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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
The Straussian philosophy is a cult of personality and the neocons follow the Straussian philosophy
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.
Here are a few very credible documentaries that will help you to understand what’s really going on and hopefully survive…
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.
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.
Visit this YouTube channel and watch everything on it. You will gain a clear understanding of what’s really going on.
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!
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 THE IGNORED CONFESSIONS 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, Jack?” 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.”1On 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?
Special note: Many of the books shown below will be available for sale and author signing at the conference.
Joe Backes - The Texas Trip Research Joe Backes, the JFK assassination researcher who brought you the latest news from the JFK Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), now hopes to bring you the latest JFK, MLK, and RFK news as the research continues. Many of the JFK Act document releases were published in JFK Lancer's Kennedy Assassination Chronicles magazines. Backes runs a blog "Justice For Kennedy: A Blog About The JFK Assassination And Other Political Crimes."
Russ Baker - Military Intelligence Angles Russ Baker is an award winning investigative journalist. He has written for the "New Yorker", "Vanity Fair", the "New York Times", "The Nation", "The Los Angeles Times", "The Washington Post", the "Village Voice", and "Esquire", and has served as a contributing editor to the "Columbia Journalism Review". He is the founder of WhoWhatWhy/the Real News Project; a nonpartisan, nonprofit news organization, operating at http://www.whowhatwhy.com. Baker invites you to visit his news website.
Born and raised in Liverpool, England I have been interested in the Kennedy assassination since I was approximately 15 years old, almost 25 years. In my early 20's the interest began to turn into something of an obsession and I started building a quite substantial book collection.My notes that accompanied my reading became quite extensive and I knew the obsession would not end until I knew who Lee Harvey Oswald really was. I was right. Today I am a member of John Simkin's Education Forum and have been working with other interested parties in trying to figure out which parts of the official assassination narrative are not true and why the official story was built the way it was built. I have focused my research on some of the micro-activities of Lee Oswald both pre and post assassination and at the conference I will be explaining why Lee Oswald's movements immediately after the assassination were incredibly important to authorities and how and why they ultimately ended up lying about them. I am currently working on a book and will hopefully have something ready in 2013.
Sherry Feister - Enemy of the Truth: Witness Myths In 1995 Fiester, a Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator and Court recognized expert, begin to apply her professional expertise to the Kennedy assassination. By using the same Bloodstain Pattern Analysis and Trajectory Analysis techniques she’s used in court for over 20 years, Fiester answers basic questions concerning the Kennedy assassination. The result of her research has been several NID presentations with new information concerning the fatal headshot, while including blood spatter and trajectory analysis from previous presentations. Fiester has testified as an expert in crime scene reconstruction and bloodstain pattern analysis in over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. Her publications include "Bloodstain Pattern Identification and Documentation: a Workbook for Analyst," 1990, "Blood Evidence; What Does the Blood Tell Us?" JFK Lancer Publications, 1997; and "Bloodstain Pattern Analysis and the Kennedy Assassination” The Echo, England, 2002. Her upcoming book titled, "Enemy of the Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination” will be available in November of this year. In 2003, Fiester was presented with the "Mary Ferrell - JFK Lancer New Frontier Award" in appreciation for her contributions of new evidence and furthering the study of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Website
Ed Tatro - Anecdotes Ed Tatro taught high school English for 38 years specializing in science-fiction; mystery and horror; satire and comedy; creative writing; media and propaganda; and the origin, history and poetry of rock music. He also taught college and adult education courses for thirty years specializing in the JFK assassination, subliminal messages in advertising, the influence of rock music on drug abuse, backward messages in music, and plagiarism in music. Tatro is a distinguished author of over thirty mystery and horror short stories, literary essays, and poems published in many national magazines. A long time researcher and expert in many areas of the assassination research, he has authored many research articles pertaining to the JFK assassination conspiracy; publishing in Jerry Rose's "The Third Decade", Penn Jones's "The Continuing Inquiry", and Ireland's "The JFK Assassination Forum". Tatro has been acknowledged/footnoted in many JFK assassination books including "Crossfire" by Jim Marrs; "Reasonable Doubt" by Henry Hurt; "Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover" by Anthony Summers; "Destiny Betrayed" by Jim DiEugenio; "The Assassinations" (Probe Magazine) by Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease; "The Kennedys: Dynasty and Disaster" by John H. Davis;" Killing Kennedy" by Harrison Livingstone; "JFK; The Book of the Film" by Oliver Stone and Zachary Sklar; Doug Weldon's essay in "Murder in Dealey Plaza"; and "JFK and the Unspeakable" by Jim Douglass. Tatro was also the original editor of "Texas in the Morning", the memoirs of LBJ's mistress, Madeleine Duncan Brown. He was editor of the Bugliosi chapter in "Biting the Elephant" by Doctor Rodger Remington and contributed research to Senator Sam Ervin's Watergate investigative committee, the House Select Committee on Assassinations and the National Academy of Sciences (JFK Acoustical Analysis Project).Tatro attended Clay Shaw's trial for one week in New Orleans, February, 1969, and was given access to the court exhibits by Judge Edward Haggerty and was a Minor consultant to Oliver Stone's film, "JFK". Tatro was also responsible, via the LBJ Library, of the release of the rough drafts of NSAM #273, which he shared with L. Fletcher Prouty, who then shared them with Oliver Stone for "JFK". He testified before the Assassination Records Review Board, March, 1995, in Boston, Massachusetts and was responsible, via the ARRB, for the release of the unidentified print found on a box in the alleged sniper's nest in the Texas School Book Depository. Tatro was a consultant to Nigel Turner's "The Truth Shall Set You Free," part VI of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy” series and consultant to Nigel Turner's "The Smoking Guns," part VII of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" series. He was the primary recruiter and participant in Nigel Turner's "The Guilty Men," Part IX of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" series.
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.
by Edward Curtin / December 3rd, 2012
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.”
Supported videos include: