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

see link for full story


The Evil of the National-Security State

By Jacob G. Hornberger

Future of Freedom Foundation

July 25, 2013

The two most important words in the lives of the American people for the past 60 years have been “national security.” The term has transformed American society for the worse. It has warped the morals and values of the American people. It has stultified conscience. It has altered the constitutional order. It has produced a democratically elected government that wields totalitarian powers.

We now live in a country whose government wields the legal authority to round up people, including citizens, and take them to concentration camps, detention centers, or military dungeons where the government can torture them, incarcerate them indefinitely, and even execute them as suspected terrorists.

We now live in a country whose government wields the legal authority to send its military and intelligence forces into any country anywhere in the world, kidnap people residing there, and transport them to a prison for the purpose of torture, indefinite detention, and even execution. We now live in a country whose government wields the legal authority to sneak and peek into people’s homes or businesses without warrants; to monitor their emails, telephone calls, and financial transactions; and to spy on the citizenry.

We now live in a country whose government wields the legal authority to support, with money and armaments, totalitarian regimes all over the world and to enter into partnerships with them for the purpose of torturing people whom the U.S. government has kidnapped.

We now live in a country whose government wields the legal authority to assassinate anyone it wants, including American citizens, anywhere in the world, including here in the United States. We now live in a country whose government wields the legal authority to impose sanctions and embargoes on any other nation and to severely punish the American people and foreign citizens and foreign companies who violate them.

We now live in a country whose government wields the legal authority to invade and occupy any country on earth, without a congressional declaration of war, for any purpose whatever, including regime change and the securing of resources.

And it’s all justified under the rubric “national security.”

Most people would concede that that’s not the kind of country that America is supposed to be. The nation was founded as a constitutional republic, one whose governmental powers were extremely limited. In fact, the whole idea of using the Constitution to bring the federal government into existence was to make clear that the government’s powers were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution itself. To make certain that everyone got the point, the American people secured the passage of the Bill of Rights, which further clarified the extreme restrictions on government power.

Four separate amendments in the Bill of Rights address the power of the federal government to take people, both Americans and foreigners, into custody and to inflict harm on them: the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. Due process of law, right to counsel, grand-jury indictments, trial by jury, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishments, bail, speedy trial — they are all expressly addressed, reflecting how important they were to our American ancestors and to their concept of a free society.

In the age of national security, all of those protections have been rendered moot. They have all been trumped by the concept of national security.

Ironically, the term isn’t even found in the Constitution. One searches in vain for some grant of power anywhere in that document relating to “national security.” It isn’t there. Nonetheless, the government now wields omnipotent powers — powers that the greatest totalitarian dictatorships in history have wielded — under the rubric of “national security.”

With the exception of libertarians, hardly anyone questions or challenges it, including those who profess an ardent allegiance to the Constitution. Consider, for example, the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause. For decades, both libertarians and conservatives have complained that the meaning of that clause has been so expanded as to transform it into a general grant of power enabling the federal government to regulate the most minute, localized aspects of economic activity.

Yet here’s a phrase — “national security” — that isn’t even found in the Constitution, which has been interpreted to grant omnipotent, totalitarian-like powers to the federal government, and conservatives have been rendered mute.

It would be one thing if there had been an amendment to the Constitution stating, “The federal government shall have the power to do whatever it deems necessary in the interests of national security.” At least then one could argue that such totalitarian measures were constitutional.

But that’s not the situation we have here. We have the government coming up with a concept known as “national security,” which it has then used to adopt powers that would otherwise violate the Constitution. It’s as if national security has been made the foundation of the nation. Everything else — the Constitution, society, the citizenry, freedom, prosperity — are then based on that foundation.

The goodness of national security

What is “national security”? No one really knows. There is certainly no precise definition of the term. It’s actually whatever the government says it is. National security is one of the most meaningless, nebulous, nonsensical terms in the English language, but, at the same time, the most important term in the lives of the American people.

All the government has to do is say “national security,” and all discussion and debate shuts down. If the government says that national security is at stake, that’s the end of the story. Federal judges will immediately dismiss lawsuits as soon as the government claims, “The case is a threat to national security, your honor.” Congress will immediately suspend investigations when the government claims that national security is at stake. The Justice Department will defer to the national-security establishment when it raises the issue of national security.

National security, a term not even in the Constitution, trumps everything. It trumps the judiciary. It trumps the legislative branch of government. It trumps federal criminal investigations. This nebulous term, whose meaning is whatever the government wants it be at any particular time, has been made the foundation of American society.

What is the national-security establishment? It is composed of several agencies, two of the main ones being the vast military-industrial establishment and the CIA. Those two entities have done more to transform American life than anything else, even more than the welfare state. They are the entities that enforce the sanctions and embargoes and engage in the invasions, occupations, regime-change operations, coups, assassinations, torture, indefinite incarcerations, renditions, partnerships with totalitarian regimes, and executions — all in the name of “national security.”

One of the most fascinating aspects of all this is how successful the government has been in convincing Americans of two things: that all this is necessary to keep them safe and, at the same time, that America has continued to be a free country notwithstanding the fact that the government has acquired and has exercised totalitarian powers in order to preserve national security.

When Americans see the governments of such countries as the Soviet Union or North Korea wield such powers, they can easily recognize them as being totalitarian in nature. When Americans read that the Soviet government rounded up its own people and sent them into the Gulag, they recoil against the exercise of such totalitarian powers. They have the same reaction when they hear that the North Korean government has tortured people within its prison system. It’s the same when Americans hear that the Chinese government has arrested and incarcerated people for years without charges or trial.

But when the U.S. government does such things or even just claims the authority to do them — in the name of national security — the mindset of the average American automatically shifts. It can’t be evil for the U.S. government to wield such powers because the agents who are wielding them are Americans, not communists. They have an American flag on their lapel. They have children in America’s public schools. They’re doing it to keep us safe. They’re on our side. We wouldn’t be free without them. They’re preserving our national security. In fact, another fascinating aspect to all this is the mindset of those within the national-security establishment itself. Even though they are wielding the same kinds of powers that are wielded by totalitarian regimes, the last thing in their minds is that they’re doing anything evil or immoral. In their mind, they’re fighting evil in order to preserve security and freedom. Sure, they have to do some unsavory things, but those things are necessary to preserve the nation. Americans are safe and free because of things they’re doing, and we’re supposed to be grateful that they’re doing them.

After all, as advocates of the national-security state often remind us, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. If measures have to be taken to preserve the nation — or the security of the nation — that are inconsistent with the Constitution, then so be it. What good would it do to adhere strictly to the Constitution if, by doing so, the nation were to fall to the terrorists or the communists?

Thus, when officials in totalitarian regimes round people up without charges, incarcerate them indefinitely, torture them, and execute them, what they are doing is evil. But when officials within the U.S. national security state do those same things — and more — they look upon themselves as good and the citizenry look upon them in the same way, simply because they are doing it to advance freedom and to preserve the national security of the United States.

And even then, things are not so clear, at least not when it comes to national security. For example, some foreign totalitarian regimes are considered evil while others are considered good. Consider, for example, Iran and North Korea. In the mindset of the U.S. national-security establishment, they are considered to be evil totalitarian regimes.

But then consider, say, Egypt, which has been ruled by a brutal military dictatorship for nearly 30 years, a totalitarian regime that wields the same kind of totalitarian powers that the U.S. government now wields. For decades, Egyptian military and intelligence forces have rounded people up, taken them to prison camps for indefinite detention, tortured them, and executed them, without formal charges and trial.

Nonetheless, the U.S. national-security establishment has long looked on the Egyptian military dictatorship as good, because of its close relationship with the U.S. national-security state. In fact, during the past several decades the U.S. government has sent hundreds of millions of dollars in money and armaments to Egypt to help fund its totalitarian military dictatorship, and there has been close cooperation between the national-security apparatuses of both nations. In fact, Egypt’s national-security state even agreed to serve as one of the U.S. empire’s rendition-torture partners, a relationship that enables U.S. officials to send a kidnapped victim to Egypt for the purpose of torture.

Good regime, bad regime

Sometimes, the nether world of national security becomes even more clouded, with some nations shifting back and forth from good to evil. Consider Iran and Iraq, for example. In 1953, Iran was considered a threat to U.S. national security. Thus, the CIA, one of the principal components of the U.S. national-security establishment, engaged in its first regime-change operation, one that succeeded in ousting Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, from power and installing the shah of Iran into power.

For the next 25 years, Iran was considered good, notwithstanding the fact that the shah’s regime was totalitarian in nature. In fact, the CIA even helped him and his national-security establishment to oppress the Iranian people. When Iranians finally revolted against the domestic tyranny that the U.S. national-security state had foisted upon them, Iran immediately became an evil regime in the eyes of the U.S. national-security establishment, notwithstanding the fact that the new regime wasn’t doing anything different than the shah’s regime had done. During the 1980s, Iraq had a brutal totalitarian regime headed by Saddam Hussein. Nonetheless, it was considered a good regime because it was friendly to the U.S. national-security state. In fact, during that time the relationship was so solid that the United States even sent Iraq biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction so that Saddam could use them to attack Iran (which was considered evil).

Later, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the U.S. national-security establishment reclassified Iraq as an evil regime. Today, Iraq is headed by a democratically elected regime that exercises the same totalitarian powers that Saddam exercised, but it’s considered to be a good regime because it’s perceived to be on the side of the U.S. national-security state. If it ultimately formally aligns itself with Iran, as many suspect it will, it will find itself back in the ranks of the evil.

How did it all come to this? How did the United States become transformed from a constitutional republic into a national-security state? How did the concept of national security become the guiding star of American life, without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment? How did the national-security establishment — the vast, permanent military-industrial complex and the CIA — come to be the foundation of American society?

More important, is a national-security state truly compatible with the principles of a free society? Did Americans delude themselves into thinking that they could retain a free and safe society with a government that wields totalitarian powers? Did Americans sacrifice their freedom, their security, their values, and their consciences on the altar of national security?

Perhaps most important, has the time come to dismantle the national-security state in order to restore a free, prosperous, peaceful, normal, and harmonious society to our land? Is it time to restore a limited-government, constitutional republic, the type of government that was clearly envisioned by the Founding Fathers?

Let’s examine those questions. Let’s start by focusing on Cuba.

One of the most demonstrable examples of the turn that America took toward empire, militarism, and the national-security state has involved Cuba. That small nation 90 miles from American shores encapsulates the effect that such a turn had on the values and principles of the American people.

Consider the economic embargo that the U.S. government has maintained against Cuba for more than half a century. It has brought untold economic suffering to the Cuban people, especially in combination with the complete socialist economic system under which they have suffered during that same time.

What has been the purpose of the embargo? The answer: the preservation of national security through regime change — the ouster of Fidel Castro and his communist regime and its replacement with a regime that would be subservient to the U.S. government.

What role was the embargo expected to play in that process? The aim was to cause massive economic suffering to the Cuban citizenry — privation, poverty, and even starvation. Then, as a result of that suffering, the idea was that Castro would be removed from power either by a citizens’ revolt, a military coup, or abdication by Castro himself.

Obviously, the plan has never succeeded, although undoubtedly U.S. officials, 50 years after the embargo was instituted, are still hoping that it will succeed.

The embargo is also a classic example of how the turn toward empire, militarism, and the national-security state has warped the values and principles of the American people. While there have been those who have objected to the embargo, even from its beginning, by and large the American people have deferred to the authority of their government. If U.S. officials believed that an embargo against Cuba was necessary to protect the “national security” of the United States, that was all that Americans needed to salve their conscience over the harm that their government was inflicting on the Cuban people.

Ironically, a few years after the Cuban embargo was instituted, the U.S. government, under the regime of Lyndon Johnson, declared its “war on poverty,” a domestic war whose purported rationale was a deep concern for the poor in society. But the Cuban people were among the poorest people in the world, and the same government that was supposedly concerned about poverty was doing its best to bring more suffering to the poor in Cuba.

The Cuban embargo demonstrated one of the core principles of the national-security state: that the end, which was the preservation of “national security,” justified whatever means were necessary to achieve it. If national security required the government to inflict great suffering on the Cuban people, then that’s just what would have to be done. Nothing could be permitted to stand in the way of protecting national security, whatever that term meant. What mattered was that the national-security establishment — i.e., the military and the CIA — knew what national security meant and had the ultimate responsibility for protecting it.

For their part, Americans were expected to remain silent. They were expected to defer to the authority of their government. National security was everything.

Conscience, the casualty

What about conscience? What if Americans, whose traditional values encompassed compassion for the poor and empathy for the suffering of others, objected to the embargo? What about the Christian principle of loving thy neighbor as thyself?

Americans were expected to ditch all that, and most did. Conscience was abandoned in favor of national security. No matter how much suffering the Cuban embargo inflicted on the Cuban people, it wasn’t something over which most Americans troubled themselves. Given that U.S. officials had determined that national security necessitated the imposition of the embargo, that was all that mattered.

Conscience wasn’t all that Americans ditched with the Cuban embargo. They also abandoned traditional American values of private property, free enterprise, and limited government.

After all, while the embargo was ostensibly an attack on the economic well-being of the Cuban people, it was, at the same time, an infringement on the economic liberty of the American people. Under the principles of economic liberty, people have a fundamental, God-given right to travel wherever they want and to dispose of their money any way they choose.

But the embargo made it a federal criminal offense to spend money in Cuba without a license from the U.S. government, which, for all practical purposes, operated as a prohibition against traveling to Cuba. If an American was caught violating the embargo — say, by traveling to Cuba as a tourist — the U.S. government would prosecute him criminally or sue him civilly or both.

The irony was that that was precisely the sort of economic control that Castro was wielding in Cuba as part of his embrace of socialism. In the attempt to oust Castro from power, U.S. officials were imposing the same kinds of socialist controls on the American people that Castro was imposing on the Cuban people.

Most Americans remained silent. All that mattered was national security. If U.S. officials determined that it was necessary to adopt socialist methods in order to protect national security, that was sufficient justification to surrender an important part of economic liberty. The end justified the means.

In fact, the American mindset throughout the Cold War was even worse than that. It wasn’t as though Americans viewed their government as adopting evil or immoral means to protect national security. Instead, the viewpoint was that whatever was being done by U.S. officials to protect national security wasn’t evil or immoral at all. Instead, the mindset, both in and out of the U.S. government, was that even if the U.S. government was employing the same methods being employed by the communists, such methods were good when employed by U.S. officials and bad when employed by the communists.


A good example of that mindset involved assassination. Ordinarily, in an objective sense, assassination is something bad. Assassination is murder, an act that is considered a grave sin under Judeo-Christian principles. Assassination is something that our American ancestors recoiled from as something objectively bad. When the Constitution called the federal government into existence, the power to assassinate was not among the enumerated powers delegated to it. Moreover, to eliminate any doubt on the matter, the American people, as a condition for accepting the federal government, demanded the enactment of the Fifth Amendment, which expressly prohibited the government from depriving people of life without due process of law.

All those principles went out the window when it came to Cuba and the Cold War. The national-security establishment engaged in numerous assassination attempts against Cuba’s president, Fidel Castro. The CIA repeatedly tried to murder him, in a variety of ways.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that U.S. officials justified their assassination attempts under the rationale of national security. The end — the preservation of national security — justified the means — assassination.

Meanwhile, Americans were expected to not question or challenge what the CIA or the military was doing in the name of national security. If they did, they themselves would come under close scrutiny by the national-security establishment.

Americans, for their part, understood that the national-security state was doing things that had to be kept secret from them — unsavory things but unfortunately necessary to protect national security.

It was as if a pact had been implicitly entered into between the American people and the officials of the U.S. national-security state. Under the pact, U.S. officials would have the omnipotent power to do whatever they felt was necessary to protect national security, such as assassinate foreign officials. Such things would be kept secret from the American people so that their conscience wouldn’t be troubled over the unsavory things that U.S. officials were doing to protect national security.

Americans, for their part, wouldn’t ask questions and would defer to the authority of their government. What mattered, first and foremost, was the preservation of national security, a concept whose ever-shifting meaning would be subjectively determined by officials of the national-security state.

Equally important, people both within the government and within the private sector convinced themselves that even if U.S. officials were doing unsavory things, such as assassinating people, such things were not evil because they were being done by U.S. officials to protect national security. That is, when the communists assassinated people, that was something bad. But when the CIA assassinated people, that was something good because it was being done by U.S. officials to protect the national security of the United States.

The CIA’s assassination attempts against Fidel Castro involved something even more unsavory — the secret partnership that the CIA entered into with the Mafia as part of its attempts to assassinate Castro.

Under objective standards of morality and just conduct, people would consider the Mafia to be a bad organization, given the bad things that it’s engaged in, such as murder, extortion, and bribery.

But objective standards were cast out the window when it came to the Cold War. If CIA officials determined that it was necessary, on grounds of national security, to partner with the Mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro, then it was considered okay from a moral standpoint. Moreover, while the other things the Mafia was doing were considered bad, once the Mafia united with the CIA to assassinate Castro that action was considered to be good. The end — the preservation of national security — justified the means—the CIA’s partnership with a murderous, law-breaking organization to assassinate Castro.

Let’s take a moment to remind ourselves that the aim of the CIA’s assassination attempts on the life of Fidel Castro was the same as that of the embargo: the preservation of U.S. national security through regime change in Cuba. The hope was that the assassination of Castro would bring into power a ruler who would be subservient to the U.S. government.

Other attempts

The assassination attempts on Castro’s life weren’t the only way that the CIA was trying to effect regime change in Cuba. The efforts at replacing Castro with a pro-U.S. ruler began with the CIA’s invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, an action that took place a few months after John Kennedy assumed office as president.

The Bay of Pigs invasion was a CIA project that had originated under the Eisenhower administration. From the very beginning, the operation was based on a lie, one that the national-security state intended to sell to the American people. Even though the CIA was orchestrating the invasion, the plan called for U.S. officials, including Kennedy, the military, and the CIA, to lie to the American people about the role the CIA played in the operation. U.S. officials intended to falsely tell everyone that the invasion was carried out solely by Cuban exiles who just wanted to free their country from the communist tyranny of Fidel Castro.

Even though the deception was revealed in the aftermath of the invasion, official lying became an established principle under the national-security state. The end justified the means. If U.S. officials had to lie to protect national security, so be it. In such a case, the lying would not be considered bad. Since it was the U.S. government that was doing it for the sake of national security, deception by U.S. officials was considered something necessary and good. It was only deception on the part of others, such as the communists, that was considered bad.

There were also the numerous U.S.-sponsored terrorist attacks in Cuba, in which CIA-supported operatives would bomb or sabotage Cuban businesses, farms, and industries. Again, the end justified the means. National security was all that mattered.

One of the most tragic events during the Cold War period involved the terrorist downing of a Cuban airliner over Venezuelan skies. Dozens of people were killed, including the members of Cuba’s national fencing team. While there isn’t any direct evidence that the CIA was behind the attack, there is no doubt that the people who did commit the attack had the same mindset as the CIA — that the end justified the means.

Moreover, it is somewhat interesting that the U.S. government, to the present date, has steadfastly continued to harbor a man who has been accused of orchestrating the attack, a CIA operative named Luis Posada Carriles. For years, the Venezuelan government, with whom the United States has an extradition treaty, has sought the extradition of Posada to Venezuela to stand trial for the murder of the people on that plane. The U.S. government has continually refused to honor the extradition request. It should also be noted that Posada was convicted in Panama of trying to assassinate Fidel Castro, an act that Panama considered to be a criminal offense. He was later pardoned by Panama’s outgoing president, enabling him to immigrate to the United States, where the U.S. government has provided him with safe harbor, preventing his extradition to Venezuela.

Of course, the CIA wasn’t the only branch of the national-security state that was committed to effecting regime change in Cuba. The U.S. military establishment was also committed to achieving that goal. In fact, one of the most fascinating — and revealing — aspects of the military mindset during the Cold War involved a Pentagon plan known as Operation Northwoods.

The purpose of Operation Northwoods was to provide a justification for U.S. forces to effect regime change in Cuba through a military invasion of the country. The plan, which was unanimously approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was presented to Kennedy after the failure of the CIA’s Bay of Pigs invasion and before the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The plan called for U.S. agents to disguise themselves as agents of the Cuban government and “attack” the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay. It also called for fake Cuban agents to commit terrorist attacks within the United States, possibly involving the loss of innocent American lives to make it look good. The plan also called for the hijacking of an American airliner that would fall off the radar screens and be replaced by a pilotless drone that would be crashed into the sea, making it look as though the airliner itself had crashed. The plane would then be secretly flown back to a base in the United States. Ominously, the plan didn’t explain how the passengers would be released back to their families if they were thought dead.

The point of all this deception was to provide an excuse for ordering a military invasion of Cuba. The idea was that the United States would simply be responding to a Cuban attack rather than aggressing against Cuba with an unprovoked invasion of the island.

Under the plan, the Pentagon was obviously calling on the president to deceive the American people and the people of the world, just as the CIA had called on Kennedy to lie to Americans about its role in the Bay of Pigs invasion. The Pentagon expected Kennedy to go on national television, look straight into the cameras, and falsely tell the American people that America had been attacked by Cuban terrorists, thereby necessitating a U.S. invasion of the country.

To Kennedy’s everlasting credit, he rejected Operation Northwoods. He simply considered it wrong, in an objective sense. But it wasn’t wrong to the military establishment, just as the Bay of Pigs invasion, the assassination attempts, the partnership with the Mafia, and numerous terrorist actions against Cuba weren’t considered wrong by the CIA. Keep in mind that under the principles of the national-security state, the end justified the means, and whatever the U.S. government did to protect U.S. national security was automatically considered good.

Needless to say, however, Kennedy’s sense of moral propriety with respect to Operation Northwoods did not extend to the cruel economic embargo against Cuba, which Kennedy himself instigated, but not before he ordered a large quantity of Cuban cigars to be brought into the country and delivered to him at the White House.

The cause

So what was it that Fidel Castro did to justify the U.S. government’s invasion of Cuba, the numerous assassination attempts on his life, the terrorist actions against Cuba, and the 50-year-old embargo that has contributed to the deep economic suffering of the Cuban people? That truly is a fascinating question, one that I’d say very few Americans have ever pondered.

Did Castro ever attack the United States? Did he attempt to assassinate Dwight Eisenhower or John Kennedy or any other U.S. official? Did he ever engage in terrorist attacks within the United States?

No, Castro has never done any of those things — the things that the U.S. national security-state has done to Cuba.

So the question remains: Why? Why the long-time efforts at effecting regime change in Cuba? Why the embrace of all those unsavory actions? Why the abandonment of objective moral principles? Why the infringements on economic liberty? Why the abandonment of conscience?

The answer lies in what was the driving force of the entire national-security state after World War II and even before: the fear — the horrible, irrepressible fear — of communism.

In 2009 a retired U.S. State Department official, Walter Kendall Myers, 73, who is a grandson of Alexander Graham Bell, and his wife, Gwendolyn, 72, pled guilty to spying for Cuba for 30 years. Their crime entailed the transmission of U.S. “national defense” secrets to Cuba. As part of a plea bargain, he received a life sentence and she received a prison sentence of 81 months.

At their sentencing, the presiding judge, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, berated the Myerses for what they had done. Walton said to them, “If someone despises the American government to the extent that appears to be the case, you can pack your bags and leave and it doesn’t seem to me you continue to bear the benefits this country manages to provide and seek to undermine it.”

What had motivated the Myerses to spy for Cuba? It wasn’t money because they didn’t get paid for what they did. They told the judge that long ago, they embraced the philosophy of communism and socialism and the principles of the Cuban revolution. They said,

    We did not act out of anger toward the United States or from any thought of anti-Americanism. We did not intend to hurt any individual American. Our only objective was to help the Cuban people defend their revolution. We only hoped to forestall conflict.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered a comprehensive damage assessment to determine how U.S. national security may have been harmed by the Myerses’ action.

There are several fascinating aspects to this case, all of which shed light on U.S. foreign policy under the national-security state for the past 70 years. For one thing, the judge never seemed to question or challenge the U.S. government’s conduct towards Cuba since the 1959 Cuban revolution. It’s as if that thought just never even entered his mind. He seemed to have just automatically concluded that since the Myerses had delivered classified “national defense” secrets to Cuba, that was the end of the matter. For the judge, that meant that the Myerses obviously hated the U.S. government and that they should have just moved to Cuba instead of undermining America.

Actually, however, the matter is more much complex than that, and if Walton had done his job properly as a judge, he would have taken into account U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba in determining whether to accept the length of the Myerses prison sentences under the plea bargain.

What was the specific information that the Myerses delivered to Cuba? Unfortunately, under principles of “national security,” the U.S. government won’t disclose that information to the American people, which seems odd, given that Cuban officials already have the information. But whatever the information was, it couldn’t have had anything to do with “national defense” simply because Cuba has never taken any aggressive actions against the United States. Instead, the information that the Myerses transmitted to Cuba had to be in the nature of “national offense” or “national aggression” because for the past 50 years it has always been the U.S. government that has attacked Cuba, not the other way around.

What has been the nature of the U.S. government’s program of aggression against Cuba for the past half century? Assassination, terrorism, sabotage, military invasion, and, of course, the continued maintenance of a brutal embargo, which, in combination with Cuba’s socialist economic system, has squeezed the lifeblood out of the Cuban people for more than 50 years.

Even the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, which brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war, was brought about not by an act of aggression by Cuba and the Soviet Union, as Americans are taught from the first grade on up. Instead, the truth is that it was the U.S. national-security state, and specifically its determination to invade Cuba, that precipitated the crisis. Here’s what really happened.

After the Bay of Pigs disaster, the Pentagon and the CIA became more determined than ever to get rid of Fidel Castro and replace him with a pro-U.S. stooge. The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously presented a plan to invade Cuba to John Kennedy. The plan was called Operation Northwoods. It is one of the most shocking proposals in the history of the U.S. national-security state.

Operation Northwoods

Operation Northwoods called for U.S. officials to initiate terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, on refugee boats leaving Cuba, and on the U.S. military facility at Guantánamo Bay. The plan also called for plane hijackings. Under the plan, the terrorists would seem to be Cuban agents. In actuality, however, they would be U.S. personnel falsely portraying themselves as Cuban agents.

Under Operation Northwoods, real people were to be killed, including Americans. The president, who, of course, would be in on the scheme, would go on national television, look into the camera, and inform the American people that Cuba had attacked the United States. In other words, he would lie to Americans and to the world. He would then announce that as a matter of national security, he was ordering a military invasion of Cuba.

One of the most fascinating aspects of Operation Northwoods was the belief among the Joint Chiefs of Staff that such a wide-ranging conspiracy, which obviously would involve many personnel in both the military and CIA, could and would be kept secret from the American people and the people of the world — and for a very long time. As it was, no one who was privy to the plan, including the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, ever talked. The U.S. government succeeded in keeping the proposal itself secret for more than 30 years, until the JFK Records Act of 1992, which was enacted in the wake of Oliver Stone’s movie JFK, caused the plan to be disclosed to the public.

Another fascinating aspect of Operation Northwoods was the willingness of the Pentagon to sacrifice the lives of innocent people, including American citizens, as part of fake terrorist attacks to justify an invasion of Cuba. The idea, which has always been a guiding principle for the national-security state, especially within both the military and the CIA, was that the end justified the means.

To his credit, Kennedy rejected Operation Northwoods. But that didn’t dissuade the Pentagon and the CIA from continuing to support an invasion of Cuba. As it turned out, the chatter about invading Cuba reached both Cuba and the Soviet Union.

While Castro’s forces could defeat a small force of Cuban exiles, as it did at the Bay of Pigs, resisting a full-fledged military invasion of Cuba was another thing altogether. Castro knew that he didn’t stand a chance. If the U.S. military invaded the island, his forces would be easily defeated and he would be ousted or, more likely, killed in the operation.

The missile crisis

That’s what motivated Castro to approach the Soviet Union about installing nuclear missiles in Cuba, not as a way to initiate a nuclear war on the United States but instead as a way to deter a U.S. invasion of Cuba, an invasion that the military and the CIA were discussing, planning, and proposing from the time of the Bay of Pigs disaster in 1961 to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

In the end, Castro’s strategy succeeded. While it appeared that Kennedy had caused the Soviets to back down and withdraw their nuclear missiles from Cuba, the price for doing that was twofold: one, Kennedy promised that the United States would not invade Cuba, a promise that earned him the deep enmity of the Pentagon, the CIA, and Cuban exiles; and, two, Kennedy promised to remove nuclear missiles aimed at the Soviet Union that were installed in Turkey, which bordered the Soviet Union.

Throughout the Cuban Missile Crisis, the military and the CIA were exhorting Kennedy to bomb and invade Cuba. In their minds, the missile crisis was proof positive that the president should have accepted their proposals for invading Cuba in the months preceding the crisis. Moreover, the military and the CIA viewed the missile crisis as an opportunity — the perfect excuse to effect regime change in Cuba through force. The CIA even sent sabotage teams into Cuba in preparation for the invasion without the knowledge or approval of the president. The military, for its part, raised the nuclear-alert level to the second-highest possible level and let the Soviets know about it, again without the consent of the president.

Fortunately, Kennedy and the Soviet premier, Nikita Khrushchev, were able to extricate themselves from the crisis. As Soviet records later documented, nuclear missiles had already been installed and made operational, with authority given to commanders in Cuba to fire them in the event of a U.S. invasion of the island. If Kennedy had done what the Pentagon and the CIA wanted him to do — bomb and invade Cuba — there is no doubt that full nuclear war would have been the result.

That’s how close the U.S. national-security state brought America and the Soviet Union to a nuclear holocaust.

In any event, the classified information that the Myerses were delivering to Cuba during the past 30 years couldn’t have had anything to do with “defense,” as Secretary of State Clinton intimated. It had to do with the acts of aggression that the U.S. government was committing against a sovereign and independent regime that has never engaged in any acts of aggression against the United States.

That’s what Americans so easily forget — that in the 50 years of “conflict” between Cuba and the United States, it has always been the U.S. government that has been the aggressor, and it has always been Cuba that has had to defend itself from the U.S. government’s aggression.

Let’s keep in mind some important facts here: Cuba has never attacked the United States. Cuba has never invaded the United States. It has never engaged in terrorist attacks or acts of sabotage either in the United States or against U.S. installations overseas, not even at the U.S. military installation at Guantánamo Bay. It has never attempted to assassinate U.S. officials or anyone else on American soil, either in partnership with the Mafia or anyone else. It has never implemented an economic embargo against the United States. It has never tried to effect regime change in the United States.

Instead, it has been the U.S. government that has done all those things to Cuba. It has invaded the island. It has engaged in terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage in Cuba. It has repeatedly tried to assassinate Fidel Castro and other Cuban officials, even going so far as to enter into an assassination partnership with the Mafia to do so. It has maintained a brutal economic embargo against Cuba for more than half a century. And it has consistently maintained a policy of regime change on the island, with the intent of ousting Castro from power and replacing him with a pro-U.S. dictator.

It should be noted as well that Congress has never declared war on Cuba, which is the constitutionally required prerequisite to the president’s waging of war against other nations.

That’s what Judge Walton failed to take into account at the Myerses’ sentencing hearing — that the classified information that the Myerses delivered to Cuba during the past 30 years couldn’t have had anything to do with “national defense” because the United States never has had to defend itself from any acts of aggression from Cuba. The information that the Myerses transmitted to Cuba had to have pertained, instead, to the U.S. government’s acts of aggression toward Cuba, that is, to plans relating to assassination, invasion, terrorism, sabotage, or embargo.

How Americans should think

That’s why the Myerses said that they hadn’t acted out of anger towards the United States or from any thought of anti-Americanism. In their minds, they were simply giving information to Cuba to enable it to defend itself from U.S. aggression. In their minds, the U.S. government should simply have left Cuba alone.

But, you see, for Judge Walton and for officials in the U.S. national-security state, American citizens are never supposed to think like that. Under the principles of the national-security state, Americans are not supposed to make judgments on right and wrong when it comes to the actions of their government. They’re supposed to defer to the authority of their national-security state officials and to support them unconditionally, without question or challenge.

After all, the job of the national-security state is to keep Americans safe. U.S. officials are the guardians of national security. They are the ultimate judges both of what “national security” means and of what must be done to protect it. If they say that it’s necessary to invade a sovereign and independent country, to assassinate its officials, to

enter into an assassination partnership with organized crime, to engage in terrorism and sabotage within the country, and to squeeze the lifeblood out of foreign citizens with an embargo, then that’s just the way it is.

All Americans are expected to get on board. And whoever questions or challenges what the government is doing to protect their “national security” is considered suspect or, even worse, a bad person, or, worst of all, an enemy of the state or a “terrorist sympathizer” — a person who obviously hates his government and his country, especially given that under the principles of the national-security state, government and country are conflated into one entity.

The mistake the Myerses made was in delivering the information to Cuba, which placed them in violation of U.S. laws against spying and treason. If they had instead delivered the information to the New York Times, it would have made for an entirely different situation, similar to that of Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon official who released the Pentagon Papers to the Times during the Vietnam War, or to that of Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier who is accused of having delivered classified information disclosing embarrassing matters relating to U.S. foreign policy to WikiLeaks.

Yes, the government would have nonetheless indicted and prosecuted the Myerses as it did Ellsberg and is doing to Manning. Moreover, Judge Walton would undoubtedly have still berated them if they had been convicted. But at least the information would have reached the American people, which might have caused more Americans to exercise some independence of thought and personal conscience, which in turn might have brought a change in U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba.

More examples

Another example of this phenomenon is the case of the Cuban Five. That case involves five agents of the Cuban government who were arrested by federal officials in the United States, prosecuted for spying, convicted, and sentenced to long prison terms by a federal court in Florida. Their crime? They came to the United States with the aim of ferreting out terrorist plots against Cuba.

For that, those five Cuban agents were considered bad people by U.S. officials — criminals! Imagine the audacity of those five men in trying to protect their country from terrorism. Don’t they know by now that Cuba is not supposed to defend itself against such things?

Consider Cubana Flight 455, which took off from Venezuela on October 6, 1976, and was returning to Cuba. It was downed by a terrorist bomb that had been planted on the plane. All 78 people on board were killed, including all 24 members of the 1975 Cuban fencing team, which had just won gold medals in Latin American competitions.

The prime suspect in the bombing was a man named Luis Posada Carriles, an agent of the CIA. Was Posada operating on behalf of the CIA when he supposedly orchestrated the attack? It’s impossible to know. We do know that he and the CIA claimed that he was no longer working for the CIA during that time. But the problem is that they would say that anyway, so there really is no way to know for sure. What we do know is that the U.S. government has steadfastly harbored Posada by refusing to honor an extradition request from Venezuela, notwithstanding an extradition treaty between the two countries. We also know that Congress has steadfastly refused to conduct a formal investigation into whether the CIA was behind the attack.

Let’s suppose that the CIA was behind the terrorist attack on Cubana Flight 455 and that the Myerses had discovered the plot when it was being planned. If they had delivered such information to Cuba, there is no doubt that they would have been treated in the same way they were treated for transmitting the “national defense” information that they actually transmitted to Cuba. Under America’s national-security state, any citizen, either inside or outside the government, who would disclose such information to a nation being targeted by the CIA is obviously a hater of the U.S. government and anti-American.

What has been the justification for the U.S. government’s actions towards Cuba? The justifications have been twofold: Fidel Castro’s refusal to submit to the control of the U.S. government and the fact that Castro was a communist who turned Cuba into a communist state.

Those two concepts — U.S. imperialism and the U.S. national-security state’s excessive and unreasonable fear of communism — have been driving principles of U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba and the rest of the world through much of the 20th and 21st centuries. They have also wreaked untold damage on our nation, our values, our economic well-being, and our freedom.

The day after Japanese forces attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941, they invaded the Philippines, where they killed or captured tens of thousands of American soldiers. The obvious question arises: What in the world was such a large contingent of U.S. soldiers doing in a land thousands of miles away from American shores? The answer lies in the turn towards empire that the United States took during the Spanish-American War in 1898. When Cuba and the Philippines revolted against the rule of the Spanish Empire, the United States intervened in the conflict, promising to help the revolutionaries to achieve independence.

America’s intervention succeeded and the Spanish Empire lost the war. Nonetheless, Cuba and the Philippines failed to secure their independence. The reason? The U.S. government insisted on replacing the rule of the Spanish Empire with the rule of what was to become the U.S. empire.

The result was another brutal war of independence in the Philippines, in which U.S. forces killed, maimed, or tortured hundreds of thousands of Filipinos in their successful quest to quell the rebellion.

Thus, the U.S. soldiers who were killed or captured by Japan at the inception of World War II were on U.S. territory that had been captured almost 50 years before as part of America’s turn away from a constitutional republic to a worldwide empire.

The U.S. government also treated Cuba as its colony, just as the Spanish Empire had done, effectively ruling the country for decades through a succession of brutal and corrupt dictators who would do the bidding of the U.S. empire.

Thus, the Spanish-American War was a watershed event for the United States, one that would ultimately lead to an empire with hundreds of military bases all over the world, along with an endless series of invasions, occupations, coups, assassinations, sanctions, embargoes, and regime-change operations, all intended to expand the reach of the U.S. empire around the world.

In fact, the corrupt dictator who ruled Cuba prior to Fidel Castro’s revolution, Fulgencio Batista, was one of the U.S. empire’s approved rulers, one who brutalized and plundered the Cuban people while doing whatever the U.S. empire requested of him. When the Cuban people revolted against Batista and replaced him with Castro, U.S. officials initially hoped that Castro would continue the tradition and place Cuba and himself under U.S. control. That hope, however, was soon dashed, as Castro made it clear to the U.S. empire and to the Cuban people that Cuba was, for the first time in history, to be a sovereign and independent country.

It is not a surprise that Castro’s position did not sit well with U.S. officials. The empire placed him squarely in its sights for a regime-change operation that would ultimately consist of an economic embargo, an invasion, assassination attempts, terrorism, sabotage, and almost nuclear war.

But there was another critically important factor that guaranteed that Castro would become the target of the U.S. empire. After seizing power, he revealed himself to be a communist, one who quickly began converting Cuba’s economic system to communism.

Those two factors — U.S. imperialism and U.S. anti-communism — became the twin driving forces of the U.S. government in the second half of the 20th century. More than anything else, those two forces would corrupt, warp, and pervert the principles and values of the American people.

From the first grade on up, American students are taught that “we” won World War II. Actually, the truth of that statement depends on how one defines the pronoun “we.” When “we” is defined to include the Soviet Union, then it is true that “we” won World War II. But when “we” is defined to mean the United States, Great Britain, France, and other non-Soviet Allied powers, then “we” did not win the war. It was the Soviet Union that won the war.

Recall, after all, the ostensible reason that Great Britain declared war on Nazi Germany. It was to free the Polish people from Nazi tyranny. What was the situation at the end of the war? Well, the Polish people were indeed freed from Nazi tyranny, only to have to suffer for the next 50 years under Soviet communist tyranny. From the standpoint of the Poles and, for that matter, other Eastern Europeans in the Soviet bloc, that was no victory.

But it was also no victory for the American people because almost immediately U.S. officials converted the Soviet Union from World War II partner and ally (and Hitler’s enemy) into a giant new enemy for the United States, a situation that would bring a half-century of crisis, chaos, conflict, and hostility during the Cold War and massive death and destruction in such hot wars as Korea and Vietnam.

Equally important, that new enemy would provide the justification for maintaining and expanding a massive and permanent military-industrial complex and for initiating a massive national-security state, both of whose policies and practices would end up looking strikingly similar to those of the totalitarian regimes that the United States had opposed during the war and was now opposing in the Cold War.

Anti-communist fervor

It is impossible to overstate the depth of the anti-communist fervor that characterized the Cold War. For those who were born after that era, the best way to describe it is that the fear of communism was about 1,000 times greater than the fear of terrorism is today. What was different, however, was that while terrorism involves a physical act of force, communism involved more than that. Communism also involved an idea, one that absolutely scared U.S. officials and much of the American populace to death. There were several aspects to the anti-communist fervor.

One aspect was the notion that the Soviet Union intended to initiate a war against the United States in which America would be conquered by the communists. Under that scenario, the American people would end up living their lives much like the people of Eastern Europe — under the iron boot of the Soviet Union.

A second aspect was the notion that communism would spread beyond Cuba, into other Latin American nations, which would enable them to mobilize military forces that would invade Florida and Texas and sweep up the Eastern seaboard, ultimately defeating U.S. forces and taking over Washington. Under this scenario, the Latin American communist forces would be serving as agents of the Soviet Union and would do its bidding after conquering the United States.

A third aspect was that communists would take control over European countries and Asian countries, causing the “dominoes” to continue falling until the final domino — the United States — would be toppled.

A fourth aspect was communist infiltration in the federal government and the public schools, where politicians, bureaucrats, and teachers would be serving effectively as moles of the Soviet Union, who would be indoctrinating the American people with communist ideas and, even worse, taking control of the reins of power and surrendering America to the communists.

A fifth aspect, which perhaps was the scariest for U.S. officials, was that communism would operate as a Sirens song, infecting the minds of the American people and seducing them into wanting and desiring a communist way of life, one in which people would eagerly and enthusiastically surrender their freedom in return for being taken care of from the cradle to the grave by the state. Under this scenario, communists would begin winning elections all across the land and gradually begin to seep into the federal bureaucracies, enabling them to bring communism to America in a purely democratic fashion.

All five of those aspects of the anti-communism mindset combined to produce a climate of constant preparation for war and a long, dark era of deeply seated fear that pervaded the United States and the American psyche. It was an era that was so frightening that Americans learned to defer to authority, to trust their government officials, and to place unwavering faith in them to protect “national security” and defend them from communism.

What was this thing that frightened people so much? Communism is an economic doctrine in which the state owns the means of production. In its purest sense, it means that the state owns everything in society. Since the state is the sole employer, everyone works for the state. The state guarantees that everyone will be taken care of with housing, food, employment, health care, education, and other important things. No more worries about losing one’s home, starving to death, being fired, or being unable to pay for medical expenses or for an education. Everyone’s needs are taken care of, from the day they are born to the day they die.

Quote 0 0

Joseph McBride, Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit (2013)

Quote 0 0
couple of reads

see link for full story

13 documents you should read about the JFK assassination

NSAM 263: Getting out of Vietnam — On Oct. 11, 1963, Kennedy signed National Security Action Memorandum 263. This ordered a withdrawal of 1,000 troops out of roughly 16,000 Americans stationed in Vietnam by the end of 1963, with the complete withdrawal by the end of 1965.

NSAM 273: Mysterious timing — Signed on Nov. 26, 1963, this was the first National Security Action Memorandum on Vietnam under President Lyndon Johnson. NSAM 273 effectively overturned Kennedy's NSAM 263 and ordered the planning of increased activity in Vietnam. The memorandum also authorized open-ended covert operations against North Vietnam. This, in turn, led to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which President Johnson used to obtain congressional authorization for a drastic escalation of the war. The draft of NSAM 273 was dated Nov. 21, 1963, the day before the assassination; however, Kennedy had not ordered its creation and did not see it. Newly sworn-in President Johnson signed 273 on Nov. 26, the day after Kennedy was buried.

Operations Northwoods: Invading Cuba — Declassified in 1997, this lengthy document has been called the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. On March 13, 1962, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lyman Lemnitzer, submitted this secret plan to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.Its purpose was to justify an invasion of Cuba by means of terrorist actions against the U.S.—to be carried out by U.S. military and intelligence. Proposed actions include a "Remember the Maine" incident, "exploding a few plastic bombs" within the U.S. and "to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States ..." Kennedy blocked Northwoods and, in September 1962, replaced Lemnitzer as chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

CIA Document #1035-960: Using politicians and the media to counter criticism of the Warren Report — This document, dated Jan. 4, 1967, and marked PSYCH for Psychological Warfare, directs agents of the CIA to counter critics of the Warren Report by using "liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)" and "to employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics."

House Select Committee on Assassinations final report: A conspiracy behind JFK's assassination? — In 1975, investigations by the Rockefeller Commission and the Church Committee revealed the CIA had abused its power by engaging in illegal investigations and activities. As a follow-up, the HSCA was created to investigate the assassinations of JFK and MLK. The HSCA issued its findings in 1979, stating, "The committee believes, on the basis of evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy." The committee recommended to the Justice Department that the case be reopened. To date, the department has declined to do so.

E. Howard Hunt v. Liberty Lobby Inc.: The CIA's role in the assassination — On Aug. 16, 1978, Liberty Lobby Inc. published an article by former CIA officer Victor Marchetti in its magazine, The Spotlight. In that article, Marchetti stated that E. Howard Hunt, also a former CIA officer, was involved in the JFK assassination. Hunt sued Liberty Lobby for libel in federal district court and won. However, in the appeals trial, former CIA asset Marita Lorenz testified that on Nov. 21, 1963, the day before the assassination, E. Howard Hunt was in Dallas, where he delivered "sums of money for the so-called operation" to a small group of men that included former CIA agent Frank Sturgis of Watergate fame and Oswald killer Jack Ruby. The federal jury found for Liberty Lobby Inc. and awarded costs to be assessed against Hunt.

E. Howard Hunt deathbed confession: Naming names — In August 2003, former CIA agent E. Howard Hunt lay dying in his Miami home with his son, Saint John Hunt, at his side. E. Howard Hunt began describing the details of "the big event," including names. Hunt sent an audio taped confession to his son in January 2006, and directed him to release the materials upon his death, which occurred in January 2007.Two months later, Rolling Stone published Hunt's confession after The New York Times and The Washington Post declined to do so.

CIA Document #1345-1057: the New Orleans connection — Released in 1993, this document states that New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw "was in touch with the DCS [the CIA's Domestic Contact Service] from December 1948 to May 1956." In 1966, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison opened an investigation into the New Orleans connection to the assassination of JFK, which formed the basis of Oliver Stone's film JFK. Garrison's investigation centered on an association between Shaw, former FBI agent Guy Bannister, pilot David Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald. In 1969, Shaw was charged with conspiring to kill Kennedy. Shaw testified under oath that he had never worked for the CIA.

Photo of Lee Harvey Oswald and David Ferrie in the Civil Air Patrol — In 1993, PBS' Frontline secured a 1951 photograph of the Louisiana Civil Air Patrol in New Orleans that shows both David Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald in the same unit. Ferrie was included in New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's investigation (see previous entry). However, Ferrie denied having ever known Oswald or having had any association with him.

The Bush-Hoover Document: What did Bush the First know? — On Nov. 29, 1963, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover drafted a memo titled "Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" to Roger Hilsman, the director of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. In it, Hoover stated, "information was furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency." This has piqued the interest of researchers because George H.W. Bush wasn't officially affiliated with the CIA until he was named director in 1976.

Nicholas Katzenbach-Bill Moyers memo: Nothing to see here — On the day of JFK's funeral, Nov. 25, 1963, this document was sent from Assistant Attorney General Katzenbach to Bill Moyers, press secretary to the newly sworn-in President Johnson. It states, "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."The Warren Commission was created four days later.

In Warren Report, Gerald Ford changes position of JFK's back wound: The single-bullet theory — In July 1997, pages from the original draft of the Warren Report were released. Among them was a page describing the path of the famous single—or magic—bullet. The memo states, "A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine." In pen, Ford changed the report to read, "A bullet had entered the back of his neck at a point slightly to the right of the spine," thus making the single-bullet theory plausible.

Nov. 22, 1963, Hoover memo: Oswald acted alone — On the afternoon of the assassination, before investigations had been initiated, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover sent a memo to his executive staff stating that he had called Attorney

see link for full story

High School Juniors Can Attend FBI Teen Academy for a Day
Aug 30, 2013

SACRAMENTO, CA - Have you ever wanted to see what happens behind the scenes at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)?

On November 22, 2013, a select group of high school juniors (who attends one of the schools within the 34 California counties) will have the opportunity to see behind the scenes at the Sacramento FBI headquarters.

The group of students selected to attend the Fall 2013 class will spend the day meeting FBI personnel, learning what is required to become an agent, what the FBI investigates, how to avoid behaviors that can negatively affect their future, and some pitfalls of online communication, according to an official with the FBI, Sacramento Field Office.

Students can submit their application at Sacramento FBI headquarters either in person or by mail. The deadline to submit an application is Friday, October 25, 2013, according to an official with the FBI, Sacramento Field Office.

Completed applications must include: An application form, a photo release/indemnity form, and a personal essay detailing why the student wants to attend the FBI

Quote 0 0
couple reads, let god sort out the truth

The Murder Of
John F. Kennedy, Jr. -
An Update


What Happened To America's Golden Boy? WHO BENEFITS?
That is a question that should be asked following a political assassination, or even when foul play is suspected.
The monopoly press, from the time of Abraham Lincoln to date, never asks THAT QUESTION. Common Americans are to be fed from a bottomless garbage can of "lone assassin", or "accident" rubbish.
John F. Kennedy, Jr., most would have to admit, was charming and articulate, and had none of the ghosts and scandals in his closet that others of his relatives seem to have had or have. If he ran for important public office, he most likely would sweep the field if not just giving every other candidate a hard time.
There are two reasons for his death, one being the main one and then, for some, an alternative. Main reason:
His family knew he planned, on August 1, 1999, to announce, that like his father, he was going to run for President. His relatives, however, warned him that the U.S. Secret Service would not and could not protect him and they did not protect his father. The head of what is now called the U.S. Secret Service, Lafayette C. Baker, was part of the plot to murder President Abraham Lincoln. ["The Lincoln Conspiracy" by Balsiger, was also a movie in the 1970s.]
The presidential guards likewise permitted an assassin to murder President James Garfield and President William McKinley. Both were anti-British, pro-American at a time when Great Britain persisted in their schemes to take back this Continent as their puppet colony [an ongoing plot from the time of the War of 1812 to now.] Further, the Secret Service allowed a plot to go forward to disable or murder in 1981 newly-elected President Ronald Reagan. A so-called "lone assassin", Hinckley, part of a family close to oil-soaked family of George Herbert Walker Bush, then Vice President, was blamed. A trial that might have brought out inconvenient facts was cut short by a purported insanity plea by the would-be "lone assassin". Two TV network reporters stated live that there were shots from another gunman, a matter never repeated on the air but never rescinded.
John F. Kennedy, Jr., made one grave mistake. He trusted the presidential campaign officials of Albert Gore, Jr. to know that JFK Jr. planned to announce on August 1, 1999, that he was going to run for President. That would have interfered with the plans of Gore as well as George W. Bush, the Texas Governor. The Gore campaign reportedly promised total secrecy, a pledge they never kept. The Elder Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, was reportedly part of the scheme to assassinate President Kennedy. According to the book not allowed for many years to be openly sold in the U.S., "Farewell America", the oil industry wanted President Kennedy dead, dead, dead. JFK wanted the oil cartel's tax dodge, the oil depletion allowance, to be cancelled. [The book was written under the pen-name "James Hepburn" by the French CIA that infiltrated the plot. In the 1970s, I and another assassination researcher were the only ones to get copies into the U.S. Alas, I have only one copy left now.] What's that? So you did not know or believe books are suppressed in the U.S.? Too bad for you.
The latest front for the oil fraud, George W. Bush, likewise would most naturally have an interest in the demise of JFK, Jr. George W. just before the fatal plane take-off, somehow was near the New Jersey airport where JFK Jr. kept his plane without proper security. A coincidence?
After all, JFK Jr. was a captivating speaker and would have most likely swept the field of Presidential candidates. Conservatives and liberals, both could join together to support America's Golden Boy.
According to our best, long-time reliable sources, Jr.'s sister, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg likewise warned her brother that running for President would be a death warrant. Nevertheless, she reportedly said she would support his plans. After his death, reportedly feuding with the Kennedy family, she did not go to the family get together. Her family reportedly threatens to silence her with a "Marilyn Monroe" needle, or by a psychiatrist to change her views. [Remember, Marilyn Monroe was planning to go public at a press conference with details of her sex episodes with President Kennedy and brother Bobby, Attorney General. A psychiatrist reportedly gave her the "needle".]
To understand why and how the Kennedy family financially benefits by not fighting or exposing the cabal murdering their family members, visit our website, the four part series, What Happened to America's Golden Boy. Have you forgotten the attempt in 1964 to murder Teddy Kennedy by a sabotaged plane crash? Or the frame up in 1969 at Chappaquiddick?
An alternative reason, which some accept, is that JFK Jr. was going to run, not for President but for U.S. Senator from New York. Thus interfering with the plans of what we call The Dragon Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton.[Visit our website.] Visit, as well, various websites of the Clinton Body Count. Upwards of a hundred eyewitnesses have been "suicided", "accidented", or plain murdered, who knew too much about the criminality of the CIA couple known as Bill and Hillary. So, as an alternative, if Jr. were planning to run for U.S. Senator from New York, who benefits from his demise? Hillary. So you think that she did not know or suspect early on that her original opponent, Rudy Guiliani, was going to remove himself from the Senate race, because of cancer treatment, or marital scandal? Hillary reportedly knew that when Guiliani was Chief Federal Prosecutor in New York, he reportedly covered up plenty in the worldwide cases called the "Pizza Connection". The Rodham family reportedly are tied to Gambino crime family in Pennsylvania. Visit our website: "The Government-Criminal Connection". Hillary's original opponent, Rudy, was plenty blackmailable.
The FBI covered up the bombing of JFK Jr.'s plane. We obtained the details of the secret FBI report which was not to have been disclosed for 30 years. {Naive people heckle me claiming they cannot "find" it on the FBI's website. See: Golden Boy on our website, Part 4.] Within 48 hours of the time the FBI knew we had their secret report, they mysteriously announced, without explanation, that henceforth all public visitors would be cancelled to the Bureau's headquarters in Washington, D.C. They claimed unspecified "terrorists" were threatening them. By the way, Hillary put me and my TV show assistant, Joseph Andreuccetti, on an "enemies list" falsely labeling us as "domestic terrorists". A crooked, blackmailable federal judge in Chicago dismissed our case without legal formality against Hillary and others.
The National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, released a report claiming the JFK Jr. plane crash was due to "pilot error". Over the years, the federal crash investigators have covered up several sabotaged plane crashes. For details on the long-time lies and frauds of the NTSB, visit our website story "Air Crashes, Black Boxes, and Unsafety Boards".
John F. Kennedy, Jr. was murdered before he could get to his planned announcement of August 1, 1999. If he lived and ran for President, he would have been 40 years old just after the 2000 Presidential election. Slightly younger than his father when he ran for President. Has the murdering of the Kennedy would-be dynasty ended with the rub-out of Jr.? We intend to post more updates on What Happened to America's Golden Boy.
Stay tuned.

 2nd read

Part 5: The crash of John F. Kennedy Jr's aircraft and the indications of a cover-up.

Having established that the government and the media have a prior (and quite deplorable) record of deliberate lies to the public, let us look at how the official story of the crash of John F. Kennedy Jr's plane evolved, and why it is suspect.

As first reported by United Press International, John F. Kennedy Jr. on approach to Martha's Vineyard in 8 mile visibility, was in radio contact with the ground, calmly informing them of his intentions to drop off a passenger before proceeding to Hyannis airport. Then, according to ABC News, JFK Jr's plane went into a steep dive, and crashed.

However, even before the wreckage was found, the story being put out in the media began to change. Gone was the previously reported radio conversation a calm JFK Jr. had with ground personnel just before the plane fell out of the sky, replaced by a declaration from the NTSB that JFK Jr. had not used his radio at all as he approached Martha's Vineyard. Gone also was the originally reported 8 mile visibility while the media began to hammer home the claim that Martha's Vineyard had been totally blanketed with a haze so heavy that pilots in the air would have been blind.

No sooner were the various stories put out but they quickly fell apart.

Here are some examples.

PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. was lost.
FACT: When JFK Jr. radioed controllers on the Cape (as reported on Boston TV News) to announce his approach to Martha's Vineyard, radar showed him to be just where he stated he was and at the correct altitude for the approach.

PROPAGANDA: JK Jr. was in "over his head".
FACT: JFK Jr's conversational tone on the radio reveals that he was calm. He was not disoriented. He didn't ask for directions. He didn't indicate he had any problem at all. He clearly was confident he was going to find the airport and land.

PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. stalled the plane.
FACT: The radar track shows that he was well above stall speed.

PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. went into a steep turn and lost his horizon.
FACT: There is no reason for JFK Jr. to have been in any turn at all at that point on the flight path leading into the airport. He was already lined up with the main runway at Martha's Vineyard airport.

PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. didn't know his altitude and simply "flew into the ocean".
FACT: The radar track shows him flying at the proper altitude, then (as ABC News put it) "falling out of the sky".

PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. lost his instruments, and that is why he could not handle the dark and hazy (?) conditions
FACT: The fact that the radar was getting good data from his encoding altimeter proves his instruments were operating.

PROPAGANDA: JFK Jr. would have lost his artificial horizon if the vacuum pump failed in the aircraft.
FACT: MSNBC is the only media outlet to have tried to hype this one, using a self-proclaimed "aviation expert". His claim is also false, as there is a backup vacuum system in the pitot assembly of that aircraft.

PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. was a reckless pilot.
FACT: This claim was planted everywhere in the media, always attributed to an "unnamed source". One reporter, Cindy Adams at the New York Post, later had cause to suspect she had been lied to. So did Andrew Goldman at the New York Observer. Interviews with individuals directly familier with JFK Jr's flying ability shown on Inside Edition confirmed that he was a highly skilled and careful pilot.

PROPAGANDA JFK Jr's wife was afraid to fly with him.
FACT: Again a story attributed to "unnamed sources", and again debunked by the interviews shown on Inside Edition. JFK Jr's wife had no problem flying with JFK Jr. and flew with him often.

PROPAGANDA JFK Jr. had only 40 hours experience.
FACT: He had 40 hours in that one aircraft. His total experience was about 300 hours, more than enough to qualify him for a commercial pilot's license. According to FAA statistics, 300 hours made him a more careful and safer pilot than one with 1000 hours, who is more complacent.

PROPAGANDA The weather was very hazy.
FACT: The FAA issued VFR weather conditions that night, and the weather report (mentioned in the UPI story) called for 8 mile visibility. One witness on shore reported that there was very little haze and that standing on the shore, he could see airplanes out over the ocean on approach to the island, proof that airplanes on the approach could see the shore. This claim is backed up not only by the weather report of 8 mile visibility, but by a weather radar image taken at about the time of the crash. This radar image is showing haze and fog along New York and Long Island (if this radar image were of clouds, the FAA would not have declared VFR flying conditions that night) but none at all at Martha's Vineyard. On the morning after the crash, CNN reported that weather could be ruled out as a factor in the crash!

PROPAGANDA: Martha's Vineyard is very dark and won't show through the haze.
FACT: That may have been true only a few months ago. However, as evidenced by a Letter to the Editor of the Martha's Vineyard Times just days after the JFK Jr. crash, new lights installed on the island, lights that point up in the sky, are so bright they are drawing complaints from island residents.

That the Kennedy family has been the target of political assassination is a part of the American political landscape. It's a given.

That cover-ups surrounded the deaths of Kennedys is also a given.

That our government lies to us, with the media's help, is a given.

There is good cause to assume we are being lied to yet again.

3rd read

FBI Agent Believes Mary Kennedy ‘May Have Acted Alone’

WESTCHESTER, NY – Despite inevitable conspiracy theories to the contrary, an FBI agent heading up a preliminary investigation into the apparent suicide of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s estranged wife Mary Kennedy believes that Mrs Kennedy may have acted alone.

4th read

On the Elimination of Natural Leaders: JFK Jr.

January 22, 2013

"The one thing the conspirators did not want to happen was for civilians to discover the plane and the evidence of the explosion."


The story  of the "elimination" of John F. Kennedy Jr. was laid out in an outstanding publication entitled Media Bypass (before taken over and subverted by the CIA, much as they did to Popular Science) .

According to their research, there was a meeting in Bill Clinton's Oval Office.  In attendance were Bill and Hillary, George H. W. Bush, and the head of the FBI, along with an unnamed agent of the Mossad.  The meeting was held to discuss and decide the best way to eliminate John F. Kennedy Jr.  All of the participants had their "reasons." 

This unfortunate meeting was occasioned because JFK Jr.,  had carelessly told a few close associates that he intended to run for the Senate from New York, and then for the Presidency.  

To compound this threat, he also let slip that once elected President, he would re-open the investigation into his father's assassination.  You can imagine how well all this went over with these occupants of the Oval Office.

Hillary planned to run for the Senate as a stepping-stone to the Presidency. 

There would be no way Hillary would win the Democratic nomination let alone the actual Senate race, and she could kiss her presidential aspirations  goodbye if JFK Jr. ran for the New York Senate race.

 George H.W. Bush, of course, had zero desire to see the JFK assassination re-opened, since he was in Dallas on that day (the very day which he incredibly stated, when asked where he was on the day of JFK's assassination, that he couldn't remember -- probably the only person in the world who could not remember where they were that day!) as well as the night before, along with President Johnson, where they dined at the estate of Texas oil tycoon Cliff Murchison, adding the finishing touches to the assassination plot.
- See more at: http://henrymakow.com/on-the-elimination-of-natural.html#sthash.4K9wTyvu.dpuf
Quote 0 0

see link for full story




September 13, 2013


Dallas Mexican-Americans remember the JFK years, surveillance by FBI

Albert Orozco still has his American GI Forum hat. Though its members fought for the United States, the organization was spied on by the FBI in the 1960s.

In 1960, Korean War veteran Albert Orozco set out to prove himself with other Mexican-American vets on a new battlefield — politics. They embraced the presidential campaign of John F. Kennedy with Viva Kennedy Clubs and strategic fundraising for poll taxes so the poor could vote.

Orozco was already a leader in a Mexican-American group that played the red, white and blue patriotism card hard — the American GI Forum.

Kennedy won their support with a social justice message, Catholic faith, a Spanish-speaking wife and a family history of fighting anti-Irish discrimination.

Yet, in a strange twist of JFK history, the Dallas chapter was under surveillance by the very government they had served in war.

Orozco is now an 84-year-old retired school principal with thinning silver hair, pole-straight posture and precise speech. He doesn’t let the surveillance eclipse the significance of the activism. By one account, 91 percent of Texas Mexican-Americans voted for JFK — giving the senator a key state in a razor-thin election.

“The clubs saw how important it was to get involved in the voting process,” Orozco said. He and his late wife, Henrietta, co-hosted the first Viva Kennedy meeting in the Old East Dallas home of his mother.

“For the first time, after the efforts of the GI Forum, they saw the results,” he said. “They saw that it does pay to vote.”

Military service filled families with pride and confidence. In Dallas, Orozco and others took on swimming pool segregation, a Catholic Church that kept Mexican-American altar boys from field trips and a downtown bar with a “No Dogs, Negroes or Mexicans” sign.

In Corpus Christi, similar scenes unreeled before Dr. Hector P. Garcia, a Corpus Christi physician and surgeon who had served in the Army during World War II. He founded the Forum after the war. The catalysts for the movement were discrimination against Latino vets, poor treatment at the Veterans Administration, school segregation and an infamous incident over a Texas funeral wake for a soldier.

“They were veterans and not too happy to be treated like second-class citizens,” said his oldest child, Daisy Wanda Garcia, a 67-year-old Austin resident.

GI Forum chapters morphed into Viva Kennedy clubs in the Southwest, California and Illinois. Membership also came from the League of United Latin American Citizens.

“Kennedy was a dark horse,” she said. “It if hadn’t been for the Viva Kennedy clubs delivering all these votes for him, he might not have been elected. It was one of the first concerted attempts by minorities to put in office someone favorable to their cause. It was a nonviolent way to change the destiny of the Mexican-American people.”

The Viva Kennedy Club harvested support in its first rally with posters, stickers and buttons at Orozco’s grocery store, a West Dallas business owned by a relative.

Enchilada dinners in the Little Mexico housing projects and door-to-door solicitations raised money for a get-out-the-vote necessity: payment of poll taxes. Poll taxes were $1.25 per voter, the equivalent of about $10 today.

Inspired to act

On Nov. 22, 1963, Henrietta Orozco left her downtown office at noon to see the Kennedy and his wife, Jacqueline, in their motorcade. Her husband stayed at work, content that his wife would experience the excitement surrounding a couple “she was in love with.”

When she returned to her office, she heard the news. Years later, she’d retell the story of that day to her daughter Diana Orozco-Garrett, who was a toddler in 1963. She told her that many in her office were Republicans and joyful over the shooting, clapping as if they were at a party.

In the Orozco household, admiration ran so deep “we had portraits of Jesus and the Kennedys,” the daughter said.

Soon, the family gathered at Dealey Plaza, laying a wreath near the Texas School Book Depository. For several years, on Nov. 22 they’d repeat the ritual.

JFK’s assassination inspired deep political dedication.

“For my mom, it gave her more reason to be involved and for me, too,” Orozco-Garrett said.

As a child, she watched her mother register voters. As an adult, Orozco-Garrett was a delegate to two Democratic conventions. As an attorney, she worked on voting rights cases. In 1994, she won election as a justice of the peace, serving six years.

She now lives in Santa Fe with her husband, a former Voting Rights Act litigator.

‘Good Americans’

Earlier this year, Orozco-Garrett began researching those Kennedy years. She found documents from the FBI and the Warren Commission on surveillance of the GI Forum of Dallas.

Years earlier, the Mary Ferrell Foundation had amassed material on the JFK murder using the federal Freedom of Information Act. The foundation and its online resources (at maryferrell.org) are named for the Dallas legal secretary who became prominent among assassination experts.

That’s how Orozco-Garrett found her father’s name.

A mole inside the Dallas chapter of the GI Forum had reported to the FBI on the Mexican-American vets. He was William Lowery, a shoe salesman who died in the 1990s.

“They were good Americans and this is who the government was spying on,” Orozco-Garrett said. “They were thought to be subversive groups.”

As Orozco-Garrett pieced together those years, she enlisted help from an old friend and a fellow attorney, Sol Villasana. Up popped the name of his cousin Edmund Villasana, who is now 85. He’d been an early officer of the Dallas GI Forum chapter.

Edmund Villasana, a World War II vet, fumed when denied service at Dallas restaurants.

Quote 0 0
     see link for full story


State Secret, by Bill Simpich

The Mary Ferrell Foundation is pleased to announce the online serialization of a new book by Bill Simpich. State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald delves deeply into the strange story of the Oswald Mexico City trip two months before the assassination. With a focus on the wiretap operation and the curious manipulation of CIA information on Oswald, and based on voluminous research using the MFF's CIA records, Bill presents a compelling new analysis of this mysterious event.

The book is being released fifty years after the events of September 27, 1963, when monitors at a joint US/Mexico intercept station received wiretap reports about a strange American visitor to the Soviet and Cuban consulates in Mexico City.

State Secret will be serialized a chapter at a time starting with today's publication of the book's Preface, with a new chapter appearing weekly. Over the coming several weeks, the full book will become available online.

Read the Preface to State Secret

Editor's note:

Bill Simpich and the MFF are providing this book online free of charge. If you would like to support this effort and the other activities of the Mary Ferrell Foundation, please consider a membership or donation.
Quote 0 0

Ed Tatro sent me a email today with this story link. I thought I would share it with you.
Ed said in his email, that he plans to meet with Ed Osborn in two weeks.

Testimony of Steve Osborn
Dallas, Texas -- November 18, 1994 Hearing MR. MARWELL: Mr. Steve Osborn.

CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Good afternoon, Mr. Osborn.

MR. OSBORN: Good afternoon.

I, too, appreciate the opportunity to address the Board today and appreciate the time you are spending going to the public for information. One of the theories of the assassination revolves around the possibility that there may have been some involvement by persons with experience in the U.S. intelligence community.

In my study and research of the assassination I have discovered and investigated supporting information of the presence of an intelligence unit of the U.S. Army having been present and on assignment in Dealey Plaza just before, during and immediately after the assassination. To the best of my knowledge, information on this unit has not been released publicly.

In 1992, as the fury of the public resulted in the proposed legislation which created your Board, I came across an individual who claimed to have been very near Dealey Plaza during the assassination. Now, as a researcher, you can understand that this immediately caught my attention, and I began to question this gentleman about the experience.

Now before I tell you the entire story, I want you to know that I had a difficult time believing his story the more and more I thought about it. Even though I had personal experience with some of the devices and the techniques that this group used, I was still very skeptical, as you may be also. But with further investigation I convinced myself that it technically could have been accomplished, and I think you will be similarly so impressed about the possibility when we are finished.

The gentleman I spoke with proceeded to tell me he was in the Army Station in Fort Hood, in Clean, Texas. On the day of the assassination his group, a communications group, was assigned the task of observing and videotaping the presidential motorcade as it moved through the Plaza. This unit had no similar assignment in any other Texas city during the President's visit, and they were only to tape that portion of the motorcade as it proceeded through Dealey Plaza.

Now if this event actually occurred, if it actually happened, it makes their activity highly suspicious and adds new questions to the assassination, particularly with reference to the possible foreknowledge of the assassination of intelligence personnel.

In my conversations with this gentleman, I asked questions of a technical nature trying to discovery how their assignment was accomplished. After discovering that the camera signals were transported by wireless means back to the control studio, which was actually a semi-tractor-trailer, I found myself doubting that this type of equipment was available in 1963.

I knew that ham radio operators have been sending television signals easily for a number of years, and I had also participated in that hobby. I also knew that videotaping was still in its infant years in 1963. I started to research available equipment to see if this story had any possibility of being true.

I have another handout that I would like to give you. Now that we know that equipment existed in 1963, and I can tell you a little bit about the equipment, if you would like, in the question and answer, I can relate his entire story, the following information was obtained over approximately three separate conversations with this individual. I had extracted a verbal consent to get his story on videotape, like any good researcher would, but when the time came for doing so, his attitude on the matter had completely reversed and I am only left today with the recollection, you know, the notes that I had taken from the conversation and the subsequent information by my independent investigation.

This military communications group had several cameras stationed around the Plaza. The signals from the cameras were sent back to a semi-tractor-trailer acting as a mobile studio parked a short distance from the Plaza. Each camera had a preview monitor and videotape machine associated with it inside the trailer recording the view of each camera. There was no sound recorded in this assignment.

Each videotape position had a single person responsible for its proper operation. Each position these men occupied was shielded from the others so that they could only see the preview for their individual camera. Each man saw the assassination occur from a different perspective of their monitors.

About 15 minutes after the assassination, a group of men appeared who identified themselves as FBI agents. These agents seized all the equipment used to videotape the motorcade. Each man was put on a bus which had been summoned to the scene and they were all driven back to their base. Upon their arrival, they were simply told to forget it.

Finding that there was equipment available in 1963 that would do this made it easier for me to accept the story I have just related to you. Several things have made me believe that this group was an intelligence unit.

First, the gentleman would not give me the name of his unit.

Secondly, this individual advised me that his 201 file was inaccessible.

Thirdly, he offered his opinion as pertaining to the reason his group was sent there, which would probably have been in line with the responsibility of an intelligence unit.

Fourth, having reflected on his story and what I have what I have additionally discovered, I am impressed that he realizes that he probably said more things to me than he should have revealed. At one point, he mentioned to me that he was allowed by a letter from the military to discuss some things in relation to his duties on the day of the assassination, but I believe he probably went further than he was allowed.

All these things collectively make me believe that this unit in Dealey Plaza was an intelligence unit. Still, one important step in my investigation was to find some additional evidence that the event occurred. You should know that there is some possible photographic evidence of this communication group being in Dealey Plaza that day, and I would be happy to provide you with further information on that if time allows at the end of my presentation.

Some requested things I would like to see the Board do, obviously what was recorded on this videotapes would be of invaluable aid to a serious study of the assassination, as well as cast more suspicion on the intelligence community. An attempt should be made by the Board to locate the tapes and request that another government agency attempt to get the exact electrical format determined and a video machine constructed to bring their images to view. Duplication to modern day formats would then make the tapes available publicly.

So far as locating the videotapes are concerned, the Dallas Field Office of the FBI and the Bureau Headquarters may have information or be in possession of the tapes. If there remains an estate of the late J. Edgar Hoover, they may have some information or be in possession of the tapes themselves.

If the men who seized the tapes were not real FBI agents, then CIA, military intelligence and other splinter groups of the intelligence community should be checked. Also, I would inquire of Mr. E. Howard Hunt, if he is still alive, as to his knowledge of the tapes and their subsequent disposition. There exists a possibility that he may even have them in his possession.

Regarding locations where you might find documents supporting this activity, I would suggest beginning with the records at Fort Hood. I would not be familiar with other depositories of documents, and you will probably have to use some of your existing source to hopefully lead you in the correct directions.

There seems to be a problem of gag orders that I would like to address also, and the fact that this individual I had interviewed had received notification that he did not have to continue to keep certain things confidential is further indication that there continue to be individuals who continue are under an obligation of confidentiality.

I believe this brings up an interesting problem for the Board. There appear to have been several instances of this happening to individuals required by military order or other Executive Branch order not to discuss any details of what they know of the assassination or its subsequent investigations, perhaps even the Board members itself have been required to sign promises of confidentiality.

Since these individuals do not have the permission of disclosure, many have not written of their experiences or granted interviews to members of the media or the research community to record their recollection. This will give history an incomplete record of this tragic event as well as making this information unavailable to the Board for review and release.

Therefore, I believe and propose that the Board consider asking the President of the United States as Commander and Chief to rescind any and all standing orders issued from any Department or part of the U.S. Government requiring the confidentiality of the information retained by these individuals, whether that knowledge is in written or memory form. If our government is really serious about full disclosure of all facts surrounding the assassination, he will rescind these orders, prevent them from being renewed and allow a complete compilation of personal records and recollections. This will allow the Review Board to further fulfill and properly perform its congressionally mandated task.

Additionally, as distasteful and wild as the thought is that the American intelligence community could be involved in such an event, I hope the Board will keep an open mind as you sift through the records. Your work may be the last official attempt to bring to the light of day this dark deed, so it is vital for you to question everything you find.

Remember, if any intelligence personnel were involved, it is their profession and they are very adept at covering up any evidence of their involvement in any activity. I mean, would we as citizens expect anything else of them? In any operation that U.S. intelligence personnel are involved in, we the citizens would expect them to be able to complete their missions with expert precision. We would expect that they would be able to cover up their involvement as an agency and our involvement as a nation if the nature of the task so dictated. We would expect them to have thought of every possible snag in an operation and work to make their mission completely successful.

I have spoken with individuals involved in intelligence work or who have known persons who were, and they have indicated that the intelligence community could basically do anything they wanted, and we have had some recent indications of that, of this, in the form of millions of dollars spent on building projects unknown to Congress.

Be this right or wrong, we as citizens should have a great amount of respect for and suspicion of the power that these individuals and agencies wield in our world. Please keep this in mind as you ponder the information brought to your attention in whatever form it is presented.

Finally, I would like to make a comment in relation to the Board's mandate. One of the problems that certain individuals in our government have had with the idea of releasing all the assassination records is that to do so may compromise methods employed by the various intelligence agencies in their covert activities. At first glance, we may take this to mean that it may make it difficult for them to use these techniques in the future if they are made known to the general public, but I would encourage the Board to consider that it may be that many of these covert methods were used to carry out the assassination of President Kennedy, whether by Americans or some other government.

I have found considerable circumstantial evidence of more than a few intelligence techniques used in the assassination that may not be generally known. But if this assassination was accomplished by Americans from the intelligence community, they have not only betrayed the citizenry of this country by taking from them their President, but they have betrayed their agencies and the U.S. public by making it necessary to uncover and publicly expose their methods in order to bring satisfaction to the American people in this matter. This betrayal of their agencies alone makes them no better than Mr. Ames of recent history.

I again thank you for your time.

CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Thank you very much.


Go ahead, Dr. Joyce.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Osborn, in your testimony you indicated that information you had gathered from a subsequent independent investigation helped you in forming your conclusion that there was an intelligence unit in Dealey Plaza. Is there any documentary information that you have been able to acquire as part of your subsequent investigation?

MR. OSBORN: I have not made any attempts at that because I believe the story so thoroughly. I felt that if I were to make any attempts to confirm any of this or search for the tapes that those things might be destroyed, because these tapes -- if you would like to discuss the photographic evidence, there is one that would probably show a shooter behind the stockade fence, so I did not want these materials because of something that I did to end up disappearing. However, your mandate and your sources are much better than anything that I could ever do.

DR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, I would like to pose to you a set of questions, if I may, and you can cut me off if I get too long-winded here, as I am sure you will. Who are you?

MR. OSBORN: I am a citizen of the United States. I have not had any type of military experience, so I probably approach this a little bit differently as a citizen that would like to know what my government has been up to or persons within my government have been up to, why I can't know, why it has been hushed up so much.

I have been researching for approximately the last 15 years, not quite, and have mostly focused my investigation on identifying the man who fired the fatal head shot. These other things have just come about because of various digging and this is one of the things that I hope to use to be able to further identify that individual.

DR. HALL: I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, for the record, we could ask Mr. Osborn to provide us with a biographical statement, if that would be acceptable to you.

Can you provide us with the name of the individual with whom you spoke?

MR. OSBORN: Because I feel that he may have violated military orders, I believe that he thought that he had originally been saying things he could, and then the way that he froze up -- in fact, I have had several individuals that have done that, I feel that he may be guilty of some sort of violation. If the President were to rescind all those orders, I would be happy to provide his name. At this point, because of the way that he did not really want to be involved any more in the discussions, I feel incumbent upon myself for his personal privacy not to reveal that.

DR. HALL: Did he ever provide to you any written information or did you take any notes arising out of your conversations with this individual?

MR. OSBORN: The only thing that I really did was, from the conversations that we had, I prepared a list of questions, because I do have a technical background, I have been in electronics since I was 14, ham radio, and television, and most recently personal communications, and so I was very interested in the technical aspects of this because I doubted in my senses that this could be done in 1963.

If you would look at the cameras, this is a fully transistorized camera. It comes with a backpack transmitter so that you don't have to have a cable going back to a videotape recorder, and this device was available in 1962 by a company that regularly supplied the military with all kinds of camera equipment and, as I also indicated, there is some photographic evidence that exists that may possibly show one of these individuals. If you would like a summation of that, I am prepared to do that.

DR. HALL: If you will document it, that would be helpful.

You also indicate on page 5 that he had mentioned to you that he was allowed by a letter from the military to discuss some things in relation to his duties on the day of the assassination. Now it would obviously be in the interest of the Board, since you purport that a connection exists between this individual, the military establishment, and the assassination, to be able to know the name of that individual so that it would be possible to try to secure whatever copy of a letter may have existed that would have been written to him by the military.

MR. OSBORN: I will -- what I will do, sir, is, I will probably seek some counsel on that to ensure that I, myself, do not get into a situation here that may make me liable for something, and I will be glad to consider that for you.

I was going to, let me go on record saying, I was going to ask that individual for that document in the videotaped session, but because he cut everything off, I was not able to actually view that document. So I had to just go from my recollection as I made my notes as to what the individual had.

DR. HALL: One final question for you, if I may, Mr. Osborn, would your view be that this Commission or this Board, rather, excuse me, should undertake to disclose the names, identities of both living as well as deceased informants, agents, and intelligence operatives of the United States Government?

MR. OSBORN: That certainly is a gray area, and the problem with dealing -- if we are dealing with the intelligence community here in this time, they certainly have at their disposal, shall we say, executive privilege, and the rules are a little bit different when dealing with these type of people because they can claim national security.

I think national security a lot of times can mean more than one thing. It can mean security of our nation from its people being held in arms over something that the government or people within the government have done, so I think they really use the term national security quite widely, and I would fully expect that if there were individuals from the intelligence community involved that they would do everything in their power, like I had mentioned before, they are very adept at covering up. So that is a gray area because we don't know if these persons were really involved, and they may be saying that these are operatives that we can't afford to let their names go. So we have to -- it is going to have to be analyzed.

I used to think that it would be nice to have been a member of this Board, after hearing what is going on today, I think I am kind of glad it is you.

DR. HALL: Would it be fair to say that any effort to pursue the line of inquiry that you have set out would turn directly on an evidentiary and documentary basis on being able to know the name of the individual, and inasmuch as you have indicated that that person is known to you by name, there is some responsibility here, I would think, to be able to assist the Board in this matter in a significant way.

DR. GRAFF: I would like to ask this question with respect to the letter that this young man received saying what he could say about his activities. Was this a cover that he was being given, was this a story that was being laid upon him so that he would have an answer when people asked what are you doing?

MR. OSBORN: I don't believe so. I believe this had been received by him a number of years later.

DR. GRAFF: I see, I misunderstood that.

MR. OSBORN: Yes, this was a number of years later that these things were no longer -- that certain things, and I never got into the exact details. I just assumed that the things that he was telling me were things that I could know. So I am sorry, I am not clear exactly what that letter said, or if it even still exists.

DR. GRAFF: I see.

CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Anything further?

[No response.]

CHAIRMAN TUNHEIM: Thank you, Mr. Osborn.

The public hearing will stand in recess until promptly the hour of 2:00 p.m., and we will return and reconvene at that time.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 2:00 p.m., this same day.]
Quote 0 0
Just got this email from Ed Tatro




Quote 0 0

Recent Photos From the National Archives Prove: Lee Harvey Oswald prove Oswald innocent

Quote 0 0
I still feel the FBI  has not gotten enough credit for assassinating President Kennedy  Pittsburgh FBI  agent Orsini did his best to silence Dr Cyril Wecht a few years ago, eh?  google orsini wecht fbi

Subject: A Great Conference on the JFK Assassination-- The Future of Freedom Foundation BEST CONFERENCE IN 20 YEARS
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:24:31 -0400

This completely sold out conference was a 5 Star Event, conducted by Cyril Wecht, at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, run by Ben Wecht,  Debbie and staff, and was flawless.   There is a link to the program inside this review by Jacob Hornberger.
Moreover, for the first time under one roof, in the book room were exhibits by COPA, Coalition On Political Assassinations, displaying their “Hidden History Museum” concept, as well as JFK Lancer-- November in Dallas, both registering researchers for their upcoming Dallas Conferences next month.
COPA  http://www.politicalassassinations.com
JFK Lancer  http://www.jfklancer.com
Also were Walt Brown, who recently completed his JFK Chronology consisting of 32,000 pages on a single digital disk, Rex Bradford & the Mary Ferrell Foundation had the new edition of the late Gaeton Fonzi’s masterpiece, “The Last Investigation”, [which sold out the first day] with a new introduction and forward by Marie Fonzi, who also asked the publisher to do an audio version, which has Gaeton’s voice speaking at the beginning, (a first according to Skyhorse Publishing).     
Dr. Cyril Wecht made one of his wonderful passionate speeches, confirming the progress that we have made in the past, with the enactment of the JFK Act, which released millions of documents providing some transparency to the assassination.   In addition to attempting the release of remaining documents, Wecht stated that there are not enough young people investigating this case, which was also echoed by Oliver Stone.   Since the case is an open murder case in the Dallas Police Department (Cold Case), we must now work on REOPENING THE CASE in the future.
I suggest that perhaps we should supplant the original  “Free The Files” 4 inch buttons, seen in 1993, with “Reopen the JFK Case” in 2013.  There is no statute of limitations in a murder case.   Most Americans have no idea that the case was never closed, in the City of Dallas.
Quote 0 0

UVA PROFESSOR: We Cannot Rule Out A Conspiracy To Kill John F. Kennedy

Published 10:35 am, Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Larger | Smaller


It's not just crackpots who question the conventional wisdom that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he killed President John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963.
University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, author of "The Kennedy Half-Century: The Presidency, Assassination, and Lasting Legacy of John F. Kennedy" argues that "the chance of some sort of conspiracy involving Oswald is not insubstantial."
Sabato reached this conclusion after considering 50 years of evidence, even while also debunking a conspiracy theory put forth by a House committee in 1979.
"For all attempts to close the case as 'just Oswald,' fair-minded observers continue to be troubled by many aspects of eyewitness testimony and paper trails," he writes.
The founder of the UVA Center for Politics opened this never-ending debate "because the assassination is critical both to understanding America's past and future paths and to the lasting legacy of John Kennedy that is the subject of this book."
Alternative theories cannot be put to rest because of discrepancies and inadequacies in the initial response to the assassination.
To start, there are the questions about why the autopsy was performed at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center in Maryland, not in Texas as required by the law, and why the Bethesda team did not confer with doctors from the Texas trauma room and did not have the president's clothes.
"[The autopsy] opens it up to conspiracy theories immediately that the body was altered, the wounds were altered, and all the rest of it," Sabato told us. "I understand why they couldn't leave the body there but it would have been so much better if it had been performed in Dallas."
More questions arise with the investigation ordered by President Lyndon Johnson, which Sabato claims was haphazard and inadequate.
"The problem is the Warren Commission did not do a thorough job when the trail was hot," Sabato told Business Insider. "The trail went cold decades ago. It is virtually impossible 50 years later to put all of the pieces back together. I've interviewed people 50 years later that the Warren Commission never interviewed that were right there and took important photos or films."
Because of these errors, certain conspiracy theories may never be put to rest.

The conspiracy theories

While all evidence suggests that Oswald killed Kennedy, some clues suggests that he may not have been the only assassin or that he may not have acted alone.
First, there remains "the live possibility of a second gunman in the grassy knoll area," given the testimony of several witnesses, the presence of phony Secret Service agents, and the armed men seen in the vicinity of the Dealey plaza before, during, and after the assassination.
Adding to this theory is Dr. Robert McClelland, a physician in the trauma room of the hospital where JFK was taken, who contends that the wound he saw was consistent with a shot from the grassy knoll. Sabato notes that the "ambiguous nature of the visual evidence" has led to experts to disagree as to whether the bullet that entered JFK's head came from the rear (where Oswald was) or the front (the grassy knoll).
As for the idea that Oswald received help or encouragement, there is no proof that he did, but there also is no proof that he didn't — and there are reasons to be suspicious.
"For a complete nobody, Oswald certainly did seem to hang out with well-connected people," Sabato told BI.
Some of those shady connections include:
Upon returning from his short defection to the Soviet Union, Oswald became friends with an international man of mystery named George de Mohrenschildt, who "had ties with American intelligence and the State Department ... and killed himself before he could testify to the House Committee on Assassinations," Sabato said.
Quote 0 0
October 25, 2013
Oswald and the CIA (part three)

Once again this blog turns to John Newman's Oswald and the CIA (2008 edition) for evidence from the vast depths of US government files. In this way, pre-assassination documents can throw light on Lee Harvey Oswald.

Oswald in New Orleans, April-September '63

Oswald left Dallas not long after the Walker shooting, and went back to his hometown, New Orleans. Once there, he wrote to Vincent Lee, the national director of the left-wing Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC), about setting up a New Orleans branch of the organization. But 'Lee lost interest in Oswald when he violated the bylaws of the FPCC by claiming charter status' for said branch (p.289). Oswald conducted the business of his rogue 'FPCC' under the name 'A. J. Hidell, Chapter President' (p.329), and on some of the literature he handed out (see photo), the address 544 Camp Street was used. This, as Newman says, 'deepens the mystery, for this was the location where Guy Banister and the Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC) maintained their offices' (p.289).

The CRC was the 'stable' coordinating 'core' of Cuban exiles (p.289), but following the Cuban Missile Crisis it had gone into disfavour with the Kennedy administration, because stirring up trouble in Cuba had now become a dangerous threat to world peace. All US government funding of the CRC ceased from 1 May '63. Guy Banister (1901-1964) was a naval intelligence, FBI and New Orleans Police Department veteran who was now running a private detective agency which undertook anti-communist activities and raised money for the New Orleans branch of the CRC. Fans of the film JFK will be disappointed to find out that the only evidence that Oswald was in any way associated with Banister or worked out of 544 Camp Street is the story told by Banister's secretary Delphine Roberts. He used the address, but we don't know for sure why. However, that he knew the eccentric anti-Castro activist and Banister associate David Ferrie (1918-1967) is beyond question, as they were in the same Civil Air Patrol unit before Oswald joined the Marines, and a photo has been unearthed of them together.

Ferrie Oswald small.jpg
(This photo is generally available on the internet, and I can no longer find which website added the helpful arrows.)

Another intriguing fact is that after the assassination the New Orleans FBI deleted a reference to 544 Camp Street in a message to the FBI director (pp.310, 593). A touchy subject?

During this New Orleans period, Oswald was making travel plans. On 24 June he applied for a passport, and on 1 July, 'Marina, reportedly at Oswald's request, wrote to the Soviet Embassy asking to return to the Soviet Union' (p.316). Oswald mentioned a plan to travel to the USSR on his passport application, but he did not mention any plan to travel to Cuba (the evidence for that is the application to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City).

As 'Hidell', Oswald had been handing out pro-Castro leaflets, but in August, Oswald started using his own name to try to infiltrate the anti-Castro Cuban revolutionaries, specifically the Cuban Student Directorate, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE). There was a CIA link here: the DRE retained covert CIA funding because its activity was propaganda, not military revolution. Oswald introduced himself to the New Orleans DRE delegate Carlos Bringuier (b.1934), saying that as an ex-Marine he wanted to train anti-Castro Cubans in guerrilla warfare. Bringuier declined this offer, and was then surprised, a few days later, to discover Oswald handing out pro-Castro FPCC literature on Canal Street. Something of a scuffle ensued, and Oswald, Bringuier and others were arrested.

Carlos Bringuier

A strange twist to this is that in the jailhouse, Oswald asked to talk to the FBI, to 'supply information' to them about his FPCC activities (p.334). An FBI agent, John Quigley, who was familiar with Oswald's defection to the USSR, was sent along. Oswald told Quigley about how he'd heard of the New Orleans chapter of the FPCC, and then decided to join it. His FPCC card (member #33) was signed by the New Orleans 'Chapter President', A.J. Hidell (in handwriting Marina testified to the Warren Commission was hers) and Oswald told Quigley he'd 'never personally met Hidell' (p.335). Oswald was trying to convince Quigley that the New Orleans FPCC were a large, secret organization.

The upshot of the Canal Street arrest was a court appearance in which Oswald paid a fine, and he got to participate in a radio debate on WDSU. But during this debate about Cuban-American relations, Oswald was exposed as a former defector to the USSR and the 'damage was done... Oswald appeared compromised as a closet Communist and suspect tool of Moscow. His usefulness for any purpose in New Orleans, including pro-Castro leafleting, was finished' (p.345). Indeed, Oswald wound down his activities in New Orleans at this point. Marina and June went back to Irving, and Lee obtained a tourist permit for Mexico.

The Odio Incident, September '63

Newman has a take on the mysterious 'Odio Incident' which is sympathetic to Silvia Odio and paints it as more likely that Oswald, not an Oswald impostor, paid the woman a visit in Dallas in late September. This incident did not sit well with the Warren Commission's timeline, and certainly the meeting could not have taken place too close to 10am, 27 September, the hour Oswald's bus arrived in Mexico City. It could have taken place on 25 September, however.

Silvia Odio

Silvia Odio (26) was living with her sister Annie (17) in Dallas, and they were the daughters of Amador Odio, who was jailed in Cuba as the leader of Junta Revolucionaria Cubana (JURE) a left-wing anti-Castro group. The 'first version' of the Odio Incident is the one reported to the FBI by Silvia's social worker, Lucille Connell, who said that Silvia 'knew Lee Harvey Oswald, and that he had made some talks to small groups of Cuban refugees in Dallas in the past' (Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, p.118). Certainly in the context of Oswald trying to inflitrate Bringuier's DRE in New Orleans in August, and having being seen at a Dallas DRE meeting on 13 October (Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy, p.292), infiltrating JURE in Dallas as well is not outside the bounds of possibility. But the 'second version' of the Odio connection does not match with Connell's account, and this was Silvia's own version, given to the FBI and the Warren Commission. She said she met Oswald only once, when he visited her apartment with two Latin men, claiming to be members of JURE and working for the CRC. The first of these seemed to be the leader of the trio. He was tall, about 40, and gave his 'war name' as 'Leopoldo'; the second 'was shorter and wore glasses' and had the name 'Angelo' or 'Angel' (Summers p.296). The American man with them was introduced as 'Leon Oswald' and he 'stood quietly by, saying almost nothing at all. Like the others, he looked weary, rather unkempt, and had not shaved' (Summers pp.296-7). Leopoldo was looking for her help to raise funds for violent anti-Castro operations. Suspicious and unnerved, Silvia declined, and the men left.

Loran Eugene Hall: was he Leopoldo?

Two days later Leopoldo phoned her up and told her Oswald was 'an ex-Marine, and an expert marksman... He's kind of loco, kind of nuts. He could go either way. He could do anything - like getting underground in Cuba, like killing Castro. [He] says we Cubans don't have any guts. He says we should have shot President Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. He says we should do something like that' (Summers p.297). Amador Odio corresponded with his daughters, and was very suspicious when he received a letter from Silvia about these men, whom he suspected were not JURE members. Then, Silvia was hospitalized with shock after the JFK assassination, when she saw who was arrested for it (she would blackout under stress - perhaps she had epilepsy?). Both Silvia and Annie recognized 'our' Lee Harvey Oswald as their 'Leon Oswald'.

Oswald having two associates is a bit inconvenient, and when the Warren Commission wrote to J. Edgar Hoover stating that 'It is a matter of some importance to the Commission that Mrs. Odio's allegations either be proved or disproved', the FBI managed to produce one Loran Eugene Hall. The version of the incident that the Warren Commission accepted was that 3 'soldiers of fortune involved with the Cuban exiles' were the ones who visited Silvia Odio: Hall (a gun runner), Larry Howard, and William Seymour (who according to Hall looked like Oswald).

larry-hancock dot com seymour oswald.jpg
Photo: larry-hancock.com

Howard and Seymour, however, denied they ever met Odio, and then Hall recanted his story, but the FBI and the Warren Commission kept this information from the public and ran with the convenient Hall version.

(Other theories that involve an Oswald impostor who is Seymour, or anyone else, would of course have to discredit both Silvia and Annie Odio.)

Oswald in Mexico, September-October '63

This blog has covered the issue of Oswald in Mexico as one big, confusing mystery, and Oswald and the CIA, more than any other book, has attempted to make sense of it all. In the process it becomes Newman's key to understanding the JFK assassination itself.

The first thing he wants you to know is that on 16 September the CIA sent an 'information report' to the FBI, saying that they were 'giving some consideration to countering the activities' of the FPCC 'in foreign countries' (p.351). Funny that a week later Oswald would show his FPCC card as part of his bona fides to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico!


CIA reports on Oswald's FPCC activities were not stored in the CIA's intelligence file on Oswald, a file which was kept by the Special Investigations Group (SIG), the mole-hunters within CIA Counterintelligence (the possibility of a mole in the CIA having been raised in April '58 by Popov, prior to Oswald's defection; the SIG kept tabs on defectors thereafter). Rather, those Oswald-FPCC reports were going into a separate Counterintelligence operations file on the FPCC, where the abovementioned 'information report' could also be found. Furthermore, someone removed from the Oswald file the August '62 FBI report about interviewing Oswald following his return to the US, so the Mexico desk at CIA headquarters, who would not have an overview of different sections of Counterintelligence, would read cables coming from the Mexico CIA station about Oswald, and when given the Oswald file, would think that it had not been updated since May '62 and would not know anything about his activities since then (pp.619-621).

But that's back at HQ. Let's see how Newman makes sense of Oswald in Mexico City itself. Newman decides that the best guide to real events is to combine the transcripts of CIA surveillance at the Soviet Consulate (Embassy) in Mexico City (Lopez Report p.117); the statements about the sequence of events from Silvia Durán, secretary at the Cuban Consulate; and the written account of Oleg Nechiporenko, vice consul at the Soviet Embassy, whose book includes the accounts of vice consul Valery Kostikov and consul Pavel Yatskov.

Oleg Nechiporenko, years later.

The sequence of real events:

1. On the morning of Friday, 27 September, Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Cuban Consulate to request 'an in-transit visa for travel through Cuba to the Soviet Union', but he had no 'passport-style pictures of himself necessary for the visa' (p.356).

2. Oswald left and returned to the Consulate with photos. Silvia Durán 'filled out duplicate visa application forms for him and then explained he would have to get his Soviet visa before she could issues his Cuban visa' (p.357).

3. Oswald went to the Soviet Embassy and met Kostikov, then Nechiporenko, whom he told that the Soviet Embassy in Washington had turned him down for a visa. According to the rules, a visa application should be handled in the US but Nechiporenko said he'd make an exception. However, the papers would still have to be sent to Moscow and the reply from there would have to be sent to Oswald's permanent US address, and this process would take at least 4 months. Oswald got upset at this news, shouted 'This won't do for me!' and was escorted from the premises (p.358).

4. Oswald returned to the Cuban Consulate in the late afternoon. He claimed to Durán that the Soviets had said there'd be no problem with a visa. Durán decided to check, and phoned up the Soviets. Kostikov told her that they had not approved a visa for Oswald. The Cubans therefore could not help him, and he argued with the consul, Eusebio Azcue.

Photo_hsca_ex_437 azcue small.jpg
Eusebio Azcue.

5. On Saturday morning at the Soviet Embassy, Oswald tried to convince Yatskov to give him a visa, saying 'I am afraid... they'll kill me. Let me in' (p.361). He showed his revolver. Nechiporenko, Kostikov and Yatskov managed to calm him down, but he would not take the visa application forms they offered him, as if 4 months would be too late. Then he left.

Newman's account works as long as we set aside the issue of Azcue not identifying Oswald, and Durán saying he was short and blonde. But that's Newman's account of real events, and it goes up to 10.30am Saturday, 28 September. After that, 'Something amazing was about to happen to "reality" in Mexico City' (p.362).

The CIA telephone surveillance transcript of a call to the Soviet Embassy at 11.51am has 'Durán' putting an American on the line to them. He speaks in bad Russian and says he had visited the Soviet Embassy, now has 'his address' from the Cuban Consulate, and agrees to come to the Soviet Embassy now to 'leave' his 'address' with them. The transcriber of the tapped phone would go on to claim that the American speaker 'is identical with the man who would, in a telephone call three days later, state "My name is Oswald"' (p.364). Newman reasons that this is a Durán impostor, and an Oswald impostor who does not know what transpired between Yatskov and Oswald, and is 'trying to keep the conversation going' by talking about addresses, but does not realize that the real Oswald was not interested in visa application forms (which would involve address information), but immediate help from the Soviets. The mysterious circumstances under which this recording and the later 1 October recording went missing after the JFK assassination indicates a possible CIA or DFS operation to impersonate people in Mexico and phone up the Soviet Embassy.

Silvia Durán

Reports of Oswald in Mexico went into the Oswald file in the CIA, which at that point had in it no documents dated later than May '62. The only people in the CIA who had access to both that file and the file containing information on Oswald's FPCC activities, i.e. 'all the pieces of the Oswald puzzle' (p.396), were the Counterintelligence SIG under Birch D. O'Neal and the Security Office under James McCord (later a Watergate burglar), and naturally the head of Counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton.

James McCord

The 8 October cable about Oswald from the Mexican CIA station to headquarters 'caused a lot of excitement' (p.400) according to Ann Egerter, who was in charge of Oswald's file at the SIG, because this ex-defector had met Kostikov, who was KGB. However, according to the CIA's story, prior to the JFK assassination no-one connected these events to the 'project TUMBLEWEED' file, which contained the information that Kostikov was an assassination expert (p.620). Strangely, on 10 October the CIA were happy to connect Oswald to the 'Mystery Man' in their cable (Lopez Report p.146) to the FBI, State Department and Navy about the 1 October surveillance transcript ('an American male, who identified himself as Lee Oswald, contacted the Soviet embassy in Mexico City inquiring whether the embassy had received any news concerning a telegram which had been sent to Washington'). The cable linked this 'Oswald' to the redefector Oswald, but at the same time endorsed the wrong description (the 35-year-old athletic) (pp.398-9). Meanwhile the CIA sent a cable to their own Mexico City station with an accurate description of the true Oswald. Ann Egerter signed off on both cables and told the HSCA 'she could not say why the description discrepancies occurred' (pp.400-401). The Counterintelligence 'releasing officer' for the cable to the FBI, State Department and Navy was Jane Roman (p.401) and on 4 October she had read, and signed that she had read, 'the latest FBI report on Oswald's FPCC activities in New Orleans'. With the knowledge from that report, she would have known the information in the cable about Oswald was false, and when interviewed by Newman for his book, she looked at both documents and said, 'I'm signing off on something that I know isn't true'. She states she wasn't 'in on' this 'tight control' of information, and that it was 'indicative of a keen interest in Oswald, held very closely on a need-to-know basis' (p.405).


Newman points out that while Oswald was murdered, the other person who had been impersonated, Durán, was still alive. The day after the JFK assassination, the CIA station in Mexico City informed the Mexican authorities that she should be arrested, and as she was a Mexican citizen not a Cuban diplomat, they did just that. She told her interrogators Oswald never returned to the Consulate after the 27 September, but the Warren Commission, influenced by the CIA and the Mexican government, reported that 'confidential information' told them that he did, and Durán's 23 November statement was not accurately reported by the Warren Commission. Newman reasons that the CIA's fake Oswald 'transcripts were threatened by what she was saying' (p.409) and that was the motive behind CIA-Mexican pressure on the Warren Commission.

Incidentally, in her HSCA evidence, Durán explained why Oswald had her phone number in his address book: 'I used to do that to all the people, so they don't have to come and to bother me. So I used to give the telephone number and my name and say "give me a call next week to see if your visa arrived"' (p.411).

The main text of Newman's book finishes by noting how scandalous it is that the CIA had known in October that Oswald met with a KGB assassination expert and they didn't tip off other agencies (p.429). The FBI that same month took Oswald off their espionage watch list (p.630). Oswald may even have threatened to kill JFK if the 'Solo' story is to be believed. The CIA could protect operations and sources, etc., but it led to the death of a President.

hill and jackie SMALL.jpg

That's if Oswald was the assassin. Thirteen years later, in 2008, a new edition of Oswald and the CIA came out with an 'Epilogue', which casts a different light on the CIA's behaviour: what if Oswald was being manipulated by 'handlers'? After all, his tourist visa to Mexico was issued next in sequence to the visa of William Gaudet, who worked for the CIA.

'On the surface, Oswald's trip to Mexico City made no sense at all,' Newman writes. Oswald was doing and saying things 'that were not in his interest' (p.615). He could have been prosecuted for going to Cuba, while the State Department in the summer of '63 had already given him permission to travel to the USSR, which he could easily have done via Europe not Cuba.

Manipulators, in Newman's view, may have been trying to link Oswald to both Cuba and KGB assassination expert Kostikov. Oswald could not get a Cuban visa without getting a Soviet visa first, so it brought him into almost inevitable contact with Kostikov. This provides the motivation for the two fake phone calls: they were designed to be picked up by CIA surveillance, so that there would be a record that Oswald met Kostikov. In the second transcript, the 1 October one, both men were specifically named. Newman thinks the 1 October transcript (Lopez Report p. 78 and p.79 ), with its 'Lee Oswald' waiting for an 'answer from Washington' implies that the impostor knew the contents of the genuine Durán-Kostikov phone call of the afternoon of Friday 27 September (Kostikov to Durán: 'According to the letter that he showed from the Consulate in Washington, he wants to go to Russia to stay for a long time with his wife who is Russian. But we have received no answer from Washington'), which means the impostor was being informed by 'either a member of the CIA station or... someone... at the telephone tap center' (p.618).

Valery Kostikov

The Oswald impostor made the Warren Commission possible. Evidence was placed 'into the CIA's records that, on 22 November, would link KGB assassinations to the murder of President Kennedy' and President Johnson, in a taped phone conversation with Senator Russell on 29 November, says he had to stop this 'from kicking us into a war that could kill forty million Americans in an hour' (p.618). That was Johnson's main task; he already knew the Oswald case was fishy. On 23 November, in another taped phone conversation, this time between Johnson and Hoover when the FBI heard the tapes recorded in Mexico, Hoover reported to Johnson that the recordings revealed, 'A second person was using Oswald's name' (p.632). Although we don't have the Mexico recordings today, the existence of the Oswald impostor is thus confirmed, and Hoover is on record internally in the FBI about being angry with the CIA over the fake Mexico City Oswald (p.635).

Apparently a tape containing the recordings, and surveillance photos of Oswald, were kept by CIA Mexico City station chief Win Scott: 'Angered by the cover story that the station had missed Oswald's visits to the Cuban Consulate, Scott kept the tape and the photos in his safe as insurance to prove they had known about it' (p.635). Scott, probably out of the loop on the imposture, did a voice comparison himself, by buying a copy of the WDSU radio debate with Oswald in New Orleans in August.

Win Scott

Newman takes the view that any plot to kill Kennedy had this very handy 'WWIII pretext for a national security cover-up' (p.636), because Johnson couldn't risk an investigation into the JFK assassination that could start a nuclear war. The significance of Oswald in Mexico could not be understood by most people in CIA headquarters in October, because information about Oswald was stashed in different files, but after 22 November it all came together, including Kostikov's role as an assassination expert. A very small group of people had control of Oswald's file(s) from the time of his defection in '59. Newman sees only one person in particular who knew 'both the Cuban and Soviet parts of Oswald's story' and also had access to 'project TUMBLEWEED', the operation against Kostikov; the only man with power who could conceivably have done it all, planned the assassination, bifurcated Oswald's CIA file, stage-managed Mexican unreality beneath Win Scott's nose (using perhaps only one or two trusted agents), and then after the assassination pushed the 'international communist conspiracy theory' to scare Johnson into covering up any plot; the only man with the kind of manipulative ingenuity to conceive of such a dialectical cover-up; a paranoiac, yet one who could construct reality so that all his opponents are kept in a state of paranoia of their own; the man who emptied Win Scott's safe when he died; the head of CIA Counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton, about whom there shall be more, in the next entry of this blog.

Previously in this series:

Who Shot JFK?
The Kennedy Conspiracy
Reasonable Doubt (part one)
Reasonable Doubt (part two)
Who's Who in the JFK Assassination
Deep Politics and the Death of JFK
Deep Politics II: Oswald, Mexico, and Cuba (part one)
Deep Politics II: Oswald, Mexico, and Cuba (part two)
Oswald and the CIA (part one)
Oswald and the CIA (part two)
Marina and Ruth
Quote 0 0
see link for full story or google title


October 27, 2013 10:09 AM

New book reveals how much FBI, CIA knew about Oswald before Kennedy assassination

It has long been known that the Warren Commission, the blue ribbon panel of public officials appointed by former President Lyndon Johnson to investigate the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy, was flawed in ways that led to generations of conspiracy theories about what happened on Nov. 22, 1963. A forthcoming book from former New York Times reporter Philip Shenon digs into exactly what the commission got wrong, both by intentional concealment, or, in Shenon's view, extensive attempts by both the CIA and FBI to withhold just how much they knew about Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald in the weeks and months before he killed the president.

"In many ways, this book is an account of my discovery of how much of the truth about the Kennedy assassination has still not been told, and how much of the evidence about the president's murder was covered up or destroyed - shredded, incinerated, or erased - before it could reach the commission," Shenon writes in the prologue to A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination, which draws its title from the first sentence of the commission's report. "Senior officials at both the CIA and the FBI hid information from the panel, apparently in hopes of concealing just how much they had known about Lee Harvey Oswald and the threat that he posed."

Shenon was interviewed by Bob Schieffer on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday morning. He started the book in 2008, when one of the former staff lawyers from the commission contacted him to suggest he write a history of the Warren Commission like one he had just authored on the 9/11 Commission.

Much of the evidence Shenon includes in his book shows the amount of information about Oswald's time in Mexico that either never reached the Warren Commission investigators or was directly contradicted in reports by the CIA. One example is a June 1964 memo to the commission's lead investigator from J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI director at the time of Kennedy's assassination, in which Hoover wrote about a report from "our people in Mexico" that " [Oswald] stormed into the embassy, demanded the visa, and when it was refused to him, headed out saying, 'I'm going to kill Kennedy for this.'" (it was unclear to Hoover whether the embassy in question was the Cuban or Soviet embassy in Mexico City). The investigators told Shenon they were certain they had never seen the memo, which disappeared before it reached them and only turned up in the classified archives of the CIA years later.

Another previously unknown revelation in the book: Cuban dictator Fidel Castro submitted to questioning by the Warren Commission in a secret meeting with one of the commission's investigators, William Coleman, off the coast of Cuba.

Some of the FBI's other attempts to cover up their connections with Oswald have previously been revealed, such as the fact that Dallas-based FBI agent James Hosty had received and later destroyed a letter from Oswald protesting the FBI's questioning of Oswald's Russian-born wife, Marina. Under orders from his superior, Hosty destroyed the letter by ripping it into pieces, then flushing the pieces down the toilet at the Dallas FBI office, two days after the assassination when Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby.

Tom Johnson, a former press secretary to President Johnson who later became publisher of The Dallas Times Herald and The Los Angeles Times as well as a president of CNN, described Oswald's letter to the FBI as "a note threatening to blow up the Dallas office of the FBI, the building, if the agents did not cease trying to interview Oswald's wife Marina." Johnson confirmed the existence of the latter with former FBI director Clarence Kelley during his time at the Dallas Times Herald.

"The decision was made two days after the assassination to destroy this note. In truth, we'll never know exactly what was in that note, and its been described in different ways," Shenon told host Bob Schieffer. "The Warren Commission knew absolutely nothing about it.

Despite the intentional destruction of evidence, Kelley, who succeeded Hoover as the head of the agency, came to see Hosty as a victim when he later conducted a private search of the FBI's own files about the investigation. "He was convinced that if Hosty had been told everything that FBI headquarters knew about Oswald's Mexico trip, he would have alerted the Secret Service to the obvious threat that Oswald posed," Shenon writes. "The FBI, Kelley said, would have 'undoubtedly taken all necessary steps to neutralize Oswald.' And that was Kelley's larger conclusion - that President Kennedy's assassination could have been prevented, perhaps easily. "

Hosty's note from Oswald was one of the earliest pieces of evidence the commission might have examined that disappeared, but it was certainly not the only example. In the first chapter of the book, Shenon tells the story of how Navy pathologist James Humes threw his blood-stained notes from Kennedy's autopsy into the fire after he transcribed a fresh copy of the report. He said that he wanted to keep the documents from falling into the hands of "ghouls," and gave a similar rationale for ordering that the sheets that covered Kennedy's head wounds in Dallas be laundered during the autopsy.

The commission's investigators never even saw the photos and X-rays from the autopsy, which were in Robert Kennedy's custody at the Justice Department. The Kennedy family - and Earl Warren, the Chief Justice and chairman of the commission - decided to withhold the photos for fear that they would be leaked to the public and destroy the public image of Kennedy as a handsome young president instead of a crime victim with a gruesome bullet wound to his head.

"Repeatedly in the history of the Warren Commission you see the chief justice making decisions that were designed to protect the [Kennedy] legacy," Shenon said. The decision to block access to the autopsy photos caused "huge turmoil" among the commission's staff, he added.

Shenon also points to the CIA as having taken great steps to cover up their knowledge of Oswald's visit to Mexico City before the assassination. The book's prologue opens with the story of diplomat Charles William Thomas, a career State Department employee who uncovered details about Oswald's time in Mexico, including his affair with a Mexican woman who was a supporter of dictator Fidel Castro. The reports Thomas wrote to CIA Mexico City Station Chief Winston Scott with those details were ignored, as was the memo he sent to then-Secretary of State William P. Rogers when Thomas was forced out of the State Department in 1969. Thomas committed suicide in 1971.

"There is some evidence to suggest [Oswald] had a brief relationship with a young Mexican woman ho worked at the Cuban embassy in Mexico City," Shenon said on "Face the Nation." "The Warren Commission actually wanted to interview that woman but Chief Justice Warren made the decision she would not be interviewed because he said 'she was a communist and we don't interview communists.'"

A section of Scott's memoirs - which included details about the extent of the CIA's monitoring of Oswald in Mexico - was only declassified in the 1990s. The agency photographed Oswald outside of the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City, and recorded his phone calls while he was in Mexico, evidence that never reached the commission. Scott's memoirs also reveal that he thought there might have been a foreign conspiracy to kill Kennedy involving Oswald as a Communist agent, which contradicted what he told the Warren Commission.

"Scott told the Warren Commission that he did not believe there was a conspiracy, and apparently in his memoirs he says he exactly the opposite," Shenon said.
Quote 0 0
Barr McClellan emailed me to say his book about the JFK assassination will be out next month. You can watch Barr in this banned History Channel documentary THE GUILTY MEN
    Make sure the video starts at 0 otherwise reset the video

His son Scott McClellan was George W Bush’s Press Secretary

Quote 0 0
 Ed Tatro just sent me a email to this news story.He is third man from the left. see link for full story
October 25. 2013 1:36PM
JFK experts convene in Olney
Edgar Tatro, third from left, speaks during an introductory reception held Thursday night at The Holiday for the JFK assassination conference,
PHOTO/ By Matt Courter
Edgar Tatro, third from left, speaks during an introductory reception held Thursday night at The Holiday for the JFK assassination conference, "Changing the Historical Reality of November 22, 1963," which will be held today and Saturday. The event will feature presentations from experts on the assassination.

A reception featuring participants in this weekend's conference on the assassination of President John Kennedy, "Changing the Historical Reality of November 22, 1963," was held Thursday night at The Holiday.

The panel of experts on the assassination, who at times gave detail-heavy previews of their scheduled Friday and Saturday presentations, included Douglas P. Horne, Edgar F. Tatro, Phillip F. Nelson, Dennis David, Rick Russo, Brian Edwards, Casey Quinlan and Judyth Vary Baker. Olney Central College instructor David Denton introduced the speakers.

Russo talked about his video presentation, "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt," saying it includes what he considers to be the most important footage, that of eyewitnesses, and gives people an opportunity to weigh its legitimacy against the official record.

Horne, who will present medical evidence, said he worked on the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s, which he said examined the record and forced government agencies to declassify certain documents. He said the ARRB was not allowed to re-investigate the case.

He said he will talk about the "extra credit work" they did, including 10 depositions of autopsy witnesses and participants, noting it "added significantly to the records of what happened the night of the autopsy.

Horne, who wrote a five-volume work on the ARRB's efforts, said there has been a medical coverup in the case. "As far as I'm concerned, it's been proven," he said.

He also thinks the Zapruder film has been altered. "I believe it's seriously compromised," he said, adding he planned to present evidence during his Friday presentation.

Nelson, who has written the book "LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination," and the upcoming "LBJ: From Mastermind to 'The Colossus'" spoke on what he sees as Lyndon Johnson's role in Kennedy's murder.

Nelson said that in his writing he has taken information from an assortment of other books, some of which he said are well-known, and "connected the dots and constructed a narrative that explains what I believe happened."

He said some may question his calling LBJ a mastermind. "He wasn't that brilliant, right?" he said.

But, Nelson said, Johnson had a talent for manipulation and the book makes the argument that he was highly involved in the assassination.

In addition to being involved in Kennedy's death, Nelson said there is "strong evidence" he was involved in the murders of 10-17 other people before the Kennedy assassination.

"LBJ was a deeply troubled man," Nelson said, stating that he was narcissistic, sociopathic and bi-polar.

Nelson believes Johnson essentially "willed his own death," after becoming so psychotic and depressed that he drank and smoked himself to death.

English teacher Tatro, who was animated as he discussed the case in his heavy Boston accent, said he was 16 years old when he started looking into the assassination.

He said when he saw Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald on television, "I jumped for joy because I thought justice had taken place.

His father had a more suspicious view, telling his son, "This whole thing smells."

Tatro has taught on the assassination and said the government and corporate media have painted conspiracy theorists as "nutcases."

"You will see we are not nutcases," he said of the panel's presentations.

He went on to talk at length about incidents surrounding the case, including being at the trial of Clay Shaw as a 21-year-old. He said a mistrial should have been called because the judge told the young Tatro his opinion on the case.

He said he was also in an episode called "The Guilty Men," part of a multi-part documentary that aired on The History Channel called "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." He said it was later pulled and can now only be seen on YouTube, which he saw as an egregious case of censorship.

David said he was a Navy Petty Officer, First Class and a medical student who was serving as Chief of the Day when Kennedy was brought in to the hospital after being shot.

He became visibly emotional when talking about the four bullet fragments that he said were taken from the President, which he said were too many for one bullet but not enough for two.

He said that autopsy pictures and slides he saw at the time indicated that the shot entered at the back of the skull.

The four bullet fragments he saw have never been made public, he said.

Casey Quinlan and Brian Edwards, who wrote "Beyond the Fence Line: The Eyewitness Account of Ed Hoffman and the Murder of President John F. Kennedy," said they will discuss Hoffman's account of the assassination.

"There is more to this story than probably any of us will ever know," Quinlan said.

Baker, who wrote a book about her involvement with Oswald titled, "Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald," said that after her presentation, "You're going to know who the real Oswald was."

She said coming forward with what she knows has cost her professionally and personally, but, at 70 years old, she feels compelled to share what she know while she said.

During a discussion of some of the threats, subtle and otherwise, the panel has received, Edwards said about the accounts they would be sharing, "At some point, coincidence and conspiracy come together."


Friday, October 25, 2013

Dr. John D. Stull Performing Arts Center at OCC

12:00-12:40 p.m.

Introduction — David Denton

12:40-1:10 p.m.

Beyond the Fence Line: Eyewitness Ed Hoffman — Casey Quinlan and Brian Edwards

1:10-1:50 p.m.

Gunman on the Grassy Knoll South— Edgar F. Tatro

1:50-2:00 p.m.


2:00-3:30 p.m.

Video 11/22/63 Beyond a Reasonable Doubt — Rick Russo

3:30-4:30 p.m.

Suspects and Motives — Edgar F. Tatro

4:30-4:45 p.m.


6:00-7:30 p.m.

Medical Evidence — Douglas P. Horne

7:30-7:40 p.m.


7:40-9:00 p.m.

Zapruder Film — Douglas P. Horne

9:30 p.m.

Reception at Olney Elks Club, 311 S. Kitchell St. in Olney

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Dr. John D. Stull Performing Arts Center at OCC

10:00-11:00 a.m.

Jack Ruby and His Brother — Edgar F. Tatro

11:00 a.m.- 12:30 p.m.

The New Orleans Project: Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie, and Why Mary Sherman Had to Die — Judyth Vary Baker

12:30-1:00 p.m.


1:00-1:30 p.m. The Secret Service-David Denton

1:30-3:00 p.m.

Behind the Scenes of the Making of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" — Rick Russo

3:00-3:30 p.m.

Early LIFE Magazine Coverage — James Wagenvoord

3:30-3:40 p.m.


3:40-4:25 p.m.

CIA/Intelligence Complicity — David Denton

4:25-5:35 p.m.

LBJ — Phillip F. Nelson

5:40-6:40 p.m.

"Guilty Men" Film — Edgar F. Tatro and Rick Russo

6:40-7:20 p.m.
Quote 0 0


Persistent Paralegal Fights to Shed Light on Kennedy Assassination

Angela Clemente, a New Jersey paralegal who has dedicated much of her career to investigating government corruption, filed suit against the FBI this week for failing to comply with her FIA request for the classified file of Gregory Scarpa Sr., a man who may be tied to the assassination of President Kennedy. Clemente officially requested Scarpa’s file in April, the FBI confirmed in June that the documents would be located and sent to her. Clemente never heard back. Federal law states that one can file suit if the information requested under the Freedom of Information Act is still unavailable 20 days after receipt of the confirmation letter. And thats just what she did.

The withheld file of Gregory Scarpa, a mobster who worked as an informant for the FBI and had ties to the Kennedy assassination suspect Carlos Marcello, the “Godfather” of New Orleans, has been requested in the past. A Congressional investigation led by G. Robert Blakey, now a law professor at Notre Dame, had also indicated that the FBI was less than forthcoming with information about both Marcello and Scarpa. Today, Blakey lauds the efforts of Ms. Clemente, questioning why the FBI documents used in his investigation in the 1970s were so heavily redacted and expressing frustration with the FBI’s secrecy.

For several years, Angela Clemente worked on a case tackling corruption and informants for the Brooklyn D.A., which required her to conduct an in depth investigation of Scarpa’s relationship with a former FBI agent accused of murder. When the case fell apart, Clemente reviewed her research on Scarpa, and became suspicious when she recalled the difficulty of obtaining information on him for her former trial. Her curiousity about the FBI’s hesitance to divulge his file ultimately drove her to pursue the Scarpa-Marcello-Kennedy link, and to file her lawsuit this week.

Quote 0 0
can you imagine the balls these perps have to withhold records from you linking them to the assassination of a President?

5 decades later, some JFK assassination files still sealed; researchers demand ‘transparency’

 November 3 2013

see link for full story


Five decades after President John F. Kennedy was fatally shot and long after official inquiries ended, thousands of pages of investigative documents remain withheld from public view. The contents of these files are partially known — and intriguing — and conspiracy buffs are not the only ones seeking to open them for a closer look.

Some serious researchers believe the off-limits files could shed valuable new light on nagging mysteries of the assassination — including what U.S. intelligence agencies knew about accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald before Nov. 22, 1963.

Quote 0 0

see link for full story

Reversed! Key claim to Warren Commission flipped

Lee Harvey Oswald's widow still fears CIA 50 years after JFK assassination

November 7th 2013

WASHINGTON – Fifty years after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Marina Oswald, the wife of the alleged sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, is making a claim different from what she told the Warren Commission.
Marina Oswald now insists that her husband was innocent of killing the president, a fundamental change of mind from her testimony to the Warren Commission in 1964 in which she said she believed her husband was guilty of both the JFK assassination and an attempt on the life of right-wing firebrand Gen. Edwin Walker.
Now a 72-year-old reclusive grandmother, Marina has lived with her second husband, Ken Porter, in Rockwell, Texas, since the mid-1970s.
Her reversal on the question of Oswald’s guilt came as a result of reading books and other material about the JFK assassination, according to a recent report by the London Daily Mail.
Marina told the London newspaper she still believes her telephone is being tapped by the Secret Service, and she lives in fear of being targeted and killed by the CIA.
But sorting out the truth about Marina Oswald has never been easy.
There is evidence she was a KGB agent who was of sufficient threat to the CIA to warrant the CIA paying her a substantial bribe keep quiet about her status.
Then, there is Oswald’s mother, who despite Marina’s testimony at the time of the JFK assassination, maintained until she died that her son was an intelligence-double agent who was framed as the “patsy” in the JFK assassination. It’s exactly the claim Lee Harvey Oswald himself made before he was murdered by Jack Ruby.
Marina a KGB agent?
Ioan Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking Soviet bloc intelligence officer ever to defect to the United States, has provided highly credible evidence and arguments that Oswald was a KGB operative sent back into the United States with a mission to assassinate JFK. Pacepa’s evidence indicates Marina was also a KGB agent, paired as an accomplice with Oswald in a KGB-arranged marriage.
On Nov. 22, 1963, when JFK was assassinated, Pacepa was living in his native Bucharest, one of three deputy chiefs of the Romanian espionage service, the Department of Foreign Intelligence, or DIE.
At that time, the DIE was a subsidiary of the Russian Soviet espionage service, the Pervoye Glavnoye Upravleniye, or PGU, the First Chief Directorate of the KGB.
In his 2007 book “Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination,” Pacepa traced a wealth of Soviet operational patterns visible throughout the material on Oswald that had been turned up by U.S. investigators. Pacepa said the American investigators lacked the experience and insider’s familiarity with Soviet intelligence operations to recognize the telltale signs that Oswald was a KGB agent.
“Eventually I developed an approach that has never before been used in any of the many studies of the Kennedy assassination,” Pacepa wrote in his book, describing his investigative methodology.
“Taking the factual material on Oswald developed by official and private U.S. investigators, I stacked it up against the operational patterns used in Soviet espionage – patterns little known to outsiders because of the utter secrecy endemic to that community.”
After many years of studying evidence accumulated regarding the JFK assassination, Pacepa found a wealth of information that dovetailed with Soviet operational patterns. He became convinced Oswald was recruited by the Soviets when he was a Marine stationed in Atsugi, Japan, outside Tokyo.
One of the more enigmatic characters in the JFK assassination saga is George DeMohrenschildt, who together with his wife, Jeanne, befriended Lee Harvey Oswald and Marina, when the couple returned to the Untied States and settled in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
Pacepa concluded DeMohrenschildt was Oswald’s KGB handler. Pacepa described DeMohrenschildt as “a long-time Soviet illegal officer whose biography had frequently changed in order to accommodate his Soviet intelligence tasks.”
In testimony to the Warren Commission, DeMohrenschildt was remarkably vague about how he and his wife met the Oswalds.
“I tried, both my wife and I, hundreds of times to recall how exactly we met the Oswalds,” he testified under oath. “But they were out of our mind completely, because so many things happened in the meantime. So please do not take it for sure how I first met them.”
Jeanne DeMohrenschildt was equally vague in her testimony.
“All of a sudden they arrived on the horizon,” she told the Warren Commission. “And actually, who discovered them for the first time, I don’t even know that.”
Her vagueness on recalling how she and her husband first met the Oswald strains credulity.
“I cannot even tell,” she said finally. “I would like to know, myself, now, how it came about.”
George DeMohrenschildt had a tendency to show up just where the CIA might have needed him. He was in Haiti just before a CIA-engineered effort by Cuban exiles to topple Duvalier and later in CIA training camps set up in Guatemala for Cuban exiles just before the Bay of Pigs invasion.
When Warren Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler asked Ruth Paine if Marina Oswald ever mentioned George DeMohrenschildt to her, she answered, “Well, that’s how I met her.”
Marina Oswald subsequently moved into Paine’s home as a roomer and was living there at the time of the assassination. The meeting occurred at a February 1963 party in Dallas that Paine attended especially to meet Marina, supposedly because she was looking for someone with whom to practice her Russian.
Later, Paine’s testimony would be particularly damaging to Oswald, describing him as a deeply disturbed individual, extremely unhappy with his life in the United States and potentially violent to his wife.
The evidence that DeMohrenschildt’s CIA connections were the magnet that drew him to Oswald is a strong and important counterweight to Pacepa’s suggestion DeMohrenschildt was a KGB agent assigned to be Oswald’s “handler” in Dallas.
Did the CIA influence Marina’s testimony?
In the aftermath of the JFK assassination, the CIA brokered a substantial financial pay-off to Marina Oswald. The broker in the deal was C.D. Jackson, who was the publisher of Life magazine.
The anti-communist journalist and author Isaac Don Levine befriended Marina Oswald shortly after the JFK assassination. In response to a request from former CIA director Allen Dulles, Jackson helped broker a $25,000 book deal with New York publisher Meredith Press to publish Marina’s life story, with Levine agreeing to be the ghostwriter.
The book was never written, and Marina Oswald reportedly ended up receiving over $200,000 in what has been described as a “payoff” that Levine arranged.
Both Jackson and Levine had extensive CIA ties. Frank Wisner, who had worked during World War II with Jackson in the Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor to the CIA, had transitioned to become the director of counter-intelligence for the CIA.
In 1948, Wisner recruited Jackson to participate in Operation Mockingbird, a CIA project in which respected journalists were secretly paid by the CIA to publish stories favorable to the CIA. Jackson had had become managing director of Time-Life International in 1948.
Jackson subsequently became the publisher of Fortune magazine, another Henry Luce creation. In February 1953, Jackson was appointed as a special assistant to President Eisenhower in a role that included coordinating with the CIA and advising Eisenhower on Cold War planning and the tactics of psychological warfare.
As publisher of Life magazine, Jackson purchased the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination, from which he published only selected frames shown as still photographs. Jackson resisted making the Zapruder film available for the public to view, arguing it was too graphically violent for widespread distribution. None less than Carl Bernstein, the former Washington Post reporter of Watergate fame, dubbed C.D. Jackson as “Henry Luce’s personal emissary to the CIA.”
Levine was born in Russia and spoke Russian fluently. He spent an intensive week coaching Marina Oswald just prior to her first session before the Warren Commission on Feb. 3, 1964.
Since the end of World War II, Levine had become involved with what was then known as the China Lobby, a group of supporters for Nationalist China opposing Mao and the spread of communism into China.
Editing a magazine on behalf of the China Lobby called Plain Talk, Levine published a stream of articles analyzing the dangers to the United States from China after its fall to the communist Chinese following Mao’s revolution, which began in 1949.
Levine’s history as an anti-communist also included credits for encouraging Whittaker Chambers to speak out against Alger Hiss. James Herbert Martin, who was then acting as Marina Oswald’s literary agent and manager, believed that Levine’s motivation at the time was to tie Oswald in with the Communist Party by coaching Marina on what to say when she testified to the Warren Commission.
The second possible interpretation of Levine’s role was that he was “on the scene primarily for the purpose of gaining intelligence.”
This was the impression of some of the FBI agents who questioned Levine about his relationship with Marina Oswald, including FBI counter-intelligence head William Sullivan.
Oswald’s mother: ‘My son was a double-agent’
“Lee Harvey Oswald, my son, even after his death, has done more for his country than any other living human being,” Marguerite Oswald insisted, speaking to reporters at the gravesite of her son at Rose Hill Cemetery in Fort Worth, Texas, in late 1963.
Testifying to the Warren Commission, Marguerite told them she asked her son why he came back to the United States. She knew he had a good job in Russia because he sent her expensive gifts, and he was married to a Russian girl.
“He said, ‘Mother, not even Marina knows why I have returned to the United States.’ And that is all the information I ever got out of my son.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/reversed-key-claim-to-warren-commission-flipped/#gLh5EH4HGEY0ZjUg.99



Quote 0 0
WHOWHATWHY We Don't Cover the News. We Uncover It.
Thursday, November 7, 2013

Bush And The JFK Hit, Part 8: Prepping A Patsy?
By Russ Baker on Nov 6, 2013
What possible connection could there have been between George H.W. Bush and the assassination of John F. Kennedy? Or between the C.I.A. and the assassination? Or between Bush and the C.I.A.? For some people, apparently, making such connections was as dangerous as letting one live wire touch another. Here, in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination in November, is the eighth part of a ten-part series of excerpts from WhoWhatWhy editor Russ Baker's bestseller, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years. In this installment, Russ Baker examines Lee Harvey Oswald and his handlers.

Monday Morning Skeptic: In Boston Bombing, FBI Fights For Public's Right To Know...Nothing
By James Henry on Nov 4, 2013
The feds are keeping us in the dark about the labyrinthine investigation on the Boston Marathon bombing. Documents mysteriously appear in the hands of pet journalists, then quickly disappear. This is convenient for the government, which wants to know everything about us while giving up little about its own agenda.

Worth Reading: Headline Grab-bag
By Wei Tung on Nov 2, 2013
Stealth bombing of Syria?... Bank-lobbyist mayor muzzles public banking advocate..... Feinstein's NSA reform...that isn't?... Claims ObamaCare actually will work...in a while.....The coffee mug that's burning up the NSA...And theft at George W Bush Elementary School. We don't make this stuff up. We just pull it in for you.

Bush And The JFK Hit, Part 7: Empire Strikes Back
By Russ Baker on Oct 31, 2013
What possible connection could there have been between George H.W. Bush and the assassination of John F. Kennedy? Or between the C.I.A. and the assassination? Or between Bush and the C.I.A.? For some people, apparently, making such connections was as dangerous as letting one live wire touch another. Here, in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination in November, is the fifth part of a ten-part series of excerpts from WhoWhatWhy editor Russ Baker's bestseller, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years. In this installment, Russ Baker examines the flimsy excuses offered by George H.W. Bush as to his whereabouts on the day of the assassination.
Quote 0 0

John Armstrong's Documented History of the CIA's "Oswald Project"

Website Created 3/9/99 and Last Updated 11/2/13 by Jim Hargrove

Quote 0 0
JFK Assassination Truth After 50 Years of Conspiracy with Dick Russell
Episode 73 : Buzzsaw
Episode Synopsis

The hidden truth about the JFK assassination, from Lee Harvey Oswald to the secret service and grassy knoll, and the extensive conspiracy to cover up the coup d’etat that took place 50 years ago in America is discussed with “They Killed Our President,” author Dick Russell. Russell discusses Richard Case Nagell (the man who backed out of the assassination plot), as well as the Warren commission whitewash of the facts, the secret service anomalies in Dallas, the faked autopsy, and what happened at Parkland hospital on this Buzzsaw interview with Tyrel Ventura.

Quote 0 0

see link for full story

A Miami Police Informant, A Prophetic Racist And Fresh Questions About JFK’s Death


President Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963

At 94, former Miami Beach mayor and still active Miami-Dade Senior Judge Seymour Gelber is among the few who remember Miami police informant No. 88, Willie Augustus Somersett.

“Willie was just a garrulous guy,” said Gelber, who worked with Somersett while serving as a top assistant to Dade State Attorney Richard Gerstein in the 1960s. “He’d come in and joke, and [Assistant State Attorney] Arthur Huttoe and I would take his testimony.”

Somersett has been dead 43 years. But in the half-century of assassination lore that’s grown up around the murder of President John F. Kennedy, Somersett has attained a kind of immortality as the man who heard about it first.

You won’t find Somersett’s name in the 26 volumes published by the Warren Commission, the official government investigation that concluded Lee Harvey Oswald was Kennedy’s lone assassin. 

Yet 13 days before that dark day in Dallas, Somersett elicited a chilling, police tape-recorded threat from a right-wing racist who talked of how the President would soon be shot “from an office building with a high-powered rifle” and how “they’ll pick up somebody within hours after…just to throw the public off.”

Extremist Joseph A. Milteer, of Quitman, Ga., made the threat against Kennedy in the kitchen of Somersett’s small apartment in downtown Miami. Was it dumb luck or advance knowledge? Milteer’s uncanny prediction remains unexplained to this day.

In the late 1970s, the House Assassinations Committee had experts analyze a photograph taken in Dealey Plaza moments before the first shot of an unidentified motorcade spectator “who bears a strong resemblance” to Milteer. The experts, however, concluded the man was not Milteer, who died in 1974.

But now, a retired FBI agent who says that within hours of the assassination he was assigned to locate Milteer has told BrowardBulldog.org the man in the photograph is indeed Milteer.

“I stood next to the man. I interviewed him and spent hours with him,” said Don Adams, who spent 20 years with the FBI before working as a police chief in Ohio. “There is no question in my mind. As soon as I saw that picture I almost fell off of my feet.”


Miami police informant Willie Somersett, left, and right wing extremist Joseph Milteer.

Congressional investigators never contacted Adams, even though he was identified in several FBI reports as having interviewed Milteer. Instead, the record indicates they relied on a probability study rather than live witnesses who actually knew Milteer to determine what the photograph showed.

Adams, now 82, says he saw the Dealey Plaza photograph for the first time a decade after his 1982 retirement from the FBI. The photograph renewed his interest in the case and ultimately led him to write the book, From an Office Building with a High-Powered Rifle, published last year by TrineDay. His insider’s account raises disturbing questions about the FBI’s investigation of Kennedy’s death.

Events leading to Willie Somersett’s Nov. 9, 1963 recorded talk with Milteer began 21 months earlier after a bomb exploded outside the home of Miami Herald Editor Don Shoemaker. The city’s entire detective force was assigned to the case, according to news accounts at the time.

Somersett, a part-time union organizer with right-wing ties and a track record as a paid FBI snitch, came forward to point the finger. Gelber credits the information he provided with leading authorities to identify and convict the bomber – a Nazi sympathizer who worked as a meter reader for the city of Miami.

Records show the FBI had dropped Somersett for a while as an informant in 1961 “for indiscretions…which threatened to expose a reliable Bureau informant.” By 1963, however, the FBI had given him the code name “T-2” and reports described him as “a source who has furnished reliable information in in the past.”

In the months following the Shoemaker bomb case, Somersett remained on the Miami PD’s payroll as part of a broader investigation into extremist and racist groups suspected of engaging in violence that authorities feared might spill into Miami.

It was at an April 1963 meeting in New Orleans of the Congress of Freedom Party, a confederation of right-wing political groups, where Somersett hooked up with Milteer, an old friend and a representative of the notoriously violent Dixie Klan faction of the Ku Klux Klan.

Somersett saw Milteer again in Indianapolis in October at the convention of the far-right Constitution Party. As a member of that group’s board of directors, Milteer helped formulate “plans to put an end to the Kennedy, (Martin Luther) King, Khrushchev dictatorship over our nation.”

Gelber, the father of former State Sen. Dan Gelber, kept a diary back then about his work as a prosecutor.  He wrote, “Somersett frequently uses the expression ‘the most violent man I know’” to describe Milteer. “I am beginning to suspect he is intuitively separating the talkers from the doers.”

Following the meeting in Indianapolis, Gelber suggested police tape-record Milteer during an upcoming trip to Miami.

Detective Everett Kay, Somersett’s police contact, set up a tape-recorder in a broom closet in Somersett’s residence in a building in the 1300 block of North Miami Avenue. Today, the former apartment building is a giant billboard.

What follows is a partial transcript. You can listen to the tape and read the entire transcript by clicking here.

Somersett: Kennedy’s coming here, I think, on the 18th or something like that to make some kind of speech…

Milteer: You can bet your bottom dollar he is going to have a lot to say about the Cubans because there are so many of them here.

Somersett: Yeah, well, he will have a thousand bodyguards. Don’t worry about that.

Milteer: The more bodyguards he has, the more easier it is to get him.

Somersett: What?

Milteer: The more bodyguards he has the more easier it is to get him.

Somersett: Well, how in the hell do you figure would be the best way to get him?

Milteer: From an office building with a high-powered rifle…

Somersett: They are really going to try to kill him?

Milteer: “Oh, yeah. It’s in the working…

Milteer mentions the name of a Klansman who might do the job, someone he claimed had stalked Dr. King, “but couldn’t get close enough to him.” Shortly, the conversation returned to the President.

Somersett: Hitting this Kennedy I’ll tell you is going to be a hard proposition, I believe. Now you may have it figured out how to get him…an office building and all that, but I don’t know how them Secret Service…they’d never cover all them office buildings and anywhere he’s going. Do you know whether they do that or not?

Milteer: If they have any suspicion they will, of course. But without suspicion the chances are they wouldn’t….You wouldn’t have to take a gun up there…take it up in pieces. All those guns come knock down and you can take them apart.”

Before the end of the tape, the conversation returned to Kennedy.

Somersett: Boy, if that Kennedy gets shot we’ve got to know where we’re at because you know that would be a real shake if they do that.

Milteer: They wouldn’t leave any stone unturned there, no. No way.

Somersett: Oh, hell no.

Milteer: Hell, they’ll pick up somebody within hours after, if anything like that would happen, just to throw the public off.

Somersett: Well, somebody is going to have to go to jail if he gets killed.

Milteer: Just like Bruno Hauptmann in the Lindbergh case, you know.

President Kennedy came to Miami on Nov. 18 without incident and attended the Inter-American Press Association dinner at the Americana Hotel in Bal Harbour. In his diary, Gelber wrote that police assured him the Secret Service knew Milteer’s whereabouts.


Is the man in the photo Joseph Milteer? Former FBI Agent Donald Adams says yes.

The 1979 report by the House Assassinations Committee says Miami police intelligence officers met with Secret Service agents on Nov. 12 and provided a transcript of the Somersett recording. The Miami Secret Service case agent forwarded the report and a copy of the recording to headquarters in Washington.

On Nov. 18, Miami Secret Service Agent Robert Jamison of Miami had Somersett call Milteer to verify that he was home in Georgia. He was.

But Milteer’s threat “was ignored by Secret Service personnel in planning the trip to Dallas,” according to the House report. Detective Kay and other former police officials said a planned motorcade in Miami was abandoned because of Milteer’s threat, but the House committee later found that was not the case.

Gelber, a senior judge in Miami-Dade’s child support enforcement division, said the FBI, too, was notified.


Miami-Dade Judge Seymour Gelber

While it was Gelber’s belief the FBI didn’t immediately follow up, they did. FBI Agent Adams, based in Thomasville, Ga., said Atlanta Special Agent In Charge James McMahon told him about a threat to the president and on Nov. 13 ordered to him to do a “top priority” background investigation on Milteer. Adams says he submitted his report on November 18.

Word of Milteer’s threat may even have reached President Kennedy himself.

In testimony before the Warren Commission in May 1964, former presidential aide Kenneth O’Donnell said the President talked of such an assassination scenario in his Fort Worth hotel room 30 minutes before leaving for Carswell Air Force Base and the short flight to Dallas.

O’Donnell: Well, as near as I can recollect he was commenting to his wife on the function of the Secret Service and his interpretation of their role once the trip had commenced, in that their main function was to protect him from crowds, and to see that an unruly or sometimes an overexcited crowd did not generate into a riot, at which the President of the United States could be injured. But he said that if anybody really wanted to shoot the President of the United States, it was not a very difficult job–all one had to do was get a high building some day with a telescopic rifle, and there was nothing anybody could do to defend against such an attempt on the President’s life.


Joseph Milteer’s former home in Quitman, Ga. Photo: Dan Christensen

Five hours after the assassination Atlanta Agent-in-Charge McMahon sent an “urgent” FBI teletype to his counterparts in Dallas and Miami and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover citing a “threat to kill Pres. Kennedy by J.A. Milteer at Miami, Fla., Nov. nine last” and reporting, without attribution, that” Milteer’s whereabouts at Quitman, Ga. this date ascertained.”

Adams, however, says that’s not true. He says he knows because within hours of the assassination McMahon assigned him to locate Milteer for the Secret Service, and by about 4 p.m. he was knocking on Milteer’s door in Quitman. Milteer was nowhere to be found.

Adams spent the next four days canvassing Milteer’s “known haunts” in southern Georgia before locating him in nearby Valdosta, Ga. on Nov. 27. Adams called Agent Kenneth Williams for backup and later that evening the two men stopped and questioned Milteer.

A Dec. 1, 1963 report filed by Adams and Williams says Milteer “emphatically” denied ever making any threat against President Kennedy and denied knowing Oswald or Jack Ruby, Oswald’s killer.

The report, and documentation about it, shows the agents never confronted Milteer with his words from the tape-recorded threat. Adams says that’s because his FBI superiors never informed him that a tape of the threat had been made, and limited the scope of the questioning.


Former FBI agent Donald Adams

  Instead of charging Milteer with making a death threat against the president the FBI’s McMahon told Adams to release Milteer “since there was no indication he was involved in the assassination.”

Meanwhile, police in Miami learned that Somersett rendezvoused with Milteer in Jacksonville the day after the assassination before traveling together to Columbia, S.C. for a KKK meeting.

Milteer was jubilant about Kennedy’s death, Somersett told the Miami Police.

“He said, ‘Well, I told you so. It happened like I told you, didn’t it?’” Somersett said, according to one report. “I said, ‘That’s right. I don’t know whether you were guessing or not, but you hit it on the head pretty good.’ He said, ‘Well, that is the way it was supposed to be done, and that is the way it was done.’”

An FBI memorandum sent Nov. 27, 1963 to Assistant Director Alan H. Belmont, the agency’s No. three official, “Milteer reportedly told Somersett he had been in Fort Worth and Dallas as well as other southern cities. He did not indicate the dates of his visits to these cities.”

see link for full story
text size Lead FBI investigator in Boston bombing speaking in Mich. Updated: Monday, November 11 2013, 08:44 AM EST AUBURN HILLS, Mich. (NEWSCHANNEL 3) - The lead investigator in the Boston Marathon bombing case will speak Monday night at the Cooley Law School Auburn Hills campus. Rick Deslauriers will address a national security law class on topics relating to the FBI and April's Boston Marathon bombing. The now retired agent also played a significant role in other high-profile investigations during his time with the bureau, including the James "Whitey" Bulger case.

Read More at: http://wwmt.com/shared/news/features/top-stories/stories/wwmt_lead-fbi-investigator-boston-bombing-speaking-mich-15529.shtml


Quote 0 0

see link for full story






  (11/13/2013) - The late actress and film super star Natalie Wood who appeared in many film classics including “Rebel Without A Cause,” and “West Side Story,” to name but a few, and controversial FBI agent Donald Wilson are believed to have had a long running romantic relationship that began in 1973 at a Coeur d’Alene, Idaho resort. Wilson was in Idaho in 1973 in connection with a speaking tour on behalf of the FBI. It was then that he met Wood who was staying alone at the resort in an effort to distance herself from her husband Robert Wagner following an argument between the two. When Wilson and Wood met in 1973, Wood was several months pregnant with Wagner’s child. Wilson, a distant relative of J. Edgar Hoover, recently published the book “Evidence Withheld.” This book is highly critical of not only Hoover, but also the FBI, CIA, U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Justice and implicates those agencies in the assassination and subsequent cover up in the murders of Martin Luther King Jr. and JFK. Wilson and Wood carried on their long distance romance until 1977 when Wood supposedly ended the affair while visiting Wilson in Greensboro, North Carolina. Wood had concerns about the impact that public disclosure of their relationship would have on both her film career and Wilson’s FBI career. The investigation into the mysterious death of Wood, which occurred aboard her boat the “Splendour,” was recently re-opened by California authorities and is continuing.
Quote 0 0

Oliver Stone: Obama Doesn't Have JFK's Backbone


Quote 0 0
see link for full story

Do 3 'tramps' hold key to solving JFK murder?
Men arrested near scene shortly after assassination
November 16,2013
author-image Jerome R. Corsi About | Email | Archive
Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command." Corsi's latest book is the forthcoming "What Went Wrong?: The Inside Story of the GOP Debacle of 2012 … And How It Can Be Avoided Next Time."

In 1966, JFK-assassination researcher Richard E. Sprague came across seven unpublished photographs taken by newspaper photographers in Dealey Plaza between 2:20 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. local time – approximately two hours after the shooting – showing three unidentified “tramps” being escorted by two armed Dallas policemen past the Texas School Book Depository and across Houston Street to the sheriff’s office.

Further research indicated the three unidentified men had been found in a railroad freight car in the railroad yard behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll, above the triple underpass.

Dallas Police Sgt. David V. Harkness told the Warren Commission (Vol. VI, page 312) that he pulled “some people” he identified as “tramps and hoboes” off a long freight train in the railroad yard. Harkness testified the men were arrested and “taken to the station and questioned.”

Deputy Sheriff Harold E. Elkins, in an affidavit given Nov. 22, 1963, (Warren Commission, Vol. XIX, page 540) stated, “A little while later a Dallas policeman came to our office with three prisoners who he had arrested on the railroad yards. I took these three to the city jail and turned them over to Capt. Fritz.”

In 1966, law enforcement authorities in Dallas were unable to produce any records of the arrests, and the identity of the “three tramps” seen in the unpublished Dallas newspaper photographs could not be determined.

In the 50 years since the JFK assassination, researchers have produced evidence suggesting the men were key assassination operatives attempting to escape Dealey Plaza, hoping they would be dismissed as vagrants.

Problems identifying the ‘tramps’

In a 1992 release of thousand of pages of Dallas police arrest and investigation reports regarding the JFK assassination, an arrest report filed by Dallas police officer W. E. Chambers documented the three “tramps” were Howard Doyle, John F. Gedney and Gus W. Abrams. The three were arrested as “investigative prisoners” charged with vagrancy and robbery.

Chambers’ report vaguely recorded the three men were “taken off a boxcar in the railroad yards right after President Kennedy was shot.” He noted they were “passing through town” and had “no means of support.” The three were kept in Dallas Police custody until 9:25 on the morning of Nov. 26, 1963, and then released.

An FBI interview with Harkness June 29, 1992, reported: “Harkness had an opportunity to view four photographs of the three individuals identified as Doyle, Gedney, and Abrams. Harkness identified them as three of the individuals who were removed from the train on Nov. 22, 1963.”

Viewed critically, the language appears to sidestep a direct statement that Harkness had positively identified the three men in the photographs as Doyle, Gedney and Abrams

The FBI report added, “On the day of the assassination there were several individuals from the train other than the three individuals previously identified.”

Chambers, in a signed statement given to the FBI on March 3, 1992, indicated he did not recognize the three names on the arrest records.

The FBI further indicated Chambers did not remember filling out arrest reports for Doyle, Gedney and Abrams, although he did acknowledge the handwriting on the forms was his.

“Chambers indicated that on the day of the assassination, a number of people were brought into the Police Department as a result of a police dragnet,” the FBI report said. “Chambers speculated that the three were brought to the station by uniformed officers, and that those officers had not filled out any type of paperwork regarding their detention.”

Chambers also noted that no arrest number or identification number appeared on any of the reports filed for Doyle, Gedney and Abrams, indicating the Dallas Police jail would most likely not have any booking information on any of the three individual.

Other contradictions in the record involve three different FBI reports dated 1992 indicating Doyle had been arrested on a gondola known as a coal car, while Dallas Police records indicate the “three tramps” seen in the seven unpublished Dallas newspaper photographs had been arrested in a railroad freight box car. Gedney claimed he was arrested on a flatbed railroad car that was transporting large sheets of steel. Yet a third FBI report says Doyle, Gedney and Abrams were arrested in a grain car on the freight train.

An additional continuing problem is that the physical resemblance between Doyle, Gedney and Abrams appears tenuous, at best, with no credentialed face-recognition experts affirming a match with the men seen in the seven “tramp” photographs in question.

The controversy over the “three tramps” intensified in 1975 when investigative reporters Alan Weberman and Michael Canfield in their 1975 book “Coup d’Etat in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy” argued the men in the photographs do not look like tramps. All three were clean-shaven and two had recent haircuts.

“All of them looked well-fed and their shoes were not worn,” Weberman and Canfield wrote.

Weberman and Canfield speculated the two of the tramps resembled Watergate burglars E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis, while the third resembled an Oswald-double identified under the alias Daniel L. Carswell.

Chauncey Holt comes forward

In 1991, Chauncey Holt, a criminal with ties to organized crime figures Meyer Lansky in Miami and Havana, as well as with Peter Licavoli in Detroit, who additionally claimed to have worked for the CIA as a contract agent, came forward to identify himself as one of the three men in the photographs.

In an autobiography Holt published this year titled “Self-Portrait of a Scoundrel,” Holt claimed he played a role in the JFK assassination by forging Secret Service credentials that he transferred on Nov. 22, 1963, to a contact who distributed the them to mobsters and CIA agents participating in the assassination.

Holt identified the other two men as known mob-related murderers Charles Harrelson and Charles Rogers (aka Richard Montoya).

Holt’s claim gained attention when Lois Gibson, a widely recognized forensic artist and facial expert who works for the Houston Police Department, conducted an analysis in which she affirmed her certainty the three men were Holt, Harrelson and Rogers.

According to Holt’s account, on Nov. 22, 1963, he was instructed to wear work clothes and was provided with the location of a boxcar in which he was supposed to hide, containing weapons and firearms. Holt was carrying credentials identifying him as an undercover agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, U.S. Treasury Department.

Holt described how he had driven Charles Nicoletti and Leo Moceri, two well-known gunmen with the Licavoli crime family in Detroit, from Tucson, Ariz., to Dallas in an Oldsmobile station wagon.

Leaving Tucson on Nov. 20, 1963, Holt explained a windstorm in El Paso, Texas, forced them to stop, delaying their arrival in Dallas to the early hours of Nov. 22, 1963.

Arriving late in Dallas, Holt’s instructions were to drop Nicoletti and Moceri at a downtown Dallas hotel and then drive to the parking area behind Dealey Plaza. He was to find a pickup truck with Texas license plates into which he was to place a briefcase containing the false Secret Service identification papers and lapel pins he had forged and falsified.

“One out of area car, a Chevrolet, with Arizona plates drove into the lot, circled the entire area and parked very near the railroad tower,” Holt wrote on page 171 of his autobiography. “Almost immediately, Richard Montoya and Charles Harrelson approached me. I had identification and hand guns, which I was instructed to deliver to them.”

Holt also wrote that he observed a vintage Ford in the parking lot behind Dealey Plaza, driven by a man he recognized as Aldo Vera, an anti-Castro Cuban activist.

“Vera appeared to be listening to a handheld transceiver,” Holt noted.

After the shooting, Holt climbed into the freight train boxcar, as instructed, finding that Montoya and Harrelson were already there.

“At about 1:30 the train moved out, and I gave a deep sigh of relief, although I was still in shock over what had apparently taken place,” Holt wrote on page 177.

Suddenly, the train came to a halt; Dallas Police searching the boxcar apprehended the three men.

“We were ordered out of the boxcar, without any opportunity to present our credentials, or explain that we were engaged in an official investigation for the ATF, at the time all of the excitement continued,” Holt continued. “Shortly thereafter, I arrogated myself to the position of spokesman and explained our cover story to Sgt. D. V. Harkness and he ordered the army of police officers to search the rest of the train. He then turned us over to a pair of portly officers, who escorted us to the Dealey Plaza command post.”

Holt continued his narration: “We were marched south along the railroad tracks, to west of the Texas School Book Depository; then across Elm street and up to the corner of Houston Street to the command post, that had been set up at the Criminal Courts Building. We were turned over to a deputy sheriff, who called [Dallas Police Department Captain] Will Fritz, a man I knew we could trust. Fritz came over from the police station, said a few words to the deputy sheriff and ordered that we be turned over to the resident agent of the FBI, who was Gordon Shanklin.”

Holt explained: “Shanklin turned us loose, at once, and there was no record kept of our ‘detainment.’ The only record of this incident is the photographic record of us crossing the plaza [Dealey Plaza].”

Holt further explained that of the eight or 10 persons arrested in the railroad yard, arrest records were kept for everyone but Holt, Montoya and Harrelson.

How credible is Chauncey Holt?

Holt’s account is remarkable in that he identified in Dallas four individuals suspected of being gunmen in the JFK assassination: Charles Nicoletti and Leo Moceri, as well as Richard Montoya and Charles Harrelson.

Zack Shelton, a retired FBI agent who has spent years since his retirement investigating leads in the JFK assassination, explained to WND that he considered Holt’s testimony credible, not only because of the Lois Gibson’s facial recognition analysis, but also because various details of Holt’s accounts are corroborated by other testimony independently given by known eyewitnesses to the JFK assassination.

Lee Bowers, a “tower man” for the Union Terminal Company who was in the railroad yard tower, elevated some 14 feet above the railroad yard with windows permitting a clear view on all four sides, testified to the Warren Commission in Dallas on April 2, 1964 (Warren Commission Volume VI, page 284).

Bowers testified that among the three vehicles he observed in the parking lot on the morning of Nov. 22, 1963, was a 1959 blue-and-white Oldsmobile with out-of-state license plates and a Goldwater bumper sticker.

Bowers also testified he observed a 1957 black Ford with a Texas license plate “with one male in it that seemed to have a mike or telephone or something that gave the appearance of that at least.”

Pressed by Joseph Ball, the Warren Commission assistant counsel questioning him, Bowers further explained: “He was holding something up to his mouth with one hand and he was driving with the other, and he gave that appearance. He was very close to the tower. I could see him as he proceeded around the area.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/do-3-tramps-hold-key-to-solving-jfk-murder/#tWv03qefiX5E2bDd.99
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.