five of the gunshots captured in the tape were fired opposite the direction of Sirhan's eight shots. Van Praag also concluded that those five shots -- the third, fifth, eighth, 10th and 12th gunshots within a 13-shot sequence -- displayed an acoustical "frequency anomaly" indicating that the alleged second gun's make and model were different from Sirhan's weapon.

A chance meeting with Robert Kennedy

The path that eventually led Nina Rhodes-Hughes to the Ambassador Hotel kitchen pantry began 2½ years earlier during a chance meeting with Robert Kennedy at NBC-TV studios in Burbank, California. She was being made up for her co-starring role in the daytime drama "Morning Star" when Kennedy suddenly entered the makeup room. The actress was starstruck. "I saw Robert Kennedy and everything else disappeared from view," she said. "There was an aura about him that was very captivating. He kind of pulled you in. His eyes were very deep set and they were very blue. And when you looked at him, you got very drawn in to him."

As Rhodes-Hughes remembers it, the senator had arrived to pre-record an interview on "Meet the Press" and the two discussed political issues while awaiting their separate TV appearances. "Here I am, just an actress in a soap opera, and he took the time to have an in-depth conversation with me," said Rhodes-Hughes, who was then known professionally by her screen name Nina Roman.

As impressed as Rhodes-Hughes was with Robert Kennedy, she says the senator indicated that he himself was impressed with her ability to quickly memorize many pages of TV script. She says he confided to her that he had no such talent himself but that his older brother, the assassinated President John F. Kennedy, had possessed similar skills.

"Our conversation basically was the clincher for me," Rhodes-Hughes told CNN. "I said to him, 'You know, I have followed your career in politics and I really believe in you and I love all the things that you did -- and are trying to do, and propose to do -- and so if ever you declare yourself a candidate for the presidency, I will work for you, heart and soul.' And he smiled and said, 'Well, I don't know if that's going to happen.' And he was very humble and very sweet."

Rhodes-Hughes says that later, in the spring of 1968, shortly after Kennedy announced his candidacy for the presidency, she helped form a campaign support group in Los Angeles called "Young Professionals for Kennedy" and assisted in raising funds for the California phase of the senator's White House bid.

Weeks later, as he claimed victory in the California primary, addressing hundreds of supporters in the Ambassador Hotel's Embassy Room shortly after midnight on June 5, Kennedy paid tribute to the many volunteers, like Rhodes-Hughes, who had assisted his campaign. Referring to his own role during his brother's successful run for the presidency in 1960, Kennedy told them, "I was a campaign manager eight years ago. I know what a difference that kind of an effort and that kind of a commitment makes."

Trying to keep Kennedy from heading to the pantry

For Rhodes-Hughes there was one more commitment to keep. She had promised Kennedy aide Pierre Salinger that following the candidate's victory speech she would try to meet the senator as he exited the ballroom and usher him to a backstage area where Salinger had been keeping abreast of the California primary returns. She says although she and another campaign volunteer made sure to carefully position themselves to greet the candidate, the opportunity never came. According to Rhodes-Hughes, shortly after Kennedy completed his remarks in the Embassy Room, he was whisked away by others down a corridor and toward the kitchen pantry while she scurried to catch up.

"No, no, that's the wrong way!" Rhodes-Hughes tells CNN she shouted to the senator and his escorts as she chased after them in an unsuccessful effort to turn them around. "It's this way! Come back! You're going the wrong way!"

Kennedy and Sirhan almost face-to-face

Rhodes-Hughes says that after she entered the kitchen pantry's west entrance, she could see Kennedy in left profile, "greeting" well-wishers a few feet ahead of her. She says a moment later she was looking at the back of the senator's head, as he continued onward, when suddenly the first two or three shots were fired.

"I saw his left profile. And then, very, very quickly, he was through greeting, and he turned and went into the original direction that he was being ushered to," Rhodes-Hughes told CNN. "At that point, I saw the back of his head and part of his shoulders and back."

"My eyes were totally on him, and all of a sudden I started hearing popping sounds, which I thought at first were flashbulbs from a camera," she said. It was Rhodes-Hughes' account of Kennedy's movements in the pantry that Sirhan's lawyer Pepper focused on in particular when CNN asked him to comment on Rhodes-Hughes' account of the shooting.

"This observation is vital," said Pepper. "Her clear recollection of being some short distance behind the Senator and seeing his left profile and then seeing him quickly turning so that the back of his head was in her sight at the time the shooting began -- this reveals that the Senator was almost directly facing Sirhan just before he took three shots, from behind, in his back, and behind his right ear at powder burn range, making it impossible for Sirhan to have been Robert Kennedy's shooter," the defense attorney said in an e-mail to CNN. "It clearly evidences the existence of a second gunman who fired from below and upward at the Senator."

Rhodes-Hughes says that while she was behind Senator Kennedy, looking at the back of his head and hearing the first two or three gunshots, Kennedy did not appear to be struck by bullets at that point.

Still believing the first shots were merely flashbulbs, she says she then took her eyes off the senator, while turning leftward, and caught her first glimpse of Sirhan standing in front of Kennedy and to the candidate's left.

She told CNN that the 5-foot-5-inch tall Sirhan was propped up on a steam table, several feet ahead of her and slightly to her own left. Rhodes-Hughes says part of her view of Sirhan was obstructed and she could not see the gun in his hand but she says that, as soon as she caught sight of Sirhan, she then heard more shots coming from somewhere past her right side and near Kennedy. She told CNN that at that point she was hearing "much more rapid fire" than she initially had heard.

In his recent analysis of the Pruszynski recording, Philip Van Praag found that some of the tape's 13 captured shot sounds were fired too rapidly, at intervals too close together, for all of the gunshots in the pantry to have come from Sirhan's Iver Johnson revolver alone.

Sirhan's lawyers report in their federal court papers that gunshot echoes have been ruled out as the cause of the Pruszynski recording's "double shots." Ricochets also are ruled out according to Pasadena, California, forensic audio engineers who verified Van Praag's Pruszynski findings for the 2007 Investigation Discovery Channel television documentary "Conspiracy Test: The RFK Assassination."

'They've killed him! They've killed him!'

Rhodes-Hughes told CNN she heard gunshots coming from some place not far from her right side even while Sirhan was being subdued several feet in front of her. "During all of that time, there are shots coming to my right," she said. "People are falling around me. I see a man sliding down a wall. Then I see Senator Kennedy lying on the floor on his back, bleeding. And I remember screaming, 'Oh no! Oh, my God, no!' And the next thing I know, I'm ducking but also in complete shock as to what's going on.

"And then I passed out," she said.

Rhodes-Hughes says that, moments later, while she was regaining consciousness from having fainted to the floor, she noticed that her dress was wet and that she was missing a belt and one of her shoes. It was clear to her that she had been trampled, but she was unhurt.

She then looked across the room and saw Kennedy once again, lying on the floor and bleeding, this time with his wife Ethel kneeling and trying to comfort him. Rhodes-Hughes says the sight horrified her, sending her screaming out of the pantry and back through the corridor, where she was attended to by her then-husband, the late television producer Michael Rhodes.

"I'm running out of the pantry and I'm yelling, 'They've killed him! They've killed him! Oh, my God, he's dead! They've killed him!'" Rhodes-Hughes told CNN. "Now, the reason I said, 'they' is because I knew there was more than one shooter involved."


Rhodes-Hughes describes the events of early June 1968 as "the most iconoclastic experience" of her life.

"Although it was 44 years ago, I will swear that this is exactly what happened. I remember it like it was almost yesterday, because you don't forget something like that when it totally changes your life forever," she said. "It took a great toll on me. For a while, even the backfiring of a car would send me into tears."

Never called to testify

Despite the fact her FBI interview summary indicates Nina Rhodes-Hughes was inside the kitchen pantry during the assassination, she was never called to testify at Sirhan's 1969 trial or at any subsequent inquiry over the years. Rhodes-Hughes says she made a point of telling two FBI agents in 1968 that she would be willing to make herself available to appear as a witness anywhere at anytime and to testify "that there were more shots."

"They never wrote that down," she says of the FBI agents who conducted the interview in her Los Angeles home. She also says that when the pair of agents departed following their visit, they forgot to take along their attaché case and, minutes later, had to return to her residence and retrieve it.

Rhodes-Hughes says that, in the months following the June 5, 1968 assassination, she and some others who had been at the Ambassador Hotel refused news media interviews so as to avoid interfering with preparations for Sirhan's trial. It wasn't until the 1990s that Rhodes-Hughes was asked whether she would ever be willing to testify under oath -- an invitation coming not from a prosecutor or law enforcement official but from author Philip H. Melanson, a chancellor professor of policy studies at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.

At Melanson's request, Rhodes-Hughes reviewed her 1968 FBI interview summary for the first time and found it contained more than a dozen inaccuracies. She provided Melanson with a statement, but the professor died some years later and Rhodes-Hughes once again missed her opportunity to testify. Before his death, Melanson published Rhodes-Hughes' statement in "Shadow Play," a book he co-authored with William Klaber in 1997 and one of several Melanson wrote on the Robert Kennedy assassination.

Rhodes-Hughes recounted the Kennedy shooting and her initial contact with Melanson in a 1992 interview on "Contact," a local TV program carried at the time in Vancouver by Rogers Cable.

Defense attorney William Pepper calls Rhodes-Hughes' recollections "significant verification" of new assassination evidence that the Sirhan legal team is currently presenting. "It provides further verification of a dozen or more gunshots and mirrors the experience of other witnesses which confirms the existence of the cover-up efforts," he told CNN.

"Along with all of the other evidence we have provided, one wonders why it has taken so long for this innocent man to be set free, a new trial to be ordered or, at least, a full investigatory hearing to be scheduled," Pepper said. "Nothing less than the credibility and integrity of the American criminal justice system is at stake in this case."

Sirhan Sirhan's current legal team is doing something his original lawyers never did. They are asserting that Sirhan did not shoot Kennedy.

Sirhan's original defenders had decided at the outset that Sirhan was the lone shooter. Because Sirhan's initial lawyers presented a diminished capacity case in 1969, they never pursued available defenses. Evidentiary conflicts, and issues such as a possible second gun, simply were not addressed at Sirhan's 1969 trial. Most of the original prosecution's evidence was stipulated by the original defense team, which agreed that Sirhan had killed the presidential candidate.

Nina Rhodes-Hughes opposes freedom for Sirhan Sirhan, whom she regards as one of two gunmen firing shots inside the Ambassador Hotel kitchen pantry. "To me, he was absolutely there," she said. "I don't feel he should be exonerated."

Rhodes-Hughes insists the full truth of Robert Kennedy's murder has been suppressed for decades, and says she hopes that it will now finally come out and that the alleged second shooter will be identified and brought to justice.

"There definitely was another shooter," said Rhodes-Hughes. "The constant cover-ups, the constant lies -- this has got to stop."
Quote 0 0
file under

Keeping the FBI  brand in the news regardless of the truth,

couple reads, let god sort out the truth, eh?

see link for full story

George Wallace’s assassination attempt: FBI agent reflects, 40 years later
May 9, 2012

The same psych ops people associated with RFK assassin Sirhan Sirhan were later identified connected to Bremer.
GOOGLE  bremer sirhan sirhan

Also see


The History Channel made a 9 part series about the Assassination of President Kennedy.
The last show in the series was called THE GUILTY MEN.
It details the evidence for President Kennedy being assassinated by the FBI.
After becoming the most popular show in the series the History Channel pulled it off the air and refuse to sell it.
Google the guilty men jfk youtube
and watch the 45 minute version or click here to watch it

In 1999 the Martin Luther King family sued one of the assassins of Martin Luther King in civil court. They did this because the department of justice would not reopen the investigation after the Martin Luther King family uncovered evidence that the FBI, CIA, and Memphis police had assassinated Dr King. The King family also wanted to enter their evidence into a public record so it could be accessed.The jury returned a verdict in favor of the King family and juror members held a press conference saying it was a clear cut case of the FBI assassinating Dr King. There was a media blackout of the trial. Details of the trial can be viewed here or by reading the book called ACT OF STATE THE EXECUTION OF Martin Luther King
written by the trial attorney William Pepper.
Quote 0 0
2 reads

Occurrence Of Racially-Motivated Hate Crimes High In U.S. - Report
Leadership Editors's picture
Fri, 25/05/2012


2nd read

The Role of the FBI

It is also enlightening to look at FBI actions both prior to and
after the Martin Luther King assassination. Former Atlanta FBI agent Arthur
Murtagh has given some indication of the prevailing mood at the
Bureau in King's home city.

Murtagh related in an interview that "Me and a colleague were
checking out for the day when the news came over the radio that
Dr. King had been shot. My colleague leapt up, clapped his hands
and said `Goddamn, we got him! We finally got him.'" When asked
if he was sure of this statement Murtagh was adamant that his
colleague said "we," not "they." [22. Interview with Arthur
Murtagh, June 1989.]

For years, through its COINTELPRO operations, the FBI had been
spying on, bugging, falsifying letters, and sowing discontent
among the leadership of the SCLC in an attempt to discredit and
"neutralize" Dr. King. [23. See Garrow, {op. cit.}, n. 17; also
see HSCA report.]
Quote 0 0
4 reads about how your taxes paid FBI  salaries \when they wacked President Kennedy.

1st read
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
6:00 PM
Selected By: jonathan mark

Frances P. Crowe community room

60 Masonic Street, Northampton, MA (map)

In back of the Woodstar Cafe building on first floor
Selected By: jonathan mark

November 22, 2013 will mark the 50th anniversary since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. For those not afraid to research this issue, it is quite evident that this assassination was a coup d'etat of the US government. The cover-up continues to this day. There are many similarities to that operation nearly a half Century ago with the events regarding September 11, 2001. John Hankey, filmmaker of Dark Legacy: George Bush and the Murder of John F. Kennedy, had listed a few a few of these:

Both JFK and 9-11 involved The Big Lie -

1: The crime is unspeakable, for the mainstream media and ALL politicians who want to live. Our job is to speak the unspeakable. the Big Lie -

2: Even when spoken by the likes of us, the crime is too terrible to be believed. The average human being is incapable of conceiving that anyone could be so horrible, that they could kill their own people, or their own president. This is the main defense of 9-11 perpetrators. The true conspiracy theory is unbelievable. However, JFK's murder is a chink in this armor of people's incredulity: 80% believe Warren Report is a lie. They know there is more out there than what they have been told.

The video, Dark Legacy, has the potential to teach the common citizen valuable lessons regarding 9-11

1) Both crimes were committed by the same perpetrators: the military industrial complex; the CFR; with Bushes heading the attack. JFK was murdered in order to carry out Vietnam; but the only discernible goal there was to increase the defense budget: they knew they couldn't win. All the best evidence said so. They didn't care about winning. Just about keeping money from going for education and medicare.

2) In both crimes, the media and politicians are worse than useless; these crimes are unspeakable. The truth must be denied emphatically whenever the topic comes up; and those who raise the questions must be viciously attacked by every politician in the spotlight.

3) Don't get lost in details; The names of the knoll shooters doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether Oswald or a double went to Mexico. Was there a plane, or not, at Pentagon? It doesn't matter. What matters is that, with all the cold-war defenses in place, not a shot was fired in defense. "We don't know" is a good answer to all detailed questions. The broad outlines are clear.


Relying exclusively on government documents, statements from the best witnesses available, and the words from the mouths of the killers themselves, Dark Legacy produces a thoroughly substantiated criminal indictment of George Herbert Walker Bush, establishing beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt as a CIA supervisor in the conspiracy to assassinate John F. Kennedy. If we could present this evidence to a jury in Texas, he would pay with his life.



Valley 9/11 will be only screening the prologue and part one, which present the overwhelming mountain of evidence that President Kennedy was hit by bullets from the front and rear. Every witness in the Dallas emergency room attests, on camera, to the fact that a bullet from the right front blew a fist-sized whole in the back of the President's head. The New York Times carried these statements on the day of the murder; and has covered them up ever since. (John Hankey has given us copies of the film available to share on community access television and for individuals to purchase for only $5.)


Following Part 1 Jonathan Mark will facilitate discussions on how these and other events are inter-related, and why it is critical to connect the dots to show the real perpetrators of the big lies of our lifetime. Other film clips will be shown that clearly show the intense deceptions and infiltration into our lives and mind by the Military Industrial Complex and what we can do about it.

Dark Legacy

George Bush and the Murder of John Kennedy

Provocative to say the least. Using materials familiar to researchers,
Dark Legacy makes a series of tantalizing connections between the rich
and powerful to suggest that Kennedy was brought down by a vast web of
powerful conservatives and that George H.W.Bush was close to all of them.
Hankey invites viewers not only to draw their own conclusions but also
to check out his sources." -- Kevin Thomas Los Angeles Times

2nd read
Black Op Radio in Hawaii 2011 Part 1 of 4

3rd read

4th read
The History Channel made a 9 part series about the Assassination of President Kennedy.
The last show in the series was called THE GUILTY MEN.
It details the evidence for President Kennedy being assassinated by the FBI.
After becoming the most popular show in the series the History Channel pulled it off the air and refuse to sell it.
Google the guilty men jfk youtube
and watch the 45 minute version or click here to watch it

In 1999 the Martin Luther King family sued one of the assassins of Martin Luther King in civil court. They did this because the department of justice would not reopen the investigation after the Martin Luther King family uncovered evidence that the FBI, CIA, and Memphis police had assassinated Dr King. The King family also wanted to enter their evidence into a public record so it could be accessed.The jury returned a verdict in favor of the King family and juror members held a press conference saying it was a clear cut case of the FBI assassinating Dr King. There was a media blackout of the trial. Details of the trial can be viewed here or by reading the book called ACT OF STATE THE EXECUTION OF Martin Luther King
written by the trial attorney William Pepper.
Quote 0 0
see link for full taxpayer dime

Investigative journalist  David Burnham has written about how FBI  agents fix cases for corporations and then go on to work for them when they retire. see

There is now strong evidence that steel and oil corporations funded the President Kennedy assassination in collaboration with FBI  Director j Edgar Hoover and LBJ.

couple of reads

1st read

FBI's Gillies announces retirement

June 11, 2012

The FBI’s Miami Division is going to change leadership: Special Agent in Charge John V. Gillies announcedTuesday that he will retire at the end of June to work in security for a major Midwestern corporation.

Gillies’ replacement will earn $119,554 to $179,700.

2nd read

To bad you don't know who Cyril Wecht MD, JD is.
FBI agent Orsini went after him after he detailed FBI agents helped assassinate President Kennedy.
It's ok, your tax dime was used to target him.
google cyril wecht jfk assassination

By the way your tax dime was used to remove this story from the internet
by the FBI crime family.
Sort of like FBI intellectual cleansing.
keep paying those taxes.
boo, did I scare you?

Team 4: Lead FBI Agent In Wecht Case Promoted

July 27, 2007

It was two weeks ago that Orsini's checkered personnel file at the FBI
was unsealed at federal court, revealing a five-day suspension in 1998
for signing other agents' names on evidence reports involving seized
drugs and money.In 2001, the FBI demoted Orsini, suspended him for 30
days without pay, placed him on 12 months probation and ordered him to
undergo mandatory sensitivity training.

In that discipline report, the FBI found that Orsini, over the years,
had failed to follow search guidelines, falsified official documents,
engaged in an improper relationship with a female subordinate FBI agent
whom he gave a pet collar as a gag Christmas gift, threatened physical
assault of a subordinate and damaged government property by punching
holes in walls and throwing chairs.

The discipline report also said Orsini "made unprofessional and
insensitive remarks on numerous occasions concerning sexual
orientation," including once with a bullhorn when he called on all
homosexuals to come out of their offices

3rd read

LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination (Kindle Edition)
From first chapter to last, this is a beautifully written, intellectually captivating, and ultimately persuasive account of the role of LBJ in the assassination of JFK. I had more than 100 conversations with Madeleine Duncan Brown, one of his many mistresses but the only one who bore him a son. She, too, became convinced that Lyndon was profoundly involved in the death of his predecessor. On New Year's Eve, six weeks after the assassination, they had a rendezvous at the Driskill Hotel in Austin, where she confronted him with rumors, rampant in Dallas at the time, that he had been involved, since no one stood more to gain. He blew up at her and told her that the CIA and the oil boys had decided that JFK had to be taken out. She wrote about it in her book, TEXAS IN THE MORNING. Her account has been reinforced by Billy Sol Estes, the Texas wheeler-dealer who made mountains of money for Lyndon, Connally, and their buddies, who explains in his book, A TEXAS LEGEND, how he became convinced that Cliff Carter, LBJ's chief administrative assistant, and Malcolm "Mac" Wallace, his personal assassin (by whom Lyndon had a dozen or more persons terminated, including one of his sisters), had been personally involved. E. Howard Hunt, in his "Last Confessions" in ROLLING STONE, explained to his son, St. John, that LBJ, Cord Meyer, William Harvey, David Sanchez Morales, and others in the CIA had been involved in the assassination. For an overview, enter "John F. Kennedy: History, Memory, Legacy", and download Chapter 30. Or visit [...], "Reclaiming History: A Closed Mind Perpetrating a Fraud on the Public", and you will understand the context within which it took place. For a short course, try "Reasoning about Assassinantions" via google. I also recommend James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE. Both make profound contributions to the case.

4th read

JFK and the Unspeakable
Why He Died and Why It Matters
by James Douglass

"the best book I have read on the Kennedy assassination, Presidential policy making and modern US history."
-- Mark Robinowitz, OilEmpire.US
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
by James W Douglass

"After the American University address, John Kennedy and Nikita Krushchev began to act like competitors in peace.  They were both turning.  However, Kennedy's rejection of Cold War politics was considered treasonous by forces in his own government.  In that context, which Kennedy knew well, the American University address was a profile in courage with lethal consequences.  President Kennedy's June 10, 1963 call for an end to the Cold War, five and one-half months before his assassination, anticipates Dr. King's courage in his April 4, 1967, Riverside Church address calling for an end to the Vietnam War, exactly one year before his assassination.  Each of those transforming speeches was a prophetic statement provoking the reward a prophet traditionally receives.  John Kennedy's American University address was to his death in Dallas as Martin Luther King's Riverside Church address was to his death in Memphis."
-- p. 46

"One must give the CIA (and the assassination sponsors that were even further in the shadows) their due for having devised and executed a brilliant setup. They had played out a scenario to Kennedy's death in Dallas that pressured other government authorities to choose among three major options: a war of vengeance against Cuba and the Soviet Union based on the CIA's false Mexico City documentation of an assassination plot; a domestic political war based on the same documents seen truly, but a war the CIA would fight with every covert weapon at its command; or a complete coverup of any conspiracy evidence and a silent coup d'etat that would reverse Kennedy's efforts to end the Cold War. Lyndon Johnson, for his part, took little time to choose the only option he felt would leave him with a country to govern. He chose to cover up everything and surrender to Cold War prerogatives. However, he was not about to attack Cuba and the U.S.S.R. His quick personal acceptance of what had to be would only emerge more gradually in public. Rather than end it all quickly and heroically against Castro and Krushchev, he would ride gently, through the 1964 election, into the full fury of Vietnam."
-- James Douglass, "JFK and the Unspeakable," pp. 81-82

Quote 0 0
First of all I want to say to you not to worry, the FBI  still has the longest list
of sexual misconduct amongst Federal(  taxpayer funded) employees.
Secondly I want to say shut up and keep paying those taxes.
Thirdly (LOL) I want to say you can't use the taxpayers dime to assassinate President Kennedy unless the Secret Service and the FBI  are involved, eh?


How's those protectors of privilege working out for you?
Boo did I scare you?

couple of reads for the taxpayer oppressed

Why do I smell the stench of FBI  sulphur over the publication of this report.

couple of reads

1st read
see link for full story

US reveals accusations against Secret Service
June 15, 2012

WASHINGTON — The U.S. government has revealed details of serious allegations against Secret Service agents and officers since 2004, including claims of involvement with prostitutes, leaking sensitive information, publishing pornography, sexual assault, illegal wiretaps, improper use of weapons and drunken behavior. It wasn't immediately clear how many of the accusations were confirmed to be true.

The heavily censored list, which runs 229 pages, was quietly released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act to The Associated Press and other news organizations following the Secret Service prostitution scandal that erupted in April in Colombia. It describes accusations filed against Secret Service employees with the Homeland Security Department's inspector general.

2nd read
The Men Who Killed Kennedy "The Love Affair" Complete Episode 8

3rd read  

4th read
Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years [Paperback]
David Talbot (Author)

Talbot deserves credit for not shying away from reports suggesting a link between JFK's death and the U.S. Secret Service. The revelations that Robert Kennedy had doubts about the Secret Service's ability to protect JFK and RFK's backing of a bill to transfer presidential protection to the Attorney General's Office are particularly interesting. So too was Talbot's report that Lyndon Johnson also confided that the Secret Service was more likely to get him killed than to protect him. (See page 283). Why would Johnson have said that or felt that way unless he at least suspected Secret Service involvement, whether negligent or otherwise, in JFK's death? Finally, there is the revelation that RFK had Daniel Patrick Moynihan investigate the possibility that the Secret Service had been bribed due to their shoddy performance in Dallas and the numerous lapses in security. (See page 21). I wish Talbot had also delved into the findings of Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Charles Wilber. Dr. Mantik, after viewing JFK's X-rays concluded that JFK's fatal head shot must have come from in front of JFK, and that it likely did not come from the grassy knoll. Dr. Charles Wilber concluded after reviewing the notes made by surgeons at Parkland Hospital, that they suggested that the head wound was made by a hand gun fired at close range. Who at the time would have had a hand gun in front of and near JFK? Only Secret Service agents William Greer (the driver of the JFK limousine) and Roy Kellerman (who sat to the right of Greer in the front seat). Interesting too is the testimony of several of those in the motorcade that they smelled the odor of gunpowder at street level where JFK had been shot seconds afterward, suggesting that a shot was fired from that location. General McHugh, who ordinarily rode in the presidential limo between the two Secret Service agents was, according to author Vince Palamara, instructed to sit instead in one of the follow up cars. Why was that done for the first time in Dallas? Finally, why did Greer, when questioned by the Warren Commission, lie about his actions and inactions while JFK was being shot to death? Why did Secret Service Agent Emory Roberts order Agents Jack Ready and Clint Hill back into the follow-up car after they began to run forward to JFK's aid? Why did the Secret Service violate at least a dozen of its own regulations and procedures in Dallas on 11/22/63? Clint Hill later testified that the sound of the head shot sounded like a revolver being fired into a hard object. Surely, Hill had fired his own revolver on numerous occasions and knew the difference between the report from a revolver and the report from a rifle. Eyewitness Austin Miller even testified that he thought shots had come from "right there in the car," referring to JFK's limo. All of the dots are there for anyone willing to connect them. Photographic evidence confirms what logic and common sense suggest.

Read Douglas Horne's Inside the Assassinations Records Review Board Vol. 5, which deals with security stripping of the Dallas motorcade. You can also visit youtube or Google "The Smoking Guns" a now banned episode of The Men Who Killed Kennedy, and it is available in 9-minute segments, actually showing the Secret Service chief waving away an agent who was running alongside JFK's limo at the airport. There is much more involved in the security stripping so JFK could be murdered. I am skeptical of a shot by a revolver from the front seat, but Horne demonstrates a bullet hole in the windshield, shot from the front.
Quote 0 0

Bowart on JFK and The Assassinations


This may be old news for students of the JFK assassination, but I thought I would put it here in case there are some small details not covered by other researchers, because, well, not everyone likes to get on the mind control ride.

I also thought it would tie in well with all the recent revelations in the Sirhan case.

From Operation Mind Control

MKULTRA was fully operational when Luis Castillo was programmed. It was active that same decade when events
blamed on three “lone assassins” changed the course of history. In a well-executed, mass indoctrination campaign employing all the honor, prestige, and power of the U.S. government, Americans were told over and over again that the lives of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy were all taken by lone assassins—men operating without political motivation. These three assassins—Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, and Sirhan Sirhan—conveniently left diaries,
underlinings in various books, and other self-incriminating clues to establish their guilt. The evidence gathered on the assassinations remains fragmented and incomplete. Any event of such magnitude as political assassination is bound to invite a large number of interpretations. While there has not as yet surfaced any single,
conclusive proof of a conspiracy, more than eighty percent of the American public believe there was a conspiracy. A string of circumstantial evidence, and a knowledge of the fundamentals of mind control invites further speculation.

In each case the method was the same—death by the bullet. In each case the circumstances were the same—murder in a public place in view of many witnesses. All three assassins were men whose personal histories can be interpreted to indicate that they were mentally unstable. Evidence suggests that all three had been hypnotized at one time or another.

But the similarity in their psychological profiles, and the “coincidence” of each having left a trail of evidence, did not
seem suspicious to the government investigators of the assassination. That three assassins, from three different parts of the country, with three different ethnic backgrounds (and three different victims in three different cities), could all have had the same modus operandi did not seem improbable to the investigators. Those “coincidences” did not even warrant their notice. A good detective would immediately have suspected that the M.O. of each assassin was a cover laid down by a professional hit team.

The cryptocracy which grew up after World War II was composed of a cadre of professionals, trained during the war. Professional intelligence agents in both the KGB and the CIA are trained to stick to the cover story that works, and use it as long as it does work. Even if the cover story is blown, the agent is supposed to stick to it and, if necessary, die with sealed lips. The “lone nut” theory—that the assassins of King and the Kennedys had acted alone—and the evidence planted to support that theory, stands out as a typical professional intelligence “cover.” The modus operandi or method of a murder is the first of two major clues detectives use to solve crimes. The second clue is the motive.

Those who support the “lone nut” theory point to the fact that no clear political motive could be attributed to any of the three assassins. Yet even to a casual student of history each of the three murders was of obvious political benefit to the extreme right: John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were all independent thinkers who could not be bought off. They worked for expanded civil rights in a manner the right wing interpreted as being Communist, e.g., it involved government legislation of civil rights. J. Edgar Hoover is known to have had a personal vendetta against Dr. King, and it has been reported that he lost no love for the Kennedy brothers.
The Kennedys were not only on the wrong side of Hoover’s FBI, they were on the wrong side of the CIA as well. JFK fired several top intelligence officers (he asked for Allen Dulles’ resignation) and at the time of his death he was privately talking about reorganizing the entire U.S. intelligence service.

Robert Kennedy, as attorney general, was waging a tireless campaign against organized crime. His campaign cut across the alliance the CIA had formed with gangsters who had lost their gambling and drug concessions in Cuba. Robert Kennedy was a close friend of Dr. King, and one rumor persists that the assassins had issued a dire warning that RFK not run for president, and that King was sacrificed to show that the group meant business. A similar threat was issued against Ted Kennedy when he was entertaining presidential thoughts. Robert Kennedy’s knowledge of the CIA-Mafia link and the CIA assassination teams might have been a motive behind the motive, assuming that fanatical rightwing operators were “contracted” for the “Executive actions” against the three. The obvious results of all three assassinations would indicate that the extreme right wing, known to be widespread in the cryptocracy, had the most to gain. By their deaths, the civil rights movement was severely crippled, the conflict in Vietnam escalated, and the corrupt leaders of the cryptocracy stayed in power.

More recently a rumor has been put forth by CBS News and others that Castro and/or the KGB were behind the assassinations. That theory smells like more disinformation from the cryptocracy. The motives of the Communists seem much less clear than the motives of misguided patriotic rightthinking Americans. The cryptocracy was in a better position to benefit from the deaths of the three charismatic and humanitarian leaders than were the Communists.
Following the assassination of President Kennedy, his successor appointed a now notorious commission to investigate the crime. Headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, it included Sen. John Sherman Cooper (R., Kentucky), Sen. Richard B. Russell (D., Georgia), Rep. Hale Boggs (D., Louisiana), Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R., Michigan), former CIA Director Allen Dulles, and John J. McCloy. After nine months of deliberation, the Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone, had shot President Kennedy. Although Oswald was in turn assassinated by Dallas thug Jack Ruby, and although Ruby’s connections with organized crime and the anti-Castro movement were well known, the Commission found no evidence of a conspiracy.

The twenty-six volumes of evidence which made up the commission’s final report left so many questions unasked that by December, 1976, a Harris Survey concluded that 80 percent of the U.S. population did not believe the commission’s conclusion. From the beginning, the investigation was slanted towards proving that Oswald was guilty and that he had acted alone. The commission had proceeded with haste to put to rest forever the question: Was there a conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination? In its haste it had overlooked key facts and ignored witnesses who did not support the foregone conclusion that there was no conspiracy—that Oswald was just a “lone nut.”

Throughout the Warren Commission hearings there was conflicting testimony about Oswald. There was testimony that Oswald did not drive a car. There was other testimony that he did drive, and very well. Some of his acquaintances said he was a poor shot, too poor to have accomplished the feat of
marksmanship in Dealy Plaza. Others said that he was a fine marksman. Some said, by turns, that he was a Communist, a pro-Castro and an anti-Castro sympathizer. His own mother said that he performed undercover work for the U.S. government. Out of this mass of conflicting evidence, the Warren Commission simply took what was needed to support its foregone conclusion, and relegated the rest to published transcripts or to top-secret files in the National Archives. There were so many conflicting descriptions of Oswald that many independent assassination investigators subsequently concluded that there must have been at least two Oswalds—the “real” one and an intelligence double. If, however, one considers that Oswald might have been controlled in the same way as Candy Jones or Luis Castillo—split into multiple personalities—another explanation for the conflicting descriptions of the assassin becomes credible. He might have been an excellent shot in one zombie state, and in another he might have been blocked so that he could not even aim a rifle. In one state he might have had the ability to drive a car, while in another state he might have had a posthypnotic block so that he could not drive. Oswald said that he didn’t kill anybody. His statement was recorded in the basement of the Dallas Police Station on the day after the assassination. Captured on film by a local CBS film crew, Oswald told reporters, “I positively know nothing about this situation here. I would like to have legal representation.” In answer to an inaudible question from one reporter Oswald said, “Well, I was questioned by a judge. However, I protested at that time that I was not allowed legal representation during that very short and sweet hearing. I really don’t know what this situation is about. Nobody has told
me anything, except that I’m accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that. I do request someone to come forward to give me legal assistance.”
“Did you kill the President?” another reporter asked.
“No,” Oswald answered, “I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question.”

Ten years after Oswald made that statement, George O’Toole applied a newly developed “truth detector,” the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), to the soundtrack of the film which recorded Oswald’s protestation of innocence. The PSE, unlike the polygraph, does not have to be connected to the body to measure stress. It measures subaudible microtremors in the human voice which occur whenever an individual experiences even mild anxiety or stress. The micro-tremors form a distinct pattern on the PSE chart and can then be compared to stress patterns in other parts of the statement. A deliberate lie, especially one which involves personal jeopardy, stands out clearly from the other stress patterns that might represent situational stress or vague anxiety. Oswald was in a situation of high stress that day. He had
been grilled for hours by police. He had been manhandled and accused of killing not only a police officer but also the President of the United States.
Yet the PSE analysis of Oswald’s statement showed that he exhibited far more stress when he was talking about not being represented by a lawyer than he did when he denied murdering the President or the police officer. George O’Toole concluded, as have many other investigators, that Oswald was innocent. He could not have been consciously involved in the assassination as a fall guy—a patsy—or he would have shown stress in his answers to these key questions on the PSE.*

But what if he had been hypno-programmed so that he could remember nothing of his involvement in the assassination plot? Then every lie-detector test in the world would prove him innocent, since consciously he would believe that he was innocent. Hypnosis is the only reliable way to defeat a lie detector, whether it be a polygraph or the more advanced PSE.

Among evidence concealed from the commission was a CIA document obtained under the Freedom of Information Act in 1976, which quoted an unidentified CIA officer reporting to his superiors on Oswald. According to that memo, which had been written only three days after JFK’s assassination, Agency officials had discussed interviewing Oswald for intelligence purposes in the early 1960s. The same document revealed that Allen Dulles had secretly coached the CIA on how the Agency should deny having any connection with Oswald. According to one of the memos, Dulles strongly recommended that CIA Director Helms deny under oath that the CIA had any material in its files which suggested an Agency relationship with Oswald. Later disclosures revealed that Oswald did indeed have a CIA “201 file.”
In sworn testimony before the Warren Commission in 1964, Richard Helms applied the artful deception which came from a lifetime of CIA training; he testified that the Agency had “never even contemplated” making any contact with Oswald prior to the assassination. That the CIA did make contact with him was never disclosed to the commission. Despite the attempts of Allen Dulles to steer commission investigators away from other information which linked

*Posing as a Look reporter, former CIA employee O’Toole conducted and recorded interviews with local police officials and FBI men who were the original investigators in the Kennedy case. Too many of their PSE patterns showed levels of stress which could only be interpreted as having been the result of willful deception. In his book The Assassination Tapes, O’Toole offers the details of his PSE analysis, and concludes, not surprisingly, that there was a conspiracy behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Oswald to both the FBI and the CIA, the rumor that Oswald had been sent to Russia as an intelligence agent persisted. In an attempt to scotch that rumor, Dulles told the commission that it would be impossible for anyone to prove or disprove that Oswald had or had not been an agent or informer. He said, astonishingly, that Oswald could have been a CIA agent without anyone ever knowing about it! During one meeting of the commission, Senator Russell asked Dulles, “If Oswald never had assassinated the President, and had been in the employ of the FBI, and somebody had gone to the FBI, would they have denied he was an agent?” “Oh yes,” the ex-CIA chief replied. “They would be the first to deny it.” “Your agents would have done the same thing?” Senator Russell asked incredulously. “Exactly,” Dulles answered.
At another juncture, John J. McCloy said that he had received several inquiries about the Oswald-agent rumor. He asked Dulles point blank, “What is there to this story?”
Dulles went in circles: “This is a terribly hard thing to disprove, you know. How do you disprove a fellow was not your agent?”
“You could disprove it, couldn’t you?” Congressman Boggs asked.
Dulles replied, simply, “No.”
“So I will ask you,” Boggs continued, “did you haveagents about whom you had no record whatsoever?”
“The record might not be on paper,” Dulles said. “But on paper would have been hieroglyphics that only two people knew what they meant, and anybody outside the agency would not know and you could say this meant the agent, and somebody else could say it meant another agent.”
The discussion then turned to U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers. Dulles explained that Powers was a different kind of agent. He had signed a contract with the CIA.
Alluding to the Oswald-CIA relationship, Boggs asked Dulles, “Let’s say Powers did not have a signed contract but was recruited by someone in CIA. The man who recruited him would know, wouldn’t he?”
“Yes,” Dulles replied, “but he wouldn’t tell.”
“Would he tell it under oath?” Chief Justice Warren wondered.
“I wouldn’t think he would tell it under oath, no,” Dulles replied matter of factly.
“Why?” asked Warren.
“He ought not to tell it under oath,” Dulles said, offering Warren a lesson which years of legal training made him incapable of learning: the cryptocracy operates completely outside of the law and, because of the power of the “national security” rationale, it operates completely above the law.
Dulles admitted later, while responding to a question from McCloy, that a CIA operative might not tell the truth even to
his own superior. “What you do,” Boggs indignantly said, “is you make our problem, if this be true, utterly impossible because you say
this rumor [that Oswald was a CIA agent] can’t be dissipated under any circumstances.”
“I don’t think it can,” Dulles admitted, “unless you believe Mr. Hoover, and so forth and so on, which probably
most of the people will.”
Hoover, of course, had written a carefully worded response to a Commission inquiry about Oswald’s FBI connections. He denied all association between Oswald and the FBI. Also ignored by the Warren Commission was information about the cryptocracy’s attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro. Dulles presumably knew about the plots which took place during his tenure with the Agency, but he remained mute. Richard Helms was the only CIA official on active duty to have direct contact with the Warren Commission, and although he provided them with information on a number of things, he volunteered nothing about the unsuccessful plots against Castro—plots which would have been within the commission’s “need to know” since they showed that the cryptocracy had practical experience in assassination planning.
Testifying before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Helms revealed how the cryptocracy evaded and withheld information from the Warren Commission. His testimony illustrated the cryptocracy’s contempt for the helpless commission, the American people, and above all the truth.

During the Church Committee’s investigation of the CIA’s involvement in assassinations, Senator Church asked Helms: “Since you had knowledge of the CIA involvement in these assassination plots against Castro, and knew it at the time . . . I would have thought . . . that ought to have been related to the Commission, because it does bear on the motives, whatever else.”
Helms: “ . . . Mr. Allen Dulles was a member of the Warren Commission. And the first assassination plot happened during his time as director. What he said to the Warren Commission about this . . . I don’t know. But at least he was sitting right there in [the commission’s] deliberations and knew about this, and I am sure that the same thought that occurred to you must have occurred to him.”
Senator Morgan: “You were charged with furnishing the Warren Commission information from the CIA, information
that you thought was relevant?”
Helms: “No sir, I was instructed to reply to inquiries from the Warren Commission for information from the Agency. I was not asked to initiate any particular thing.”
Morgan: “. . . In other words if you weren’t asked for it, you didn’t give it?”
Helms: “That’s right sir.”
Nevertheless, despite the denials of Dulles and Hoover, the rumor persisted that Oswald had defected to Russia on a clandestine mission for the CIA. Some believed he had been uncovered by the KGB and subsequently programmed like the Manchurian Candidate to return to the U.S. and act as an unconscious “sleeper agent,” a programmed assassin. Following up on this rumor, J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel to the Warren Commission, wrote a letter to CIA Director Helms requesting all information the CIA had on Russian “brainwashing” capabilities. In response, Helms claimed that there were “two major methods of altering or controlling behavior,” and the Soviets were interested in both. He said the first was psychological and the second was pharmacological. “The two may be used as individual methods or for mutual reinforcement,” Helms wrote. “For long-term control of large numbers of people the former method is more promising than the latter.

“In dealing with individuals, the U.S. experience suggests the pharmacological approach (assisted by psychological techniques) would be the only effective method.”
Helms told the Warren Commission that while Soviet drug research was extensive, it had consistently lagged about five years behind Western research. That was an interesting admission, for in the MKULTRA files which were declassified over a decade later the CIA was using the Soviet success in mind control to motivate our own scientific program. Helms’s memorandum told the commission that the Soviets had adopted a multidisciplinary approach to mind control, integrating biological, social, and what he called “physicalmathematical research” in attempts to control human behavior in a “manner consonant with national plans.”
But while attempting to tell the Warren Commission what the Soviets were up to, Helms was, at the same time, revealing the cryptocracy’s own intentions. His conclusions stated that “there is no evidence that the Soviets have any techniques or agents capable of producing particular behavioral patterns which are not available in the West.” Appended to the memorandum (Commission Document 1113, reproduced here as Appendix A) were several hundred pages of reports on Soviet mind-control techniques and an extensive bibliography on brainwashing, which for some reason remained classified even after the main body of the memorandum was declassified.

The question of whether Oswald had been hypnoprogrammed was raised in another context when New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison began his independent investigations of the Kennedy assassination. Garrison told an anxious press he was going to crack the Kennedy case wide open: “The plain fact is that our federal
intelligence agencies are implacably determined to do whatever is necessary to block any further inquiry into the facts of the assassination. “The arrogant totalitarian efforts of these federal agencies to obstruct the discovery of the truth is a matter which I intend to bring to light when we have finished doing the job they
should have done.” One of the central targets of Garrison’s investigation was David William Ferrie, who was both a hypnotist and a CIA operative. Coincidentally, Ferrie had been in a New Orleans Civil Air Patrol group in the fifties with Lee Harvey Oswald. One witness said that Ferrie had been the man who had instructed Oswald in markmanship. When New Orleans police raided Ferrie’s apartment, they confiscated a number of weapons, various drugs, and three blank U.S. passports—things that any good CIA operative would keep at his elbow. Much later researchers realized the importance of some of the evidence obtained in the raid—several voluminous abstracts on posthypnotic suggestion and a library on hypnotism.

A salesman for the Equitable Life Insurance Company, Perry Raymond Russo, told a New Orleans grand jury that Ferrie’s apartment had been the scene of many “parties” where hypnosis had been used as “entertainment.” One evening, Russo said, Ferrie hypnotized a young man to whom he apparently had a strong homosexual attraction. Another evening, Russo said, he himself hypnotized a young woman and made her immobile. He struck pins in her hand and burned her arms just to demonstrate the extent of the control he had over her. At Russo’s request, his story was tested by Garrison’s investigators. Under both sodium pentothal and hypnosis, Russo told the identical story he had told to the grand jury. He testified that he had been with Ferrie, a man named Leon Oswald, and a third man named Clem Bertrand in Ferrie’s apartment during the summer of 1963. The three had discussed an assassination attempt in which diversionary tactics were to be used. Russo quoted Ferrie as saying that “there would have to be a minimum of three people involved. Two of the persons would shoot diversionary shots and the third . . . shoot the
‘good’ shot.” Ferrie said that one of the three would have to be the “scapegoat.” He also said that Ferrie discoursed on the “availability of exit,” saying that the sacrificed man would give the other two time to escape.
On February 23, 1967, a few days before Luis Castillo was arrested by the NBI in the Philippines, Garrison subpoenaed David Ferrie. That evening George Lardner of the Washington Post went to Ferrie’s apartment for an interview. Ferrie, in remarkably good spirits, told Lardner, “A President is no better than anyone else . . . If I were killed, I’d expect my death to be investigated just as thoroughly.”

Lardner left Ferrie at 4:00 A.M. Seven hours and forty minutes later Ferrie was found in bed with a sheet pulled over his head. He had been dead for several hours.
On the dining room table was a note which read in part: “To leave this life is for me a sweet prospect. I find nothing in it that is desirable and on the other hand, everything that is loathsome.” Fifteen empty medicine bottles littered the apartment. The medicine bottles had contained a prescription drug for a vascular disorder.
Garrison immediately jumped to the conclusion that Ferrie had committed suicide because of the subpoena. The autopsy, however, revealed that Ferrie had not died from an overdose of drugs, but from a ruptured blood vessel at the base of his brain. Dr. Ronald A. Walsh, Louisiana State University School of Medicine pathologist, stated in his autopsy report that David Ferrie died of a “berry aneurysm.” Several forensic pathologists later concluded that such an aneurysm could have been caused by a karate expert inflicting a blow to the back of the head in such a manner that no external damage would be discernible. A number of Ferrie’s friends began to fear for their lives. One, Jack Martin, came out of hiding long enough to suggest that Oswald had been programmed by Ferrie to go to Dallas and kill the President. Immediately following the assassination, Martin had reported to Assistant District Attorney Herman S. Kohlman that Ferrie and Oswald had been friends, and that Ferrie had instructed Oswald in the use of a telescope sight on a rifle. But in 1963 no one followed up on Martin’s story.

Another of Ferrie’s friends was a Reverend Raymond Broshears, who had roomed with Ferrie three years before Ferrie’s death. Broshears stated in a television interview: “David admitted being involved with the assassins. There’s no question about that.”The Warren Commission must have had some suspicions about Ferrie, for in Volume 24, Exhibit 2038, of the Warren Commission Report, NBC cameraman Gene Barnes is quoted as saying, “Bob Mulholland, NBC News, Chicago, talked in Dallas to one Fairy [sic]. . . . Fairy said that Oswald had been under hypnosis from a man doing a mind-reading act at Ruby’s ‘Carousel.’ Fairy was said to be a private detective and the owner of an airplane who took young boys on flights ‘just for kicks’ . . .”*

Bob Mulholland later came forward to say that he had been misquoted by the Warren Report. What he had actually overheard were FBI agents saying that Ferrie might have been involved in the assassination with Oswald; he had merely relayed that information to his reporters in Dallas. In any event, there was enough substance to the David Ferrie angle to cause both the FBI and the Secret Service to have interviewed him immediately following the assassination. Yet there were no reports, official or otherwise, as to the outcome of that interview. Those not disposed to believe in conspiracies against the American people by its own government might well ask, “If
there is a conspiracy by a cryptocracy, why wouldn’t we, by now, have proof of it? Why wouldn’t there have been at least one deathbed confession by one of the conspirators?” Two such confessions to the JFK assassination conspiracy may well have been made—and overlooked.

Chapter Fourteen

Only an understanding of the techniques and applications of mind control could begin to bring meaning to the fragmented ramblings of Jack Ruby. On June 7, 1964, Jack Ruby was questioned in jail in Dallas, Texas, by Earl Warren and Gerald Ford. In that session Ruby continually pleaded for a lie-detector test or for sodium pentothal. He desperately wanted to prove his honesty so that Warren and the commission would know he was telling the truth.
Said Ruby: “I would like to be able to get a lie-detector test or truth serum of what motivated me to do what I did at that particular time, and it seems as you get further into something, even though you know what you did, it operates against you somehow, brainwashes you, that you are weak in what you want to tell the truth about, and what you want to say which is the truth.”
“As I started to trial,” Ruby continued, “I don’t know if you realize my reasoning, how I happened to be involved—I was carried away tremendously emotionally, and all the time I tried to ask Mr. Belli [Melvin Belli, Ruby’s first lawyer], I wanted to get up and say the truth regarding the steps that led me to do what I have got involved in, but since I have a spotty background in the nightclub business, I should have been the last person to ever want to do some thing that I had been involved in. In other words, I was carried away tremendously. You want to ask me questions?”
Warren asked Ruby to just “tell us what you want, and then we will ask you some questions.”

“Am I boring you?” Ruby replied.
He pleaded with Warren to be taken to Washington where he could be questioned in safety. Possibly either his control agent was in the room, or Ruby felt that he was, for again and again he hinted to Warren that he had something quite important to say but could not say it at that moment in Dallas.
“Gentlemen, unless you get me to Washington, you can’t get a fair shake out of me. If you understand my way of talking, you have to bring me to Washington to get the tests. Do I sound dramatic? Off the beam?”
“No, you are speaking very, very rationally,” Warren replied, “and I am really surprised that you can remember as much as you have remembered up to the present time. You have given it to us in great detail.”
Again Ruby pleaded with Warren: “Unless you can get me to Washington, and I am not a crackpot, I have all my senses—I don’t want to evade any crime I am guilty of.” Then Ruby asked that the sheriff and the law enforcement officers leave the room, and after they were gone he said, “Gentlemen, if you want to hear any further testimony, you will have to get me to Washington soon, because it has something to do with you, Chief Warren. Do I sound sober enough to tell you this?”
“Yes, go right ahead,” Warren said.
“I would like to talk to you in private,” Ruby told him. Warren seemed to miss the import of Ruby’s statement. “You may do that when you finish your story. You may tell
me that phase of it.”
“I bet you haven’t had a witness like me in your whole investigation, is that correct?” Ruby asked.
“There are many witnesses whose memory has not been as good as yours. I tell you that honestly,” Warren replied.
“My reluctance to talk,” Ruby went on, “you haven’t had any witnesses in telling the story, in finding so many problems.”
“You have a greater problem than any witness we have had,” Warren retorted.
“I have a lot of reasons for having those problems,” Ruby explained. Then after another exchange about going immediately to Washington, Ruby said, “Gentlemen, my life is in danger here. Not with my guilty plea of execution. Do I sound sober enough to you as I say this?”

Warren assured him that he did sound sober. “From the moment I started my testimony, haven’t I sounded as though, with the exception of becoming emotional, haven’t I sounded as though I made sense, what I was speaking about?” Ruby asked.
“You have indeed,” Warren again assured him. “I understand everything you have said. If I haven’t, it is my fault.”
“Then I follow this up,” Ruby blurted out. “I may not live tomorrow to give any further testimony. The reason why I add this to this, since you assure me that I have been speaking sense, then I might be speaking sense by following what I have said, and the only thing I want to get out to the public, and I can’t say it here, is, with authenticity, with sincerity of the truth, of everything, and why my act was committed, but it can’t be said here.
“It can be said, it’s got to be said amongst people of the highest authority that would give me the benefit of the doubt. And following that, immediately give me the lie-detector test after I do make the statement.
“Chairman Warren, if you felt that your life was in danger at the moment, how would you feel? Wouldn’t you be reluctant to go on speaking, even though you request me to do so?” Warren again reassured Ruby that he was making perfect sense.
“I wish that our beloved President, Lyndon Johnson, would have delved deeper into the situation, hear me, not to accept just circumstantial facts about my guilt or innocence, and would have questioned to find out the truth about me before he relinquished certain powers to these certain people . . . Consequently, a whole new form of government is going to take over our country [emphasis added], and I know I won’t live to see you another time. Do I sound sort of screwy in telling you these things?”

“No,” Warren said, “I think that is what you believe or you wouldn’t tell it under oath.”
“But it is a very serious situation,” Ruby said, “I guess it is too late to stop it, isn’t it? Now maybe something can be saved. It may not be too late, whatever happens, if out President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me . . . But if I am eliminated, there won’t be any way of knowing.
“Right now, when I leave your presence now, I am the only one that can bring out the truth to our President, who believes in righteousness and justice. But he has been told, I am certain, that I was part of a plot to assassinate the President. I know your hands are tied; you are helpless.”
Earl Warren said, “Mr. Ruby, I think I can say this to you, that if he has been told any such thing, there is no indication of
any kind that he believes it.”

When it became apparent that Warren did not realize Ruby had intended to confess to being a part of the plot to kill President Kennedy, Ruby exploded. “I am sorry, Chief Justice Warren, I thought I would be very effective in telling you what I have said here. But in all fairness to everyone, maybe all I want to do is beg that if they found out I was telling the truth, maybe they can succeed in what their motives are, but maybe my people won’t be tortured and mutilated . . .”
Warren could find no meaning in Ruby’s testimony. He merely assured him that neither he nor his family would be tortured or mutilated by anyone.
“You may be sure of that,” the Chief Justice added.
“No,” Ruby answered. “The only way you can do it is if he knows the truth, that I am telling the truth, and why I was down in that basement Sunday morning, and maybe some sense of decency will come out and they can still fulfill their plan, as I stated before, without my people going through torture and mutilation.”
Warren assured Ruby that the President would know everything he had said.
“But I won’t be around, Chief Justice,” Ruby said. “I won’t be around to tell the President.” Then one of the aides asked the first intelligent question of the day, “Who do you think is going to eliminate you,
Ruby replied, “I have been used for a purpose, and there will be a certain tragic occurrence happening if you don’t take my testimony and somehow vindicate me so my people don’t suffer because of what I have done . . .”
Jack Ruby was subsequently given a polygraph test which proved to be inconclusive due to high levels of stress.
In 1965 syndicated columnist Dorothy Kilgallen interviewed Ruby in his Dallas cell. She was the only major journalist allowed to interview him. She told a few friends that
from what Ruby had told her, she was able to obtain evidence that would “blow the JFK case sky high.” Within a few days, Dorothy Kilgallen died of a massive overdose of barbiturates combined with alcohol. Her apartment was found in shambles. The transcripts of her interview with Ruby were missing. Her death was ruled a suicide.
In early 1967 Ruby complained that he was being poisoned. He was diagnosed as having cancer, but a few weeks after complaining of being poisoned, he died not of the cancer, but of a “stroke” similar to the one that had killed David Ferrie.

Another deathbed confession supports what Jack Ruby was trying to tell the Warren Commission. That confession was made by Professor George de Mohrenschildt, a former intelligence agent who was also a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald. De Mohrenschildt was born in 1911 in the Ukraine. Following the revolution, in 1921 he and his parents fled Russia for Poland. He attended a Polish military academy for a year, and later, in 1938, received a doctorate in international commerce. He emigrated to the United States soon thereafter and, in 1949, became a citizen. After becoming interested in the exploration and generation of oil, de Mohrenschildt received his master’s degree in petroleum geology and petroleum engineering. Sometime thereafter he became acquainted with right-wing oil magnate H. L. Hunt. Although the basis of their relationship is unknown, de Mohrenschildt, in a recent interview with Dutch journalist Willem Oltmans, stated, “I knew Hunt, now the late Mr. Hunt, intimately. For some twenty years I was invited to his parties.”

FBI disclosures in 1976 suggested that Lee Harvey Oswald was also acquainted with Hunt. And de Mohrenschildt knew Oswald. Apparently he had introduced himself to
Oswald after hearing about him through a Russian-speaking group in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Marina Oswald told the Warren Commission: “Lee did not have any close friends, but at least he had—here in America—he had a great deal of respect for de Mohrenschildt . . . he considered him to be smart, to be full of joy of living, a
very energetic and very sympathetic person . . .” It was the conclusion of the Warren Commission, after no signs of subversive or disloyal conduct. The Warren Report
stated: “Neither the FBI, CIA, nor any witness contacted by the Commission has provided any information linking de Mohrenschildt to subversive or extremist organizations. Nor has there been any evidence linking them in any way with the assassination of President Kennedy.”

It was subsequently revealed, however, that de Mohrenschildt had indeed been associated with various intelligence operations over the years. He was connected with French intelligence during World War II and was also linked to the CIA Bay of Pigs operation. In late March, 1977, de Mohrenschildt’s name was brought before the newly formed House Select Committee on Assassinations. Willem Oltmans told the committee that de Mohrenschildt held the key to the Kennedy assassination; that
de Mohrenschildt had privately confessed to him that prior to the assassination he was aware of a conspiracy to murder the President in Dallas. According to Oltmans de Mohrenschildt was about to have a book published which would reveal the details of his knowledge of the assassination. After Oltmans’ testimony, a spokesman for the House Committee on Assassinations said that the committee would investigate his claims and would, if warranted, track down de Mohrenschildt for questioning. He was located a week later in Palm Beach, Florida, but he could not be called to testify. George de Mohrenschildt was found dead, the victim of a gunshot wound in the head. Local officials termed his death a suicide.

Following de Mohrenschildt’s death, his Dallas attorney, Pat Russell, supported Oltmans’ claims to the Commission. He verified the fact that before his death, de Mohrenschildt had insisted that persons other than Lee Harvey Oswald had participated in the slaying of President Kennedy. The attorney revealed that he had in his possession tapes, a book-length manuscript, and a photograph which de Mohrenschildt had turned over to him earlier. He said the tapes consisted of ten reels of interviews with de Mohrenschildt about the Kennedy assassination, which, he claimed, were firsthand accounts of the late professor’s recollections of Oswald. Russell said that although he did not know if the tapes or the book contained any new evidence, the photograph should extensive investigation, that de Mohrenschildt had exhibited be of particular interest to assassination investigators. He claimed that although the photo was similar to a well-known picture obtained by the Dallas police which showed Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle and wearing a pistol, what made the photograph interesting was that it was autographed on the back by Oswald and dated May 4, 1963, approximately six months prior to the assassination. After de Mohrenschildt’s death Willem Oltmans released a portion of his interview with the deceased. Oltmans described him as “Oswald’s most intimate friend,” and, without offering an explanation, said that he had been ultimate with Oswald during “the years when Oswald’s brain was being programmed toward the murder of the century.”

In the interview dated February 23, 1977, de Mohrenschildt told Oltmans “In June, 1976, I completed a manuscript. That’s when disaster struck. You see, in that book I played the devil’s advocate. Without directly implicating myself as an accomplice in the JFK assassination I still mentioned a number of names, particularly of FBI and CIA officials who apparently may not be exposed under any circumstances. I was drugged surreptitiously. As a result I was committed to a mental hospital. I was there eight weeks and was given electric shocks and as a consequence I sometimes forget certain details temporarily . . .”
De Mohrenschildt went on to say that as a result of the drugs and shocks, he could take no more. “I tried to commit suicide five times . . . One of these days I will put a revolver to my head . . .”

According to Oltmans, de Mohrenschildt left Dallas in the middle of the night on March 3, 1977, telling him, “I don’t want anybody to see me.” Oltmans reported that at that time de Mohrenschildt was in a state of panic, constantly worried whether “they” would let him leave the country. “He always felt watched and followed,” Oltmans said. “I really cannot see how somebody who does not have anything to hide would develop such behavior.”1

On the day he died, George de Mohrenschildt was being interviewed by author Edward Jay Epstein for his book The Legend of Lee Harvey Oswald. They broke for lunch at one o’clock and Epstein walked de Mohrenschildt to his car. They were supposed to resume the interview at three P.M., and when de Mohrenschildt didn’t return, Epstein called his room and heard a distraught maid tell him that de Mohrenschildt had taken his own life.

De Mohrenschildt’s daughter, Alexandra, told Epstein that she believes her father took his own life after having had a post-hypnotic suggestion triggered by a voice
over the telephone in his room. The last days of George de Mohrenschildt sound strikingly similar to those of the victims of mind control. Could it have been that when drugs and “electric shock” failed to erase his memory, the final solution was prescribed? Or was he programmed to self-destruct?
Quote 0 0
JFK Lancer
JFK Presidency Assassination InformationServices Catalog
Dallas ConferencesVideo, Audio & PhotosAuthor-SitemapRobert Kennedy

November 16-18, 2012 — The Adolphus 1321 Commerce Street — Dallas, TX 75202
800-221-9083 — Fax: 214-651-3563

Speakers and Guests for the 2012 Conference

Special note: Many of the books shown below will be available for sale and author signing at the conference.

Fenceline cover

Sherry Fiester Fiester Cover

Fenceline cover
Quote 0 0
Quote 0 0

If someone changes this link google
jfk de eugenio fbi

see link for full story

#433, "RE: JFK: The Ruby Connection. Jim Di Eugenio PT 1."
In response to In response to 0


For what it's worth, and it may be no news to some; Thomas Davis was a student at the University of Michigan for a short while, then quit for what he thought would be a more lucrative profession. He robbed a National Bank of Detroit branch in Detroit. I seem to recollect that at about the time he was in L.A. some years later, recruiting for Alpha 66 (and an invasion of Haiti, as I recollect), the FBI said they had no record of him, or couldn't find a photo - something like that. Well, the NBD job was a federal beef so you can be sure they knew who he was and had his prints, photo, history, etc. He got probation, and apparently got into the gun running business shortly after that. Haven't heard that he was linked up with the intell community at the time of his stint at U of M. But U of M was a recruiting ground at the time. One of the men who headed CIA front Double Chek in Miami(Carlson) went to U of M and may well have been recruited there. Marina spent time there after the assassination. It's a place where they used to stash certain defectors for periods of time.

Quote 0 0

see link for full story

Killing JFK, Again

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was brutally and very publicly assassinated forty-nine years ago on November 22, 1963, though you wouldn’t know it from reading this specious book, Killing Kennedy:The End of Camelot (Henry Holt and Co.,2012) , by Bill O’Reilly. Once closely read, however, it becomes apparent that the title is apt and that Fox Television’s self-described “punk” O’Reilly’s aim is to assassinate JFK’s character today and especially to obfuscate the truth of his murder. This is the Warren Commission’s cover story repackaged for a new generation, and like its predecessor it is patently absurd.

Samuel Johnson once said, “You can abuse a tragedy, but you can’t write one.” O’Reilly has accomplished this abusive feat by writing what he calls “history that is fun to read,” a perverse way of describing the murder of a uniquely courageous president who was intent on confronting the military-industrial- intelligence complex and paid the price.

This book is so bad – in content and style – that it deserves a close reading, primarily because it is the type of salacious and deceptive propaganda eagerly devoured by so many Americans. It is at or near the top of every best-seller list, a fact that should send shivers down the spine of any literate and historically aware person. The tragedy of this book is that so many will read it and be deluded, or in the popular parlance – get punked.

First, very little of this book (approximately 20 %) is devoted to the assassination of Kennedy, and that as an afterthought. The majority is a histrionic rehashing of the years leading up to the killing. We learn many highly significant things: that JFK was an “easily likable man’s man”; that he “is naked and on-schedule” in “the indoor pool”; that this nakedness “stems from his notion of manliness”; that “real men do the breaststroke au natural, and that’s that”; that “Kennedy’s fixation on movies rivals his other favorite recreational pursuit: sex”; that during the Bay of Pigs invasion he spends the day “wallowing in grief”; that Jackie Kennedy “goes through life…feigning ignorance”; that in Kennedy’s relationship with his wife “there was little attempt at foreplay,” that “the president made love to Jackie as if it were a duty”; that “he liked a cigar and a daiquiri or two”; that he “can be just as cold-blooded” as his brother, Robert; that “the president is impotent” – or so thinks Nikita Khrushchev; that JFK is “an adrenaline junkie, relishing the rush of competing for power”; and – but I am getting ahead of myself – that when Marina Oswald “came to bed, her body warm and smelling like soap from a late-night bath, he (Lee) pretended to be asleep.”

This is the killing of Kennedy, O’Reilly’s profundity at work.

As for the style of the writing and the presumptiveness of the author, one would more readily expect the book to be at the top, not of the non-fiction best-seller list, but of the fiction list, perhaps romance fiction. In a note of reassurance to readers, O’Reilly writes, “please know that this is a fact-based book,” that it “is completely a work of non-fiction. It’s all true.”

So let’s count a few of his true facts of the imaginary sort, the kinds of things only an omniscient author could know. In Minsk, Russia, Oswald meets his future wife who “is reluctant to smile because of her bad teeth.” O’Reilly tells us that Kennedy “absentmindedly buttons his coat”; that Oswald “festers in a quiet rage.” The mind-reader writes that “when Jackie thinks of Camelot, she focuses on the final act of the play”; that JFK’s “thoughts are never far from another ‘Churchill’”; that Oswald “dreams of living in the palm tree fringed workers’ paradise of Cuba”; that “the First Lady looks visibly exhausted as she primps before the mirror”; that Oswald “today is easily distracted.” All true, of course, fact-based.

O’Reilly matches this mind-reading ability, this “fact-based” reality, with a breathless present-tense style and convoluted syntax worthy of a potboiler. Is, was, has been jostle throughout the text, but is – with its “we are there, aren’t we” presumption – predominates. One can almost hear the television narrator working with this script sometime next year as the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination approaches and the media propaganda machine goes into high gear. He writes of Jackie: “Her future is gazing at her intently with those beautiful greenish-grey eyes of his”; of Marina Oswald: “Because Lee Harvey will not be around to watch Audrey Marina Rachel Oswald grow up” (yes, that’s the “sentence” of Oswald : “Oswald can see every strand [of hair] through his scope.”

But perhaps this is O’Reilly at his best. He writes of JFK:

The president stands less than three feet away, paying no attention whatsoever to his wife. He gazes at a dark-haired beauty half his age named Lisa Gherardini. She is blessed with lips that are full and red, contrasting seductively with her smooth olive skin. Her smile is coy. The plunging neckline of her dress hints at an ample bosom. She bears the faintest of resemblances to the First Lady…. Surely John Kennedy can be allowed the minor indiscretion of appreciating this lovely twentysomething.

Turn on the laugh meter. The vixen in question is the Mona Lisa at an unveiling at the National Gallery of Art. Isn’t Killing Kennedy a lot of fun?

As for the actual assassination of JFK, this book could have been written in the late 1960s when O’Reilly was in college. Its primary source is the Warren Commission Report. It’s as though O’Reilly is stuck in time, for his awareness of the enormous body of ongoing research into the killing is either non-existent or purposely avoided. If we give him the benefit of the doubt, he’s damned either way: ignorant of the vast amount of research, including government documents released through the Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board, or complicit in avoiding new findings. Take your pick.

O’Reilly’s method is simplistically deceptive. As he told USA Today (October 2, 2012), this writing is “No pinheaded stuff, just roar through!” And roar he does. Through the first four-fifths of the book, he intersperses short snippets on Lee Harvey Oswald with background on Kennedy’s time in office. These snippets prime the reader for the obvious conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy just as the Warren Commission claimed.

So on page 15 we read that Oswald was a “crack shot in the military,” an assertion contradicted by manifold evidence, yet a key to O’Reilly’s conclusion. We never learn from these snippets how an alleged traitor to the United States, a defector who told the Soviets he would disclose state secrets, is given his passport back by the U.S. State Department that loans him money so he can return to Hoboken, New Jersey after three years in the Soviet Union. We do learn the important fact that Hoboken is Frank Sinatra’s hometown, but we don’t learn the name or the intelligence connections of the man who met him at the dock and facilitated his re-entry into the country that he had renounced.

We do learn that Oswald “fumes,” that he is “haughty, arrogant … and insolent,” that he is a liar. We do learn that after going to Fort Worth, Texas with his Russian wife Marina and their child, Oswald is befriended by a Russian named George de Mohrenschildt, a man who “may have CIA connections.” We aren’t told that he did, in fact, have such connections by his own admittance. We are told that Oswald “festers in quiet rage,” but O’Reilly doesn’t inform us that de Mohrenschildt, whose father was a czarist official, urges Oswald to move to Dallas where he helps him get at a job at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall, a graphic arts company that does classified work relating to Cuba and U-2 spy flights for the U.S. Army Map Service. Thus we don’t learn that “defector” Oswald, with a little help from a serendipitously found new friend, has defied basic government security barriers. But then again, O’Reilly fails to mention that Oswald had crypto security clearance (higher than top secret) in the Marines and that he was based at Atsugi Air Force Base in Japan, the CIA’s main operational base in the Far East for top-secret U-2 spy flights over the Soviet Union. (But since O’Reilly’s main source is the Warren Commission that suppressed the fact of Oswald’s crypto clearance, he wouldn’t, presumedly, know that.)

We do learn that by 1963 Oswald is getting angrier, and is having fights with his wife, and decides on April 10, 1963 that “it’s time to kill someone.” We learn once again that he “can shoot extremely well,” but that when he allegedly attempts to assassinate extreme right-wing Major General Ted Walker he misses completely. O’Reilly tells us that Oswald “wanted to be a hero in the eyes of the Communist Party,” but now he feels like a failure and his wife is mad at him. We keep learning that he’s getting angrier by the day, that he feels like a failed man, and that he’s quite nifty with a rifle. The combustible nature of these revelations is surely foreboding.

From another snippet we learn that the Oswald’s move to New Orleans where Oswald quickly gets a job at the Reilly Coffee Company. We are not told that the owner, William B. Reilly, worked for the CIA and was a wealthy supporter of CIA anti-Castro efforts and that the Reilly Coffee Company was located at the center of the U.S. intelligence community in New Orleans. We do learn that Oswald’s rage is increasing – from his reading. We do learn, that despite his employment, he is a “true Communist” and, of course, “an avowed atheist.” We don’t learn that he works with Guy Bannister, a former FBI agent, whose office is nearby and who works with the CIA in all sorts of anti- Castro activities.

O’Reilly informs us that Marina moves back to the Dallas area to the home of her friend, Ruth Paine, but he fails to mention why Mrs. Paine is so solicitous of the Oswalds. Nor does he mention the insignificant fact that Ruth Paine’s sister worked for the CIA; that Ruth Paine had just been visiting her sister in Virginia when she drove to New Orleans to drive Marina and her child back to her home; and that Paine’s mother was connected to Allen Dulles, the former CIA Director whom Kennedy fired after the Bay of Pigs and who would later become a key member of the Warren Commission. But we learn that “thanks to a kindly reference from Ruth Paine,” Lee lands a job at the Texas School Book Depository where he starts work on October 16, 1963, just in the nick of time. Lucky Lee has such good friends.

And on and on we learn and don’t learn from these snippets. Until we learn where all this is leading, as if we didn’t know: the angry Commie atheist Lee Harvey Oswald, because his wife is frustrated with him and won’t take him back, despite his begging, “will be left with no choice,” he will have to kill President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

This is O’Reilly’s idea of “history that is fun to read.” Perhaps it’s the serendipity of it all, the odd coincidences never mentioned, or the sexual frissson of the frustrated man turned crazed killer. But “it’s all true,” O’Reilly tells.

What he doesn’t need to tell us is that this book totally disregards decades of research that proves his facile thesis absurd. It’s as though there never was the Church Committee, the Select Committee on Assassinations of the House of Representatives (HSCA), the Kennedy Assassination Record Review Board, no Jim Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable, no Gaeton Fonzi, no Peter Dale Scott, no Jim Garrison, no Mark Lane, no Gerald Mcknight, no Sylvia Meagher, no John Newman, no Russ Baker, no Jim DiEugenio, to name but a few of those who have contributed great work. The list of deeply documented, exceptional research is long indeed. Nowhere in this book do we learn of David Atlee Philips, Antonio Veciana, Abraham Bolton, Silvia Otio, David Morales, David Ferrie, Guy Bannister, Howard Hunt, JFK’s secret correspondence via Pope John XXIII and Norman Cousins with Nikita Khruschev, et al. The superficiality of this book is astounding.

O’Reilly would call me a “pinhead,” an academic who cares about facts and sources; such a person must be jealous of his popularity and money. So be it. He is a best-selling author. But how is it possible to be jealous of someone who doesn’t know facts from fiction and who disregards the best scholarship on JFK’s brutal murder?

How are we to explain the popularity of such a terrible book? The great cultural anthropologist, Ernest Becker, in his Pulitzer Prize winning masterpiece, The Denial of Death, explained it perfectly. People who are afraid of death and the loss of their cultural illusions that support their world views are particularly attracted to the supposed “unconflicted personality,” the one who will tell them this is that – end of story, the one who shows no doubt. O’Reilly is their man. As he told USA Today (October 2, 2012), “I know that Oswald killed Kennedy.”

There is a bit of an ocular problem with his conclusion, however. In an explanation of his sources, O’Reilly writes of the famous Zapruder film, that “we watched it time after time to understand the sequence of events, and it never got less horrific – nor did the outcome ever change.” (It’s good to be reassured that the outcome never changed, which would be a neat trick.) If this is true, then O’Reilly and his co-author Martin Dugard might consider visiting an ophthalmologist. For anyone with eyes to see who watches that film knows instantly that JFK was shot from the front and that the front right side of his head was blown apart and he was jolted back. Jackie jumps on the trunk to retrieve part of his brain and skull. Our authors miss this, time after time, for they have their man Oswald, and he’s somewhere behind, running.

By the way, the etymology of the word fun is a hoax. Killing Kennedy is definitely “fun history.”

Edward Curtin is a writer and researcher who teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts in North Adams, Massachusetts.
Quote 0 0

Proof the FBI LIED in their JFK Assassination Reports

Quote 0 0
We brought former FBI  agent William Turner to speak at our conference dealing with crimes committed by FBI agents in 2002.

couple of reads
FAREWELL AMERICA was commissioned by Robert Kennedy before the FBI  assassinated him.
The book had it right about the Texas Oil Mafia( Lyndon Johnson included plus the FBI)
funding and covering up the murder.

1st read

over 700 books about the JFK assassination!

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Bibliography of Books to read on the JFK Assassination, aka 1963 Coup d'Etat

Many of them focus on the role of Lyndon Johnson and the CIA. If I had to pick a starter book to read it would be LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination (2011) by Phillip Nelson. Get the 2nd edition by Skyhorse Publishing. - Robert Morrow (512) 306-1510

793 Books relating to the JFK assassination.

2nd read


Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK: James Hepburn, William ...

--Ed Tatro, JFK assassination expert. Penmarin Books deserves high praise for allowing Farewell America to reach a new and expanded audience. --Ed Tatro

Quote 0 0
two more taxpayer funded dots to connect showing how the FBI  Director helped assassinate President Kennedy

Quote 0 0
joeb wrote: two more taxpayer funded dots to connect showing how the FBI  Director helped assassinate President Kennedy

taxpayer funded FBI agents changed the link for Madeline Brown interview
google title with word YouTube if they change it again

Interview With LBJ's Mistress June 30th 1997 JEFF Davis ... - YouTube
Video for interview with lbj mistress youtube► 10:00► 10:00


Jul 16, 2008 - Uploaded by MikeHansonArchives
Robert Gaylon Ross and Joyce Isaacs interview Madeleine Duncan Brown.
Quote 0 0
joeb wrote: We brought former FBI  agent William Turner to speak at our conference dealing with crimes committed by FBI agents in 2002.

couple of reads
FAREWELL AMERICA was commissioned by Robert Kennedy before the FBI  assassinated him.
The book had it right about the Texas Oil Mafia( Lyndon Johnson included plus the FBI)
funding and covering up the murder.

1st read

over 700 books about the JFK assassination!

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Bibliography of Books to read on the JFK Assassination, aka 1963 Coup d'Etat

Many of them focus on the role of Lyndon Johnson and the CIA. If I had to pick a starter book to read it would be LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination (2011) by Phillip Nelson. Get the 2nd edition by Skyhorse Publishing. - Robert Morrow (512) 306-1510

793 Books relating to the JFK assassination.

2nd read


Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK: James Hepburn, William ...

--Ed Tatro, JFK assassination expert. Penmarin Books deserves high praise for allowing Farewell America to reach a new and expanded audience. --Ed Tatro

Farewell America menu - JFK: Farewell America, by James Hepburn ...
John F. Kennedy assassination: Farewell America: the complete text of the conspiracy ... The following work by the pseudonymous "James Hepburn" is largely ...
Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK: James Hepburn, William ...
Originally published in 1968 in France under the title L'Amerique Brule (America Is Burning), Farewell America quickly became a best-seller in Europe in eleven ...
JFK: Farewell America, by James Hepburn ... - JFK Online
John F. Kennedy assassination: Farewell America: the complete text of the conspiracy book reportedly written by French intelligence on the assassination of ...
JFK: Farewell America, by James Hepburn ... - JFK Online
John F. Kennedy assassination: Farewell America: commentary on the conspiracy book reportedly written by French intelligence on the assassination of JFK.
Quote 0 0

Add a Website Forum to your website.

? ?
Copyright ? 2001-2004 Who?s A Rat. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.