Git-Mirrors/textfiles-politics
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/nhammer514/textfiles-politics.git synced 2024-12-26 15:59:29 -05:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
dd80b08a16
textfiles-politics/regexConsp/taking.xml

9885 lines
572 KiB
XML
Raw Blame History

<xml><p>Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!olivea!sgigate!odin!ratmandu.esd.sgi.com!dave
From: dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Book Intro: "The Taking Of America, 1-2-3"
Summary: we were robbed of our capability of electing a president we wanted
Keywords: our electoral system was taken away from us starting in 1963
<info type="Message-ID"> 1992Jun4.223739.17980@odin.corp.sgi.com</info>
Date: 4 Jun 92 22:37:39 GMT
Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Lines: 244
Xref: ns-mx alt.activism:27137 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1493 alt.conspiracy:15372
Nntp-Posting-Host: ratmandu.esd.sgi.com</p>
<p> This is an introduction to the book "The Taking of America, 1-2-3,"
by Richard E. Sprague, self-published by the author first in 1976,
revised in 1979, and updated in 1985. There will be eleven posts
following this one that will comprise the complete 1985 updated
third edition which I will be sending out with the permission of
the author. From the book's own introduction,</p>
<p> This book is not about assassinations, at least not
solely about assassinations. It is not just another book
about who murdered President Kennedy or how or why. It is a
book about power, about who really controls the United
States policies, especially foreign policies. It is a book
about the process of control through the manipulation of the
American presidency and the presidential election process.
The objective of the book is to expose the clandestine,
secret, tricky methods and weapons used for this
manipulation, and to reveal the degree to which these have
been hidden from the American public.
Assassinations are only one of many techniques used in
this control process. They have been important only in the
sense that they are the ultimate method used in the control
of the election process. Viewed in this way, an
understanding of what happened to John or Robert Kennedy
becomes more important because it leads to a total
understanding of what has happened to our country, and to
us, since 1960. But the important thing to understand is
the control and the power and all of the clandestine methods
put together.</p>
<p> Two men named Richard Sprague have been involved in examining the
assassination of John F. Kennedy and its ensuing cover-up through the
years. Richard A. Sprague, the former district attorney from
Philadelphia, and the fearless prosecutor of the Yablonski murderers,
was named on October 4, 1976, by Congressperson Thomas Downing, to be
chief counsel of the just-then forming House Select Committee on
Assassinations. Richard E. Sprague was a pioneer in the field of
computers starting in the 1940s. His involvement studying the
photographic evidence in the assassination of President Kennedy goes
back to 1966:</p>
<p> From the day it happened I was skeptical about what was
being said on the TV and radio with regard to how the
president was killed. But when the "Warren Report" was
issued I became non-skeptical and accepted it pretty much as
it was. However, when the 26 volumes became available in
late 1964 and I started reading through them, I became
skeptical again because I could not find confirmation of
most of the so-called facts presented by the "Warren Report"
and purported to be backed up by the evidence in the 26
volumes, or any other evidence.
So I started work again, which caused me to need an index
to the 26 volumes. This in turn lead to my contacting
Sylvia Meagher and asking where I could get her index having
discovered that she had created and published one that the
Warren Commission hadn't seen fit to provide. She told me
where I could get it and suggested we have lunch. This was
in early November, 1966. She asked, "Why don't you do some
real research?" and I said, "like what?" and she responded
"how about the photographic evidence? A couple of people
have started work on it but haven't finished." I asked her
who and she said "Harold Weisberg and Ray Marcus." I
contacted both men and that's more or less how I stuck my
foot in the quicksand.
At the time the 26 volumes became available there were
only 8,000 copies printed for the whole country. The time I
managed to get hold of one of these sets of all 26 volumes
was when I had moved to the University Club in New York City
and they had a complete set donated to the University Club
by non other than John J. McCloy. So I was using John J.
McCloy's personal copies for the beginnings of my research.
Now, the most important thing initially that happened in
finding the photos was discovering a number of photographs-
-films and still photos--that showed the sixth floor window
empty with nobody in it. This is what originally convinced
me that we had a different sort of conspiracy going than one
involving Lee Harvey Oswald, because if he wasn't in the
window--and nobody was in the window--then what happened?
Who fired the shots? And where from?
Confirming that the films and photographs I was looking
at were taken at the critical time the shots were fired, or
immediately before or after that, involved a lot of work:
work with plat maps, other photos, and other materials. I
got hold of a map made by the surveyor for Dealey Plaza (I
believe his name was Clarence West) which was drawn to
scale, and Bob Cutler helped me draw onto it all of the
various things that happened including all the vehicles that
were moving through. And I managed to lay a set of films
end-to-end starting with one rounding the turn onto Houston
Street all the way through Dealey Plaza so I could track any
vehicle that was in view eighteenth-of-a-second by
eighteenth-of-a-second (Zapruder film speed) all the way
through Dealey Plaza. This enabled me to determine where
Kennedy was at all times and where anybody else was that
showed up in any of the photos--particularly moving
pictures--at times Kennedy was at spot so-and-so or spot
such-and-such.
By doing this, with some triangulation, I was able to pin
down the exact timing of two particular sets of photos: a
film--the Hughes film--the last frame of which shows the
sixth floor window empty and ends 5.7 seconds ahead of the
first shot--the first shot being fired/tied down at frame
189 of the Zapruder film; and two photos taken after the
shots were fired by Dillard and, believe it or not, an
intelligence man from Navy intelligence named Powell.
Powell's and Dillard's photos were taken almost at the same
time, 3.5 seconds after the fatal and last shot (Z-313).
So that total time span is less than 17 seconds--if you
add up the 5.7 seconds after the end of the Hughes film,
plus the 6-plus seconds while the shots were being fired,
plus the 3.5 seconds before Dillard and Powell's photos were
taken--of blank, non-coverage of that window and there's no
way Oswald could have gotten into the window, aimed, fired
three shots, and gotten out of the window so you that
couldn't see him in 17 seconds.
But anyway there was another film taken by Beverly Oliver
otherwise known as the Babushka lady that was confiscated by
News Orleans FBI agent Regis Kennedy, and a still photograph
taken by Norman Similas, confiscated by the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police from "Liberty" magazine (which was going to
publish the photo), who then turned the photo and its
negative over to the FBI. I interviewed Similas and the
"Liberty" magazine editor both of whom told me they had
carefully examined the photograph and had seen no one in the
photograph appearing in the eastern-most sixth floor window,
which I calculated had been taken about half-way into the
17-second interval.
I made two attempts soon after the Freedom of Information
Act "viewing room" in the FBI office in Washington, D.C. was
created, to request to see the Similas photograph and
Beverly Oliver film, but each time the FBI person assigned
to me was not able to find these photograhs. But the
testimony of the people involved was good enough for me to
conclude that there was nobody in that window ever.
Once I got to that point I started looking for other
evidence that would show where the shots did come from and I
started finding all kinds of evidence of shots from the
grassy knoll, and from the Dal Tex building, and from the
roof or the seventh floor of the western end of the
depository building--both photographs as well as witness
testimony--and that lead me to decide that this was a
powerful conspiracy which had involved at least four gunmen
firing shots. This then lead me to decide that I should
pursue the whole pattern of conspiracy including,
eventually, the Martin Luther King assassination, the Bobby
Kennedy assassination and the George Wallace attempt. And
that led to the book.
Through all of this, I just know I never would have
concluded that it was a powerful and well-planned conspiracy
if I had not determined that Oswald wasn't in that window--
nobody was in that window. That was the first key.
There's one other thing I'd like to point out. The title
of the book has more than just simple significance and it
shows up in all the chapters that link all these
assassinations and their cover-ups. Namely, our country has
been taken from us. Us being the citizens of the United
States as of 1963, and any time after that, by robbing us of
our capability of electing a president we wanted for at
least three, and more likely four, elections. One way of
taking the country away, is to control the elections and
that's really, at least part of the essence of the book.
It's close to what Henry Gonzalez proposed in his original
bill. He wanted the Congress to look into all four of the
major assassinations--the fourth being the attempted
assassination of George Wallace--and find the links between
and among them, and the cover-ups, and particularly the
links between the intelligence agencies and the cover-ups
that he was sure were involved in all of them. And if we
had had a committee which had done that, well then, we'd
have been a lot further along than we are 13 years later.</p>
<p> -- phone interview with the author, June 3, 1992</p>
<p> The assassination of President John F. Kennedy was the most
photographed murder in history. Approximately 75 photographers took
a total of approximately 510 photographs, either before or during or
within an hour after the events in Dealey Plaza, and either there or
nearby or related to those events. The word "photograph" in this
context includes both still photos and movie sequences. The number
of frames in a movie sequence ranges from about 10 to about 500; and
in the count of 510 photographs, given above, the 10 to 500 frames of
a single movie sequence are counted just as *one* photograph. The
total number of frames is over 25,000.
The Warren Commission examined 26 photographs, about 5 percent of
the 510. The FBI examined about 50 photographs, or about 10 percent.
The most famous of all the photographs is the Zapruder film, which
had over 480 frames.
Many of the photographs were taken by professional photographers.
About 30 of the photographers were professionals who worked for
newspapers, television networks, and photographic agencies.
The Warren Commission did not interview a single one of the
professional photographers, nor did the Warren Commission see any
complete, uncropped copies of their photographs.
Fifteen of these professionals were actually in the Kennedy
motorcade, no further than 6 car lengths behind the Kennedy car.
Five of these photographers were television network cameramen. The
Warren Commission looked at none of their photographs.
[.....]
Because the professionals used movie cameras of professional
quality, their films are exceedingly revealing and valuable as
primary evidence. The Warren Commission looked at none of these
films.
During the past several years, I have collected copies of over 200
of these photographs, and I have looked at and taken notes of another
200 of these photographs, without obtaining copies of them. Some of
the remaining 100 have either not been found or have been locked up
or destroyed by the owners, who are fearful of the information they
show. Or they have been locked up by the FBI, who have either placed
them in files inaccessible to the public or possibly have destroyed
them.</p>
<p> from, "The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy:
The Application of Computers to the Photographic
Evidence" Richard E. Sprague, "Computers and
Automation," May, 1970, p. 34.</p>
<p> for those interested, i have created a raw PostScript version of this
complete book which can simply be lp'd to a PostScript laser printer
for "prettified" hardcopy output. the combined size of the two
PostScript files comprising the book is 1055954 bytes (1007753 and
48201 bytes for the main portion and appendix respectively).</p>
<p>--
daveus rattus </p>
<p> yer friendly neighborhood ratman</p>
<p> KOYAANISQATSI</p>
<p> ko.yaa.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi Language) n. 1. crazy life. 2. life
in turmoil. 3. life out of balance. 4. life disintegrating.
5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!ratmandu.esd.sgi.com!dave
From: dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (1/11)
Summary: we were robbed of our capability of electing a president we wanted
Keywords: part 1 of 11: beginning thru chapter 3
<info type="Message-ID"> 1992Jun5.142954.8850@odin.corp.sgi.com</info>
Date: 5 Jun 92 14:29:54 GMT
Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Lines: 1113
Xref: ns-mx alt.activism:27177 alt.conspiracy:15386 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1506
Nntp-Posting-Host: ratmandu.esd.sgi.com</p>
<p> THE TAKING OF AMERICA, 1-2-3</p>
<p> by Richard E. Sprague
Reprinted here with permission of the author. Permission to distribute
this book is freely given so long as no modification of the text is done.</p>
<p> Richard E. Sprague 1976
Limited First Edition 1976
Revised Second Edition 1979
Updated Third Edition 1985</p>
<p> About the Author</p>
<p> Publisher's Word</p>
<p> Introduction</p>
<p> 1. The Overview and the 1976 Election</p>
<p> 2. The Power Control Group</p>
<p> 3. You Can Fool the People</p>
<p> 4. How It All Began--The U-2 and the Bay of Pigs</p>
<p> 5. The Assassination of John Kennedy</p>
<p> 6. The Assassinations of Robert Kennedy and
Dr. Martin Luther King and
Lyndon B. Johnson's Withdrawal in 1968</p>
<p> 7. The Control of the Kennedys--Threats &amp; Chappaquiddick</p>
<p> 8. 1972--Muskie, Wallace and McGovern</p>
<p> 9. Control of the Media--1967 to 1976</p>
<p> 10. Techniques and Weapons and 100 Dead Conspirators
and Witnesses</p>
<p> 11. Nixon and Ford - The Pardon and the Tapes</p>
<p> 12. The Second Line of Defense and Cover-Ups in 1975-1976</p>
<p> 13. The 1976 Election and Conspiracy Fever</p>
<p> 14. Congress and the People</p>
<p> 15. The Select Committee on Assassinations, The Intelligence
Community and The News Media</p>
<p> 16. 1984 Here We Come--</p>
<p> 17. The Final Cover-Up: How The CIA Controlled
The House Select Committee on Assassinations</p>
<p> Appendix</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> About the Author</p>
<p> Richard E. Sprague is a pioneer in the field of electronic
computers and a leading American authority on Electronic Funds
Transfer Systems (EFTS). Receiving his BSEE degreee from Purdue
University in 1942, his computing career began when he was
employed as an engineer for the computer group at Northrup
Aircraft. He co-founded the Computer Research Corporation of
Hawthorne, California in 1950, and by 1953, serving as Vice
President of Sales, the company had sold more computers than any
competitor. In 1960, he became the Director of Computer Systems
Consulting for Touche, Ross, Bailey, and Smart. He became a
partner in that company in 1963, and started its Advanced Business
Systems Department in 1964 where he stayed until 1968. In 1968 he
established Sprague Research and Consulting for Computer
Information Systems Consultation. He is currently also Consultant
to the President's Commission on EFTS and full time consultant to
Battelle Memorial Institute of Frankfurt, Germany.
In 1966, Mr. Sprague commenced an intensive program of research
into the photographic evidence associated with the assassination of
John Kennedy. He served a year as photographic expert advisor in
the investigations conducted by New Orleans District Attorney Jim
Garrison and had amassed and analyzed a majority of the known
evidence on film by 1968 when he co-founded the Committee to
Investigate Assassinations. He served with CTIA as an active
researcher, board member and Secretary from 1968 to 1974.
Following numerous radio and television appearances and
extensive lecture tours of the United States and Canada (where
slides and films were used to demonstrate the basic evidence of
conspiracy), he began, in 1974, working toward a Congressional
investigation of all four major political assassinations and the
cover-ups and links among these interrelated events. He was an
advisor to Representative Henry B. Gonzales (D-Texas) on House
Resolution 203 which proposed the appointment of a committee to
investigate the circumstances surrounding the deaths of JFK, RFK,
Martin Luther King and the attempt upon the life of Presidential
Candidate George Wallace. He served as a consultant to Richard
A. Sprague and G. Robert Blakey, the first and second General
Counsels of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and
served through the end of the Committee's existence.
He is author of "Electronic Business Systems" (Ronald Press)
1962, "Information Utilities" (Prentice Hall) 1969, and a
celebrated series of articles which appeared in "Computers &amp;
Automation" Magazine beginning in 1970. He is also co-author with
Dick Russell of "In Search of the Assassins" which is scheduled for
publication by the Dial Press in 1977.
The materials presented in this book are drawn from an analysis
of the photographic evidence, personal knowledge and records of the
Garrison investigation, research files of the Committee to
Investigate Assassinations and Congressional Committees.</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Introduction</p>
<p> This book is not about assassinations, at least not solely about
assassinations. It is not just another book about who murdered
President Kennedy or how or why. It is a book about power, about
who really controls the United States policies, especially foreign
policies. It is a book about the process of control through the
manipulation of the American presidency and the presidential
election process. The objective of the book is to expose the
clandestine, secret, tricky methods and weapons used for this
manipulation, and to reveal the degree to which these have been
hidden from the American public.
Assassinations are only one of many techniques used in this
control process. They have been important only in the sense that
they are the ultimate method used in the control of the election
process. Viewed in this way, an understanding of what happened to
John or Robert Kennedy becomes more important because it leads to a
total understanding of what has happened to our country, and to us,
since 1960. But the important thing to understand is the control
and the power and all of the clandestine methods put together.
Much of the information in the book has been published before in
the magazines "Computer and Automation" and "People and the Pursuit
of Truth," both edited and published by Edmund C. Berkeley,
Newtonville, Mass. The material on assassination and other events
covered is based on evidence collected by the author individually
or through the Committee to Investigate Assassinations. References
to documentation of this evidence are given throughout the book.
I am indebted to the following people for assistance in the
research work involved and the preparation of the book itself:
Special thanks go to Mary Ferrell who typed the original of the
book.
Jerry Policoff, Mark Lane, Ed Berkeley, Bob Cutler, Jim
Garrison, Bill Turner, Wayne Chastain, Bob Richter, Gary Shaw,
Fletcher Prouty, Rush Harp, Jones Harris, Bob Saltzman, Penn Jones,
Larry Harris, Sylvia Meagher, Ray Marcus, Harold Weisberg, Hal
Dorland, Paris Flammonde, Tink Thompson, Bob Katz, Joachim Joesten,
Peter Downay, Harry Irwin, Dick Billings, Jim Lesar, Fred Newcomb,
Lillian Castellano, Dick Russell, Tris Coffin, Mae Brussell, Bill
Barry, Gary Roberts and most of all to my wife Gloria whose hard
work and infinite patience made it all possible.
The book is dedicated to Representative Henry B. Gonzalez for
his singular courage in standing against the forces of evil.</p>
<p> Richard E. Sprague</p>
<p> Hartsdale, New York
July 4, 1976</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Publisher's Word</p>
<p> We published "The Taking Of America 1 2 3" during the winter of
1976-77. It was typed under the guns in Dallas, Texas, and offset
printed in Woodstock, N.Y. A few weeks later--five hundred copies
in all, 24 of which were fired off to the two House Committees
involved in the investigation of the assassinations. Our elation
with this `coup-de-truth' evaporated as we saw the committee
destroyed at the starting line.
The following summer, while motoring across our sadly taken
America, I experienced a tremendous synchroneity of events which
lead to my discovering the Power Control Group's secret team of
murderer's and their patsies. This knowledge caused me to come out
in the open even further and place a sign on route 28 enroute to
Woodstock. "Who Killed J.F.K., R.F.K., M.L.K., M.J.K.?" in
reflecting letters on a blood-red field. The Modjeska Sign Studios
estimated 1.2 million sightings per month. And we then watched the
committee suppress and muddle the evidence while chanting the
Katydid like cry, of the tremendous big lie--Oswald did it, Oswald
did it, Oswald did it, did it, did it.
So we are bringing our knowledge up to date with the closing of
the new "Warren Report" which now, due to The Witness They Could
Not Kill (the sound tape that proved conclusively that more than
one gun was involved in the president's assassination), at last
admits conspiracy. Where do we go from here? We reach out now for
a courageous commercial publisher to spread these truths that we
hold self-evident out to our duped, betrayed, and steadily lied-to
Americans.</p>
<p> Rush Harp
Barbara Black</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> THE TAKING OF AMERICA, 1-2-3</p>
<p> Chapter 1
The Overview and the the 1976 Election</p>
<p> The taking of America has been both a simple and a very complex
process. It has not been the result of a coup d'etat, although
some aspects of the process resemble a coup. It has not been a
process similar to the dictatorship takeovers in Germany, Italy and
other fascist regimes. It has not been a process like the
Communist "uprisings" in Russia, Hungary and other Eastern European
countries.
The taking of America has been a process unique in the history
of the world. The one feature that makes it unique is that what
was once the greatest democracy in the world has been taken over by
a power control group without the knowledge of most of the American
people, their congressional representatives, or the rest of the
world.
The group has taken America in this fashion because manipulation
of the American presidency and the presidential electoral procedure
is enough to control America. Two fiendishly clever stratagems
were used to keep the fact that control had been seized from being
obvious to the people. The first of these was control of the
established media in the dissemination of both true (blocking) and
false (flooding) information. The second was the use of
clandestine and secret weapons and techniques developed during
World War Two and perfected during the Korean and Viet Nam wars.
These techniques are so new and unusual as to be unbelievable to
most citizens. Thus, the incredibility of such weapons as
hypnosis, brainwashing and "programming" of patsies as assassins
became a psychological tool in the bag of techniques of the power
control group. The average American has shrugged off the
possibility of the takeover with the belief that, "That's not
possible here."
The use of such weapons, coupled with a tremendous campaign
through the controlled media that both whitewashes any signs of
conspiracies and spreads disinformation throughout the country, has
successfully blocked any serious or official attempts to get at the
truth. Unofficial investigators, private researchers, and even
Congressional representatives have been ridiculed and completely
blocked by both the power control group and their media allies.
To take over a real democracy without letting the people know it
has been taken over is a fantastic achievement. A list of the
accomplishments of the power control group illustrates the point.
Since 1963, they have:</p>
<p> 1. Assassinated John F. Kennedy;</p>
<p> 2. Controlled Lyndon B. Johnson as president;</p>
<p> 3. Forced LBJ out of the presidency;</p>
<p> 4. Assassinated Robert F. Kennedy, assuring Nixon's
election in 1968;</p>
<p> 5. Assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King;</p>
<p> 6. Eliminated Ted Kennedy as a contender in the 1972
elections by framing him at Chappaquiddick and
threatening his children;</p>
<p> 7. Stopped George Wallace's campaign, assuring Nixon's
election in 1972;</p>
<p> 8. Knocked Edmund Muskie out of the 1972 election campaign
by using dirty tricks;</p>
<p> 9. Covered up all of the above;</p>
<p> 10. Controlled the 15 major news media organizations;</p>
<p> 11. Made Gerald Ford vice president and then president;</p>
<p> 12. Insured continuity of the cover-ups by forcing Ford to
pardon Nixon;</p>
<p> 13. Murdered about 100 witnesses and participants in the
three assassinations and one attempted assassination;</p>
<p> 14. Blocked efforts by private citizens and organizations
to reveal the take-over; discredited, ruined or
infiltrated these individuals or groups; murdered or
were accomplices to the murders of the operating
assassins;</p>
<p> 15. Blocked efforts by members of the Senate and House to
initiate investigations of the assassinations and
attempted to whitewash, ridicule or eliminate these
efforts (their influence and infiltration has been
particularly effective in the Church Committee and in
the House Rules Committee);</p>
<p> 16. Controlled the presidential election procedure since
1964 by eliminating the candidates who might expose the
truth and insuring the election or appointment of
candidates already committed to covering up the truth
about the take-over.</p>
<p> The question for 1976 was: Could the power control group
continue the take-over during that year's elections? Would they be
successful in blocking efforts to expose the take-over by congress?
Would they be able to fool the American public again, control the
media, and eliminate the contenders for the presidency in 1976 who
might have threatened their secure position? The answer to these
questions was "Yes."
The candidates on the scene during the 1976 primaries fell into
three categories according to the control group's point of view.
Category 1 included candidates that would continue the cover-up of
the take-over. Gerald Ford led this group with Ronald Reagan not
far behind him. Henry Jackson was a probable ally because of his
backing of the CIA, an important organization in the cover-ups and
the takeover. Category 2 included those candidates who would
probably try to expose the take-over and the power control group if
elected. Morris Udall, Fred Harris and George Wallace fell into
this category. The third category included candidates whose
intentions were not clear, or unknown at the time. Jimmy Carter,
Franck Church and Hubert Humphrey remained in this group, and
Sergeant Shriver and Birch Bayh were also in this category before
they dropped out of the race.
Efforts would have been made to eliminate Udall, Harris or
Wallace if any one of them was nominated at the Democratic
convention. Carter must certainly have been put to some kind of
loyalty test before being permitted to continue as the Democratic
nominee. Reagan and Ford were, no doubt, already "safe" candidates
for the control group because of their demonstrated cover-up
performances.
Ford had cooperated fully in at least four ways. He was on the
Warren Commission and played a leading role in the cover-up. He
wrote the cover-up book "Portrait of the Assassin." He pardoned
Nixon and protected the Nixon tapes. And he formed the Rockefeller
Commission, appointing David Belin as head of the staff to continue
the cover-up of the JFK conspiracy.
Reagan had cooperated in at least three ways. He protected
important witnesses from extradition from California between 1967
and 1969 for testimony before the grand jury in New Orleans and at
the trial of Clay Shaw. He assisted Evelle Younger, then district
attorney in Los Angeles and later California state attorney
general, in covering up the assassination conspiracy in the Robert
Kennedy case. And he has consistently supported the foreign and
domestic clandestine activities of the CIA, FBI and other
intelligence agencies both nationally and in California.
A later chapter will describe just how the Democratic candidate
may be eliminated and when. Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez from San
Antonio, Texas, who introduced House Resolution 204 to reopen the
two Kennedy assassination cases, the Dr. King case and the George
Wallace shooting, took a public position on the possibility that
the 1976 election was controlled. Gonzalez said "If we find the
answers--the truth--to the questions I have raised (about the
assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK and the Wallace attempt), as well
as those many others have raised, will the truth make us free?
Yes, it will, for the truth will make us free to pursue democracy-
-our system of government--through the ballot box, and we will not
be subject to government by bullets. The truth will enable us to
prevent such a series of events from happening again. Some of the
supporters of the investigation have written to me recently of
their hope that the investigation will get underway right away
(March 1976) because they are concerned that there is great danger
in store for the Democratic nominee for the President, whoever he
turns out to be. I hope very much that these fears do not turn out
to have a basis in fact."</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Chapter 2
The Power Control Group</p>
<p> Just who and what is the Power Control Group? Some have said
it's the military industrial complex. Some prefer to put the blame
on the Rockefellers and the Council on Foreign Relation. Others
have talked about control shifting from the "Yankees" to the
"Cowboys" and back again. The term "The Cabal," first used in an
obscure paper by an unknown author in 1968,[1] described a high
level conspiracy group that planned, financed and carried out the
assassination of John F. Kennedy. The word Cabal has been used
since then by some authors and researchers and applied to all of
the major domestic assassinations.
The idea of a Cabal raises more questions than it answers. Who
is in the Cabal? Was the same Cabal behind the planning and
financing of all five (Chappaquiddick being the fifth) major
eliminations? Or are there several interlocking Cabals? What
about the Warren and Rockefeller Commissions? Were they part of
the Cabal? Which Cabal controls and infiltrated the media and
organized the disinformation that poured forth in 1975 and 1976?
Was Ford a Cabal member? Was Nixon? How about Johnson and
Kissinger? Has one Cabal commanded the executions of the 100
witnesses and lower level participants?
The mistake made by researchers in postulating higher level
groups is that they simplify a very complex situation. To draw a
distinct line between those involved in an overt conspiracy to
assassinate a leader and those involved afterward in covering up
the first group's actions is a mistake. The cover-ups are far more
important than the original assassinations. Each assassination or
attempted assassination, or other form of elimination of a leader,
is only part of a greater whole. The 16 accomplishments of the
power control group listed in Chapter 1, plus those now taking
place and those scheduled for the future, should be considered as a
continuum. The control group membership may contain individuals in
various categories, some of whom planned assassinations, some of
whom knew about the assassinations, and some of whom did not know
about assassinations in advance. Some may have been on the firing
line but have had nothing to do with the cover-ups. Some of them
are victims of later eliminations. Somewhere in the power control
group's hierarchy is a sub-group or perhaps several sub-groups that
have been responsible for the attempted assassinations of
presidential candidates, earlier assassins, witnesses, and earlier
middle-to-higher level members in the power control group. These
sub-groups might be thought of as intelligence-style task forces or
mini-Cabals. There is little question that many of the individuals
in these task forces are from organized crime and from the
intelligence community, or both. They have had access to
intelligence techniques and weapons that have frequently been used
in the the elimination process.
A second mistake made by some researchers is to assume that the
Cabal's shape remains static through time. Evidence shows that the
Power Control Group has been a living organism that both shrinks
and grows as a function of time. The shrinkages take place through
eliminations and a few natural deaths. The growth takes place for
several reasons. It is necessary to use new techniques and new
people for the group's activities as time passes in order to
continue effective control of the media and to continue to fool the
people and Congress. It's also necessary to bring new high level
people into the group from time to time. Candidates for president
acceptable to the group must be sworn in and must agree to continue
the cover-ups. New media lackeys or new special committees or
commissions are also needed. Once in a while an individual
blackmails his way in. Some come in on a de facto basis.
(Protectors of the Kennedys and their children fall into this
category.)
The very nature of the cover-up procedure has made it necessary
to expose at least some of the truth to vice presidents and vice
presidential candidates, in addition to presidents Johnson, Nixon,
and Ford. Each vice president elected or appointed since 1963 has
had to know the truth about the cover-ups in the event he became
president (Humphrey under Johnson, Agnew under Nixon, and then Ford
and Rockefeller). Ford was the most important of these since he
had to agree to pardon Nixon and to protect the tapes.
The heads of the FBI and CIA, selected trusted second-level men,
and the deputy director of plans (DDP) in the CIA have all had to
know some of the truth. The members of the 40 group and their
successors who presumably know all intelligence secrets of the
country are, no doubt, brought into this "inner circle" of
knowledgeable people.
The Warren Commissioners were split. Warren, Dulles McCloy and
Ford all knew the truth; Cooper, Boggs and Russell did not. The
Rockefeller Commission was also split. Rockefeller certainly knows
and so does Ford's man on that Commission, David Belin. Kissinger
must have known the truth; so must have the officers in the
Department of Defense. Then there are the Secret Team members,
planted in the various media organizations, who know the truth. A
later chapter will describe who they are and how they lead the
media cover-up and disinformation mill.
This living organism view of the Power Control Group can best be
constructed and proven by starting with the cover-up efforts and
the control of the media, as opposed to examining the conspiracies
to assassinate each leader. It is much easier to show how Gerald
Ford, for example, led the cover-up in the JFK conspiracy than it
is to determine who the members of the Power Control Group were who
planned and financed the assassination.
It is difficult to show evidence of higher level participation
in the assassinations of Robert Kennedy, Dr. King and in the
attempted assassination of George Wallace. It is not difficult to
prove that many high level individuals conspired to cover-up the
conspiracies in each of the three cases. It is not difficult to
prove that they helped frame at least one of the patsies (James
Earl Ray).
Much of the content of this book will show evidence of the
cover-ups and discuss the actions that are still taking place that
protect the Power Control Group. Only summary information is
included on the original conspiracies, except where there is a lack
of published data.</p>
<p>____________________</p>
<p> [1] "Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal", Torbett, 1968 (Copeland
Document)</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Chapter 3
You Can Fool the People</p>
<p> One of the questions always asked by the beginning student of
America's political assassinations is, "How is it possible that all
of this could be happening in our country without our knowing about
it?" The "It couldn't happen here" belief has been extended to,
"It couldn't happen here without our knowing about it." This is
usually buttressed by such arguments as, "The Kennedys would have
done something about it, if it were true", or "Such a giant
conspiracy would have been exposed by someone within the
conspiratorial group", or "The news media would have found out
about it and told all of us by now."
The fact that it is possible to fool a majority of the American
people for a long period of time and to cover-up a high level
conspiracy involving many, many individuals, can easily be
demonstrated by using Watergate as an example. In fact, some
published articles[1] show that the entire truth about Watergate
has yet to be revealed.
We do know now about the cover-up of the original crimes in
Watergate and the cover-up of the cover-up. We tend to forget the
attitude of the majority of the American people, the Congress and
the media, toward Richard Nixon and the Nixon administration during
the period between the June 1972 Watergate break-in and the
November 1972 election and beyond into 1973. Long before Woodward
and Bernstein and others began the Watergate expose, a few
researchers were calling the Watergate conspiracies to the
attention of a small portion of the public.[2] It was not until
late 1973 that the research done by these researchers and their
hypotheses about high-level conspiracies were proven correct and
were generally accepted. How did it happen that for more than a
year a majority of the American people were not only fooled by Mr.
Nixon and his friends, but also re-elected him? Some of the same
ingredients present in that situation were like those used in the
taking of America. We can all learn a lot by observing what they
were.
What follows is a reproduction of an article by the author.
(Because the article was written in l972, some of the material in
it is now obsolete. However, it is reproduced here without changes
to illustrate the situation and attitudes of the pre-Watergate
revelation era.) It was originally written during the Watergate
cover-up era (late 1972), after Nixon was re-elected and before
Bernstein and Woodward were noticed by anyone. It should be noted
that even in 1976, Mr. Nixon still had his vehement supporters who
were blind to the ingredients required to fool the people.</p>
<p> You Can Fool the People</p>
<p> You can fool all of the people some of the time
You can fool some of the people all of the time
But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, 1864</p>
<p> The decade of 1963 to 1973 in the United State of America
will go down in history for many things. In the long run
it will be known through the world as the period which
demonstrated that it is possible to fool most of the
people all of the time.
Adolph Hitler didn't fool very many people. He cowed
them, frightened them, and killed them. But most Germans
knew what was happening even though they chose to do
nothing about it until it was too late.
The exercise of power to control what happens and to
restrict liberties is much more difficult in a Democracy
or a Republic. The United States is always held up as the
model case in which the guaranteed election of the
president every four years and the two-party system, will
prevent the country from being run by dictators. The
people are represented by the Congress and also elect the
President.
A person or a group planning a coup d'etat in the U.S.
would have a completely different job on their hands than
Germany in the 1930's, South American or African countries
in the twentieth century, or France in the 1890's or
Russia in 1918.
It would be necessary to fool a majority of the
American people into believing that they were well
represented, and that a democracy still existed, while at
the same time the coup group were in reality changing the
country to suit their own tastes.
It is the contention of the writer that this is exactly
what has happened over a period of time following World
War II. The methods used to fool the American people,
certainly since 1963 and to some extent also since the end
of World War I, have varied slightly as administrations
changed. The main thrust however has been a constant
erosion of civil rights, and a swing of government away
from the best interests of the people and toward big
companies, banks, the military and rich individuals and
families. The trend was slowed down only briefly between
1960 and 1963 when Jack Kennedy attempted to alter the
situation. He was assassinated because he did so.
To fool the American people is not easy. It requires
immense capabilities, tricky, secret methods, hidden
resources, great wealth and the equivalent of brainwashing
or mind control on a grand scale. Yet that type of
resource is precisely what has accomplished the deed. It
is probable that, like Germany, the American people will
awaken to what has been happening to them and to who has
been doing it. It is also very likely, now that the Nixon
administration has been restored for four more years, that
by 1976 it will be too late, in spite of Watergate.
George McGovern's speech on ABC Television, the evening
of October 25, 1972, was a warning for those citizens who
were awake, that "it can happen here." It's happening
here, was his basic message. Yet, unlike Germany, the
people were silent, and fooled. They didn't believe him
when he said, "Your liberties are being removed, one by
one." The Supreme Court by 1976 will be so packed with
Nixon appointees that we will never get our liberties
back. McGovern covered most of the areas in which the
people have been fooled. The major area he didn't cover
was that of assassination. This tool represents only the
end of the spectrum of techniques used by those in control
to remain in control. It has been used four times very
effectively, on both Kennedys, on Martin Luther King, and
in the attempt on George Wallace. In the case of Wallace,
crippling was sufficient to change the political outcome
in 1972.</p>
<p> More important than the use of assassinations has been the
ability to fool the American people into believing there were four
lone madmen involved--and no conspiracies. The techniques involved
in fooling people are more complex and subtle than those involved
in the crime itself. In the Watergate case, the original crime was
the use of every trick and technique necessary to re-elect Nixon.
The people had to be fooled into believing that Nixon and the CIA
had nothing to do with Watergate and the broader plan of which it
was part.
That the fooling part turned out to be so easy is due to a long
series of conditioning steps taken with the American news media and
the people over the preceding years. The Pentagon Papers case
reveals how the people were fooled by several (successive CIA)
administrations over a long period of time. Efforts against
Ellsberg and the press continued in order to prevent further decay
of the fooling process.
How is it possible in the 20th century USA--with TV and high
levels of communication, with freedom of the press, freedom of
speech--to fool most of the people all of the time? Here is how it
is done. Five ingredients are required.</p>
<p> INGREDIENT 1. A PATRIOTIC ISSUE. A fundamental issue
permeating nearly all conditions of life in the U.S. is needed,
around which the rest of the fooling can be constructed. The
perfect issue since 1947 has been "The Red Menace," or "Communism"
or "The Radical Communist Left Conspiracy." No one is more adept
at using this issue than Richard Nixon.
The people, to be fooled, have to really believe in the issue,
from the heart, from the gut. In a democracy this is the most
essential ingredient. In the U.S. many, many people believe it.
Some believe it because they have never heard or read anything
other than "The Communists are going to take over." Others believe
it because they or their parents or relatives came from Europe and
"know what it's like to live under Naziism or Communism." (They
don't distinguish.)
Some believe because they are religious, and somehow religion is
always linked to anti-communism. Others aren't sure, but they
think "radical" groups might be Communist controlled. The flag
waving, the national anthem, the American Legion, our prisoners of
war, the draft of the past--all of these symbols are linked to the
one big issue of "Communism."
There can be several sub-issues of lesser significance than the
fundamental issue. Some of these might be related to the main
issue. Others may be unrelated. Some are used to appeal to
certain segments of the population. They can be carefully
exploited and added together with the main issue in a way which
enhances it. Some are useful with low-intelligence-level people.
Others appeal to bigots. Some are fearful issues which people
would rather avoid. Others hit the individual right in his
pocketbook or his security.
If played one against the other, very carefully, many of these
sub-issues can be blamed on Communism. Archie Bunker, of the TV
series, "All In The Family", was not exaggerating when he blamed
his white niece's dancing with a black neighbor boy on "a Communist
plot."
Examples of sub-issues used by those controlling Nixon
administration to fool the people include:</p>
<p> The black-white issue
The busing issue
The young radical issue
The law and order issue
The national security issue
The old-fashioned American work ethic versus
poverty and welfare issue</p>
<p> INGREDIENT 2. REACHING THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE. To fool a
majority of the people all of the time it is necessary to reach
into their minds over a relatively long period of time. Make an
analysis of what you, the reader, believe today or disbelieve,
along with the mental condition you are in when you enter a polling
booth, or write a letter to your Congressman. After some thought
list all of the ways in which information might reach you today.
You will list all of the environmental factors, self images,
motivations, ego factors and acquired beliefs that make you do what
you do, and make you think what you think.
You will realize that your heritage, your schooling, your life's
experience, and the present bombardment of information have an
impact on how you vote. If your father and grandfather before you
were strong Republicans or Democrats, you may well vote the same
"pull one lever" way. You might close your mind to any messages of
imminent disaster, and think, "I'm better off not knowing and just
voting straight Republican." (In 1972)
You might have strong faith in the "American way of life" and
pay no attention to the people who go around claiming that John
Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were all murdered by
elements of an invisible government to keep the U.S. on the
military, wealthy, conservative track.
You might ignore solid evidence regarding Lee Harvey Osward's,
James Earl Ray's or Sirhan Sirhan's actions and instead rely on a
long-term, well engineered faith that something like that "couldn't
happen here."
Go back in time to 1935, if you are over 50, or go back to 1945,
if you are over 40, or back to 1955, if you are over 30. Examine
your general overall attitudes, beliefs and prejudices as developed
over that period of time between then and now. You will discover
that your political beliefs about the U.S., the Presidency, foreign
policy, wage and price controls, and your own economic conditions,
etc., have been strongly influenced by the various news media.</p>
<p> INGREDIENT 3. CONTROLLING THE NEWS MEDIA. In Chapter 9, the
author proves that it has been possible for a very small group of
people in power to control or fool nearly all of the major news
media in the U.S. about the assassination of John F. Kennedy and
subsequent investigations conducted by groups other than the
sources of power (Warren Commission, FBI, Secret Service, CIA,
Justice Department, the President).
According to polls taken between 1963 and 1970, 50% to 80% of
the public at one time or another during this period believed there
was a conspiracy. Nevertheless, the major news media took the
opposite position. A poll conducted today would, no doubt, show
about one-half of the people believing there was no conspiracy.
How did this happen? Is it conceivable that the power sources of
two succeeding administrations (Johnson and Nixon) fooled or
controlled the news media to that extent?
The problem is not so difficult as it seems. Only sixteen media
organizations are involved. These sixteen provide each of us with
nearly all of the news we either read, see or hear. It is only
necessary to control the sixteen men at the very top and that is
exactly what happened. The proof contained in Chapter 9 contains
specific facts about what happened inside of eleven of the sixteen
organizations.
Some of them maintained an editorial position oriented toward
the possibility of conspiracy for several years. The last ones to
convert because of high level command decisions (at the *owner*
level--not the editorial level) did not do so until 1969, 5 1/2
years after the assassination. Several of the eleven conducted
their own independent investigations and discovered conspiracy
evidence sufficient to take that stand. Among these were CBS,
Life Magazine, and "The New York Times."</p>
<p> The sixteen media organizations are:</p>
<p> 1. NBC-TV and Radio
2. CBS-TV and Radio
3. ABC-TV and Radio
4. Associated Press
5. United Press International
6. Time-Life
7. McGraw Hill - Business Week
8. Newsweek
9. U.S. News and World Report
10. New York Times and their news service
11. Washington Post and their news service
12. Metromedia News Network TV and Radio
13. Westinghouse Radio News Network
14. Capital City Broadcasting Radio Network
15. North American Newspaper Alliance
16. Gannett News Service</p>
<p> Controlling the news media to that extent in order to fool the
people is an extreme act. It is a last resort in an extremely
serious situation. Such a situation arose when it became obvious
to those in power that Jim Garrison was going to expose the truth
about the assassination in court. He had to be destroyed, and he
was, by fooling the news media as well as the people.
Control of the press by the power group slipped a little with
the Pentagon Papers, the Mylai episode, the Green Berets, the FBI
use of spying, and the Watergate caper. But effective control over
the fooling of the people nevertheless remains. With Watergate,
people fooling shifted from controlling the news media, which
suddenly awakened a little too late, to the control of the the
legal system.</p>
<p> INGREDIENT 4. CONTROLLING THE LEGAL SYSTEM. Perhaps the most
important long-range ingredient in fooling the people of America is
the control and influence over the legal system. The U.S. in the
post-war era has reached the stage where, in case of doubt on a
major issue, the people will wait to see how it is resolved by the
courts. The American people in general have always had tremendous
faith in their own legal system.
With the exception of the South taking issue with the Warren
court over black rights, the American people tend to believe that
the Supreme Court will eventually right any wrongs. The faith goes
much further than adjudication of crimes or disputes. People have
come to rely on the legal system to tell them where the truth lies
on a major issue when two sides differ completely on the facts.
They believe that the adversary procedure and the perjury penalty
system will ferret out the truth.
Thus, to fool the people, and make them believe lies, it is
essential to control the legal system. The Nixon and Johnson
administrations and the Invisible Government lying underneath or
off to one side of both administrations became very adept at
controlling the legal system. It can be done, and has been done in
several ways. Nixon, of course, loaded the Supreme Court. That is
important. The complete control of the Justice Department and the
FBI is also obvious. Not so obvious is the need to control Federal
judges throughout the land. Truth might leak out in a trial at a
local level, so U.S. courts in each area must be controlled.
The Federal grand jury scheme worked out by Nixon, Mitchell and
Robert Mardian is a beautiful way to guide, direct and control the
legal system. It more than proved its worth in fooling the people
in cases involving classified documents, the Black Panthers and
other situations where the truth had to be obscured.
Control over the American Bar Association and individual lawyers
and district attorneys is another method used. And finally, it is
often useful to control local and state police, either individually
or in groups.
The exercise of control is important. It may be desirable to
suppress truth in a court situation during a trial or hearings.
The judge can do this very effectively. It may also be desirable
to delay a trial or a hearing in which the truth might be exposed.
Judges and lawyers can do this quite easily. It may be desirable
to entirely shut off a trial or an appeal where truth could be
exposed. Nixon was able to do this to perfection.
Lies and fake cases may be presented as truth in court while
truth is attacked as being falsehood. This technique has been very
successful.
All of this takes both money and power. Judges and lawyers,
must either be paid a lot of money, or frightened about their
career and health. The CIA conduits used for espionage financing
have been used extensively in controlling the legal system. Power
has been used to control lower courts and local police or district
attorneys from the highest source of power in America, the
invisible government.
A few examples will suffice to demonstrate how the legal system
is used to fool the people.
The 1972 election demonstrated that two-thirds of the people
either did not associate Mr. Nixon with the Watergate affair and
the Chapin-Segretti sabotage project, or else they didn't know
about it or didn't care.
Surely, you say, a traditional American patriot would not vote
for a man who did all of the things the Watergate 7 and Chapin-
Segretti and company did. But wait! The situation as of January
1973 had not yet reached the courts. Except for Bernard Barker's
conviction for falsely using his notary public seal to stamp a
check from Kenneth Dahlberg in Florida, no court actions had taken
place.
Wasn't that lucky for the Republicans, you say. It wasn't luck.
The Watergate arrests took place in June 1972. By successfully
delaying a whole series of trials and court actions, Mr. Nixon,
through control of the courts, kept the truth away from the people
until after the election on November 7. Perhaps some of the people
who voted for him had doubts, but if court cases had been conducted
before November 7, and conducted fairly by uncontrolled judges, the
truth would have been exposed in all of its glory.
Now that he had a powerful mandate from the people, it was
likely that other forms of control would be used to continue
fooling the people about Watergate. Some of these were covered in
the prior chapters. Executive privilege has been used to a major
extent.
Clay Shaw was actually defended and Garrison, in effect, was put
on trial, through CIA money and CIA lawyers. Garrison's attempts
to bring Shaw to trial for perjury were successfully blocked by
Federal courts and judges.
Sirhan Sirhan's trial for the murder of Robert Kennedy was
controlled by the Nixon administration in order to hide the truth
from the people. The case involved controlling the judge at the
trial, the district attorney, the lawyers for Sirhan, the Los
Angeles police, the FBI, and some of the officials of the state of
California. The control exercised has continued to prevent Sirhan
from receiving a new trial based on new evidence of what happened
in the assassination.</p>
<p> THE FIVE BIG EVENTS. The five events since World War II about
which the power control group must continue to fool the American
people about are the assassinations of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy
and Martin Luther King; the attempted assassination of George
Wallace; and the Watergate episode. (In 1973, the truth about
Chappaquiddick and its importance, together with the threats
against Jackie Kennedy, Ethel Kennedy, Ted Kennedy and all of the
Kennedy children, had not been exposed. Chappaquiddick is the
sixth big event.)
All other things this group has done since 1947 fade into
insignificance compared to these five. The reason is that the
American people may accept such things as the Pueblo incident, the
Gulf of Tonkin fake, the Mylai incident, the Pentagon Papers, the
Kent State killings, the frame-ups of the Black Panthers and their
murders, and even the whole Viet Nam war, but they would rise up in
wrath if the truth about any one or all of those five events were
exposed.
Thus, Mr. Hanson for Sirhan, Mr. Fensterwald for James Earl Ray,
Mr. Lawrence O'Brien and the Watergate suit--anyone opposing the
findings of the Warren Commission with national prominence and
success--and anyone who begins to pry too much into George
Wallace's brush with death will be opposed with all the power those
in control can muster. Each will be dealt with if he comes too
close, just as Jim Garrison was dealt with by both the Johnson and
Nixon administrations. Garrison managed to beat out the Nixon-
controlled Justice Department in his own trial in September 1973.
The jury in New Orleans found him innocent in spite of the fact
that the prosecuting attorney, the judge, the key witness, Pershing
Gervais, and the news media were all controlled by Nixon and
Mitchell. By late 1973 it was becoming a little more difficult to
fool the people.</p>
<p> INGREDIENT 5. PAID COLUMNISTS OR LACKEYS. Control of the news
media includes controlling or hiring selected columnists, newsmen,
commentators, and lackeys. Sometimes these people are called
"spokesmen for the administration." Many of them are supposedly
independent. Their importance in the process of fooling the people
has increased as the number of independent news media organizations
has decreased and the number of organizations relying on
syndicated, national columnists or commentators has increased.
The Nixon administration managed to corral a great many more of
these types than did the administrations of Johnson, Kennedy, or
Eisenhower. In the newspaper field, there were four to five times
as many columnists writing "fool the people" type news for Nixon as
against Nixon. Alsop was at one extreme. More subtle were writers
like C.L. Sulzberger in the "New York Times" and Gary Wills in
various conservative papers. On radio, the Westinghouse network
used four commentators who appeared to be liberal at first glance,
but who adhered to the party line when the time came to get at the
truth about the five key events mentioned earlier. These four were
Peter Lisagor, Rod McCleish, Simeon Booker and Irwin Cannon.
William Safire, Evans and Novak, Mary McCarthy, and occasionally
Jack Anderson also fall into the "fool the people" column. The
impact of these columnists on the American people has not really
been measured. Alsop's and Evans and Novak's columns appear in
Republican and right-wing newspapers all across the U.S. The
election poll that indicated over 700 newspapers supported Nixon
while fewer than 50 supported McGovern provides some estimate of
how influential these papers and columnists can be. With the
exception of two or three stories by Jack Anderson about Robert
Kennedy and plots to assassinate Castro, none of the evidence about
the truth pertaining to the assassinations has ever appeared in any
of these columns. Yet the American people read these columns more
faithfully than they read the front page.</p>
<p> HOW THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN FOOLED. Now that the ingredients for
fooling the people have been discussed, let's examine the net
results over the past twenty-five years. Between 1957 and 1972,
there was a culmination in the use of these ingredients, many of
which were developed with the end of World War II.
Through a succession of presidencies and political party
administrations from Truman to Nixon a mixture of wealthy, military
and espionage individuals developed a power base and used the five
ingredients to fool the people. Except for John Kennedy, none of
the presidents tried very hard to resist this power. The book
"Farewell America" (by James Hepburn--a pseudonym--Frontiers
Press), which has been reprinted in sections in "Computers and
Automation" (1973) shows clearly what kind of power JFK tried to
resist and how it resulted in his death.
The American people aren't familiar with this book any more than
they are familiar with a movie made from the book, with the same
title. And as long as the group remains in power, the book and
movie will be banned from the United States, just as "Z" was banned
in Greece.
The people of America were fooled into believing each of the
following untruths:</p>
<p> Kent State:</p>
<p> The National Guard fired under intense pressure and attack
by a bunch of hoodlums at Kent State University. The
various grand juries have vindicated the Guard. There was
no White House influence involved in the killings, or in
the aftermath.</p>
<p> Mylai:</p>
<p> Calley was justified in shooting the civilians at Mylai
because those were his orders. You can't tell a "gook"
from a Viet Cong and, after all, war is war.</p>
<p> Communism:</p>
<p> The greatest threat to American freedom is still a world-
wide Communist take-over. The domino theory may or may not
be correct, but we must never give up a fight. "Peace
with honor" was essential in Viet Nam.</p>
<p> Pentagon Papers:</p>
<p> Few people have taken the time to read the Pentagon Papers
and have understood their significance. The two-thirds
majority who elected Nixon in 1972 may have been puzzled
by the papers or they may not have cared. No doubt, most
of them believed Ellsberg a traitor and worthy of jail.
It is very unlikely they will ever believe they were duped
by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon and most
particularly by the CIA and allies in matters pertaining
to the cold war and Communism. The fundamental, gut issue
of the Communist conspiracy overrides any other revelation
in this field.</p>
<p> Assassinations:</p>
<p> In spite of polls and uneasy feelings, at least half and
perhaps a majority of the American people still believe
that John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King
were assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan and
James Earl Ray, respectively, and that the assassination
attempt on George Wallace was solely Arthur Bremer's
doing. They believe these men acted alone and that they
were madmen. (This statement pertains to the period of
1972-73.)</p>
<p> Watergate:</p>
<p> Prior to the election in November 1972, a majority of the
American people believed that Richard Nixon, John
Mitchell, Maurice Stans and everyone else of importance in
the White House had nothing to do with the Watergate
affair or the activities of Donald Segretti and others
prior to the election. Almost no one believed that the
CIA was involved in setting up Nixon so as to capture and
control the executive to an even greater degree.</p>
<p> Democracy and Freedom:</p>
<p> By the end of 1973 a relatively large percentage of the
American people still did not relate any of the foregoing
incidents or situations to their own individual liberties.
They believed patriotically in America; they believed we
still had a democracy; they believed that President
Nixon, with his wise ways and business experience would
pull us out of whatever problems we had. From the time he
nailed Alger Hiss and the day he won the great kitchen
debate with Kruschev, Nixon was believed to be the leader
who would secure our eventual victory over Communism. The
people refuse to consider the possibility that unknown
forces have seized control over the U.S. for the last
fifteen years and that our liberties and democracy are
fading away.</p>
<p>____________________</p>
<p> [1] "Nixon and the Mafia" -- Jeff Gerth, "Sundance Magazine," December
1972. Charles Colson Interview, by Dick Russell - "Argosy Magazine,"
March 1976</p>
<p> [2] "Why Was Martha Mitchell Kidnapped?" -- Mae Brussell, "The Realist,"
August 1972</p>
<p> "The June 1972 Raid on Democratic Party Headquarters -- Part 1" --
R.E. Sprague, "Computers &amp; Automation," August 1972</p>
<p> "The Raid on Democratic Party Headquarters -- The Watergate
Incident -- Part 2", Ibid.</p>
<p>--
daveus rattus </p>
<p> yer friendly neighborhood ratman</p>
<p> KOYAANISQATSI</p>
<p> ko.yaa.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi Language) n. 1. crazy life. 2. life
in turmoil. 3. life out of balance. 4. life disintegrating.
5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!olivea!sgigate!odin!ratmandu.esd.sgi.com!dave
From: dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (2/11)
Summary: we were robbed of our capability of electing a president we wanted
Keywords: part 2 of 11: chapter 4 thru chapter 5
<info type="Message-ID"> 1992Jun8.134947.25406@odin.corp.sgi.com</info>
Date: 8 Jun 92 13:49:47 GMT
Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Lines: 969
Xref: ns-mx alt.activism:27281 alt.conspiracy:15429 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1550
Nntp-Posting-Host: ratmandu.esd.sgi.com</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Chapter 4
How It All Began - The U-2 and the Bay of Pigs</p>
<p> To understand the origins of the Power Control Group, it is
necessary to return to the last years of the Eisenhower
administration and examine what was going on in the Cold War.
Eisenhower had suffered several strokes and a heart attack. He
was partially immobilized, and entrusted a major share of the
coordination of clandestine activities being conducted by the CIA
against the "Red Menace" to Richard Nixon, his vice president.
While Ike was warning against the military-industrial-complex's
domestic influence, and attempting to move toward detente with the
Soviets through a summit meeting, he was being sabotaged by the
plans section of the CIA and by Richard Nixon.
A part of the CIA arranged for a U-2 with Gary Powers as pilot
to go down over Russia, thus giving Khrushchev a chance to expose
American spying and to cancel the summit meeting. This was one of
the earliest moves of the nucleus of what later evolved into the
Power Control Group. In the spring of 1960, with Ike nearly senile
and pressured by Nixon, he approved the plan for the invasion of
Cuba and the assassination of Castro. Nixon was the chief White
House action officer for what later became the Bay of Pigs
invasion.
The Power Control Group was beginning to organize itself with
Nixon as part of it. The cold warriors and strong anti-Communist
"patriots" in the Plans or Operations part of the CIA formed the
original nucleus.
Their plan was to make Nixon president in 1961 and to launch a
successful takeover of Cuba. John Kennedy came along to upset the
plan. Not only did he make the takeover impossible but he soon
discovered the evils lurking in the hearts and minds of the CIA
clandestine operators and laid his own plans to destroy them. The
assassination of John Kennedy essentially became an act of survival
for some of these individuals.
Many citizens of America have forgotten that Richard Nixon was
Vice President of the United States in 1959 and 1960. As an old
anti-communist from the Alger Hiss and Khrushchev debating days,
Nixon was in the forefront of pressure for the Bay of Pigs invasion
of Cuba. What is also forgotten is that Nixon was largely
responsible for the covert training of Cuban exiles by the CIA in
preparation for the Bay of Pigs. (He stated this in his book, "Six
Crises".)
NIXON'S LIES--OCTOBER 1960. Mr. Nixon's capacity for truth is
nowhere more clearly demonstrated than by the deliberate lies he
told during the election campaign on national TV on October 21,
1960. He said in his book that the lies were told for a patriotic
reason--to protect the covert operations planned for the Bay of
Pigs at all costs. The significance of this is that Mr. Nixon
considers patriotism to be, in part, the protection of plans and
actions of individuals that he considered to be working for the
United States' best interests.
The similarities between the actions of Everette Howard Hunt,
Jr., James McCord, Bernard Barker, Frank Sturgis, and others in the
1960 planning for the Bay of Pigs invasion and in the 1972 planning
for the re-election of Richard M. Nixon are very striking. In both
cases, what the plotters themselves considered to be patriotic,
anti-Communist actions were involved. In 1960 the actions were
directed against Fidel Castro, a man they hated as a Communist. In
1972 the actions were directed against Edward Kennedy, Edmund
Muskie and George McGovern. Bernard Barker stated the group's
collective belief when he said after his arrest that, "We believe
that an election of McGovern would be the beginning of a trend that
would lead to socialism and communism, or whatever you want to call
it."
Nixon admitted lying to the American people to protect Hunt,
Barker, Sturgis, and McCord in 1960. The likelihood that he lied
to protect them again in 1972 seems to be quite good. There is
some likelihood that he actually hired the same old crew he trusted
from the Bay of Pigs days for the 1972 Watergate and other
espionage activities.
Here are the facts:</p>
<p> Nixon's Statements in "Six Crises"</p>
<p> Richard Nixon stated in "Six Crises": "The covert training of
Cuban exiles by the CIA was due in substantial part, at least, to
my efforts. This had been adopted as a policy as a result of my
direct support."[1] "President Eisenhower had ordered the CIA to
arm and train the exiles in May of 1960. Nixon and his advisors
wanted the CIA invasion to take place before the voters went to the
polls on November 8, 1960."[2]
While the Bay of Pigs operation was under the overall CIA
direction of Allen Dulles, Richard M. Bissell, Jr. was the CIA man
in charge, according to Ross &amp; Wise.[3] Charles Cabell,[4] the
deputy director of the CIA, and a man with the code name Frank
Bender, were also near the top of the operational planning.[5]</p>
<p> E. Howard Hunt</p>
<p> Everette Howard Hunt, Jr. was in charge of the actual invasion.
He used the code name, "Eduardo." Bernard L. Barker, using the code
name "Macho," worked for Hunt in the CIA Bay of Pigs planning.
James McCord was an organizer for the invasion and was one of the
highest ranking officials in the CIA. Frank Sturgis, alias Frank
Fiorini, was also involved in the Bay of Pigs operations. Virgilio
Gonzales was a CIA agent active in the Bay of Pigs. So was Eugenio
Martinez. Charles Colson was a former CIA official who knew McCord
and Hunt during the Bay of Pigs period.[6]
Hunt, Barker, McCord, Sturgis, Gonzales, and Martinez were under
indictment for the Watergate affair. Colson was Nixon's special
counsel who handled "touchy" political assignments. According to
"Time" magazine, Colson brought all of the others into the re-
election committee espionage project at the request of Nixon.[7]
In other words, it was basically the same group who worked for
Nixon, Bissell and Co. in 1960 and who worked for Nixon, Colson and
Co. in 1972. They were all loyal, patriotic, anti-Communist, and
anti-Castro CIA agents with covert (black) espionage training.
They needed Nixon's protection in 1960 and 1972, and they received
it both times.
Here is how Nixon protected them in 1960.[8]</p>
<p> Kennedy-Nixon Debates, 1960</p>
<p> John Kennedy and Richard Nixon engaged in a series of national
TV debates during the 1960 campaign. Kennedy was briefed by Allen
Dulles, head of the CIA at Eisenhower's request, on secret CIA
activities and international problems on July 23, 1960. Nixon was
not aware of the briefing contents and was not sure whether Dulles
told Kennedy about the Bay of Pigs plans. As it turned out Dulles
had not mentioned the plans but had kept his remarks about Cuba
rather general.
On October 6, 1960, Kennedy gave his major speech on Cuba. He
said that events might create an opportunity for the U.S. to bring
influence on behalf of the cause of freedom in Cuba. He called for
encouraging those liberty-loving Cubans who were leading the
resistance against Castro.
Nixon became very disturbed about this because he felt Kennedy
was trying to pre-empt a policy which he claimed as his own. Nixon
ordered Fred Seaton, Secretary of the Interior, to call the White
House and find out whether Dulles had briefed Kennedy on the Cuban
invasion plans. Seaton talked to General Andrew Goodpaster,
Eisenhower's link to the CIA, who told Seaton that Kennedy did know
about the Bay of Pigs plans.</p>
<p> Attack on Kennedy by Lying</p>
<p> Nixon became incensed. He said, "There was only one thing I
could do. The covert operation had to be protected at all costs.
I must not even suggest by implication that the U.S. was rendering
aid to rebel forces in and out of Cuba. In fact, I must go to the
other extreme: I must attack the Kennedy proposal to provide such
aid as wrong and irresponsible because it would violate our treaty
commitments."[9]
So Richard M. Nixon actually went on national TV (ABC) on
October 21, 1960, knowing we were going to invade Cuba, and lied.
During the fourth TV debate, Nixon attacked Kennedy's proposal as
dangerously irresponsible and in violation of five treaties between
the U.S. and Latin America, as well as the United Nations'
Charter.[10]
On October 22 at Muhlenberg College, Nixon really turned on the
fabrication steam. He said, "Kennedy called for--and get this--the
U.S. Government to support a revolution in Cuba, and I say that
this is the most shockingly reckless proposal ever made in our
history by a presidential candidate during a campaign--and I'll
tell you why . . ."
The reason we should have taken with a grain of salt whatever
words Nixon uttered about Watergate and Donald Segretti's espionage
is clearly demonstrated in that October 22, 1960 speech. He
fiercely attacked John Kennedy for advocating a plan that he,
Richard Nixon, secretly advocated and claimed as his own creation.
He later had the sheer gall to brag about it in his own book as a
very patriotic act.</p>
<p> Protection of Hunt and Co.</p>
<p> How was Nixon protecting Hunt and company in 1972? He was using
the Justice Department and the Republican Congressmen, among
others, to delay and dilute the prosecution of the Watergate seven.
He had slowed down, suppressed, and all but stopped six separate
investigations, suits, and trials of the affair. Included were
Wright Patman's House Banking Committee investigation, the FBI-
Justice Department investigation, a White House investigation by
John Dean, a General Accounting Office investigation, a suit by the
Democratic Party, and a trial in criminal court of the seven
invaders. Only two trials or investigations had a chance of
exposing the truth at that time. One of these, a trial of Bernard
Barker in Florida was not much help. The other was an
investigation promised by Senator Edward Kennedy and his Senate
subcommittee. It never occurred. The action for impeachment came
much later.
Thus, the stage was set in 1961 for the group of powerful
individuals who had planned the Bay of Pigs to gain revenge on John
Kennedy who tried to change the overall direction of the U.S.
battle against Communism. After JFK refused to approve overt U.S.
backing of the Bay of Pigs invasion, various individuals in the
clandestine CIA forces vowed their revenge.
In the spring of 1961, evidence had appeared indicating that
Helms, Hunt, Sturgis and Barker tried to have JFK assassinated in
Paris.[11] When the attempt failed, a number of other plots and
sub-plots developed through the next two years. After JFK's
blockade strategy against Castro during the missile crisis in 1962
was implemented, some of the high-level CIA and armed forces people
wanted even more to get him out of the White House. They had
favored a direct invasion or bombing of Cuba.
And finally, when JFK found out about the CIA's plans for
another invasion of Cuba in the spring and summer of 1963 and
stopped them, they began in earnest to plan his death.</p>
<p>____________________</p>
<p> [1] "Six Crises," Richard M. Nixon, Doubleday, 1962.</p>
<p> [2] "The Invisible Government," Wise &amp; Ross, Random House, 1964.</p>
<p> [3] Ibid.</p>
<p> [4] Brother of Earl Cabell, mayor of Dallas when Kennedy was assassinated.</p>
<p> [5] Ibid.</p>
<p> [6] "New York Times" articles on Watergate, June 18 to July 2, 1972.</p>
<p> [7] "Time" magazine, September 8, 1972.</p>
<p> [8] This episode is related in detail in "The Invisible Government."</p>
<p> [9] "Six Crises".</p>
<p>[10] "The Invisible Government."</p>
<p>[11] "400,000 Dollars Pour Abattre Kennedy a Paris," Camille Giles, Julliard
Press, Paris 1973.</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Chapter 5
The Assassination of John Kennedy</p>
<p> The assassination of President Kennedy can be considered one of
a series of acts by the Power Control Group to regain the control
they had lost when Nixon was defeated in 1960 and Kennedy
threatened their existence. The evidence pointing toward
intelligence involvement and the use of a variety of intelligence
techniques in the assassination is substantial. Until and unless
an investigation is conducted by a group with power and money
equivalent to that of the Power Control Group, with the power to
issue subpoenas and to protect witnesses, it will be very difficult
to draw a completely accurate picture of the conspiracy to
assassinate JFK.
As a substitute, this chapter is a "probable reconstruction"--a
scenario--about who killed John F. Kennedy. Unlike the Warren
Commission Report (another scenario), this report does not contain
any physically impossible events, such as those connected with
Commission Exhibit 399, the so-called "magic bullet."
This scenario is based on (1) evidence gathered between 1968 and
1975 by the Committee to Investigate Assassinations, Washington,
D.C. and (2) evidence gathered between 1962 and 1975 by the author.
The purpose of this scenario is as a starting point for study
and verification by researchers, by Congressional Committees, and
by their members and staffs. This should be considered as a
beginning hypothesis and scenario in contrast to the Warren and
Rockefeller Commission scenarios.
The best evidence available indicates the following events
occurred in the summer and fall of 1963 and culminated in the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The basic evidence has
been summarized in various articles published in "Computers and
People" (formerly "Computers and Automation") since May 1970.[1]
This can be considered as a guideline scenario which adheres to and
explains all of the known factual evidence.</p>
<p> How It Began</p>
<p> The conspiracy to assassinate John Kennedy began in a series of
discussions held in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. The men in
the discussions were extremely angry that Kennedy had stopped plans
and preparations for another invasion of Cuba (scheduled for the
latter part of 1963.) One of the instigators was David Ferrie, a
CIA contract agent who had been training pilots in Guatemala for
the invasion. Meetings held in Ferrie's apartment in New Orleans
were attended by Clay Shaw, William Seymour and several Cubans.
Plans for assassinating President Kennedy developed out of those
early meetings. Others whose support was sought by the group
included Guy Banister, Major L. M. Bloomfield, Loran Hall,
Lawrence Howard, Sergio Arcacha Smith and Carlos Prio Socarras.</p>
<p> Oswald's Role</p>
<p> During this period in the summer of 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald was
working for Guy Banister on some anti-Castro projects and used the
Communist cover of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Oswald
attended some of the meetings where JFK's assassination was
discussed.
Oswald either approached the FBI or they approached him in the
later summer of 1963, and he began to tell the FBI about the plans
of the group to assassinate JFK. Oswald had been a secret
informant for the FBI since mid-1962.</p>
<p> Mexico City</p>
<p> In September, the group moved the scene of their planning to
Mexico City. There they solicited the assistance of Guy Gabaldin,
a CIA agent. Meetings were held in the apartment of Gabaldin,
attended by Shaw, Ferrie, Seymour, Gabaldin and Oswald on at least
three occasions. Others were brought into the conspiracy at this
point. These included John Howard Bowen (alias Albert Osborne),
Ronald Augustinovich, Mary Hope, Emilio Santana, Harry Dean,
Richard Case Nagell, and "Frenchy" (an adventurer who had been
working with Seymour, Santana, Ferrie, Howard and others on the
Cuban invasion projects in the Florida Keys). Fred Lee Crisman,
Jim Hicks and Jim Braden (alias Eugene Hale Brading) were also
recruited at this point.</p>
<p> Oswald, the Patsy</p>
<p> Oswald continued to inform on the group to the FBI in Dallas.
In mid- to late September the assassination group decided to make
Oswald the patsy in the murder. They had discussed the need for a
patsy in the earliest meetings in New Orleans. Billy Seymour, who
resembled Oswald, was selected to use Oswald's name and to plant
evidence in New Orleans, Dallas and Mexico, which could later be
used to frame him. In addition, another man under CIA surveillance
in Mexico City also used Oswald's name in a probable attempt to
make it appear that Oswald was headed for Cuba. His name may have
been Johnny Mitchell Deveraux. His picture appears in the Warren
Commission Volumes as CE 237.</p>
<p> Financial Support</p>
<p> The team needed financial support for the assassination. They
received it from Carlos Prio Socarras in Miami, who brought more
than 50 million dollars out of Cuba. They also received money from
Banister, and from three Texas millionaires who hated Kennedy:
Sid Richardson, Clint Murchison, and Jean DeMenil (of the
Schlumberger Co.). The Murchison-Richardson contribution also
included soliciting the assistance of high-level men in the Dallas
police force. They were powerful members of the Dallas Citizens
Council that controlled the city at that time.</p>
<p> Plans for Three Cities</p>
<p> The group in Mexico City planned to assassinate JFK in Miami,
Chicago or Dallas, using different gunmen in each case. The Miami
plan failed because the Secret Service found out about it in
advance and kept JFK out of the open. The Chicago plan backfired
when JFK cancelled his plans to attend the Army-Navy game at
Soldiers Field in early November. The group set up two
assassination teams for Dallas. One was in Dealey Plaza; the
second was near the International Trade Mart where JFK's luncheon
speech was to be delivered.</p>
<p> CIA Support</p>
<p> The best evidence of CIA (Deputy-Director of Plans) involvement
is the fact that the majority of the known participants were
contract agents or direct agents of the CIA. In Mexico City, the
meetings were held in the apartment of Guy Gabaldin, a CIA (DDP)
agent, working for the Mexico City station chief. Others attending
the meetings who were CIA (DDP) contract or direct agents included
Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Albert Osborne, Harry Dean, Richard Case
Nagell, Ronald Augustinovich, William Seymour, Emilio Santana and
Fred Lee Crisman. It is likely (but not yet provable by direct
evidence) that the group sought and obtained from the acting or
permanent CIA station chief in Mexico, assistance or approval to go
ahead with assassination plans. Tad Szulc claims that a CIA source
can prove that E. Howard Hunt was acting station chief in Mexico
City at the time of the Gabaldin apartment meetings (August and
September 1963). Hunt has denied under oath before the Rockefeller
Commission that he was in Mexico.
In 1967 Richard Helms told a group of CIA officials, including
Victor Marchetti, that both Clay Shaw and David Ferrie were CIA
(DDP) contract agents and that Shaw had to be given CIA protection
and assistance in his New Orleans trial. This is a strong
indication that Hunt and Helms gave "turn of the head" approval to
the Shaw-Ferrie assassination plan as a minimum form of support.</p>
<p> Dallas</p>
<p> The assassination group, having failed in Miami and Chicago,
moved an operational team into Dallas during the second week in
November of 1963. Shaw, Ferrie, Gabaldin and other high-level
plotters travelled in other directions, establishing alibis as
planned. On November 22, Gabaldin was in Mexico City, Shaw was in
San Francisco, and Ferrie was in New Orleans. The team moving into
Dallas included Albert Osborne, William Seymour, Emilio Santana,
Frenchy, Fred Crisman, Jim Hicks, Jim Braden, and a new recruit
from Los Angeles, Jack Lawrence. There was also a back-up rifle
team of Cubans to be used at a location near the International
Trade Mart in the event something went wrong at Dealey Plaza.</p>
<p> Where the Teams Stayed</p>
<p> The teams stayed at two locations in Dallas for two weeks. One
was a rooming house run by a woman named Tammie True. During this
period final preparations for the assassination in Dealey Plaza
were made. These included the collecting of and planting of
evidence used to frame Oswald, the recruiting of the Dallas police
participants, and the plans for the escape of the team members by
car and by train. The riflemen selected were William Seymour in
the Depository Building, Jack Lawrence and Frenchy on the grassy
knoll, and Emilio Santana in the Dal Tex building. Jim Hicks was
set up as radio coordinator and a man with each of the riflemen had
a two-way radio. They were Jim Braden, Dal Tex; Fred Crisman,
knoll; unidentified American (tall tramp), knoll; and a man in the
TSBD Building. Osborne was in overall charge of the Dallas teams,
but he did not go to Dealey Plaza. A fifth gunman, known to
researchers as the umbrella man, was stationed on the street with
an umbrella weapon furnished by the CIA. He was accompanied by
another Cuban acting as a radio man.</p>
<p> Framing Oswald</p>
<p> The people involved in framing Oswald included Seymour (who used
his identity), someone who posed for two pictures holding a rifle,
a photographer who took the pictures and someone who superimposed
Oswald's head on the two negatives. Also, someone who took
Oswald's rifle from his garage and his pistol from his room, taking
several bullets and shells with the pistol, fired three shells and
one bullet through the rifle, and planted the rifle and rifle
shells on the sixth floor of the TSBD and a rifle bullet at
Parkland Hospital. The pistol shells were given to William Seymour
for planting later on. The photographers also planted photos of
General Walker's house and driveway to implicate Oswald in the
Walker shooting.</p>
<p> Dallas Policemen Involved</p>
<p> The policemen involved were J. D. Tippit, who was to drive two
of the assassins, Seymour and his radio man, away in his police
car; Bill Alexander; Jerry Hill; Sergeant McDonald; Lieutenant
Montgomery; Lieutenant Johnson; and Lieutenant Batchelor, who
escorted Jack Ruby into the jail to murder Oswald.
McDonald was assigned to kill Oswald upon his arrest in the
Texas Theatre. Jerry Hill was involved in that event as well as in
the planting of evidence against Oswald in the TSBD Building.
Montgomery and Johnson were involved in planting the paper bag as
evidence against Oswald. Alexander and Batchelor were primarily
responsible for making sure that Jack Ruby assassinated Oswald and
that he didn't talk about it afterward. Alexander was present on
every occasion when Ruby was questioned or interviewed in the jail,
in spite of Ruby's efforts to have him removed.</p>
<p> Other Persons Involved in Framing Oswald</p>
<p> Also involved in framing Oswald were Marina Oswald; her lawyer,
James Martin; and someone in the Dallas police force. She was
talked into three points of false testimony: she said she took the
two fake photos of Oswald with a camera she claimed was his. She
fabricated, or was handed, the false story about Oswald's attempt
to shoot General Walker and taking two pictures of Walker's house
with the same camera. (Oswald did neither.) She told a false
story about a falling out she and Oswald supposedly had and
exaggerated his mean treatment of their children. There are good
indications that these moves were made by the CIA operatives in the
group who threatened to send Marina back to Russia. (Marina's
uncle was a high-level officer in the KGB.)</p>
<p> Dealey Plaza</p>
<p> On the day of the assassination four men with rifles,
accompanied by their radio men and several other team members,
moved into Dealey Plaza. Seymour and a radio man entered the TSBD
Building through the freight entrance and worked their way to the
roof. Santana and Braden went into the Dal Tex building through
the freight entrance on Houston St. and up a back staircase to the
second floor. Lawrence, Frenchy, Crisman and the tall tramp took
up two positions on the grassy knoll. Lawrence was inside the
westernmost cupola after parking his car in the parking lot behind
the knoll. Frenchy, Crisman and the tall tramp were near the
fence. Jim Hicks was in the Adolphus Hotel a few blocks away,
testing the two-way radio communication with the four radio men,
until he proceeded to the Plaza and mingled with a large crowd
(near the corner of Houston and Elm Streets). The umbrella man
stood near the Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm Street accompanied by
his radio man.
The other team members stationed themselves in the crowd (along
Elm Street). After the shots were fired, they circulated through
the crowd in front of the TSBD on Elm Street, on the grassy knoll,
and behind the TSBD Building, identifying themselves as Secret
Service agents and asking witnesses and officials questions to find
out whether the assassins had been detected. There are clear
photos of one of these men. One other man was at the corner of the
wall on the grassy knoll.</p>
<p> The Shots</p>
<p> Upon a visual and oral signal from the man at the wall and upon
a radio command from Hicks, the team fired its first round of
shots. Crisman received the command from Hicks and caused Frenchy
to fire a shot from a position behind the fence on the knoll, about
twenty feet west of the corner of the fence. This shot missed.
The umbrella man fired a shot using his small-bore umbrella gun.
When this shot struck JFK in the throat, the dart paralyzed JFK and
later presented by Commander Humes to the FBI.[2] The shot was
fired at Zapruder frame 189: JFK was behind a large oak tree,
hidden from the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building. On
command from Braden, Emilio Santana fired his first shot two
seconds later from the second floor window of the Dal Tex building
at Z 225 after JFK came out from behind the sign in Zapruder's
film. The shot struck JFK in the back about 5 3/4" down from the
collar line, penetrated to a depth of about two inches and stopped.
The bullet fell out of JFK's back somewhere in or at the Parkland
Hospital, or perhaps travelled down inside the body of the
President, and was never recovered.
William Seymour fired his shot from the west end of the TSBD
Building upon command from his radio man between Z 230 and Z 237,
after Santana's shot. He used a Mauser rifle with no telescopic
sight. While he was aiming at JFK, he fired high and to the right,
hitting John Connally in the back. The bullet travelled through
Connally's chest and then entered his left thigh. The bullet fell
out of his thigh in or near Parkland Hospital and was never
recovered. Governor Connally's wrist was not hit at that time.
Jack Lawrence did not fire a shot in the first round because
from his cupola position he did not have a clear shot.
Hicks gave a second radio command for another round of shots as
JFK passed the Stemmons Freeway sign.
Emilio Santana fired his second shot between Z 265 and Z 275.
The bullet narrowly missed JFK, passed over the top of his head and
over the top of the limousine's windshield. It travelled on to
strike the south curb of Main Street, breaking off a piece of
concrete which flew up and hit James Tague. The bullet either
disintegrated or flew into the area beyond the overpass. It was
not found.
William Seymour may have fired a second shot which may have
struck JFK in the upper right part of his head at Z 312. That
bullet disintegrated.
Upon command from his radio man, Jack Lawrence fired his first
shot from a pedestal on the west side of the south entrance to the
western cupola on the grassy knoll. The shot may have hit
Connally's wrist.
Frenchy fired the fatal shot through the trees from his position
behind the fence.
The Lawrence shot or possibly the second Seymour shot produced a
bullet fragment that passed through Connally's right wrist at Z
313. At that time his wrist was elevated and nearly directly in
front of JFK's head, in such a position that Connally's right palm
was facing JFK as the governor fell into his wife's arms. The
fragment entered the front of his wrist and exited from the back.</p>
<p> Oswald's Actions</p>
<p> Lee Harvey Oswald started November 22, 1963 with the knowledge
that there might be an attempt on JFK's life during the day. He
had reported this possibility to the FBI in his informer's role
five days earlier; he undoubtedly thought the FBI and Secret
Service would be protecting the President. His communications with
the assassination team had prepared him to meet with them in the
Texas Theatre if anything happened that day. There is also a
possibility he received a telephone call immediately after the
shots, telling him to go to the theatre.
He had gone to his and Marina's rooms in Irving to pick up
curtain rods for his bare windows in his Oak Cliff room. He
carried the curtain rods in a paper bag on his way to work that
morning with Wesley Frazier. He worked on the sixth floor of the
TSBD as well as on the other floors that morning. He helped a crew
of men lay a new floor on the sixth floor, move a large number of
book cartons and school supplies over to the eastern side of the
floor, including some cartons near the southeastern window that
faced Elm Street.
Oswald went to the first floor of the building at approximately
12:15 p.m. and returned to the second floor lunchroom just before
12:30. He was drinking a coke there at 12:31 when Officer Baker
and Mr. Truly, the building manager, encountered him while rushing
up the stairs from the first floor. At the sight of Baker's gun
drawn and seeing the commotion outside, he no doubt realized what
had happened.[3] He immediately left the building via the freight
platform entrance on the northeast side and travelled to his
rooming house via bus and taxi. He picked up his pistol there and
went directly to the Texas Theater where he met two of the
assassination team and was sitting with them in the theatre when
the police arrived. One of these men may have been William
Seymour.
The Dallas police members of the team planned to shoot Oswald in
the theatre while arresting him. When he was arrested he did not
realize at first that he had been framed. When this began to
become clear to him on Saturday, November 23, he remained confident
that the FBI would get him out of the situation. After all, he
worked for them!</p>
<p> Jack Ruby</p>
<p> Jack Ruby, in addition to his Mafia involvements and other
criminal activities, was also running guns to Cuba and carrying
payoff money to other anti-Castro groups on behalf of various CIA-
backed projects. His involvement in the assassination of JFK
appears to have been minor, even though he knew about it in
advance. In his night club Ruby met on several occasions with Clay
Shaw, David Ferrie, and William Seymour.
The group decided to assassinate Oswald in jail after the police
failed to kill him in the Texas Theatre. Alexander made
arrangements to have Batchelor escort Ruby into the jail when it
was known Oswald was being moved. They arranged an audible signal
(an auto horn) to let Batchelor and Ruby know when Oswald was
coming down an elevator into the garage. They came down an
elevator opposite the one carrying Oswald.
Clay Shaw gave Ruby his instructions to shoot Oswald through
Breck Wall. Shaw telephoned Wall from San Francisco and Wall
called Ruby. He was told it was an official CIA-sponsored act, in
the best interests of the United States, and that he would be out
of jail in a few days after his capture.</p>
<p> Planted Evidence</p>
<p> The planting of the evidence against Oswald first began with
William Seymour, who used Oswald's identity during September and
October, 1963. Next, the faked photographs of Oswald were created.
Two of the team members used a camera of their own to take the two
pictures of General Walker's house and the two shots of one of the
men supposedly in Oswald's back yard. They planted the pictures in
Oswald's garage. Next, they stole Oswald's rifle from the garage
prior to November 22, fired several shots from it, and preserved
three shells, one bullet, and several bullet fragments.
They planted the rifle, the three shells, the bullet (399) and
the bullet fragments in the TSBD, the hospital and the JFK
limousine on November 22. They also took Oswald's pistol at some
time prior to November 22, fired several shots from it and saved
the shells. William Seymour, after shooting policeman Tippit, ran
away in such a manner as to attract attention, throwing the shells
from Oswald's gun into the air as he ran so that witnesses would
see them. (The shells matched Oswald's pistol. None of the
bullets matched.)
All of the work with Oswald's rifle, pistol, and the fake photos
was probably done at the same time. The rifle, pistol and
Communist newspapers had to be available together for the backyard
photos. The faking of the photographs, the firing of rifle and
pistol, the retrieval of the shells from rifle and pistol and of
bullet 399 and the bullet fragments from the rifle all required
enough time that the event occurred well in advance of the
assassination .</p>
<p> Escape Plans</p>
<p> As mentioned before, plans were made for the team to escape by
car, train, and airplane. Evidence shows:</p>
<p> 1. A white car was parked straddling a log barrier behind
the western cupola on the grassy knoll. It left that
spot one minute after the shots were fired and drove
eastward on the Elm Street extension in front of the
TSBD.</p>
<p> 2. A white station wagon driving west on Elm Street
stopped at the foot of the grassy knoll at 12:40 p.m.,
ten minutes after the shots were fired. It picked up a
man who looked like Oswald and drove under the triple
overpass.</p>
<p> 3. A railroad train carrying three "tramps" began to leave
the freight train area west and north of the TSBD at
around one o'clock, thirty minutes after the shots.
The train was under the tower control of Lee Bowers and
was stopped by him. The tramps were arrested.</p>
<p> 4. A police car stopped in front of Oswald's rooming house
and honked twice around 1:10 p.m.</p>
<p> 5. Policeman Tippit's patrol car was far out of position
in the Oak Cliff area near Ruby and Oswald's rooming
houses. Tippit was shot by two men, one of whom was
Billy Seymour.</p>
<p> 6. A small airplane was sitting at the Redbird Airport, a
location in the same direction as Oak Cliff, a little
further out from Dealey Plaza. Its engines were
running. It was ready for takeoff at 1 p.m.</p>
<p> 7. David Ferrie went to Houston, Texas on the afternoon of
November 22, driving at high speed through bad
thunderstorms to get there. He was positioned at a pay
telephone at an ice skating rink near the Houston
airport, until receiving a phone call there. After
that he returned to New Orleans.</p>
<p> Escape Routes</p>
<p> These escape plans were modified after the assassination. It
became unnecessary for any of the Dealey Plaza participants to
escape by airplane. The framing of Oswald and the failure of the
Secret Service or FBI to detect any of the escaping gunmen or their
assistants permitted these changes. One of the men in the Dealey
Plaza--probably pretending to be a Secret Service agent--reported
an "all clear" situation to Shaw in San Francisco. Shaw notified
Ferrie that they didn't need an airplane to escape with while
Ferrie was waiting in Houston. Ferrie changed his plans and drove
back to New Orleans.
The gunmen who did escape followed these routes: Jack Lawrence
got into his car parked behind the cupola and either drove or was
driven back to his cover job location at the automobile agency. He
left almost immediately afterward and travelled to North Carolina.
Frenchy ran back to the freight car area and climbed into one of
the box cars sitting on a siding northwest of the TSBD. He was
arrested at 1 p.m. by Officers Harkness, Bass and Wise, but was
released by Sheriff Elkins later in the afternoon. Santana walked
out the back entrance of the Dal Tex building and may have joined
Seymour in a white station wagon on Elm Street at 12:40 p.m.
Seymour left the roof of the TSBD via a back stairway, exited from
the freight entrance in the rear of the building, and walked on
Houston Street past the Elm Street extension. He walked down the
grassy knoll to Elm Street where he was picked up at 12:40 p.m. by
the white station wagon.
The other Dealey Plaza participants, Crisman, a tall tramp,
Braden and Hicks escaped by various means. Braden was arrested and
released. Hicks drove home. Crisman and the tall tramp followed
Frenchy's route into the box cars.</p>
<p> Tippit Shooting</p>
<p> David Belin of the Warren and Rockefeller Commission is fond of
saying, "Lee Harvey Oswald killed policeman Tippit. Since the
case against Oswald for the Tippit slaying is so strong, it
follows that Oswald also shot the President." The case against
Oswald in the Tippit murder is as weak as the case against him in
the JFK assassination. The most important evidence showing that
Seymour and another one of the assassination team shot Tippit is
the fact that six witnesses, ignored by the Warren Commission, saw
two men shoot Tippit. One of them resembled Oswald. They ran
away from the scene in opposite directions. Seymour ran toward the
Texas Theater, throwing the planted shells up in the air so that
witnesses would see and recover them. (This act would convince
most people that Oswald did not shoot Tippit.) The other assassin
ran in the opposite direction. There is some indication that
Seymour entered the theater in a manner to draw attention and then
left before the Oswald arrest. While the shells recovered were
found to match Oswald's pistol, none of the bullets recovered from
Tippit's body matched.</p>
<p> Comments and Congressional Actions Needed</p>
<p> The above scenario comes much closer to explaining what happened
to John Kennedy than either the Warren Commission Report or the
Rockefeller Commission report. It matches the known evidence from
the two prime sources, the Warren Commission files in the National
Archives, and the evidence produced by the Garrison investigation
(most of which was turned over the the Committee to Investigate
Assassinations, Washington, D.C.).
However, without subpoena power, and with extremely limited
resources, no group of citizens such as the Committee or Mark
Lane's Citizens Commission can determine the ultimate truth about
the assassination.
Only a properly constituted Congressional committee or group
with resources and subpoena power, and with the power and courage
to combat the Power Control Group involved in the assassination and
its cover-up, whoever they may be, can reach the truth.
This chapter has been prepared as a guideline for such a
committee, rather than as the ultimate solution.
It should be utilized in conjunction with two other documents
already submitted to the four Congressional groups interested in
the case. The groups are:</p>
<p> (1) The Senate;</p>
<p> (2) The House Special Committee on Intelligence;</p>
<p> (3) Thomas Downing, Representative from Virginia, who
introduced House Resolution 498 to reopen the JFK
assassination investigation;</p>
<p> (4) Henry Gonzalez, Representative from Texas, who
introduced House Resolution 204 to reopen the
assassination inquiries on John and Robert Kennedy,
Martin Luther King, and George Wallace.</p>
<p> The Two Documents</p>
<p> 1. "Recommendations for the Senate and House Committee's
Investigations of Illegal and Subversive Domestic Activities of
the CIA and FBI," memorandum by Richard E. Sprague (submitted
to them).
2. "The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: the
Involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Plans and
the Cover-Up," by Richard E. Sprague, in "People and the
Pursuit of Truth," May, 1975.</p>
<p> Dramatis Personae</p>
<p> Bill Alexander - Assistant to District Attorney Wade, Dallas
County.
Ronald Augustinovich - CIA agent. Participated in Mexico City
meetings.
Officer Marion Baker- Dallas motorcycle police officer entering
Texas School Book Depository after shots.
Guy Banister - Head of clandestine CIA station in New Orleans -
ran Banister Detective Agency. Front for anti-Castro Cuban
groups. Former FBI agent and member of New Orleans police.
Died of "heart attack" June 1964. David Ferrie worked for
him. Oswald used his office and address.
Officer Billy Bass - Dallas police officer; arrested "tramps" in
Dealey Plaza.
Lt. Batchelor - Dallas police lieutenant.
David Belin - Warren Commission lawyer.
Major L. M. Bloomfield - Resident of Montreal, Canada. Member of
board of Centro Mondiale Commerciale, CIA front-organization
in Rome. Visited by Ferrie and Shaw in fall 1963.
John Howard Bowen - CIA agent. Alias Albert Osborne. Long
clandestine record. On bus to Mexico with Oswald.
Participated in Mexico City meetings.
Lee Bowers - Railroad tower control operator, Dealey Plaza. Died
in curious accident.
Jim Braden - Alias Eugene Hale Brading. Mafia hoodlum and CIA
contract agent. Acted as radio man in Dealey Plaza.
CIA - Central Intelligence Agency.
Fred Lee Crisman - OSS and CIA domestic agent from Tacoma,
Washington. Participated with Frenchy and others as radio
man in Dealey Plaza.
Harry Dean - CIA operative in Mexico City.
Jean DeMenil - Louisiana and Texas industrialist.
Johnny Mitchell Deveraux - CIA agent, Mexico City. May have
impersonated Oswald in Mexico.
Sheriff Harold Elkins - Dallas County Deputy Chief.
FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation, then headed by J. Edgar
Hoover.
David Ferrie - Resident of New Orleans French Quarter. Pilot for
Eastern Airlines. Bay of Pigs, CIA contractor for pilot
training and clandestine flights. Associate of Clay Shaw,
Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby; murdered Feb. 1967; death
termed "suicide" by officials.
"Frenchy" - Real name(s) not yet determined. French Canadian
adventurer. CIA contract agent. Training for second
invasion of Cuba in Florida Keys. Knew Howard, Hall,
Seymour, Hemming, and Santana. Fired shots. Also involved
in King assassination.
Guy Gabaldin - Former OSS operative and CIA agent in Mexico City.
Movie made about his World War II exploits, Jeffrey Hunter
played Gabaldin role. Assassination planning done in his
Mexico City apartment.
Loran Hall - Anti-Castro adventurer from southern California. One
of three men who visited Sylvia Odio and said JFK would be
assassinated. Close friend of Lawrence Howard, William
Seymour and other no-name key adventurers. Raising funds for
them in 1963.
Sgt. Harkness - Dallas police sergeant.
Richard Helms - Deputy Director - Plans, CIA, in 1963.
Jerry Patrick Hemming - CIA agent and trainer of mercenaries at
no-name key.
Jim Hicks - Radio specialist from Dallas. Was radio communications
coordinator in Dealey Plaza. Placed in mental hospital run by
the military.
Jerry Hill - Police sergeant, Dallas.
Mary Hope - Friend of Augustinovich. Participated in Mexico City
meetings on the assassination.
Lawrence Howard - Anti-Castro adventurer. No-name key group.
Friend of Loran Hall and William Seymour. Visited Sylvia Odio.
Kept no-name key photo album. Provided Garrison with pictures.
E. Howard Hunt - CIA agent. Acting station chief CIA clandestine
station in Mexico City in 1963.
Lt. Johnson - Dallas police lieutenant.
Jack Lawrence - Resident of West Virginia and southern California.
Minuteman and adventurer. Fired shots.
James Martin - Marina Oswald's business manager.
Sgt. McDonald - Police sergeant, Dallas.
Lt. Montgomery - Dallas police lieutenant; helped frame Oswald .
Clint Murchison - Texas oil millionaire.
Richard Case Nagell - CIA operative in Mexico City; testified
before Congressional Committees.
OSS - Office of Strategic Services.
Lee Harvey Oswald - Dallas and New Orleans resident. CIA and FBI
agent and informer. Patsy in assassination.
Marina Oswald - Wife of Lee Harvey Oswald. Helped to frame her
husband.
Sid Richardson - Texas oil millionaire.
Jack Ruby - Mafia connections. Anti-Castro CIA contracts. Owner
of Dallas night club. Recruited to shoot Oswald.
Emilio Santana - Cuban adventurer. Anti-Castro, in no-name key
group. Was in Dealey Plaza firing shots.
William Seymour - Mexican-American adventurer and hired killer. On
no-name key training for second invasion of Cuba in 1963.
Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald and resembled Oswald. Fired
shots in Dealey Plaza. Killed Officer Tippit.
Clay Shaw - New Orleans French Quarter resident. Manager
International Trade Mart, CIA contract agent, member board of
directors of CIA organization, Centro Mondiale Commericale.
Murdered in 1974. Living double life as Clay Bertrand, friend
of David Ferrie.
Sergio Arcacha Smith - Anti-Castro Cuban. Devoted to overthrowing
Castro. CIA contract agent. Close to Guy Banister, Ferrie,
and New Orleans CIA operations. Fled to Texas, escaped
Garrison subpoena. Protected by Governor John Connally from
extradition.
Carlos Prio Socarras - Former premier of Cuba. Violent Anti-Castro
millionaire. Backed Cuban invasion plans and CIA efforts.
Lived in Miami area. Murdered in 1977.
James Tague - Spectator in Dealey Plaza, hit by piece of curbing
thrown up by bullet striking near him.
J. D. Tippit - Dallas policeman, shot on November 22, 1963. Co-
conspirator in assassination, Mafia and CIA functionary.
Tammie True - Owner of CIA safe house in Dallas.
Roy Truly - Manager of Texas School Book Depository.
TSBD - Texas School Book Depository Building in Dealey Plaza,
Dallas, from which Oswald was supposed to have fired shots at
President John F. Kennedy.
General Walker - Right-wing former Army General. Resident of
Dallas. Supposedly shot at by Oswald.
Breck Wall - Friend of Clay Shaw and Jack Ruby.
Marvin Wise - Dallas police officer, arrested "tramps" in Dealey
Plaza.</p>
<p>____________________</p>
<p>[1] For a complete listing of articles on political assassinations in the
United States, published in "Computers and People" (formerly
"Computers and Automation"), see the issues of "People and the Pursuit
of Truth," May 1975, p. 6, and June, 1975, p. 5, published by Berkeley
Enterprises, Inc., 815 Washington St., Newtonville, Mass. 02160.</p>
<p>[2] "1978 Los Angeles Free Press" - Special Report No 1, page 16, copy of
receipt given to Commander James J. Humes MC, USN "for Missile removed
on this date (Nov. 22, 1963)," signed by Francis X. O'Neill, Jr.,
James W. Sibert, FBI Agents.</p>
<p> Also "Postmortem," by Harold Weisberg, page 266, the missile receipt.</p>
<p>[3] As mentioned earlier, it is also possible that one of the team called
him from a telephone inside the TSBD.</p>
<p> * * * * * * *
--
daveus rattus </p>
<p> yer friendly neighborhood ratman</p>
<p> KOYAANISQATSI</p>
<p> ko.yaa.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi Language) n. 1. crazy life. 2. life
in turmoil. 3. life out of balance. 4. life disintegrating.
5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!ratmandu.esd.sgi.com!dave
From: dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (3/11)
Summary: we were robbed of our capability of electing a president we wanted
Keywords: part 3 of 11: chapter 6 thru chapter 8
<info type="Message-ID"> 1992Jun9.161556.23157@odin.corp.sgi.com</info>
Date: 9 Jun 92 16:15:56 GMT
Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Lines: 632
Xref: ns-mx alt.activism:27381 alt.conspiracy:15473 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1570
Nntp-Posting-Host: ratmandu.esd.sgi.com</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Chapter 6
The Assassinations of Robert Kennedy and
Dr. Martin Luther King and
Lyndon B. Johnson's Withdrawal in 1968</p>
<p> The Power Control Group faced several dangers in 1968. While
President Johnson had cooperated fully with their desires in Viet
Nam and in other parts of the world, he had not met their
requirements in other areas. He had gone too far in appeasing the
blacks and had shown some signs of giving in to the young people in
America in early 1968. Through threats to expose his role in
covering up the truth about the JFK assassination or personal
threats to the safety of his family, the Group forced his
withdrawal from the 1968 election race. Their plan now was to
install Richard Nixon as president at all costs.
Robert Kennedy and Dr. King posed real threats to this plan.
Dr. King was beginning a movement in the direction of a coalition
with Malcom X followers and other black militant groups. He was
speaking out against the Viet Nam war. His influence might help
defeat Nixon at the polls. So the Power Control Group created an
environment in which he could be assassinated by his arch enemies.
The FBI and J. Edgar Hoover had become a vital part of the Power
Control Group by 1968. Hoover had no love for King and was
harrassing him in several ways. The Power Control Group
undoubtedly let Hoover know that it wouldn't be a bad idea to have
King out of the way before the election campaigns really warmed up.
They also passed the word along to some of the groups who were out
to murder King that the crime would probably not be stopped.
Fletcher Prouty has described this approach in some detail.[1] The
net result of these actions was the assassination of Dr. King by a
group of wealthy white bigots who employed two of the intelligence
community's own expert assassins. One of these men, Frenchy, had
fired shots at JFK. The other, Jack Youngblood, was a soldier of
fortune and CIA contract killer. They recruited James Earl Ray and
set him up as a patsy.
The FBI removed King's protection in Memphis and after the
assassination they took the case out of the hands of the local
police to control and suppress the evidence of conspiracy. Hoover
did not know exactly who was going to assassinate King or where.
He did not know in advance who the patsy was supposed to be. The
best evidence in support of this is that from April to June 1968
the identity of the patsy was a mystery, first unidentified, then
identified as Eric Starvo Galt, then as Raymond Sneyd, and finally
as James Earl Ray. If Hoover had been in on the plan, Ray's
identity would probably have been revealed immediately. In fact,
the scenario might have been similar to the JFK case, with Ray
being killed in a shoot-out.
After Ray was identified and arrested in London, Hoover and the
Justice Department had to manufacture some evidence to get Ray back
to the U.S. They had no qualms about bribing one witness, Charlie
Stevens, to do this. They forced him to say he had seen Ray. Then
a new problem arose. Ray began telling the truth to his lawyer and
a writer, William Bradford Huie. He almost revealed Frenchy's true
identity. The Power Control Group, led by J. Edgar Hoover, solved
this problem by getting rid of Ray's lawyer, Arthur Hanes, and they
hired Percy Foreman to keep Ray quiet. They also were forced to
pay off or frighten off author Huie who had by then become
convinced Ray was telling him the truth. Huie had found several
witnesses who had seen Ray and Frenchy together.
The group got Foreman to talk Ray into pleading guilty and Huie
to retract his conspiracy talk and publish an article and a book
claiming Ray was the lone assassin. Ever since Ray was put away
for 99 years, the FBI and the Power Control Group have been hard at
work covering up the truth, bribing or influencing judges who have
heard Ray's appeals for a trial, publishing disinformation like
Gerold Franck's book, "An American Assassin," suppressing evidence,
and placing key witnesses in psychiatric wards. It is still going
on. They have killed at least one reporter--Louis Lomax--who was
getting too close to the truth. The local D.A., Phil Canale, was
brought into the conspiracy along with Percy Foreman, Judge Battle,
Fred Vinson (who extradited Ray, using Stevens' false affidavit),
and local authorities who committed Grace Walden Stevens to a
mental institution because she knew Charlie had been dead drunk and
saw nothing.
The mechanics of the assassination are as follows: Youngblood
and Frenchy recruited Ray in Montreal for smuggling drugs into the
U.S. from Mexico and Canada. They recruited him in the
assassination plan in such a way as to make him believe they were
smuggling guns to Cuba.
Frenchy (Ray knew him as Raoul) set up Ray as a patsy by
planting evidence with Ray's prints on it near the fake firing
point. He persuaded Ray to rent a room opposite Dr. King's motel,
to buy a rifle with telescopic sight, and a white Mustang, and park
the Mustang outside the rooming house to wait for Frenchy to come
out. Youngblood stationed himself on a grassy knoll beneath the
rooming house where Frenchy was located. When King came out on his
balcony, Youngblood killed him with one shot fired at an upward
angle. Frenchy ran from his perch overlooking King's balcony. He
made plenty of noise to attract attention, and dropped a bag full
of items with Ray's prints on them in front of an amusement parlor
next door to the rooming house.
Frenchy must have had some anxious moments then because Ray had
driven the Mustang to a gas station a few blocks away to have a low
tire pumped up. Three witnesses remember his being there. When
Ray returned, not yet knowing what had happened, Frenchy told him
to drive away toward the edge of town where Frenchy got out of the
back seat. Ray drove on to Atlanta with the intention of meeting
Frenchy there.
Meanwhile, Youngblood mingled with the crowd under King's
balcony and then faded away. A false trail was created by another
member of the team who drove away in a second white Mustang and
then created a fake auto chase on the police band radio.
Youngblood was tracked down by various reporters in early 1976 and
began negotiating to tell his story for a very high price.
Meanwhile, judge after judge and court after court keep turning
down Bernard Fensterwald and James Cesar, Ray's new lawyers, who
appealed for a new trial.
All of the information above has been reported with factual
evidence backing it up in several articles, one book, and at Ray's
legal hearing for a new trial in Memphis in 1975.[2]
After Dr. King was eliminated, the Power Control Group faced a
much greater threat. Robert Kennedy began his quest for the
presidency. There was little doubt in the minds of anyone in the
Group that Kennedy would be nominated as Democratic candidate at
the convention, and would have a very good chance of defeating
Richard Nixon. This would be a near certainty if Eugene McCarthy
decided to drop out and support Senator Kennedy. Robert Kennedy
represented a double threat to the Group in that he would
undoubtedly expose them after becoming president and seize control.
The plan they adopted was again to create an environment in
which it would be easy for an enemy like the Minutemen or the Mafia
or certain local hate groups in California to assassinate RFK and
get away with it by setting up another patsy. Available at the
time was a CIA agent planted inside the Los Angeles police
department. Strong influence was brought to bear on chief of
police, Ed Davis, to remove all official protection for Senator
Kennedy in the Ambassador Hotel. Arrangements were made for the
Ace Guard Service to supply three extreme right wing, militant
guards at the hotel to guard the Senator after his victory speech.
One of these was Thane Eugene Cesar, a known Kennedy hater and
friend of a group of Southern California Minutemen. He was also
almost certainly a CIA contract agent or "blind" assassin. At the
same time another group was recruited to hypnotize Sirhan Sirhan
and to program him for firing some shots in Robert Kennedy's
direction. Two hypnotists and at least three other people were
involved in the framing of Sirhan.
Cesar killed Robert Kennedy from behind while Sirhan was firing
under hypnosis from in front of the Senator. His programmed signal
was given by a girl in a polka dot dress and another young Arabic
man with them in the pantry.
After the crime, the FBI, the CIA agent (Manny Pena), the
District Attorney's office (Evelle Younger and Joseph Busch) and
the Los Angeles Police Department (Ed Davis, Robert Houghton and
others), knowing the truth, all teamed up to suppress all other
evidence except that which was aimed at framing Sirhan. The Power
Control Group has since wielded its influence to keep the RFK case
under wraps. They pushed legislation through the California
legislature to lock up the evidence. They put Thomas Noguchi, the
L.A. County Coroner who wouldn't keep quiet about the autopsy
evidence which proved conspiracy, in an insane asylum. They
arranged for the FBI report on the assassination to be classified
and locked up. They killed at least one person who knew what had
happened. They controlled the media on the subject, especially the
"Los Angeles Times" through its owner, Norman Chandler, and his
friend Evelle Younger, who became California State Attorney
General.
After Al Lowenstein, Jerry Brown, Paul Schrade, Vincent
Bugliosi, Robert Vaughn, Tom Bradley and others began to try to
expose the truth, the Group fought back by setting up their own
expert ballistics panel and buying or frightening them into
distorting the evidence proving there were two guns fired. The
Group is certainly not through yet. More planted disinformation
can be expected and more bribing of judges and expert witnesses.
There may be more killings. Cesar's life and the lives of the two
hypnotists won't be worth much if they ever start talking.[3]</p>
<p>____________________</p>
<p>[1] "The Fourth Force" -- L. Fletcher Prouty -- "Gallery Magazine" --
December, 1975</p>
<p>[2] "Frame Up: The Martin Luther King/James Earl Ray Case" -- Harold
Weisberg -- E.P. Dutton -- 1971</p>
<p> "The Assassination of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr." -- R.E.
Sprague -- "Computers &amp; Automation," December 1970</p>
<p> "The Assassination of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. -- Parts I to
II" -- Wayne Chastain -- "Computers &amp; Automation," December 1974.</p>
<p>[3] Most of the above information has been published in a series of
articles and in two books and one movie.</p>
<p> "The Assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy" -- R.E. Sprague --
"Computers &amp; Automation" -- September 1972 and October 1970</p>
<p> "RFK Must Die" -- Robert Blair Kaiser -- 1970</p>
<p> "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, A Searching Look at the
Conspiracy and Cover-Up 1968-1978" -- William Turner and John
Christian -- 1978</p>
<p> "The Second Gun" -- Documentary Movie -- Ted Charach -- American
Films -- Beverly Hills</p>
<p> </p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Chapter 7
The Control of the Kennedys - Threats &amp; Chappaquiddick</p>
<p> Through the years the most common question of all has been: "If
there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination, why didn't Robert
Kennedy find out about it and take some action? And if there was a
conspiracy in the RFK assassination why haven't Ted Kennedy and
Ethel Kennedy done something about it?" No one except the Kennedys
know the answers to these questions for sure. However, there are
plenty of clues and some other Power Control Group actions to
provide the answers to us.
First of all, thanks to Jackie Kennedy Onassis' butler in
Athens, Greece, Christain Cafarakis, we know why Jackie did nothing
after her husband's death. In a book published in 1972, Cafarakis
tells about an investigation Jackie had conducted by a famous New
York City detective agency into the assassination of JFK in 1964
and 1965.[1] It was financed by Aristotle Onassis and resulted in
a report in the spring of 1965 telling who the four gunmen were and
who was behind them. Jackie planned to give the report to LBJ but
was stopped by a threat from the Power Control Group to kill her
and her children. Ted, Bobby and other family members knew about
the report and the threat.
The second clue is Chappaquiddick. A careful examination of the
real evidence in this event shows that Ted Kennedy was framed in
the killing of Mary Joe Kopechne and then his life and his
children's lives threatened if he ever told the truth about what
happened. The facts in the case and the conclusions that can be
drawn from them are contained in a book by Boston researcher Robert
Cutler.[2]
The third clue is Ted's withdrawal from the presidential race in
November 1975. It is a fact that all of his and Robert's children
were being protected by the Secret Service for five days in
November 1975. A threat had been made against the children's lives
unless he officially announced his withdrawal. He made the
announcement and has stuck to it ever since. The Secret Service
protection ended the day after he made the announcement.
It does not seem likely that Senator Kennedy would withdraw from
the race because of a threat from a lone nut or from some obscure
group. He remembers the 1965 threat and Chappaquiddick very well.
He knows about the Power Control Group and he knows their enormous
capability. He knows what they did to his brothers. He has no
choice but to hope that somehow, sometime, the Group will be
exposed. But he dares not let them believe he would ever have
anything to do with it. Publicly he will always have to support
the Warren Commission and continue to state that he will not run
for president. Privately he is forced to ask his closest friends
and his relatives not to get involved with new investigations, and
to help protect his children. Some of them know the truth. Others
do not, and are puzzled by his behavior. They go along with it
under the assumption that he has good and sufficient reasons not to
open the can of worms represented by the conspiracies in his
brother's deaths.
The Power Control Group faced up to the Ted Kennedy and Kennedy
family problem very early. They used the threat against the
Kennedy children's lives very effectively between 1963 and 1968 to
silence Bobby and the rest of the family and friends who knew the
truth. It was necessary to assassinate Bobby in 1968 because with
the power of the presidency he could have prevented the Group from
harming the children. When Teddy began making moves to run for
president in 1969 for the 1972 election, the Group decided to put
some real action behind their threats. Killing Teddy in 1969 would
have been too much. They selected a new way of eliminating him as
a candidate. They framed him with the death of a young girl, and
threw sexual overtones in for good measure.
Here is what happened according to Cutler's analysis of the
evidence. The Group hired several men and at least one woman to be
at Chappaquiddick during the weekend of the yacht race and the
planned party on the island. They ambushed Ted and Mary Jo after
they left the cottage and knocked Ted out with blows to his head
and body. They took the unconscious or semi-conscious Kennedy to
Martha's Vineyard and deposited him in his hotel room. Another
group took Mary Jo to the bridge in Ted's car, force fed her with a
knock out potion of alcoholic beverage, placed her in the back
seat, and caused the car to accelerate off the side of the bridge
into the water. They broke the windows on one side of the car to
insure the entry of water; then they watched the car until they
were sure Mary Jo would not escape.
Mary Jo actually regained consciousness and pushed her way to
the top of the car (which was actually the bottom of the car--it
had landed on its roof) and died from asphyxiation. The group with
Teddy revived him early in the morning and let him know he had a
problem. Possibly they told him that Mary Jo had been kidnapped.
They told him his children would be killed if he told anyone what
had happened and that he would hear from them. On Chappaquiddick,
the other group made contact with Markham and Gargan, Ted's cousin
and lawyer. They told both men that Mary Jo was at the bottom of
the river and that Ted would have to make up a story about it, not
revealing the existence of the group. One of the men resembled Ted
and his voice sounded something like Ted's. Markham and Gargan
were instructed to go the the Vineyard on the morning ferry, tell
Ted where Mary Jo was, and come back to the island to wait for a
phone call at a pay station near the ferry on the Chappaquiddick
side.
The two men did as they were told and Ted found out what had
happened to Mary Jo that morning. The three men returned to the
pay phone and received their instructions to concoct a story about
the "accident" and to report it to the police. The threat against
Ted's children was repeated at that time.
Ted, Markham and Gargan went right away to police chief Arena's
office on the Vineyard where Ted reported the so-called "accident."
Almost at the same time scuba diver John Farror was pulling Mary Jo
out of the water, since two boys who had gone fishing earlier that
morning had spotted the car and reported it.
Ted called together a small coterie of friends and advisors
including family lawyer Burke Marshall, Robert MacNamara, Ted
Sorenson, and others. They met on Squaw Island near the Kennedy
compound at Hyannisport for three days. At the end of that time
they had manufactured the story which Ted told on TV, and later at
the inquest. Bob Cutler calls the story, "the shroud." Even the
most cursory examination of the story shows it was full of holes
and an impossible explanation of what happened. Ted's claim that
he made the wrong turn down the dirt road toward the bridge by
mistake is an obvious lie. His claim that he swam the channel back
to Martha's Vineyard is not believable. His description of how he
got out of the car under water and then dove down to try to rescue
Mary Jo is impossible. Markham and Gargan's claims that they kept
diving after Mary Jo are also unbelievable.
The evidence for the Cutler scenario is substantial. It begins
with the marks on the bridge and the position of the car in the
water. The marks show that the car was standing still on the
bridge and then accelerated off the edge, moving at a much higher
speed than Kennedy claimed. The distance the car travelled in the
air also confirms this. The damage to the car on two sides and on
top plus the damage to the windshield and the rear view mirror
stanchion[3] prove that some of the damage had to have been
inflicted before the car left the bridge.
The blood on the back and on the sleeves of Mary Jo's blouse
proves that a wound was inflicted before she left the bridge.[4]
The alcohol in her bloodstream proves she was drugged, since all
witnesses testified she never drank and did not drink that night.
The fact that she was in the back seat when her body was recovered
indicates that is where she was when the car hit the water. There
was no way she could have dived downward against the inrushing
water and moved from the front to the back seat underneath the
upside-down seat back.
The wounds on the back of Ted Kennedy's skull, those just above
his ear and the large bump on the top indicate he was knocked out.
His actions at the hotel the next morning show he was not aware of
Mary Jo's death until Markham and Gargan arrived. The trip to the
pay phone on Chappaquiddick can only be explained by his receiving
a call there, not making one. There were plenty of pay phones in
or near Ted's hotel if he needed to make a private call. The tides
in the channel and the direction in which Ted claimed he swam do
not match. In addition it would have been a superhuman feat to
have made it across the channel (as proven by several professionals
who subsequently tried it).
Deputy Sheriff Christopher Look's testimony, coupled with the
testimony of Ray LaRosa and two Lyons girls, proves that there were
two people in Ted's car with Mary Jo at 12:45 PM. The three party
members walking along the road south toward the cottage confirmed
the time that Mr. Look drove by. He stopped to ask if they needed
a ride. Look says that just prior to that he encountered Ted's car
parked facing north at the juncture of the main road and the dirt
road. It was on a short extension of the north-south section of
the road junction to the north of the "T". He says he saw a man
driving, a woman in the seat beside him, and what he thought was
another woman lying on the back seat. He remembered a portion of
the license plate which matched Ted's car, as did the description
of the car. Markham, Gargan and Ted's driver's testimony show that
someone they talked to in the pitch black night sounded like Ted
and was about his height and build.
None of the above evidence was ever explained by Ted or by
anyone else at the inquest or at the hearing on the case demanded
by district attorney Edward Dinis. No autopsy was ever allowed on
Mary Jo's body (her family objected), and Ted made it possible to
fly her body home for burial rather quickly. Kennedy haters have
seized upon Chappaquiddick to enlarge the sexual image now being
promoted of both Ted and Jack Kennedy. Books like "Teddy Bare"
take full advantage of the situation.
Just which operatives in the Power Control Group at the high
levels or the lower levels were on Chappaquiddick Island? No
definite evidence has surfaced as yet, except for an indication
that there was at least one woman and at least three men, one of
whom resembled Ted Kennedy and who sounded like him in the
darkness. However, two pieces of testimony in the Watergate
hearings provide significant clues as to which of the known JFK
case conspirators may have been there.
E. Howard Hunt told of a strange trip to Hyannisport to see a
local citizen there about the Chappaquiddick incident. Hunt's
cover story on this trip was that he was digging up dirt on Ted
Kennedy for use in the 1972 campaign. The story does not make much
sense if one questions why Hunt would have to wear a disguise,
including his famous red wig, and to use a voice-alteration device
to make himself sound like someone else. If, on the other hand,
Hunt's purpose was to return to the scene of his crime just to make
sure that no one who might have seen his group at the bridge or
elsewhere would talk, then the disguise and the voice box make
sense.
The other important testimony came from Tony Ulasewicz who said
he was ordered by the Plumbers to fly immediately to Chappaquiddick
and dig up dirt on Ted. The only problem Tony has is that,
according to his testimony, he arrived early on the morning of the
"accident", before the whole incident had been made public.
Ulasewicz is the right height and weight to resemble Kennedy and
with a CIA voice-alteration device he presumably could be made to
sound like him. There is a distinct possibility that Hunt and Tony
were there when it happened.
The threats by the Power Control Group, the frame-up at
Chappaquiddick, and the murders of Jack and Bobby Kennedy cannot
have failed to take their toll on all of the Kennedys. Rose, Ted,
Jackie, Ethel and the other close family members must be very tired
of it all by now. They can certainly not be blamed for hoping it
will all go away. Investigations like those proposed by Henry
Gonzalez and Thomas Downing only raised the spectre of the powerful
Control Group taking revenge by kidnapping some of the seventeen
children.
It was no wonder that a close Kennedy friend and ally in
California, Representative Burton, said that he would oppose the
Downing and Gonzalez resolutions unless Ted Kennedy put his stamp
of approval on them. While the sympathies of every decent American
go out to them, the future of our country and the freedom of the
people to control their own destiny through the election process
mean more than the lives of all the Kennedys put together. If John
Kennedy were alive today he would probably make the same statement.
John Dean summed it up when he said to Richard Nixon as recorded
on the White House tapes in 1973: "If Teddy knew the bear trap he
was walking into at Chappaquiddick. . . ."[5]</p>
<p>____________________</p>
<p>[1] "The fabulous Jackie" -- Christian Cafarakis -- Productions de Paris
-- 1972</p>
<p>[2] "You the Jury" -- Robert Cutler -- Self Published -- 1974</p>
<p>[3] A rope attached to the stick which held the Oldsmobile throttle wide
open caught the drivers rear view mirror and tore it loose so that
it was hanging by the rear bolt. There was no other mark on the
left side of the car.</p>
<p>[4] A sliver of glass from two broken windows no doubt caused this
bleeding since Mary Jo was already face down and unconscious in the
rear seat. Since there was no autopsy this clean cut went
unnoticed by the embalmers.</p>
<p>[5] On page 121, "White House Tapes," Paperback Edition, published by New
York Times</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Chapter 8
1972 - Muskie, Wallace and McGovern</p>
<p> In 1972 the Power Control Group was faced with another set of
problems. Again the objective was to insure Nixon's election at
all costs and to continue the cover-ups. Nixon might have made it
on his own. We'll never know because the Group guaranteed his
election by eliminating two strong candidates and completely
swamping another with tainted leftist images and a psychiatric case
for the vice presidential nominee. The impression that Nixon had
in early 1972 was that he stood a good chance of losing. He
imagined enemies everywhere and a press he was sure was out to get
him.
The Power Control Group realized this too. They began laying
out a strategy that would encourage the real nuts in the Nixon
administration like E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy and Donald
Segretti to eliminate any serious opposition. The dirty tricks
campaign worked perfectly against the strongest early Democratic
candidate, Edmund Muskie. He withdrew in tears, later to discover
he had been sabotaged by Nixon, Liddy and company.
George Wallace was another matter. At the time he was shot, he
was drawing 18% of the vote according to the polls, and most of
that was in Nixon territory. The conservative states such as
Indiana were going for Wallace. He was eating into Nixon's
southern strength. In April the polls showed McGovern pulling a
41%, Nixon 41% and Wallace 18%. It was going to be too close for
comfort, and it might be thrown into the House - in which case
Nixon would surely lose. There was the option available of
eliminating George McGovern, but then the Democrats might come up
with Hubert Humphrey or someone else even more dangerous than
McGovern. Nixon's best chance was a head-on contest with McGovern.
Wallace had to go. Once the group made that decision, the Liddy
team seemed to be the obvious group to carry it out. But how could
it be done this time and still fool the people? Another patsy this
time? O.K., but how about having him actually kill the Governor?
The answer to that was an even deeper programming job than that
done on Sirhan. This time they selected a man with a lower I.Q.
level who could be hypnotized to really shoot someone, realize it
later, and not know that he had been programmed. He would have to
be a little wacky, unlike Oswald, Ruby or Ray.
Arthur Bremer was selected. The first contacts were made by
people who knew both Bremer and Segretti in Milwaukee. They were
members of a leftist organization planted there as provocateurs by
the intelligence forces within the Power Control Group. One of
them was a man named Dennis Cossini.
Bremer was programmed over a period of months. He was first set
to track Nixon and then Wallace. When his hand held the gun in
Laurel, Maryland, it might just as well have been in the hand of
Donald Segretti, E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, Richard Helms, or
Richard Nixon.
With Wallace's elimination from the race and McGovern's
increasing popularity in the primaries, the only question remaining
for the Power Control Group was whether McGovern had any real
chance of winning. The polls all showed Wallace's vote going to
Nixon and a resultant landslide victory. That, of course, is
exactly what happened. It was never close enough to worry the
Group very much. McGovern, on the other hand, was worried. By the
time of the California primary he and his staff had learned enough
about the conspiracies in the assassinations of John and Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King that they asked for increased Secret
Service protection in Los Angeles.
If the Power Control Group had decided to kill Mr. McGovern the
Secret Service would not have been able to stop it. However, they
did not, because the election was a sure thing. They did try one
more dirty trick. They revealed Thomas Eagleton's psychiatric
problems, which reduced McGovern's odds considerably.
What evidence is there that Bremer's attempt on Wallace was a
directed attempt by a conspiratorial group?
Bremer himself has told his brother that others were involved
and that he was paid by them. Researcher William Turner has turned
up evidence in Milwaukee and surrounding towns in Wisconsin that
Bremer received money from a group associated with Dennis Cossini,
Donald Segretti and J. Timothy Gratz. Several other young
"leftists" were seen with Bremer on several occasions in Milwaukee
and on the ferry crossing at Lake Michigan.
The evidence shows that Bremer had a hidden source of income.
He spent several times more than he earned or saved in the year
before he shot at Wallace. Bremer's appearance on TV, in court and
before witnesses resembled those of a man under hypnosis.[1]
There is some evidence that more than one gun may have been
fired with the second gun being located in the direction opposite
to Bremer. Eleven wounds in the four victims that day exceeds the
number that could have been caused by the five bullets Bremer
fired. There is a problem in identifying all of the bullets found
as having been fired from Bremer's gun. The trajectories of the
wounds seem to be from two opposite directions. All of this--the
hypnotic-like trance, the possibility of two guns being fired from
in front and from behind, and the immediate conclusion that Bremer
acted alone--sounds very much like the arrangement made for the
Robert Kennedy assassination.
Another part of the evidence sounds like the King case. A lone
blue Cadillac was seen speeding away from the scene of the shooting
immediately afterward. It was reported on the police band radio
and the police unsuccessfully chased it. The car had two men in
it. The police and the FBI immediately shut off all accounts of
that incident.
E. Howard Hunt testified before the Ervin Committee that Charles
Colson had asked him to go to Bremer's apartment in Milwaukee as
soon as the news about Bremer was available at the White House.
Hunt never did say why he was supposed to go. Colson then said
that he didn't tell Hunt to go, but that Hunt told him he was
going. Colson's theory is that Hunt was part of a CIA conspiracy
to get rid of Nixon and to do other dirty tricks.
Could Hunt and the Power Control Group have had in mind placing
something in Bremer's apartment rather than taking something out?
The "something" could have been Bremer's diary, which was later
found in his car parked near the Laurel, Maryland parking lot.
Hunt did not go to Milwaukee, because the FBI already had agents at
the apartment. Perhaps Hunt or someone else went instead to
Maryland and planted the diary in Bremer's car. One thing seems
certain after a careful analysis of Bremer's diary in comparison to
his grammar, spelling, etc., in his high school performances in
English. Bremer didn't write the diary. Someone forged it, trying
to make it sound like they thought Bremer would sound given his low
I.Q.
One last item would clinch the conspiracy case if it were true.
A rumor spread among researchers and the media that CBS-TV had
discovered Bremer and G. Gordon Liddy together on two separate
occasions in TV footage of Wallace rallies. In one TV sequence
they were said to be walking together toward a camera in the
background. CBS completely closed the lid on the subject.
The best source is obviously Bremer himself. However, no
private citizen can get anywhere near him. Even if they could he
might not talk if he had been programmed. Unless an expert
deprogrammed him, his secret could be locked away in his brain,
just like Sirhan's secret is locked within his mind.</p>
<p>____________________</p>
<p>[1] "Report of an Investigation" by William Turner for the Committee
on Government Intelligence.</p>
<p> References:</p>
<p> "Bremer Wallace and Hunt", The New York Review of Books -- Gore
Vidal -- December 13, 1973.</p>
<p> "The Wallace Shooting" -- Alan Stang -- "American Opinion" --
October, 1972.</p>
<p> "Why Was Wallace Shot?" -- R.F. Salant -- Self Published --
Monsey, N.Y.</p>
<p> "Interview With Charles Colson" -- Dick Russell -- "Argosy" --
March, 1976.</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p>--
daveus rattus </p>
<p> yer friendly neighborhood ratman</p>
<p> KOYAANISQATSI</p>
<p> ko.yaa.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi Language) n. 1. crazy life. 2. life
in turmoil. 3. life out of balance. 4. life disintegrating.
5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
From dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com Wed Jun 10 10:08:58 1992
Received: from pl122c.eecs.lehigh.edu by ns-mx.uiowa.edu (5.64.jnf/920408)
on Wed, 10 Jun 92 10:08:44 -0500 id AA10332 with SMTP
Received: from SGI.COM by PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU (5.61/1.34)
id AA15979; Wed, 10 Jun 92 10:53:16 -0400
Received: from [192.102.132.11] by sgi.sgi.com via SMTP (911016.SGI/910110.SGI)
for PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA02901; Wed, 10 Jun 92 07:55:47 -0700
Received: by ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (920110.SGI/920502.SGI.AUTO)
for @sgi.sgi.com:PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA02416; Wed, 10 Jun 92 07:55:45 -0700
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 92 07:55:45 -0700
From: dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
<info type="Message-ID"> 9206101455.AA02416@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com</info>
To: PML3@PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU
Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (4/11)
Status: RO</p>
<p>Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (4/11)
Summary: we were robbed of our capability of electing a president we wanted
Keywords: part 4 of 11: first half of chapter 9
Lines: 995</p>
<p> chapter 9 stands out as one of the most detailed explorations i've ever
read *anywhere* concerning the media's culpability in the cover-up of
the assassination of the president. the major media's collusion in
covering-up the truth of the assassination is one of the most tragic
*and* revealing indicators about just how far this nation has moved away
from *some* kind of representative democracy to, what, totalitarian
"democracy"? until we the people confront such crimes as the cover-up,
perpetrated and perpetuated by "the official reality consortium," we will
continue to experience an evermore expanding strangulating oligarchy and
ever decreasing accountability.
--ratitor</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Chapter 9
Control of the Media</p>
<p> As mentioned in Chapter 1, one of the two clever strategies used
by the Power Control Group in the taking of America has been the
control of the news media.
For those American citizens who steadfastly refuse to believe
that all of the American establishment news media could be
controlled by the CIA and its friends in the White House, the
continuing support of the Warren Commission's lone assassin
conclusion by virtually all of the major news media organizations
in November, 1975, twelve years after the event, must have been
very puzzling indeed. Since 78% of the public believe that there
was a conspiracy in the case, there must be a series of questions
in the minds of the most intelligent of the 78% about the media's
position on the subject.[1]
This Chapter is intended to enlighten readers and to remind them
of the control exercised by the intelligence community and the
White House over the 15 organizations from whom the public gets the
vast majority of its news and opinions.
Let's begin with 1968-1969. By 1973 the American public had
begun to develop a skepticism toward information they received on
television or radio. Various news stories appearing in our
national news media through those years had brought about this
attitude. Some examples are: the Songmy-Mylai incident, the
Pueblo story, the murder of Black Panther Fred Hampton, the
Pentagon Papers, the Clifford Irving hoax, the Bangladesh tragedy
and the India-Pakistan war, Hoover &amp; FBI antics, the Jack Anderson
papers, and IT&amp;T and the Republican National Convention.
The general reaction was bound to be, "Don't believe everything
you read, see or hear, especially the first time around, and more
especially if the story comes from Washington." In the case of the
Pentagon Papers, things we all had taken as gospel for nearly two
decades suddenly seemed to crumble.
To what extent can the national news media be held responsible
for this situation? What has happened to the inquiring reporter
and the crusading editor who are both searching for and printing
the truth? If a government or a president lies or keeps secrets,
can the American news media really find out about it? And if they
do, what moral, ethical, political or other criteria should they
use in uncovering the lies and presenting them to the public?
Vice President Agnew would have said, "The press is already
going too far." Members of the press would have said, "We must
remain independent and maintain the freedom of speech." Just how
independent is the news media? Is it controlled to some extent by
Washington?
The answer to some of these questions can be found by taking an
inside look at the major national news media organizations during
1968 and 1969 and how they treated the most controversial news
subject since World War II. The assassination of John F. Kennedy
and its aftermath is an all-pervading, endless topic. It has yet
to reach the Pentagon Papers, Anderston papers, or Mylai stage of
revelation. Precisely because it is still such a controversial
subject, verboten for discussion among all major news media (unless
the discussant supports the Warren Commission), it serves as an
excellent case study.
A categorical statement can be made that management and
editorial policy, measured by what is printed and broadcast in all
major American news media organizations, supports the findings of
the Warren Commission. This has been true since 1969, but it was
not true between 1964 and 1969.
Of significance in this analysis and what it implies about the
American public's knowledge about the assassination and its
aftermath is a definition of "major American national news media."
It can be demonstrated that an overwhelming mass of news
information reaching the eyes and ears of Americans comes from
about fifteen organizations. They are, in general order of
significance: NBC-TV &amp; Radio CBS-TV &amp; Radio, ABC-TV &amp; Radio,
Associated Press, United Press, "Time-Life-Fortune-Sports
Illustrated," McGraw Hill "Business Week," "Newsweek," "U.S. News
&amp; World Report," "New York Times" News Service, "Washington Post"
News Service, Metromedia News Network, Westinghouse Radio News
Network, Capital City Broadcasting Radio Network, the North
American Newspaper Alliance, and the "Saturday Evening Post" (the
"Post" is, of course, now defunct.)
There are some subtle reasons for this, not generally
appreciated by the average citizen. Television has, of course,
become the primary source of information. For any nationally
circulated news story, local stations rely heavily on film,
videotape and written script material prepared and edited by the
three networks. Once in a while Metromedia may also send out TV
material. In effect, this means that editorial content for a vast
majority of the television information seen by American citizens
everywhere originates not only with three or four organizations but
also with a very small number of producers, editors and
commentators in those networks.
A large majority of any national news items printed by local
newspapers originates in a small number of press-wire services. AP
and UP dominate this area, with selected chains of papers
subscribing to a lesser extent to new services of the "New York
Times," "Washington Post," North American Newspaper Alliance, and a
very small percentage receiving information from papers in Los
Angeles, Chicago and St. Louis.
In a national news story of major significance such as the
assassination of John Kennedy, the smaller local papers rely almost
exclusively on their affiliated news services. Economic reasons
dictate this situation. The small paper can't afford to have
reporters everywhere. The major newspapers might send a man to
Dallas for a few days to cover the assassination, or they might
send a man to New Orleans to cover the Clay Shaw trial. But even
the major papers can't afford to cover every part of a continuing
story anywhere around the world. So they too rely on UP and AP for
much of their material. They also rely on AP, UP and Black Star[2]
for most of their photographic material.
In the case of news magazines, the holding corporations become
important in forming editorial policy in a situation as
controversial as the assassination of JFK. Time Inc. and "Life,"
"Newsweek" and the "Washington Post," "U.S. News," and McGraw Hill
managements all became involved.
Fifteen organizations is a surprisingly small number, and one is
led to conjecture about how easy or difficult it might be to
control or dictate editorial policy for all of them or some
appreciable majority of them. An article in "Computers and
Automation"[3] reprinted a statement by John R. Rarick, Louisiana
Congressman and an entry made in the "Congressional Record" bearing
on this subject. In the reprint, the "Government Employees
Exchange" publication is quoted as stating that the CIA New Team
used secret cooperating and liaison groups after the Bay of Pigs in
the large foundations, banks and newspapers to change U.S. domestic
and foreign relations through the infiltration of these
organizations. The coordinating role at "The New York Times" was
in the custody of Harding Bancroft, Executive Vice President.
A useful analysis consists of examining what happened
organizationally and editorially inside each of the fifteen
companies following the assassination of President Kennedy. My
personal knowledge, plus information available from a few sources
connected with the major news media, permits such an analysis to be
made for eleven of the fifteen. They are: NBC, CBS, ABC, Time-
Life, "The New York Times," "Newsweek," Associated Press, United
Press, "Saturday Evening Post," Capital City Broadcasting, and
North American Newspaper Alliance. In addition, the performance of
nine local newspapers and TV stations directly involved in the
events in Dallas and New Orleans will be analyzed. These include:
"Dallas Times Herald," "Dallas Morning News," Fort Worth "Star
Telegram," Dallas CBS-Affiliate WBAP, "New Orleans Times Picayune,"
"New Orleans Times Herald," and New Orleans NBC-Affiliate WDSU-TV.
Most of these organizations had reporters and photographers in
Dallas at the time of the assassination or within a few hours
thereafter. Most of them had direct coverage available when Jim
Garrison's investigation broke into the news in 1967 and during the
trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans in 1969. For many of them the
Shaw trial became the running point in the changing of editorial
policy toward the assassination. For a few, the Garrison
investigation and the Shaw trial took on the aspect of waving a
red flag in front of a bull. They became directly involved in a
negative way and thus not only reported the news, but also biased
it.
Immediately following the assassination the media reported
nearly everything that had obviously happened. All was confused
for the first few days. The killing of Oswald by Ruby on live
television produced even greater confusion.
For one year the major media reported everything, from probable
Communist conspiracies to the lone assassin theory. The media
waited for the Warren Report, and when it was issued in October of
1964 many of the major media fell into line and editorially backed
the Commission's findings. Some questioned the findings and
continued to question them until 1968 or 1969. "The New York
Times" and "Life" magazine fell into this category. But by the
time the Shaw trial ended in March 1969, every one of the fifteen
major news media organizations was backing the Warren Commission
and they have continued to maintain this editorial position since.
The situation would perhaps not be so surprising had not the
internal assassination research teams in several of these
organizations discovered the truth about the Kennedy killing
between 1964 and 1968. These teams examined the evidence and
thoroughly analyzed it. No one who has ever taken the trouble to
objectively do just that has reached any conclusion other than
conspiracy.
In each and every case the internal findings were overruled,
suppressed, locked up, edited and otherwise altered to back up the
Warren Commission. Management at the highest editorial and
corporate level took the action in every instance. Before drawing
any further generalization about the performance of the media in
the JFK case, it will be revealing to examine what happened and
specifically who took what actions in the case of the eleven
national organizations and the nine local ones listed earlier.</p>
<p> Time-Life</p>
<p> The Time Inc. organization let "Life Magazine" establish its
editorial policy while "Time" published more or less standard
"Time-Life" stories. "Life" became directly involved in the
assassination action and evidence suppression from the very
beginning, on November 22, 1963.
"Life" purchased the famous Zapruder movie from Abraham Zapruder
on the afternoon of the assassination for about $500,000. The
first negative action took place when "Life" and Zapruder began
telling the lie that the price was $25,000 (which Zapruder donated
to the fund raised for the widow of Dallas policeman, J. D.
Tippit, who had also been murdered that day). Apparently, both
"Life" and Zapruder were ashamed that he profited by the event. He
lived in fear that the true price would be revealed until the day
he died.
As many readers know, the Zapruder film (viewed in slow motion)
proves there was a conspiracy because of the backward motion of the
President's head immediately following the fatal shot. It proves
the shot came from the grassy knoll to the right and in front of
the president while Oswald's purported position was very nearly
directly behind him. The film also helps establish that five, and
not three shots, were fired, and that one of them could not have
been fired from Oswald's supposed sniper's nest because of the
large oak tree blocking his view.
"Life" magazine never permitted the Zapruder film to be seen
publicly and locked it up in November 1968 so that no one inside or
outside "Life" could have access to it, automatically becoming an
"accessory after the fact". "Life" helped protect the real
assassins and committed a worse crime than the Warren Commission.
In answer to those defenders of "Life" who will say, "But `Life'
turned over a copy of the Zapruder film to the Warren Commission,
and it is available in the National Archives," let's look at the
facts. "Life" did not supply the copy of the film now resting in
the Archives. That copy came from Zapruder's original to the
Secret Service to the Warren Commission to the Archives. It is
available for viewing by the few people fortunate enough to visit
the Archives. It can not be duplicated by anyone, and copies can
not be taken out of the Archives or viewed publicly in any way.
The Archive management responsible for the Kennedy assassination
records state that the "Life" magazine ownership of the Zapruder
film is what prevents copies from being made available outside the
Archives.
The Warren Commission did not see the film in slow motion. Nor
does the average Archives' visitor get to see it in slow motion or
stop-action. Yet the most casual analysis of the film in slow
motion convinces anyone to conclude there was a conspiracy.
Thus "Life" magazine is an important part of the efforts to
suppress evidence of conspiracy.
"Life" was involved in several other ways as an accessory after
the fact. The organization began its efforts to discover the truth
about the assassination in 1964 when it assigned Ed Kern, an
associate editor, to investigate. By the fall of 1966, Kern had
become convinced that the basic evidence pointed to conspiracy.
"Life" management was also apparently convinced; they published
articles in November 1965 and November 1966 questioning the Warren
Commission's conclusions.
In the fall of 1966 "Life" transferred Richard Billings from
their Miami office to headquarters in New York. His assignment was
to take over the investigation of the Kennedy assassination, and to
head a team of several people working full time on it. One of Dick
Billings' objectives was to search for and acquire as much of the
missing photographic evidence as possible.
This author initiated a similar search, independent from "Life"
magazine, in September 1966. As often happens, people with common
objectives decided to work together. Billings and the author
arrived at a tacit understanding that any JFK assassination
photographs, including TV films or private movies, found by either
would be brought to the other's attention. In exchange for access
to "Life"'s photographic collection (including the Zapruder film
and slides), the author agreed to give "Life" the results of any
analyses of the photographic evidence. In cases where the author
could not afford to acquire some new piece of evidence, "Life"
would offer to purchase the materials from the owners and supply
copies to the author.
In this manner the author discovered and helped "Life" magazine
acquire the largest collection of photographic evidence of the JFK
assassination, outside of the author's personal collection and the
collection now located at the headquarters of the Committee to
Investigate Assassinations in Washington, D.C. Among the photos
discovered were:</p>
<p> The Dorman movie Private
The Wilma Bond photos Private
The Robert Hughes movie Private
The David Weigman TV footage NBC
The Malcolm Couch TV footage ABC
The Jack Beers photos "Dallas Morning News"
The William Allen photos "Dallas Times Herald"
The George Smith photos Ft. Worth "Star Telegram"
The John Martin movie Private
Hugh Betzen's photo Private</p>
<p> (See "Computers and Automation," May 1970)</p>
<p> Many of these were important in proving conspiracy and some
showed pictures of the real assassins.
The "Life" team headed by Billings was in the process of
discovering a great deal about the conspiracy during the 1966-1968
period. While editorially not taking a strong position favoring
conspiracy, "Life" did take a position that favored a new
investigation by the government. This was editorially summed up in
a lead cover story on the fourth anniversary of Kennedy's death in
November 1967 with the title, "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt". In
that issue, John Connally and his wife were shown examining the
Zapruder film's frames and concluding that he had been hit much
later in the film than the Warren Commission claimed. This meant
that two bullets struck the two men and, by the Commission's own
admission, pointed automatically to the conspiracy.
The government naturally did not respond to "Life"'s suggestion
for a new investigation, so nothing ever came of that editorial
policy. Billings, however, continued his team's efforts and in
October 1968 was preparing a comprehensive article for the November
anniversary issue. The author continued to work with him and
continued being given access to the photos right up to October
1968.
It was at that point in time that a drastic change in management
policy occurred at "Life" magazine. Dick Billings was told to stop
all work on the assassination; his entire team was stopped. All
of the research files, including the Zapruder film and slides and
thousands of other film frames and photographs, were locked up. No
one at the magazine was permitted access to these materials and no
one (including the author) was ever allowed to see them again.
Simultaneously, editorial and management policy toward the
assassination changed to complete silence. Billings and crew were
not allowed to discuss the subject at "Life," let alone work on it.
In November 1968 the article Billings had been working on was
turned into a non-entity. A few of the hundreds of photographs
collected by the author and purchased by "Life" were published in
the article, along with an innocuous commentary. Credit for
discovering the photos was given to a number of people at "Life"
magazine in New York and Dallas, not to the individuals who
actually found them.
That article, published nearly nine years ago, was the last word
"Life" has ever uttered about their extensive research probe and
their feelings about a conspiracy. Dick Billings moved to
Washington, D.C. to become editor of the Congressional Quarterly
and is a member on the board of directors of the Committee to
Investigate Assassinations (CTIA).
Who made the policy change decision at "Life" and why? Various
high-level conspiracy enthusiasts claim that the cabal behind the
assassination of the President brought extreme pressure to bear
upon the owners and management of Time Inc. to silence all
opposition to the Warren Commission findings. Others conclude it
had something to do with the CIA's control of "Life"'s editorial
policy from inside. This author takes no position on why. Dick
Billings knows only that the decision was made at high levels and
passed downward and that it was irrevocable.
Repeated attempts by the CTIA and several independent
assassination researchers to break loose the basic evidence in
"Life"'s possession, such as the Zapruder film, the Hughes film,
and the Mark Bell Film, met with total opposition and a stone wall.
Attempts to break loose the Archives' copy of the Zapruder film or
slides met the same stiff opposition. In 1971 "Life"
representatives indicated they might be interested in selling
rights to the Zapruder film for a sum in the neighborhood of a
million dollars.</p>
<p> CBS</p>
<p> The American public is aware of the editorial policy adopted by
the Columbia Broadcasting System toward the Kennedy assassination
because of a special four-part series with Walter Cronkite which
was broadcast on network TV in prime time in the summer of 1967.[4]
That series, while taking issue with some of the work of the Warren
Commission *and criticizing the Dallas police*, the FBI and the
Secret Service, nevertheless backed all of the basic Warren
Commission conclusions.
Anyone watching the Cronkite series might have wondered why the
basic evidence presented by CBS in an itemized format for each of
several areas in the case, did not always seem to point to the
conclusion reached at the end of each section. The conclusion
always agreed with the Warren Commission's comparable conclusion.
Some viewers may even have noticed Cronkite's double-take after
reading through the basic evidence and then reading the phrase,
"and the conclusion is!" It seemed as though he didn't believe the
conclusion and hadn't seen it until he came to it in the script.
Actually, that is exactly what happened. CBS management caused
the entire script to be changed from one concluding conspiracy to a
script supporting the Warren Commission in the last week before the
first part of the series went on the air. Cronkite had not seen
the entire script until the program went on. Time had not
permitted changing all of the points of evidence, so in most cases
they were unchanged and only the conclusion was changed.
How did this come about? Who decided to change the script at
the last moment and why? Again there are control theories extant,
but the author's personal relationships to CBS people might help to
shed a little light on the subject.
The discussion with all of the CBS people always centered on
evidence of conspiracy and the CBS-TV film footage taken at the
assassination site. Bob Richter was the most knowledgeable of all
the aforementioned people on the basic evidence and he was firmly
convinced there was a conspiracy. Bernie Birnbaum was convinced
that a new investigation was desirable and his wife was convinced
there had been a conspiracy. Dan Rather believed there was a
conspiracy and so did Wes Wise.
CBS photographers Sandy Sanderson, Tom Craven, and Jim Underwood
had taken movie-TV footages showing evidence of conspiracy.
Craven's footage, for example, showed the assassin's get-away car
driving away from the parking lot area behind the grassy knoll
about one minute after the shots were fired. Sanderson filmed one
of the assassins being arrested in front of the Depository building
about 30 minutes after the shots. Most of this footage was either
lost or locked up in the CBS archives vaults in New Jersey.
Wes Wise so strongly maintained his opinion about conspiracy
that he broadcast appeals for new photographic evidence over the
KRLD local TV shows. This was done against the orders of Eddie
Barker. Wes became Mayor of Dallas, elected in 1971 and defeated
the Dallas-established oligarchy. He actually received a new piece
of photographic evidence based on his TV appeal from a Dallas
citizen named Bothun, who had taken a picture of the grassy knoll a
few moments after the shots.
The script for the Cronkite series was being edited and was
going through its final preparation stages in May and early June.
The author was in constant touch with Wise, Birnbaum and Richter
during this period and was informed about the basic thrust of the
script toward conspiracy and recommendations for a new
investigation.
On May 8 a dinner meeting took place at the author's New York
club with Mr. and Mrs. Birnbaum. There, Mrs. Birnbaum and the
author tried to convince Bernie that he should take a stronger
position on a new investigation.
On May 18, Bob Richter and one of Jim Garrison's investigators
met in the National Archives with the author and reviewed the
evidence of conspiracy. On June 2, 3 and 4 in Dallas, the author
showed Bernie Birnbaum and Wes Wise a film taken by Johnny Martin
that showed three of the assassins and their cohorts on the grassy
knoll running toward the parking lot a few seconds after firing two
shots. Wise and Birnbaum tried to interest Barker and others in
taking a look at the film.
On June 14 Bob Richter invited the author to meet Midgely,
Lister and Wallace at CBS in New York where an interview was being
taped with Jim Garrison for use in the series. At that time
Garrison, Richter and the author spent some time with the producer
and his assistant discussing the evidence of conspiracy.
Finally, on June 20, just five days before the program was to go
on the air, the author met with Richter and Dan Rather in the
Washington, D.C. CBS studios. The script was reviewed by Richter
and Rather in the author's presence. The gist of the conversation
was that Rather and Richter agreed that the conclusions stating
conspiracy had to be made even stronger than they were at that
time.
The day before the program was aired, Bob Richter assured the
author that the theme would point to conspiracy and demand a new
investigation. The author telephoned Richter immediately after the
first broadcast and asked what had happened. Richter was
devastated. He could not understand what had happened. From that
time forward his course paralleled that of Dick Billings. He
resigned from CBS in disgust and formed his own company, Richter-
McBride, in New York. It was his original intent to make a film
about the JFK assassination based on his own research and the films
he could obtain. However, the massive suppression of the
assassination, especially the suppression of the Zapruder film by
Time-Life films, cancelled Richter's plans for a film.
Correspondence with Cronkite and others determined that the
decision to change the script, distort and hide CBS's own findings
and back up the Warren Commission to the hilt came from Midgely and
Lister. How much higher did the decision go? Richard Salant was
head of the CBS News Division then and, of course, William C. Paley
was (and still is) chairman of the board.
By an odd coincidence, in a sequel to the above CBS story, the
author had an opportunity to learn a little more about Mr. Paley's
knowledge. Jeff Paley, William Paley's son, returned to the United
States from Paris in the winter of 1967-1968, where he had been
writing news stories and a news column for "L'Express" and for the
North American Newspaper Alliance, a group serving small papers in
the United States. Jeff had become convinced there was a
conspiracy in the JFK case and came to interview Garrison and
others and to do a story for French papers. (European papers and
magazines always believed and still do believe in the JFK
assassination conspiracy.) He met at length with Richter and the
author and became quite disturbed at what CBS had done. He
approached his father with the idea that CBS had been wrong in the
Cronkite series and that something should be done to rectify the
situation.
Bill Paley told his son that he knew nothing about the details
of the programs or the work lying behind the conclusions. He said
Midgely had been responsible for the entire production. He told
Jeff that if he could show proof that the CBS conclusions were
wrong and there had been a conspiracy, that he would fire Midgely
and all the rest of the team and do the whole thing all over again
under new management.
Needless to say, this did not happen and the mystery about where
the decision to suppress the truth came from within CBS is as deep
as it ever was.
Since June 1967, CBS has remained editorially silent on the
subject of the JFK assassination. The photographic evidence of
conspiracy in their possession remains locked up and suppressed.
The Craven sequence--film footage by the CBS photographer (who had
been in the parade's camera car # 1) of a car driving out of the
Elm Street extension (left-to right in front of the Texas School
Book Depository) within 20 seconds of the assassination--was seen
by the author and Jones Harris in New York, but was cut out of the
film where it appeared prior to the time the author and Richter
began searching for it. There is little question that CBS is an
accessory after the fact.
CBS edited out one other important piece of TV film. In
November 1969, Walter Cronkite conducted a three-part interview
with Lyndon B. Johnson at his ranch in Texas. The series was
broadcast in the spring of 1970 and on the first program an
announcement was made that portions of the taped interview had been
deleted at Lyndon Johnson's request, "for reasons of national
security."
What actually happened and what Johnson had said six months
earlier was made public due to a leak at CBS. The story appeared
in newspapers all over the U.S. several days before the broadcast.
Johnson told Cronkite that there had been a conspiracy in the
assassination of President Kennedy, that Oswald was not a lone
madman assassin, and that he, Johnson, had known it all along.
Johnson reviewed the tapes a week or so before the program was to
go on the air and then called up the CBS management, asking that
his remarks be deleted.
Someone at CBS who was very disturbed by this called a member of
the Committee to Investigate Assassinations and told him what had
been deleted. This led to the story being printed in the
newspapers.</p>
<p> "The New York Times"</p>
<p> The record of the "Times" through the 1969-1971 period follows
the same pattern as CBS and "Life" magazine editorial policies.
The early editorials following the Warren Report supported the
Commission. The "Times" cooperated by publishing much of the
report in advance. In 1965, however, editorials began to appear
that questioned the Commission's findings and suggested a new
investigation. In 1964 the "Times" formed a research team headed
by Harrison Salisbury to investigate the assassination. The team
of six included Peter Khiss and Gene Roberts. Their conclusions
were never made public by the "Times" but indications point to
their finding evidence of conspiracy.
Khiss, in particular, through the 1966-1968 period in several
meetings and discussions with the author, expressed doubts about
the Warren Report and questioned the lone madman assassin theme.
When the Garrison investigation made the news, the "Times" began a
regular campaign to undermine Garrison's case, to support the
Warren Commission, and finally (during the Clay Shaw trial) to
completely distort the news and the testimony presented. Martin
Waldron was the reporter sending in the stories from the Shaw
trial, but someone in New York edited them to completely change
their content. The author saw the story written by Waldron on the
first day of the trial and the final version appearing in the
"Times." The two were completely different, with Waldon's original
following the actual trial proceedings very closely.
The author, writing under the pen name of Samuel B. Thurston,
postulated the possibility that "The New York Times," on selected
subjects, including the JFK assassination, was controlled by the
CIA through their representative among top management, Mr. Harding
Bancroft.[5]
In the summer of 1968, the author discovered a remarkable
similarity between the sketch of the assassin of Dr. Martin Luther
King and one of the three tramps arrested in Dealey Plaza following
the assassination of President Kennedy. Peter Khiss wrote a story
about this and it was published by the "Times" in June, 1968.
Apparently that was the final straw for the "Times" management as
far as Khiss was concerned. He was not allowed to do any more
research on assassinations or to discuss the subject at the
"Times." As he told the author in 1969, he doesn't attend any
press conferences about assassinations because he doesn't like it
when people in "Times" management say, "Here comes crazy old Pete
Khiss again with his conspiracy talk."
The apex of "The New York Times" actions and editorial positions
on the JFK assassination came in November and December 1971. They
published three items supporting the Warren Commission eight years
after the assassination, at a time when it seemed on the surface to
be a dead issue.
The first was a story about Dallas eight years later by an
author from Texas who wrote his entire story as though it were an
established fact that Oswald was the lone madman assassin firing
three shots from the sixth floor window of the Depository building
and later killing police officer Tippit.
The second was an Op-Ed page guest editorial by none other than
David Belin, a Warren Commission lawyer. He defended the
Commission and attacked the researchers. The third was a story by
Fred Graham about the findings of Dr. Lattimer, who was allowed to
see the autopsy photographs and x-rays of John Kennedy. Graham
actually wrote most of his story, which solidly backed up the
Warren Commission due to Lattimer's claims that the autopsy
materials proved no conspiracy, before Lattimer ever entered the
Archives.
In other words, it appears that Graham knew what Lattimer was
going to find and say in advance. Either that or someone in
Washington, D.C. gave someone at the "Times" orders in advance to
prepare the story for the first page, upper left-hand corner, of
the paper. It really didn't make any difference whether Dr.
Lattimer ever saw the x-rays and photographs.
The concerted campaign on the part of the "Times" management
could have been timed to prevent a discovery of new evidence of
conspiracy in the autopsy materials. The reason for this
possibility developing in the November 1971 period is that the
five-year restriction placed on the autopsy evidence by Burke
Marshall, a Kennedy family lawyer, expired in November of 1971.
Four well-known and highly reputable forensic pathologists, Dr.
Cyril Wecht of Pittsburgh, Dr. John Nichols of the University of
Kansas, Dr. Milton Helpern of New York City and Dr. John Chapman of
Detroit had already asked permission to examine the x-rays and
photos upon the expiration of the five-year period. All four were
known to question the Warren Commission's findings. What better
way to freeze them out of the Archives than to select a doctor who
could be trusted to back up the Commission (Lattimer had published
several articles doing just that), commission him to go into the
Archives, and then persuade "The New York Times" to publish a front
page story in its Sunday issue demonstrating that no one else need
look at the materials because they supported the Warren
Commission's findings.
All attempts by researchers to convince "Times" management that
the other side of the story should be told have been completely
ignored. Lattimer's findings, if correct, actually prove
conspiracy. The "Times" has been informed of this but they have
shut off all discussion of the subject. The complete story of the
complicity of the "New York Times" in the crimes to which they have
become an accessory would take up an entire volume.[6]</p>
<p> NBC</p>
<p> The National Broadcasting Company became an active participant
in the government's efforts to protect Clay Shaw and to ruin Jim
Garrison.
Two of NBC's high-level management people, Richard Townley of
NBC's affiliate in New Orleans, WDSU, and Walter Sheridan,
executive producer, became personally and directly involved in the
Shaw trial. They were indicted by a grand jury in New Orleans for
bribing witnesses, suppressing evidence and interfering with trial
proceedings. NBC top-level management backed Sheridan and Townley.
NBC produced a highly biased, provably dishonest program
personally attacking Garrison and defending Shaw prior to the
trial. Frank McGee, who acted as moderator, later had to publicly
apologize for lies told on the program by two "witnesses" whom NBC
paid to give statements against Garrison. The FCC ruled that NBC
had to give Garrison equal time because the program was not a news
program but a vendetta by NBC against Garrison. NBC did give
Garrison 30 minutes (compared to their one-hour attack) to respond
at a later date. Sheridan was the producer of the one-hour show.
With Sheridan and Townley so deeply involved, and with such an
extremely strong editorial position favoring the Justice
Department, the Warren Commission, and the lone assassin stance,
suspicions were raised about NBC's and RCA's independence.[7] At
one point in 1967 the president of NBC, according to Walter
Sheridan, helped in the bribery efforts by calling Mr. Gherlock,
head of Equitable Life Insurance Company's New York office, and
asked for assurance that Perry Russo, who worked for Equitable,
would cooperate with NBC.
NBC is also the owner of several important pieces of
photographic evidence. A TV film taken by NBC photographer David
Weigman was suppressed by NBC and not made available to
researchers. It shows the grassy knoll in the background just a
fraction of a minute after the shots. Some of the assassination
participants can be seen on the knoll.
Fortunately for researchers, NBC sold the Weigman film to the
other networks and to the news film agencies before realizing its
importance. The author was able to purchase a copy from Hearst
Metrotone News.
NBC's affiliate, WBAP in Fort Worth, has several important film
sequences. James Darnell took several sequences on the grassy
knoll and in the parking lot which should contain important
evidence. Dan Owens took TV movies in and around the Depository
building which should show how the snipers' nest was faked on the
sixth floor, and one of the assassins in front of the building.</p>
<p> ABC</p>
<p> Of the three major television networks, ABC has remained more
objective and appears to be less under the thumb of the government
than the other two. For example, when NBC was busy defending the
Warren Commission and Clay Shaw and attacking Jim Garrison, ABC was
giving Garrison a free chance to express his views without
interruption on their Sunday program, "Issues and Answers." They
have never taken an editorial position one way or another on
conspiracy. However, in the Robert Kennedy assassination case, the
investigation was suppressed at ABC. The man heading the brief
investigation was stopped and sent to Vietnam. The man at ABC who
called the shots in stopping the investigation and in suppressing
evidence in ABC's possession was a lawyer named Lewis Powell.
The evidence owned by ABC is a video tape of the crowd in the
Ambassador Hotel ballroom before, during and after the shots were
fired in the kitchen. The ballroom microphones, including ABC's,
picked up the sound of only three shots above the crowd noise.
Since Sirhan fired eight shots, or certainly more than three, and
since Los Angeles police tests proved that Sirhan's gun could not
be heard in the position of the microphones in the ballroom, the
ABC film and soundtrack is important evidence of three other shots.
The sequence was originally included in the TV film of Robert
Kennedy's 1968 campaign and assassination entitled, "The Last
Journey." Following a meeting at ABC when the management learned
what the film showed, the next TV broadcast of "The Last Journey"
(scheduled for the following week) was cancelled without any
logical explanation. The next time the film appeared on ABC (late
1971), the three-shot ballroom sequence had been cut.</p>
<p> United Press International</p>
<p> Of all the fifteen major news organizations included herein, UPI
has come closest to really pursuing the truth about the JFK
assassination. Yet they, too, have suppressed evidence, have not
had the courage of their convictions in analyzing conspiratorial
evidence, and by default have become accessories after the fact.
Two different departments at UPI became involved in the
photographic evidence of the JFK assassination. The regular photo
news service department, which receives wire photos and negatives
from many sources all over the world, accumulated a large
collection of basic evidence both from UPI photographers and by
purchasing wire service photos from newspapers, Black Star, AP and
other sources. This department has made all of its photographs
available to anyone at reasonable prices ($1.50 to $3.00 per
print).
UPI photographer Frank Cancellare was in the motorcade and
snapped several important photographs. In addition, five other
photographs at UPI, taken by three unknown photographers, are
significant. All of these were purchased by the author from UPI.
The other department has not been as cooperative. Within the
news department at UPI, Burt Reinhardt and Rees Schonfeld have
varied in their attitude and performance. UPI news purchased the
commercial rights to two very important films shortly after the
assassination. These were color movies taken by Orville Nix and
Marie Muchmore (private citizens). Both show the fatal shot
striking the President, and both show evidence of conspiracy. In
the Nix film, certain frames (when enlarged) show one of the
assassins on the grassy knoll with a rifle. Both movies show a
puff of smoke generated by another one of the men involved in the
assassination.
UPI, under the direction of Burt Reinhardt, did several things
with the Nix and Muchmore films. They produced a book, "Four
Days," including several color frames from the movies. They made a
composite movie in 35mm from the original 8mm movies. The
composite used the technique of repeating a frame several times to
give the appearance of slow motion or stop action during key
sections of the films. Reinhardt, Schonfeld and Mr. Fox, a UPI
writer, made the composite movie available to researchers at their
projection studio in New York in 1964 and 1965.
Fox and Schonfeld wrote an article for "Esquire" in 1965 which
portrayed the Nix film as proving the conspiracy theories about
assassins on the grassy knoll to be false. This was deemed
necessary by UPI management because a New York researcher and a
photographic expert, after seeing the Nix film at UPI, claimed it
showed an assassin with a rifle standing on the hood of a car
parked behind the knoll.
The research team had used a few frames from the film in color
transparencies and enlarged them in black and white to show the
gunman.
In 1964, UPI gave the Warren Commission copies of both the Nix
and Muchmore films for analysis. The films were later turned over
to the National Archives under a special agreement between UPI and
the Archives. This agreement reminds one of the agreements between
the Archives and the Kennedy family on the autopsy materials, and
the obscure one between "Life" magazine, the Commission, the Secret
Service and the Archives on the Zapruder film.
The UPI agreement prevents anyone from obtaining copies of the
Nix and Muchmore films or slides of individual frames for any
purpose. The agreement is just as illegal as the other two, yet it
has been just as effective in suppressing the basic evidence of
conspiracy.
In 1967, UPI, apparently still not sure they would not be
attacked by researchers on what the Nix film revealed, employed
Itek Corporation to analyze the film. (At least it would appear on
the surface that UPI did the hiring.) Itek Corporation, a major
defense contractor, did an excellent job of obscuring the truth.
In an apparently highly scientific analysis using computer-based
image enhancement, they "proved" that not only was there no gunman
on the grassy knoll, but there was no person on the knoll at all
during the shooting.
The final Itek report was made public and highly publicized by
UPI. It looked as though the UPI earlier claim of no gunman had
been scientifically substantiated. As a by-product, Itek got some
great publicity for their commercially available photo-computer
image enhancement system.
What the public did not know was that UPI gave Itek only 35mm
enlarged black and white copies of selected frames from the Nix
film. The great amount of detail is lost in going from 8mm color
to 35mm black and white. And UPI gave Itek carefully chosen frames
from the Nix film that did not show the gunman on the knoll.
UPI and Itek defined "the grassy knoll" in a very limited and
carefully chosen way so as to exclude five people (in addition to
the fatal-shot gunman) on the knoll who appear in the Nix film as
well as in every other photograph and movie taken of the knoll at
the time the shots were fired.[8] In addition, man No. 2, who had
ducked down behind the stone wall during the Nix film, could not be
detected by Itek because they only had the Nix film.
Three men standing on the steps of the knoll, and two men behind
the picket fence, were completely ignored or overlooked.
The author began to contact Schonfeld and Reinhardt in early
1967, viewed the two films both at UPI and in the Archives, and
requested copies of the original 8mm color films or color copies of
individual frames. The response to the requests were negative for
more than four years. During this time, however, the author, a New
York researcher, and a photographic specialist, enlarged in color
the correct frames from the Nix film. The enlargements clearly
show the gunman, not on top of a car but in front of a car, with
his rifle poised. He is standing on a pedestal protruding from the
eight-sided cupola behind the stone wall on the knoll. The car is
parked behind the cupola and can be seen in several other
photographs and movies.
Unfortunately, UPI's agreement with the researcher prevents
making public the color enlargements. UPI has consistently
suppressed this evidence. In 1971, they offered to make the film
available for a very large sum of money, but they have never agreed
that it shows anyone on the knoll and they will not make copies
available for research.
The UPI editorial position (in articles, the book "Four Days,"
letters and news releases) has supported the Warren Commission
through the years. The major difference between UPI and "Life" or
CBS is that no drastic reversal of management policy took place at
UPI.</p>
<p> AP</p>
<p> Associated Press became an accessory after the fact by taking an
action unprecedented for a news wire service. It published a
three-part report by three AP writers in 1967, completely
supporting the Warren Commission. The report was transmitted by
wire to all AP subscribers over a three-day period and it occupied
a total of nine to ten full pages of the average newspaper. It was
not news, but editorial policy and took a position supporting the
Warren Commission and the official government propaganda about the
assassination of John Kennedy.
Most small newspapers rely on UP and AP for their news stories.
The three-part AP report ran in hundreds of papers across the
United States without opposition commentary. For many this was the
gospel at the time. What more could the conspirators and their
government protectors have asked?
AP photographers were on the scene in Dallas during the
assassination. James Altgens, one of AP's men assigned to Dallas,
took seven important photographs in Dealey Plaza. Henry Burrows,
an AP photographer from Washington, D.C., was in the motorcade and
snapped two pictures. Four other AP photographers took ten
important photographs. AP's photo department and Wide World Photos
in New York purchased many other photographs taken in Dealey Plaza.
Meyer Goldberg, manager of Wide World Photos, set a policy early
in the 1966-1967 period which placed AP in the position of
partially suppressing basic photographic evidence. The policy
contained several parts. First, Goldberg made it extremely
difficult for anyone to obtain access to the photographic evidence,
particularly the negatives. Second, he set a high enough price on
copies of photographs ($17.50 for one 8x10 black and white print)
to freeze out all but commercially-financed interests. Third, when
an original negative was discovered, the print order, when cleared
by Wide World, was always cropped. (Full negative prints showing
important details in the Altgens photographs were nearly impossible
to purchase.) Whenever any suggestion was made to Wide World that
their photographs contained basic evidence of conspiracy, Goldberg
and AP management turned blue with anger and literally refused to
discuss the subject or permit research in their files.
Various researchers, including Josiah Thompson, Raymond Marcus
and the author met this type of stiff opposition, but after many
visits discovered ways around it. The staff at Wide World in
charge of the photographic files was more cooperative, and at least
one staff member was completely convinced there was a conspiracy in
the JFK assassination.
Nevertheless, the broadly announced editorial policy and stance
of Associated Press between 1964 and 1972 fully supported the
Warren Commission and the lone assassin fable.</p>
<p> "Newsweek"</p>
<p> "Newsweek"'s editorial policy and coverage of the assassination
and its aftermath was largely the doing of one man, Hugh
Aynesworth. Aynesworth was the Dallas-Houston correspondent for
"Newsweek" following the assassination. He was in Dealey Plaza
when Kennedy was killed, and he turned in several stories during
the days and weeks following November 22, 1963. His point of view
was always closely allied with that of the Dallas police, the
district attorney and the FBI. He wholeheartedly supported the
Warren Report.
However, in May of 1967, after Garrison's investigation hit the
news, Aynesworth wrote a violent attack on Garrison's
investigation, and it was published in "Newsweek." Aynesworth
accused Lynn Loisel, a Garrison staff member, of bribing Al
Beaubolf to testify about a meeting to plot the assassination.
Beaubolf later denied this accusation in a sworn affidavit and
proved Aynesworth and "Newsweek" to be fabricators of information.</p>
<p> "Saturday Evening Post"</p>
<p> The position of the "Saturday Evening Post" solidified after the
Garrison probe became public. It was based in large part on the
reporting of one man, James Phelan. Phelan wrote a blistering
article for the "Post" published on May 6, 1967. He attacked
Garrison and Russo, and claimed that Russo's original statement to
Assistant D.A. Andrew Sciambra differed from his later testimony.
In view of the earlier editorial position of the "Post" when Lyron
Land and his wife questioned the Warren Commission findings, the
Phelan article came as somewhat of a surprise. In fact, the "Post"
had taken a strong conspiracy stand when in 1967 it published a
long article excerpted from Josiah Thompson's book, "Six Seconds in
Dallas," and featured it on the magazine's cover.
The Garrison investigation, however, turned the "Post" around.
Phelan became directly involved in the case, and in a sense was
more of an accessory than Walter Sheridan or Richard Townley. He
travelled to Louisiana from Texas, spent many hours with Perry
Russo and other witnesses, and generally obfuscated the Shaw trial
picture.
Phelan joined the efforts to persuade Russo to desert Garrison
and to help destroy Garrison and his case. According to a sworn
Russo statement, Phelan visited his house four times within a few
weeks. Phelan told Russo he was working hand-in-hand with Townley
and Sheridan, that they were in constant contact, and that they
were going to destroy Garrison and the probe. Phelan warned Russo
that he should abandon his position and that Russo would be the
only one hurt as a result of the trial. Phelan claimed Garrison
would leave Russo alone, standing in the cold.
Phelan offered to hire a $200,000-a-year lawyer from New York
for Russo if he would cooperate against Garrison. He asked Russo
how he would feel about sending an innocent man (Clay Shaw) to the
penitentiary. Phelan left New Orleans and Baton Rouge and returned
to New York, only to telephone Russo several times and offer to pay
Russo's plane fare to New York to meet with him and discuss going
over to Clay Shaw's side.
Phelan was subpoenaed by Shaw's lawyers during a hearing in 1967
because his article attacked Garrison. Sciambra welcomed the
opportunity to cross-examine Phelan on the stand. He described the
article as being incomplete, distorted and tantamount to lying.
Sciambra said, "I guarantee that he (Phelan) will be exposed for
having twisted the facts in order to build up a scoop for himself
and the `Saturday Evening Post.'"
Sciambra went on to say that Phelan had neglected the most
important fact of all in his article. It was that Phelan had been
told by Russo in Baton Rouge that Russo and Sciambra had discussed
the plot dialogue (to assassinate JFK) at their initial meeting.</p>
<p> Capital City Broadcasting</p>
<p> This organization owns several radio stations in the capitol
cities of various states and in Washington, D.C. Their interests
in the JFK assassination increased in 1967 and 1968 when the
Garrison-Shaw case made headlines. A producer at Capital City,
Erik Lindquist, decided to do a series of programs designed to
ferret out the truth. The author furnished various evidence for
scripts to be used in the programs. After several months of work
the project was cancelled, presumably by top management, and the
broadcasts never took place.</p>
<p> North American Newspaper Alliance</p>
<p> This newspaper chain, with papers affiliated in small
communities through the northern and eastern U.S., supported the
Warren Commission findings as did all the other major newspaper
services and chains.
The Alliance also became involved in the Martin Luther King case
and it circulated the syndicated column by the black writer and
reporter, Louis Lomax, who had taken an interest in finding out
what really happened in the King assassination.
Lomax located a man named Stein who had taken a trip with James
Earl Ray from Los Angeles to New Orleans. The two retraced the
automobile trip of Ray and Stein, beginning in Los Angeles and
heading through Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. They were trying to
find the telephone booth from which Ray had called a friend named
Raoul in New Orleans somewhere along the route. Raoul, according
to Ray, was the man who actually fired the shot that killed King.
Stein remembered that Ray told him he was going to meet Raoul in
New Orleans and that Ray phoned Raoul at someone's office. Stein
couldn't remember exactly where the phone booth was because he and
Ray had been driving non-stop day and night.
Lomax wrote a series of articles depicting Raoul as the killer
and Ray as the patsy. He sent them to the Alliance, a column each
day, from the places along the retraced trip he and Stein took.
Finally, Lomax's column announced they had found the phone booth at
a gas station in Texas and that he was going to obtain the phone
number Ray had called in New Orleans. He presumably was planning
to visit the local telephone company office the next morning and
obtain the number.
That was the last Lomax column ever to appear in the North
American Alliance papers. He seemed to disappear completely. The
readers were left hanging, not knowing whether he obtained the
phone number or whether he discovered who it belonged to. The
Committee to Investigate Assassinations located Lomax several
months later and asked him what had happened.
He said he had been told by the FBI to stop his investigation
and not to publish or write any more stories about it. He said he
found the phone number and where it was located in New Orleans. He
gave the number to the Committee to Investigate Assassinations. He
said he was afraid he would be killed and decided to stop work on
the case.
Whether North American Newspaper Alliance management knew about
any of this remains unknown. What is known, however, is that Louis
Lomax died in a very mysterious manner in 1970. He was traveling
at a very high speed and was found dead in a car crash, according
to the State police report. Lomax's wife says he was a very
careful driver and never drove at high speeds.</p>
<p>From dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com Thu Jun 11 08:37:11 1992
Received: from pl122c.eecs.lehigh.edu by ns-mx.uiowa.edu (5.64.jnf/920408)
on Thu, 11 Jun 92 08:37:01 -0500 id AA02015 with SMTP
Received: from SGI.COM by PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU (5.61/1.34)
id AA17732; Thu, 11 Jun 92 09:22:19 -0400
Received: from [192.102.132.11] by sgi.sgi.com via SMTP (911016.SGI/910110.SGI)
for PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA19154; Thu, 11 Jun 92 06:24:54 -0700
Received: by ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (920110.SGI/920502.SGI.AUTO)
for @sgi.sgi.com:PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA04892; Thu, 11 Jun 92 06:24:51 -0700
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 92 06:24:51 -0700
From: dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
<info type="Message-ID"> 9206111324.AA04892@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com</info>
To: PML3@PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU
Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (5/11)
Status: RO</p>
<p>Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (5/11)
Summary: we were robbed of our capability of electing a president we wanted
Keywords: part 5 of 11: second/last half of chapter 9
Lines: 908</p>
<p> Dallas Newspapers</p>
<p> The two newspapers in Dallas, "The Times Herald" and "The
Morning News," became accessories after the fact. They suppressed
evidence of conspiracy and evidence concerning the Dallas police
role in framing Lee Harvey Oswald. It was not immediately
established that the management policy of both papers supported the
official positions taken by the Dallas police and district
attorney, the FBI and the Warren Commission. During the first few
days immediately following the assassination, both newspapers
printed anything that came along. The editions on November 22
through 25 make very interesting reading for the researcher because
the stories were printed before anyone had any idea what to
suppress. (For example, there are stories about other people being
arrested, about other rifles being found near Dealey Plaza, and
about Oswald's rifle being a Mauser and a British 303 model.)
Editorial and management policy took over within a couple of
weeks and the lone assassin story received all the attention from
then on. The two papers have not since made any independent
inquiries, have not been interested in any conspiratorial
discussions, and have remained completely faithful to the official
governmental position.
There were some inquiring reporters around (like Ronnie Dugger,
for example, or Lonnie Hudkins), but they were eventually silenced
by management or the FBI and Dallas police. Photographers at the
two papers left town or were frightened out of talking about the
case or their photographs. Some of these photographs showed
evidence of conspiracy, including pictures of three conspirators
under arrest in Dealey Plaza. Other photographs proved that
members of the Dallas police planted evidence in the Depository
building to frame Oswald.
Between the assassination and 1967, the management and owners of
the "Herald" and "News" were not completely aware of the
significance of some of the evidence in their files. Nor were they
attempting to control their reporters and news staff. For example,
Hudkins found that Oswald had been a paid informer for the FBI. He
even found what his pay number had been (S172). He took the
information to Waggoner Carr, Texas Attorney General, in January of
1964. Carr brought it to the attention of the Warren Commission.
Hoover denied it, and the matter died in secret executive sessions
of the Warren Commission.
Several photographs taken by "Dallas Morning News" photographer
Jack Beers proved that the police created the so-called "sniper's
nest" from which Oswald allegedly fired the shots. The pictures
show the positions of cartons in the sixth floor window before the
police moved them. Beers's photographs also indicate that the
police made the large paper bag found inside the Depository
building.
Beers was permitted to use his photographs commercially in a
book that he published jointly with R. B. Denson, called "Destiny
in Dallas." If it were not for that event, researchers would
probably never have seen Beers's photographs. Once the "Morning
News" editor, Mr. Krueger, discovered that the photographs
demonstrated both conspiracy and the complicity of some of the
Dallas police force, he locked them up. The pictures remain
suppressed to this date.
The "Times Herald"'s record is not much better. Through 1967
John Masiotta, the man in charge of the assassination photographs
taken by William Allen, made copies available on a very limited
basis. The basis in the author's case was that a total of twelve
pictures out of seventy-three taken by Allen could be purchased.
The author was allowed to examine 35mm contact prints (about 3/4 X
1/2 inches) of the rest, and the selection decision was extremely
difficult. Three of Allen's photographs showed the "tramps" under
arrest who were part of the conspiracy.
In 1968 the "Times Herald" management realized the implications
of some of Allen's pictures in pointing out the real assassins, and
locked their files. To date they have not permitted anyone to see
the photos again or to purchase copies.
One photograph taken by "Dallas Times Herald" photographer Bob
Jackson was so obviously in opposition to the official police
position that it was suppressed by late 1966. Jackson was riding
in one of the news photographer's cars in the motorcade with
"Dallas Morning News" photographer, Tom Dillard. As Jackson's car
approached the Depository building and travelled north on Houston
Street, between Main Street and Elm Street, Jackson snapped a
picture (see map in May 1970 "Computers &amp; Automation" article). At
the time, the Kennedy car was already on Elm Street and was
probably close to the position where the first shot was fired.
Jackson's car was eight cars behind Kennedy's (about twenty car
lengths).
Jackson can be seen taking this picture in the Robert Hughes
film and in some of the TV footage taken by other photographers.
He also testified that he took the picture. When the author asked
Masiotta about the Jackson photo in early 1967, he became very
flustered and claimed to know nothing about it. Jackson himself
was finally located and, when asked about it, became very angry and
denied taking a picture. That photograph has never been seen by
anyone outside of the "Times Herald" staff. It's not difficult to
speculate about what it probably showed, since the Hughes film, the
Weaver photo, the Dillard photo and the Tom Alyea TV sequence all
show the same thing. Jackson's photo, without doubt, showed
"Oswald's window" in the Depository building empty when Oswald
should have been in it--an embarrassing counterpoint to Jackson's
testimony that he saw someone in that window with a rifle. If
Jackson's photo (or anyone else's for that matter) showed Oswald in
the sixth floor window, the whole world would have heard about it
on November 22, 1963.</p>
<p> Fort Worth "Star Telegram"</p>
<p> The Fort Worth "Star Telegram" shines like a light in the Texas
darkness. It made photographic evidence from five of their
photographers, Joe McAulay, Harry Cabluck, Jerrold Cabluck, George
Smith and William Davis available to everyone. Even though the
"Telegram"'s editorial stance was eventually pro-Warren Commission,
the photographers, editors and the woman who ran the photo files
were all cooperative.
George Smith's photos showed the three members of the
assassination team under arrest. Jerrold Cabluck's aerial photos
were instrumental in establishing Dealey Plaza landmarks and
topography. Joe McAulay's photos of a man arrested in Ft. Worth in
connection with the shooting might yet become valuable.</p>
<p> TV Station WFAA</p>
<p> The second shining light in Texas was TV station WFAA, an ABC
affiliate. WFAA was very cooperative (albeit expensive) in
providing copies of all their photographic evidence. TV sequences
by Tom Alyea, Malcolm Couch, A. J. L'Hoste and Ron Reiland were
made easily viewable and the copies made available. Much of this
evidence demonstrating conspiracy was also sold to TV networks and
newsreel companies.</p>
<p> WBAP -- Ft. Worth</p>
<p> The NBC affiliate in Ft. Worth, WBAP, was less cooperative.
Even though public statements were made that viewing of Dan Owens
and Jim Darnell's footage was possible, many roadblocks were thrown
into the path of researchers. As mentioned in the section on NBC,
Darnell's footage of the knoll and parking lot is very important.
It has remained unavailable at WBAP.</p>
<p> KTTV -- Dallas</p>
<p> Independent TV station KTTV in Dallas also suppressed, or lost,
valuable evidence of conspiracy. Don Cook's TV footage contained
twelve important sequences. One is a sequence of a man being
arrested in front of the Depository building at about 1:00 p.m.
From other evidence it is possible to determine that the man may be
William Sharp, participant in the assassination. Cook can be seen
in a picture taken by Phil Willis pointing his 16mm TV film camera
directly at the man from about ten feet away.
Willis' photo does not show the man's face. For this reason,
Cook's close-up footage is very important. In 1967 the author
interviewed Cook in Dallas and found that his film had been turned
over to the editor at KTTV. A phone call to the station resulted
in a statement being made to the author that Cook's footage had
been lost "on the cutting room floor" and was not available for
viewing. No further efforts have even been made to open up KTTV's
evidence in the assassination.</p>
<p> New Orleans Newspapers</p>
<p> The only two publications in the United States that printed the
truth about the Clay Shaw trial were the New Orleans "Times
Picayune" and the New Orleans "Times Herald."
Between 1963 and 1967 both New Orleans newspapers used AP and UP
stories on most of their coverage of the Kennedy assassination.
Suddenly, the papers found themselves deeply involved in the middle
of the sensational Garrison investigation, and in 1969 they
reported on the Shaw trial.
The papers took no editorial position on Jim Garrison, the
trial, the investigation, the assassination, or the guilt or
innocence of Shaw until after the final verdict was delivered by
the jury. Then both papers savagely attacked Garrison on the
editorial page. Off the record, the reporters and others at both
papers supported Garrison. This was reflected in a book published
by the two "Herald" reporters, Rosemary James and Jack Wardlaw,
called "Plot or Politics."
The management and editors of the newspapers evidently paid more
attention to forces from Washington and New York than they did to
New Orleans citizens or the testimony at the trial.
But the verbatim proceedings at the Shaw trial, as well as all
of the detailed events for the two years that the Federal
Government successfully delayed the trial, were faithfully printed
in both the "Herald" and the "Picayune." While you and I, dear
reader, were treated to a highly biased account for three years
concerning events in New Orleans by "Time" magazine, "Newsweek,"
"U.S. News," "The New York Times," NBC, CBS, ABC, UP, AP, etc., the
average New Orleans citizen was well aware that the Justice
Department, under both Ramsey Clark and John Mitchell, was
responsible for continually delaying the trail. (You and I were
fed the impression that Garrison delayed the trial.)
Mr. New Orleans citizen, let's call him Joe, knew that Shaw's
lawyers were paid by the CIA. You and I were told that Shaw paid
his lawyers a lot of money and suffered financially because of it.
Joe knew that the FBI was looking for Shaw under his alias, Clay
Bertrand, before lawyer Dean Andrews ever mentioned the name
associated with Lee Harvey Oswald just before he was killed by Jack
Ruby. You and I were told that Andrews fabricated the name Clay
Bertrand out of whole cloth, and no mention was made to us of the
FBI's search.
Joe knew that twelve people saw Clay Shaw together with Oswald
and David Ferrie on many occasions, exchanging money on two
occasions. You and I were led to believe by "Time" and "The New
York Times" that only three people saw them together and that the
three were not credible witnesses.
Joe knows how Garrison was hounded and framed by the Justice
Department in a fake pinball rap. More importantly, he knows the
government did not want Regis Kennedy, FBI agent, and Pierre Finck,
Army doctor at the JFK autopsy, to testify at the trial.
Finck's testimony, however, was printed in the "Times Picayune"
but not in "Time" magazine. He said that an Army general gave
orders during the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. The
unidentified general told Finck and the other doctors not to probe
the President's neck wound. We did not read about this or hear
about it.
The "Times Picayune" record of the Shaw trial was especially
accurate. The "Herald"'s record was reasonably accurate, but
because the paper was printed by 3:00 p.m., the paper missed some
of the longer sessions.[9]</p>
<p> WDSU-TV -- New Orleans</p>
<p> As mentioned in the section on NBC, WDSU became directly
involved in the JFK assassination aftermath because of Rick Townley
and Walter Sheridan. Both were under indictment by Garrison for
bribing witnesses and tampering with evidence. Townley, on the
staff of WDSU, was close to the action with Garrison, Shaw,
Andrews, Ferrie, Perry Russo, Layton Martens, Gordon Novel, Sergio
Arcacha Smith, David Lewis, David Llewelyn, Guy Banister, and many
other participants in the drama.
According to accounts in the New Orleans papers and repeated in
Paris Flammonde's book "The Kennedy Conspiracy," Townley tried to
get Perry Russo, Garrison's prime witness at the Shaw trial, to
change his testimony at the upcoming trial to make it seem that
Garrison had hypnotized him and then asked leading questions to get
Russo to testify against Shaw.
Townley went to Russo's house twice, threatened to discredit him
and perhaps have him fired from his job, and offered him a chance
to work closely with NBC in their efforts to "destroy Garrison and
his case". Townley told Russo he could get Shaw's lawyer, F.
Irving Dymond, to go easy on him if he would alter his testimony.
He assured Russo that his employer, Equitable Life, had promised
the president of NBC that no retaliation would be taken against
Russo if he cooperated with WDSU and NBC.
Walter Sheridan told Russo that NBC and WDSU could set him up in
California (where Russo always wanted to live) if he helped break
the Garrison probe's back. NBC would pay his expenses there,
protect his job, obtain a lawyer for Russo and guarantee that
Garrison would never extradite him to Louisiana. Sheridan told
Russo that NBC had flown Gordon Novel out of Louisiana to McLean,
Virginia (home of the CIA) and had given Novel (an important
witness for Garrison's case) a lie detector test. Sheridan said
NBC would make sure Novel would never be extradited to Louisiana to
testify. (Novel never was extradited.)
Townley also tried to influence Marlene Mancuso, former wife of
Gordon Novel, and an important Shaw trial witness. He told her
that she should cooperate with WDSU and NBC because Garrison was
going to be destroyed and that NBC was not merely willing to
discredit the probe: he said Garrison would go to jail.
On July 10, 1967, Richard Townley was arrested and charged with
attempted bribery and two counts of intimidating two witnesses. He
was also accused of serving as an intermediary to influence cross-
examining trial attorneys that the character and reputation of
Perry Russo not be damaged.
Sheridan was arrested on July 7 on the counts of intimidating
witnesses and attempted bribery. Both posted bond. Townley's
statements, however, did come true. The Federal Government, aided
and abetted by WDSU and NBC, did crucify Garrison.
The author's belief is that this kind of behavior in the face of
all the evidence gathered by the staffs of their own organizations,
on the part of 15 to 24 major news media management groups is
highly suspect. It might be that each major news organization shut
up about the Kennedy assassination because each was afraid of
losing face or influence, FCC licenses, business or advertisers, or
Government favors of one kind or another.
This theory is perhaps best exemplified by a story told by
Dorothy Kilgallen, before she died, to a close friend. Kilgallen
was writing several articles about the JFK assassination for the
newspapers who published her column. She strongly believed there
had been a conspiracy that included Jack Ruby. She interviewed
Ruby alone in his jail cell in Dallas (the only person outside of
the police who had this opportunity). She told her friend shortly
afterward that she was planning to "blow the case wide open" in her
column. She said the owner of the New York newspaper where her
column appeared refused to let her print stories in opposition to
the Warren Commission. When the friend asked her why, Dorothy
said, "He's afraid he won't be invited to White House parties any
more".
Of the three possible motives for suppression in the news media,
the influence from the top and from high government places seems
the most probable. When will we, as Americans, learn the truth
about influence in the case of the Kennedy assassination?</p>
<p> Conclusions</p>
<p> The pattern of internal knowledge of conspiracy followed by the
complete suppression of such information is too strong to ignore.
Two conclusions suggest themselves as one reviews the evidence
regarding suppression and secrecy.
The first is that our national news media are controlled on the
subject of the assassination by some very high level group in
Washington. The orders to cease, desist, and suppress came from
the top in each case. To influence the very top level of all
fifteen major news media organizations would have taken a great
deal more than money, power, or threats. In fact, the only kind of
appeal which seems likely to have had a chance of shutting everyone
up is a "highly patriotic, national security," kind of appeal. It
was probably just such an argument that worked with the Warren
Commission. Judging by the fact that Lyndon B. Johnson told Walter
Cronkite there was a conspiracy and then successfully persuaded CBS
to edit this out of his remarks "on grounds of national security,"
this kind of an appeal obviously does work.
The second possibility, rather remote from a probability
standpoint, should nevertheless be considered. It is that all 15
to 24 news organizations reached a point of exasperation and
disbelief in 1968-1969. It's possible the top managers of these 24
organizations reached this exasperation point independent of one
another. Within a two to three-year period, culminating in the
Shaw trial and discrediting of Jim Garrison, every one of these
managers might finally have said, "Stop, cease, desist, lock the
files, you're fired, shut up, I don't want to hear another word
about it."</p>
<p> 1976</p>
<p> How, one may ask, could all of this have happened in the world's
greatest democracy? What has become of the principles of the
Founding Fathers, Horace Greeley, Will Rogers and others, in which
the "free" press is supposedly our best protection from the misuse
of governmental power. Didn't things change with Watergate? What
about the "New York Times" and the "Pentagon Papers," the
"Washington Post," Bernstein and Woodward, Watergate, NBC's white
paper on Vietnam, Sy Hersh and the CIA stories in the "New York
Times"?
The actions taking place in November-December, 1975 and on into
1976, proved the media were still influenced and controlled by the
same forces that controlled the media in 1968 and 1969. Some of
the names of the players were different: Ford for Nixon, Colby for
Helms, Kelley for J. Edgar Hoover. But the forces were the same.
The chairmen of the boards and presidents of NBC, CBS, ABC, Time,
Inc., "Newsweek"-"Washington Post," "Los Angeles Times," "Chicago
Tribune," UPI, AP, and the rest, were still very much controlled
and influenced by the White House and the Secret Team. Some of the
influence was by infiltration, as Fletcher Prouty so aptly
demonstrated.[10]
The Secret Team members were to be found everywhere at or near
the top. Other influence came from the Ford administration through
direct or indirect pressure. The FCC, the IRS, the Department of
Commerce, the military and other government agencies had some
control over the media or the personal lives of the top managers.
(It must be remembered that Gerald Ford was and is one of the
cover-up conspirators in the JFK case.)</p>
<p> What is the Evidence?</p>
<p> What is the evidence for this? One measures the influence by
results. In an era when all who have really examined the basic
evidence know there were conspiracies in the JFK and RFK
assassinations, we still find the 15 organizations concluding there
were lone, demented gunmen in the two cases.
For example, CBS broadcast a two-part special on November 25 and
26, 1975, once again reinforcing their stand that Oswald acted
alone. Except for the substitution of Dan Rather as chief narrator
in place of Walter Cronkite, the cast was the same as in the 1967
four-part series. Leslie Midgely was the producer, Bernie
Birnbaum, the associate producer, and Jane Bartels, Birnbaum's
girl-Friday. Eric Sevareid and Eddie Barker were missing. So was
Bob Richter, another 1967 associate producer who had discovered the
truth about the conspiracy and the way CBS handled it. (He now
manages his own film-making company, Richter-McBride, in New York.)
Richter's opinion about the 1967 CBS four-part special, as
expressed in an interview with Jerry Policoff published in "New
Times" magazine in October 1975,[11] barred him from becoming a
consultant to Midgely on the November 25 and 26 programs.</p>
<p> Hard Evidence Never Mentioned</p>
<p> Time, Inc., in their November 17, 1975 issue supported the lone
assassin myth as they have since 1964.[12] Since "Life" was no
longer in existence, Time management used "Time" and "People"
magazines to further the causes of the White House and the CIA in
the cover-up of the cover-ups. The November 3, 1975 issue[13] of
"People" magazine hand-picked a group of "researchers" and
portrayed them as obvious maniacs who believed in and furthered the
conspiracy theories being bandied about. One of the favorite
tricks of the media throughout the years has been to couple the
words "conspiracy" and "theory" together; never once did the major
media mention any of the hard evidence pointing to conspiracy in
any of the four major cases. The "Time" policy and article,
according to Jerry Policoff, was commanded from the very top, above
Hedley Donovan's level.[14]
The fine hand of David Belin can be traced in the "Time"
article. All of the 1964 arguments against conspiracy were aired
once again, as though they were brand new.</p>
<p> The Forces of Good vs. the Forces of Evil:</p>
<p> A Life and Death Struggle</p>
<p> David Belin: Belin shows up in several places. He constructed
a new CIA-White House base on behalf of his superiors by personally
writing most of Chapter 19 of the Rockefeller Report on the CIA and
the FBI. That material was used by Belin and others to try and
shore up the Warren Commission defenses.
The reader may ask, "Why did Belin appear on `Face the Nation'
on November 23, 1975 and get himself on the front page of the `New
York Times' on the same day by proposing the reopening of the JFK
case?"[15] The answer lies in Belin's own explanation. He wants
America to see that a new investigation will confirm the findings
of the Warren Commission, thereby strengthening the country's faith
in its government. Just how did Belin manage to get on "Face the
Nation" and on the first page of the "New York Times?" To answer
that you must analyze the life and death struggle that is going on
between the forces of evil who want to continue the cover-ups, and
the forces of good who want to expose the truth. Senators Richard
Schweiker and Gary Hart and the Church Committee's subcommittee
looking into the JFK assassination were not the push-overs that
Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg and others once were. There were also
Henry B. Gonzalez and Thomas Downing and their new resolutions in
the House, not to mention Don Edwards' subcommittee and Bella
Abzug's subcommittee.
The evil forces needed to muster the strongest counterattack
possible at this stage. For them it was a matter of life and
death. So they rounded up David Belin, Joseph Ball, Wesley
Liebeler, John J. McCloy, Dr. John Lattimer, the old Ramsey Clark
panel of doctors who secretly went into the Archives in 1968, and
some of the coterie of writers who were in their camp in the
1960's.</p>
<p> "I've Seen No New Evidence"</p>
<p> Any doubts about Belin's recruitment by Ford and the White House
disappeared with Gerald Ford's press conference on Wednesday,
November 26, 1975. A reporter asked Ford whether he would support
reopening the JFK investigation.[16] He said, "I, of course,
served on the Warren Commission. And I know a good deal about the
hearings and the committee report, obviously. There are some new
developments--not evidence--but new developments that, according to
one of our best staff members (David Belin), who's kept up to date
on it more than I, that he thinks just to lay those charges (of
conspiracy) aside that a new investigation ought to be undertaken.
He, at the same time, said that no new evidence has come up. If
those particular developments could be fully investigated without
reopening the whole matter that took us 10 months to conclude, I
think some responsible group or organization ought to do so. But
not to reopen all of the other aspects because I think they were
thoroughly covered by the Warren Commission."
Thus Ford, in one of his own inimitable paragraphs, tried to
give the impression that he was following the lead of David Belin-
-rather than the other way around--in the continued cover-up
efforts. Earl Warren was always saying, "I've seen no new
evidence." Ford, Belin and the rest were forced to echo this
refrain, as though all of the things that have been learned since
1964 about the real assassins of John Kennedy and their planners
and backers, were false rumors or stories and theories created out
of whole cloth by the researchers and later by Congress.[17]</p>
<p> Pure Coincidence?</p>
<p> One CIA-White House lackey is James Phelan, formerly a freelance
writer for the old "Saturday Evening Post." Phelan was brought out
of mothballs to do a pro-Warren Commission piece in the "New York
Times" Sunday magazine section.[18] By pure coincidence, it
happened to appear on the same day that Belin's arranged interview
was found on page one. The "Times" is one of the worst, if not the
worst, news media organization on the evil side of the battle.
An article in the July 1971 issue of "Computers and
Automation"[19] shows that the CIA control of the "Times" had for
years been directed through Harding Bancroft, the Secret Team
member there. He controlled all stories and editorial positions on
domestic assassinations. He undoubtedly arranged for both stories
to appear on the same day.[20]</p>
<p> CBS. Cover-Up Broadcasting System</p>
<p> The Belin appearance on the CBS show, "Face the Nation", was no
doubt timed to coincide with the first two parts of the new CBS
whitewash series. (The new name for CBS is "Cover-Up Broadcasting
System".) The men at the top made the decisions in 1967 and 1975
to support the Warren Commission, and Leslie Midgeley carried them
out. In 1967 the entire program format was changed by top
management from pro-conspiracy to pro-Warren Commission in the last
ten days before the first show went on the air.[21] By 1975 there
wasn't any doubt about the conclusions. Midgeley and Co. started
out with the lone assassin thesis and, as the Warren Commission
did, merely sought witnesses, experts and explanations that would
back it up, while they totally ignored everything else.
The CIA's man at CBS who controlled this policy is not known.
Personal experiences and contacts within the organization by the
author have led to the conclusion that it is someone below the
level of William C. Paley and above the level of Midgeley. That
leaves Richard Salant and one or two other possibilities. Salant
is known to have had intelligence connections through the decades
since World War II.</p>
<p> Too Perfect Timing</p>
<p> CBS and the "New York Times" are sometimes simultaneously
orchestrated by the evil forces. One example was the CBS show
preview by the "Times" on November 24 (the show was scheduled to
appear on November 25 and 26).[22] The article, written by John J.
O'Connor, was a reverse-psychology strategy by the top managements
of both organizations and was used to reinforce their pro-Warren
Commission policies. To quote O'Connor, "In bringing some facts to
bear on the feverish speculation, CBS News is less sensational but
more telling." This was in reference to David Susskind and Geraldo
Rivera on Channel 5 in New York, and ABC, who the "Times" believed
provided no facts in disputing the lone assassin conclusion.
How did O'Connor and the "New York Times" take a look at the CBS
shows *two days in advance* while other publications and reviewers
had to wait and watch it with the rest of us? There goes the
orchestration again.</p>
<p> "Newsweek" Editorial Position:
Schweiker, Hart and Gonzalez Misled by Kooks</p>
<p> The "Washington Post"-"Newsweek" situation is a little more
mystifying. It is difficult to believe that Katherine Graham,
owner of both publications, is a Secret Team member. The
"Newsweek" story on the JFK assassination, published in the issue
of April 28, 1975[23] was not as blatantly pro-Warren Commission as
the "Time" article. Yet it left the impression with the readers of
"Newsweek" that editorial position regarded the researchers as
kooks who misled or talked Senator Schweiker and Representatives
Gonzalez and Downing into the wrong attitudes. "Oswald did fire
the shots" is the "Newsweek" message. Individuals at "Newsweek"
like Evert Clark did not really believe this. So where did the
pressure come from? Mrs. Graham herself, or Benjamin Bradlee at
the "Post," or someone else near the top of "Newsweek?" With
reporters like Bernstein and Woodward, and Haynes Johnson who later
moved into management, it is strange that the "Post" supported the
Warren Commission. Yet that has been the "Post"'s editorial stance
since 1964. It remains adamant in its continuing contention that
lone madmen assassinated our three leaders and attempted to
assassinate Wallace.</p>
<p> Eliminate Areas of Doubt</p>
<p> Researcher Jim Blickenstaff, disturbed by a "Newsweek" article
in April of 1975, wrote to the editors. Madeline Edmundson replied
for them. "It was certainly not our aim to discredit those who
doubt the conclusions of the Warren Commission or to express
opposition to a reopening of the investigation of John F. Kennedy's
assassination."
Yet, "Newsweek" did exactly that and, in effect, took the same
editorial position it had taken in May, 1967, when CIA lackey Hugh
Aynesworth was doing their dirty work. (Aynesworth later did the
CIA's dirty work and supported the Warren Commission for the
"Dallas Times Herald.") The new position in favor of reopening the
investigation was the one taken by Belin. It was expressed best by
Harrison Salisbury, the man at the "New York Times" who knew
better. Salisbury was quoted in "Newsweek" saying, "A new
investigation is needed to answer questions of major importance.
We will go over all the areas of doubt and hope to eliminate them."</p>
<p> UPI: Accessory After the Fact in the JFK Conspiracy Cover-Up</p>
<p> AP and UPI have not repeated their 1967-1968 performances
recently in which they sent out the longest stories ever broadcast
over their news service wires. They were so long that they were
divided into installments. The stories backed up the Warren
Commission and attacked the researchers, especially Jim Garrison.
UPI, of course, became an accessory after the fact in the JFK
conspiracy cover-up by suppressing the original 8mm color films by
Marie Muchmore and Orville Nix. It went even further by employing
Itek Corporation to prove there was no one on the grassy knoll.
In July of 1975 a UPI alumnus, Maurice Schonfeld, published an
article in "Columbia Journalism Review"[24] that subtly contended
one of the riflemen on the knoll as seen in the original Nix film
was either an illusion or a man without a rifle.</p>
<p> "Expert" Opinions</p>
<p> Itek: Itek is still at work helping out their friendly
employers, the U.S. government and the CIA. Itek analyzed the
Zapruder film and the Hughes film on the CBS program aired in
November of 1975, giving its "expert" opinion that all shots fired
in Dealey Plaza came from the sixth floor window of the TSBD
Building.
Maurice Schonfeld, perhaps unwittingly, did a favor for
researchers in his "Columbia Journalism Review" article that
revealed that two officials of Itek, Howard Sprague and Franklin T.
Lindsay, were CIA Secret Team members. So when Ford, Belin and
Salant or whoever at CBS needed help, all they had to do was call
upon good old Itek and Howard Sprague. (Frank Lindsay has since
departed.)</p>
<p> AP: Faithful to the White House and CIA</p>
<p> Associated Press has been editorially silent since 1969. They
have faithfully broadcast all of the White House-CIA cover or
planted stories without comment.</p>
<p> Keeping the Lid On</p>
<p> "Los Angeles Times:" "The Los Angeles Times," controlled by
Norman Chandler who was strongly influenced by the Ford
administration, the CIA and Evelle Younger (the Attorney General of
California), produced a complete cover-up effort in the Robert
Kennedy assassination conspiracy. Younger, of course, was D.A. in
Los Angeles County when RFK was killed. He and Ed Davis, L.A.
Police Chief, teamed up with Joseph Busch, assistant D.A., to cover
up the conspiracy evidence. The "Times" for a short, unguarded
period allowed reporter Dave Smith to publish the truth about the
assassination. This stopped in 1974, after Al Lowenstein stirred
Vincent Bugliosi, Baxter Ward, Thomas Bradley, and finally Governor
Pat Brown, Jr. to take a new interest in the case.
Younger influenced Chandler to shut off the flow of information
through the "Los Angeles Times." Chandler, who contributed to the
Nixon campaign, undoubtedly was strong-armed by both Nixon and Ford
(or the CIA) to support the position of the Los Angeles police and
the D.A.'s office. Ronald Reagan and his immediate deputy at the
time also helped sway Chandler and others in California to keep the
lid on.</p>
<p> Zapruder Film Broadcast on Two Occasions</p>
<p> The American Broadcasting Corporation was the first of the
television networks to seemingly break away from CIA-White House
control. In the spring of 1975, after Robert Groden, Dick Gregory,
Ralph Schoenman and Jerry Policoff decided to release and publicize
a clear, enlarged, stop-action color copy of the Zapruder film, the
ABC show hosted by Geraldo Rivera, "Good Night, America," showed
the film on two occasions. Rivera might have made this move
against the wishes of top ABC management. Rumor had it during the
summer months that he was in hot water with high level people. All
doubts about ABC's position disappeared when they broadcast an
assassination special during the week of November 17, 1975 that
supported the lone assassin theory.</p>
<p> "Conspiracy Fever"</p>
<p> "Commentary:" One surprising newcomer to the cover-up
conspiracy group is "Commentary." The liberal, open-minded, non-
government magazine "Commentary" broke their pattern in the October
1975 issue[25] when it published an article by Dr. Jacob Cohen from
Brandeis University which attacked the researchers as paranoid
conspiratorialists. Cohen has been writing these defenses for the
Warren Commission for over ten years. This article was republished
in several other places in November, 1975, as part of the
orchestrated campaign by the CIA-White House.</p>
<p> A Straight News Story</p>
<p> "U.S. News and World Report:" "U.S. News" may be one of the few
media publications to change positions. On September 15, 1975 they
ran a story entitled, "Behind the Move to Reopen the JFK Case". It
was a straight news story about Senator Schweiker's efforts and
list of uncovered evidence raising new questions. The article
closed with: "Numerous Americans who long have doubted the Warren
Commission conclusions will be watching what the Senate does with
his (Schweiker's) idea." That is as close as any of the fifteen
organizations came to saying they believe the Warren Commission was
wrong.</p>
<p> A Breath of Fresh Air</p>
<p> "Saturday Evening Post:" Like a breath of fresh air from the
heartland of America in Indianapolis, Indiana, the revived
"Saturday Evening Post" (Bobbs Merrill subsidiary) took an
editorial stance. The "Post" not only published several strong
articles on the assassinations but also called for reopening all of
the cases, supported the Gonzalez-Downing resolutions, and offered
a sizable reward for information leading to conviction of the
murderers of John F. Kennedy.[26] Thus the "Post" joined the ranks
of the "National Enquirer," "National Tattler," "National Insider,"
"Argosy," "Penthouse," "Gallery," "Genesis" and other publications
of this type, plus nearly all the "underground newspapers" in
calling for new investigations.</p>
<p> CIA Operatives Are Serving as Journalists
For News Organizations Abroad</p>
<p> "Variety:" On November 12, 1975, "Variety" published an article
on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees' suspicions about
relationships between the CIA and broadcasting organizations.[27]
"Variety" said the committees were probing the CIA's influence on
the media organizations, particularly management connections, and
commented, "A central issue in the investigations is reports of
financial dealings with the CIA and media firms with extensive
overseas staffs."
William Colby admitted that CIA operatives were currently
serving as journalists for news organizations abroad, and that
"detailmen" were assigned abroad to news organizations, often
without the knowledge of management. Ronald Dellums, California
representative asked Colby in an open session of a House hearing if
the CIA had ever asked a network to kill a news story. Colby would
not answer specifics in open session, so the panel went immediately
behind closed doors to grill him for several hours.</p>
<p> Conclusions</p>
<p> It is to be hoped that all committees in the House and Senate
will investigate the Secret Team members in the 15 media
organizations and their influence and control over editorial
policies on domestic assassination conspiracies. It is also to be
hoped that the committees will investigate the role of then-
president Gerald Ford and his working relationship to various CIA
people in the original cover-up of the John F. Kennedy
assassination conspiracy. Certainly, David Belin's relationship to
the CIA and to Ford in the media cover-up campaign needs be
investigated.
Fletcher Prouty claimed in his November, 1975 article in
"Gallery Magazine," "The Fourth Force,"[28] that Belin is a CIA
operative. Prouty says, "The Rockefeller Commission did not look
into this (the Fourth Force-CIA) because it had been penetrated on
behalf of the CIA by David Belin, its chief counsel and former
counsel of the Warren Commission. In fact, Belin still reports to
the CIA." If this is indeed true, it explains every move Belin has
made since 1964 and it also explains the mysterious way he appeared
and reappeared on the front pages and editorial pages of various
major newspapers, on choice television shows, and on the
Rockefeller Commission.
If the Congress leaves the media-government-CIA link untouched-
-more serious than any of the other problems raised by the
assassination conspiracies and their cover-ups--the United States
might, in fact, be headed for the real 1984.</p>
<p> Postscript</p>
<p> On April 27, 1976 "The New York Times" published a story on the
Senate Intelligence Committee revelation that the CIA would be
keeping twenty-five journalist agents within the news media.[29]
The Committee disclosed that George Bush planned to keep these
people in the media positions that they had occupied for a long
time.
The significant point about the story was a statement by a
Committee staff member that many of the individuals were in
executive positions at American news organizations. Bush had
directed that the CIA stop hiring correspondents "accredited" by
American publications and other news organizations. The "Times"
recognized that the pivotal word in Bush's directive was
"accredited." "Executives who do not work as correspondents are
apparently not covered by Mr. Bush's directive, nor are freelance
writers who are not affiliated with a specific employer." The
article also said that in most cases the media organization was not
aware of the individual's CIA connection.
This was yet the best confirmation that the CIA had its Secret
Team members planted at the top of the media. Only one executive
is required at the top of a media organization to control it when
needed. Since the CIA had twenty-five executives planted, that
figure is more than enough to control the fifteen media
organizations mentioned in this chapter.
Who are they? The answer can be supplied by watching where the
decisions come from to halt or change the news about domestic
political assassinations.
The indications from the analysis in this chapter are that the
following media executives are among the twenty-five retained by
the CIA: Harding Bancroft, Jr. ("New York Times"); Richard Salant
(CBS); George Love (Time, Inc./"Life"); Walter Sheridan (NBC);
Lewis Powell, lawyer (ABC); and Benjamin Bradlee ("Washington
Post").</p>
<p>____________________</p>
<p> [1] "Accessories After the Fact" is the title of a book by Sylvia
Meagher, published by Bobbs Merrill in 1967, accusing the Warren
Commission and the various government agencies of covering up the
crime of the century. This book accuses the national news media
of the same crimes. </p>
<p> [2] Black Star is a New York based organization made up of free-
lance photographers, called stringers, in every major city. They
do contract work for news media with Black Star acting as
contracting agent.</p>
<p> [3] Samuel Thurston, "The Central Intelligence Agency and `The New
York Times,'" "Computers and Automation," July, 1971.</p>
<p> [4] CBS-TV Special on the Assassination of John Kennedy -- June 25,
26, 27 and 28, 1972.</p>
<p> [5] "Computers and Automation," July, 1971</p>
<p> [6] For a more detailed analysis of the "Times"' culpability and
selective bias in reporting the facts of the assassination, see
Jerry Policoff's October 1972 article in "The Realist:" "How All
the News About Political Assassinations In the United States Has
Not Been Fit to Print in `The New York Times.'"</p>
<p> [7] A detailed review of NBC's performance and Walter Sheridan's and
Richard Townley's involvement is given in "The Kennedy Conspiracy"
by Paris Flammonde.</p>
<p> [8] Those interested in more detail are referred to the map in the
May 1970 issue of "Computers and Automation" on the JFK
assassination. The UPI definition of "the grassy knoll" was the
area bounded by the picket fence, the stone wall, the top of the
steps on the south, and the cupola.</p>
<p> [9] For a comparison of New Orleans newspapers and all other media
coverage of the Shaw trial, see the author's unpublished book
"The Trial of Clay Shaw -- The Truth and the Fiction."</p>
<p>[10] Prouty, L. Fletcher, "The Secret Team," Prentice Hall, 1973.</p>
<p>[11] Policoff, Jerry, "The Media and the Murder of John Kennedy", "New
Times," October, 1975.</p>
<p>[12] "Who Killed JFK? Just One Assassin," "Time" magazine, November
24, 1975.</p>
<p>[13] "Up Front -- Did One Man With One Gun Kill John F, Kennedy?
Eight Skeptics Who Say No," "People," November 3, 1975.</p>
<p>[14] Author's discussion with Jerry Policoff, November 29, 1975.</p>
<p>[15] "Warren Panel Aide Calls for 2nd Inquiry Into Kennedy Killing",
"New York Times," November 23, 1975, p. 1.</p>
<p>[16] Transcript of Gerald Ford Press Conference "New York Times,"
November 27, 1975.</p>
<p>[17] For a summary of the evidence and scenario about what it shows
the reader is referred to two articles in "People and the
Pursuit of Truth:" "The Assassination of President John F.
Kennedy the Involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency in the
Plans and the Cover-Up," May 1975, and "Who Killed JFK?,"
October, 1975. Both by the author.</p>
<p>[18] Phelan, James R., "The Assassination," "New York Times Magazine
Section," November 23, 1975.</p>
<p>[19] Thurston, Samuel F. (psuedonym for Richard E. Sprague), "The
Central Intelligence Agency and `The New York Times'" "Computers
and Automation," July, 1971.</p>
<p>[20] Bancroft retired in early 1976. A successor has undoubtedly been
groomed by the CIA. However, Bancroft still has a strong
influence at the "Times" on the subject of assassinations.</p>
<p>[21] Based on a discussion among the author, Dan Rather, and Robert
Richter at CBS in Washington, D.C., approximately ten days before
the first Cronkite-CBS section of the 1967 four-part series on
the JFK assassination.</p>
<p>[22] O'Conner, John J., "TV: CBS News is Presenting Two Hour-Long
Programs on the Assassination of President Kennedy", "New York
Times," November 24, 1975.</p>
<p>[23] "Dallas: New Questions and Answers," "Newsweek," April 28, 1975.</p>
<p>[24] Schonfeld, Maurice W., "The Shadow of a Gunman," "Columbia
Journalism Review," July-August, 1975.</p>
<p>[25] Cohen, John, "Conspiracy Fever," "Commentary," October, 1975.</p>
<p>[26] "Saturday Evening Post," September, October, November and
December, 1975 issues.</p>
<p>[27] "D.C. Digs Deep Into TV News Ties With CIA," "Variety," November
12, 1975.</p>
<p>[28] Prouty, L. Fletcher, "The Fourth Force," "Gallery," November,
1975.</p>
<p>[29] "CIA Will Keep More Than 25 Journalist-Agents," "New York Times,"
April 27, 1976, p. 26.</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p>--
daveus rattus </p>
<p> yer friendly neighborhood ratman</p>
<p> KOYAANISQATSI</p>
<p> ko.yaa.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi Language) n. 1. crazy life. 2. life
in turmoil. 3. life out of balance. 4. life disintegrating.
5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.</p>
<p>From dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com Fri Jun 12 09:16:33 1992
Received: from pl122c.eecs.lehigh.edu by ns-mx.uiowa.edu (5.64.jnf/920408)
on Fri, 12 Jun 92 09:16:18 -0500 id AA05588 with SMTP
Received: from SGI.COM by PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU (5.61/1.34)
id AA19548; Fri, 12 Jun 92 09:59:36 -0400
Received: from [192.102.132.11] by sgi.sgi.com via SMTP (911016.SGI/910110.SGI)
for PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA20770; Fri, 12 Jun 92 07:02:12 -0700
Received: by ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (920110.SGI/920502.SGI.AUTO)
for @sgi.sgi.com:PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA14133; Fri, 12 Jun 92 07:02:10 -0700
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 92 07:02:10 -0700
From: dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
<info type="Message-ID"> 9206121402.AA14133@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com</info>
To: PML3@PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU
Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (6/11)
Status: RO</p>
<p>Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (6/11)
Summary: we were robbed of our capability of electing a president we wanted
Keywords: part 6 of 11: chapter 10 thru chapter 12
Lines: 1057</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Chapter 10
Techniques and Weapons and 100 Dead Conspirators and Witnesses</p>
<p> As Chapter 1 made clear, one of the two fiendish stratagems used
by the Power Control Group to cover-up the truth and to fool the
people was the use of various intelligence techniques and weapons.
The use of such techniques in assassination and murder completely
conceals the real killer's presence or the real cause of death.
From the moment the crime occurs the public is led to believe that
there is either one lone madman assassin or that the death was
accidental, due to natural causes, or committed by natural enemies
of the victim. Some of the techniques are so unique that they are
nearly impossible for the average American to believe.
The intelligence forces of the United States as well as those of
other countries have out-Bonded James Bond. The development of
sophisticated murder methods and the control of humans for warfare
and spying in other countries came home to the United States,
effectively used by the Power Control Group. Penn Jones, Jr.
published a list of "mysterious deaths" in his series of four
volumes, "Forgive My Grief."[1] Sylvia Meagher published facts
about the first eighteen witnesses at Dealey Plaza murdered through
the use of these techniques in the book, "Accessories After the
Fact."[2] Very few people other than researchers pay any
attention. Two movies with somewhat wider circulation, "Executive
Action" and "The Parallax View," covered the techniques fairly
well, but they were considered to be fiction by most viewers. So
the PCG goes on murdering where and when it is necessary, and it
covers up the murders where necessary.
In 1974 and 1976, two murders became necessary. Rolando
Masferrer, mentioned as a JFK conspirator, became dangerous to the
PCG, and he was eliminated in early 1976 with a non-sophisticated
weapon. A bomb was planted in his car in Miami. The cover-up in
this case merely involved planting an informer who claimed
Masferrer was killed by a rival anti-Castro Cuban faction in
Florida.[3]
Clay Shaw became quite nervous in 1974 after Victor Marchetti's
statements to the press earlier that year made it known that Shaw
was a CIA contract employee and that the CIA gave him assistance
and protection before his trial in New Orleans and after Jim
Garrison arrested him. Shaw was murdered in New Orleans by the PCG
and the murder covered-up by simply controlling his embalming and
burial and blocking any local investigation.[4] The reason for his
murder was to keep him from talking and from returning to the
public eye.
The techniques and weapons fall into several classes. First,
there are sophisticated weapons developed by the CIA. An example
of this is the umbrella poison dart gun used in Dealey Plaza to
shoot JFK in the throat. Such a weapon was postulated by Robert
Cutler and the author in mid-1975 as the one that fired the first
shot from near the Stemmons Freeway sign.[5] This seemed
incredulous to most observers and so wild an idea that the author
and Cutler did not discuss it with many researchers. Then Mr.
Charles Senseney, a CIA weapon developer at Fort Detrick, Maryland,
testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in September
1975 and described an umbrella poison dart gun he had made.[6] He
said it was always used in crowds with the umbrella open, firing
through the webing so it would not attract attention. Since it was
silent, no one in the crowd could hear it and the assassin merely
would fold up the umbrella and saunter away with the crowd. (That
is almost exactly what happened in Dealey Plaza. The first shot
had always seemed to have had a paralytic effect on Kennedy. His
fists were clenched and his head, shoulders and arms seemed to
stiffen. There was a small entrance wound in his neck but no
evidence of a bullet path through his neck and no bullet was ever
recovered that matched that small size.)
Senseney testified that his Special Operations Division at Fort
Detrick had received assignments from the CIA to develop exotic
weaponry. One of the weapons was a hand-held dart gun that could
shoot a poison dart into a guard dog to put it out of action for
several hours. The dart and the poison left no trace so that
examination would not reveal that the dogs had been put out of
action. The CIA ordered about 50 of these weapons and used them
operationally. Senseney said that the darts could have been used
to kill human beings and he could not rule out the possibility that
this had been done by the CIA. He said he had developed a dart-
launching device that looked like an umbrella.
A special type of poison developed induces a heart attack and
leaves no trace of any external influence unless an autopsy is
conducted to check for this particular poison. The CIA revealed
this poison in various accounts in the early 1970s.
Among the witnesses, important people and conspirators who might
have been eliminated this way are: Clay Shaw, J. Edgar Hoover,
Earlene Roberts (Oswald's land-lady) and Adlai Stevenson.
A second category, already discussed in the Robert Kennedy and
George Wallace shootings, is the use of a "programmed" assassin.
The Manchurian Candidate always seemed to be a science fiction
story. It is now well known that the CIA has used hypnosis and
"programming" to achieve a number of objectives, including murder.
Certainly there is little doubt that Sirhan Sirhan was under
hypnosis when he wrote in his diary and when he fired the shots in
the general direction of Robert Kennedy.[7] There is also
evidence that Arthur Bremer was "programmed" to shoot at George
Wallace. It is conceivable that one of the assassins in Dealey
Plaza could have been "programmed". A man surfaced after 1975
who--under deprogramming--remembered a firing situation resembling
Dealey Plaza. However, it is much less likely that the PCG had to
use hypnosis in the JFK murder.
It is completely untrue that Oswald was programmed, as the book
"Were We Controlled?" by Lincoln Lawrence (an alias for radio
commentator Art Ford) postulates. The evidence shows Oswald
didn't fire a shot, that he was on the second floor of the TSBD
Building at the time of the shots, and that he was very calm until
Patrolman Baker pointed a gun at him. Strangely enough, Ford's
thesis is true. We were controlled by the PCG, although he had the
details wrong.
A third popular technique is, of course, the patsy. The PCG has
developed this to the level of a real science. The assassination
is allowed to be obvious, but the assassin is presented as a single
madman or criminal who acts alone. Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby,
James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan and Arthur Bremer have all been
patsies. They are not all exactly alike, nor is the way in which
they were used the same in each case. For example, Oswald and Ray
did not fire any shots, while Sirhan, Ruby and Bremer did. Sirhan
and Bremer were "programmed", whereas Ruby was talked into killing
Oswald by his friends in the PCG. Four of the five men were
framed; a lot of evidence was manufactured and planted to
implicate them, including fake diaries, fake photographs, planted
guns, bullets and shells, and men using their identities. The one
who did not fit this category was Ruby. It was not needed in his
case because he killed Oswald before live television and believed
until the day he died of cancer that his friends were going to get
him out of jail in exchange for his "patriotic" act.
The use of "seconds", men who looked like the patsy and who used
his name (true of Oswald, Ray and Sirhan) is a common intelligence
technique. The planting of fake photos in the case of Oswald
required some relatively special photographic facilities, but the
job was not done well enough to avoid detection.
A fourth technique is the "accidental" death. Many witnesses
and conspirators have been murdered in this way. Lee Bowers, the
railroad yard control tower man who saw the real assassins behind
the picket fence in Dealey Plaza, was killed when his car rammed
into a concrete abutment in Dallas (it was traveling at high
speed). The doctor who examined Bowers prior to his removal from
the car, stated that he probably received an injection of some
kind prior to the crash. Louis Lomax, the black author who was
getting close to the truth in the Martin Luther King case, was
killed in Arizona when his car was forced off the road after he
was made to drive at high speed. Hale Boggs disappeared in an
airplane crash that left no trace of the plane. And of course the
classic "accident" occurred at Chappaquiddick.
A fifth technique is an induced death that produces another
finding of the cause either by disguising the true cause or by
controlling the coroner or those in charge of burial. Examples
are: David Ferrie's murder by means of a karate chop to the back
of his head, disguised as an embolism of the brain, Clay Shaw's
murder by means unknown because there was no autopsy and complete
control of his removal and burial; Jack Ruby's supposed death by
cancer in jail (real cause unknown because he was never out of the
PCG's hands until he was under ground).
Then there is a favorite sixth technique: mock suicide.
Examples of PCG murders that somehow became suicides are: Hank
Killam, a husband of one of Ruby's dancers, who committed suicide
by throwing himself through a plate glass window off the street in
Miami; Betty Mooney, one of Ruby's girls who hung herself in her
jail cell by using her leopard-skin tights; Roger Craig, who shot
himself; Jesus Crispin, who knew Sirhan, supposedly killed himself
in his jail cell; Grant Stockdale, who threw himself off the top
of a tall building in Miami.
There are some on the list who were admittedly murdered, but
supposedly not by the PCG. These include Robert Perrin, Nancy
Perrin's husband; Buddy Walters, deputy sheriff under Sheriff
Decker, shot by a man he was trying to arrest; Eladio Del Valle, a
cohort of Ferrie, killed in Miami by an axe on the same day Ferrie
was murdered; Rolando Masferrer, blown up in his car; Eddy
Benevides, shot by an unknown assailant (he recovered). The
cover-ups in each of these cases were put into effect by
controlling the investigation or simply by not having one.
The complete list of deaths, including the eight major ones
(JFK, RFK, MLK, Mary Jo Kopechne, Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie,
Ruby and Clay Shaw) numbers over a hundred. Here is a partial
list:</p>
<p> 1. John Kennedy
2. Robert Kennedy
3. Martin Luther King
4. Mary Jo Kopechne
5. Lee Harvey Oswald
6. David Ferrie
7. Jack Ruby
8. Clay Shaw
9. Buddy Walthers
10. Roger Craig
11. Eladio Del Valle
12. Rolando Masferrer
13. Hank Killam
14. Rose Cherami
15. Hale Boggs
16. J. Edgar Hoover
17. Louis Lomax
18. Lee Bowers, Jr.
19. Jesus Crispin
20. Jim Koethe
21. Bill Hunter
22. Tom Howard
23. Earlene Roberts
24. Betty McDonald
25. Eddy Benevides
26. Robert Perrin
27. Gary Underhill
28. Bill Chesher
29. Dorothy Kilgallen
30. David Goldstein
31. Levens (first name unknown)
32. Teresa Norton
33. Warren Reynolds
34. Harold Russell
35. Marilyn Moore Walle
36. William Whaley
37. James Worrell, Jr.
38. Captain Frank Martin
39. Mrs. Earl T. Smith
40. Karyn Kupcinet
41. Albert Guy Bogard
42. Hiram Ingram
43. Nicholas Chetta
44. Mary Bledsoe
45. Jude Preston Battle
46. John M. Crawford
47. Richard Carr
48. Kathy Fullmer
49. Clyde Johnson
50. Reverend A. D. W. King
51. Carole Tyler
52. Dr. Mary Sherman
53. Grant Stockdale
54. J. A. Milteer
55. Hugh Ward
56. Perry Russo
57. Maurice Gatlin, Sr.
58. W. Guy Banister
59. Charles P. Cabell
60. Dorothy Hunt
61. Michelle Clark
62. John Roselli
63. Sam Giancana
64. Fred Lee Crisman
65. Carlos Prio Socarras
66. Charles Nicoletti
67. Jimmy Hoffa
68. George De Mohrenschildt
69. General Donald Donaldson
70. Lou Staples
71. William C. Sullivan
72. James Chaney</p>
<p> The large majority of these murders eliminated witnesses to,
participants in, or investigators of one of the assassinations.
People involved with the participants in one of the assassinations
or cover-ups were also listed above. The participants were: Jack
Ruby, David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Rolando Masferrer, J. Edgar Hoover
(in the cover-up), and Robert Perrin. There were four
investigators: Jim Koethe, Louis Lomax, Dorothy Kilgallen and Hale
Boggs. The rest were witnesses or associates.
Two articles[8] written in 1976 analyzed some of these deaths
and concluded that they were not accidents unconnected with the
assassinations of our leaders. Another analysis by the authors
demonstrated that fifty of the first seventy murders met three
criteria for proving death by foul means. All involved people
directly or indirectly linked to the major assassinations. All met
death under violent or very strange circumstances. No autopsies
were performed in any of these murders.
The Charles Senseney dart weapon might have been used in some of
the murders. The injection given Lee Bowers produced such a
paralytic and terrorized expression on Bowers' face that the doctor
examining his body exclaimed he had never seen such before. Grant
Stockdale was found to have died of a heart attack on his way to
the street from the top of a building (a dart might have killed
him).</p>
<p>____________________</p>
<p> [1] "Forgive My Grief" Volumes I, II, III, IV, Penn Jones, Jr., Self
Published, Midlothian, Texas.</p>
<p> [2] "Accessories After the Fact," Sylvia Meagher, Scarecrow Press,
N.Y., 1976</p>
<p> [3] "Miami Herald," March, 1976.</p>
<p> [4] "The Mysterious Death of Clay Shaw," Richard Russell, "True
Magazine."</p>
<p> [5] "The Umbrella Man," R.B. Cutler, &amp; R.E. Sprague, "Gallery
Magazine," June, 1978.</p>
<p> [6] "New York Times," September 19, 1975.</p>
<p> [7] "RFK Must Die!," Robert Kaiser, E.P. Dutton &amp; Co. Inc., N.Y.C.,
1970.</p>
<p> [8] (a) Self published article by Gary Schoener -- Minneapolis,
Minn. Researcher.</p>
<p> (b) Assassination Information Bureau (AIB), Cambridge, Mass,
Research project and article.</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Chapter 11
Nixon and Ford -- The Pardon and the Tapes</p>
<p> As the Power Control Group grew larger and the number of murders
increased through the years, it became more and more difficult to
keep the veil of secrecy surrounding the takeover intact. As
Nixon's instability increased, the danger of revealing the secret
superstructure to the American people increased.
Watergate and Nixon's resignation from office nearly ruined
everything for the Power Control Group. A splinter faction in the
CIA began showing strength and all of the dirt might have been
leaked to the press and to the people. Nixon himself had pulled
the most dangerous boner in the history of the PCG. He installed a
secret tape recording system that recorded a number of
conversations about the PCG's murders, assassinations and dirty
tricks. Even worse, Nixon did not destroy the tapes before the
Congress found out about them and went after them. As soon as it
became obvious that Nixon would be forced to resign, the PCG had to
use a desperation strategy.
Gerald R. Ford pardoned Richard M. Nixon on September 8, 1974:
such was the PCG's strategy. Many skeptical U.S. citizens nodded
their heads knowingly and assumed Nixon had made his "deal" with
Ford when he nominated him for the vice presidency. Evans and
Novak[1] assumed that Julie Nixon Eisenhower talked Ford into the
pardon on grounds that Nixon's health was poor. The Ford's fears
for Nixon's health didn't seem to convince very many news media
people who saw a rosy-cheeked, apparently robust ex-president in
San Clemente.[2]
The pardon seemed to most Americans and news editors a gross
error in judgment and a miscarriage of justice. But once again the
United States was fooled. This time, the PCG, Nixon and Ford
managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the public and to
narrowly escape revealing what can be called "the entire rotten
crust at the top of American power." Any reasonable hypothesis
about what actually happened, based on the evidence at hand, had
not been even remotely suggested by either Congress or the media by
1976.
Any explanation of the situation leading to the pardon begins
with the relationship between Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon. It
goes back to 1960, the year Mr. Nixon planned the overthrow of
Castro's Cuba. As earlier chapters have made clear, the U2
incident and the Bay of Pigs was the beginning.
In 1960, Nixon and the White House action officer worked on the
plans for what was later called the Bay of Pigs invasion.[3] Prior
to that time the PCG and Nixon had accumulated plenty of reasons to
want Castro overthrown. The anti-Communist attitude was the
superficial reason. Beneath it were Nixon's connections with the
Mafia and his friendships and financial holdings that were greatly
damaged when Castro closed the casinos run by the mob in Havana.[4]
When Nixon and Kennedy debated about the Cuban situation in the
1960 campaign, Nixon purposefully lied to the American people about
U.S. plans for an invasion.[5] When he narrowly lost to Kennedy,
it created a deep wound, and he and the PCG spent much of the next
three years planning revenge.
Nixon became a tool of a number of Cubans and Americans, both
inside the CIA and outside, who agreed with him that casting out
Castro was highly desirable. One of these men was E. Howard
Hunt.[6] Another was Bernard Barker.[7] A third was Carlos Prio
Socarras.[8] Richard Bissell, Richard Helms and Allen Dulles were
the three higher level men in the PCG.
These Nixon cronies and financial partners became involved with
the PCG. They murdered John Kennedy.[9] Whether Nixon was
directly involved in the PCG's planning for the assassination is
still open to question, although one researcher believes that he
was.[10] There certainly is substantial evidence that Nixon was
out to at least politically sink Kennedy and Johnson, and aimed to
do so in Dallas immediately before Kennedy was killed. (See section
on evidence).[11]
Whether Nixon was directly involved in planning the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy does not have to be
settled here. What is important is that Nixon was directly
involved in covering up the truth about who did kill Kennedy.
Evidence from the Nixon-Haldeman tapes of June 1972 indicated that
Nixon knew the truth about the assassination when he suggested
Gerald Ford be part of the Warren Commission.[12]
A close personal friendship had developed between Ford and Nixon
during their days together in the Congress, when both were strong,
ultra-conservative, "red, white and blue", anti-Communist,
"religious" members who thought and talked alike.
When Nixon realized that John Kennedy had been killed almost
under his nose in Dallas by some of his Bay of Pigs friends, the
PCG convinced him he had to do everything in his power to cover it
up and to bide his time until his powerful military and
intelligence friends could place him in the White House. It took
one more murder by the PCG (Robert Kennedy) to get him there, and
still another attempted murder to keep him there (George Wallace).
Control over the investigations of these murders was essential
for Nixon and the PCG. In order to guide a presidential commission
away from the truth, the closed small circle of people in the PCG
who knew what had happened to John Kennedy had to be enlarged.
Allen Dulles was no problem. He knew the cause was an
intelligence/military one from the day it happened. Earl Warren
was a different matter. He had to be fooled and later talked into
remaining silent "for the good of the country."
A ringleader inside the Warren Commission was crucial. It had
to be someone the PCG and Nixon could trust, one who had an honest
and trustworthy appearance. Nixon called on Gerry Ford, and he
convinced LBJ that Ford should be on the Commission.[13]
Nixon told Ford at some point prior to January, 1964 who killed
JFK and why. He convinced Ford that every effort should be made to
make sure Oswald was found to be the lone assassin. Ford did an
excellent job. He not only steered the Commission away from the
facts[14] whenever a key witness was interviewed or an embarrassing
situation developed, but he also nailed Oswald's coffin shut
personally by publishing his own book on Oswald.[15] This, coming
from the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, served to
firmly plant in the American mind the idea that there was no
conspiracy, that Oswald was the lone assassin, and that the Warren
Commission had done a good job.
From the day Ford's book was published, Nixon and Ford became
totally beholden to each other. They also both became totally
beholden to the members of the PCG who were at or near the top of
things and who were part of the small knowledgeable circle. Other
members of the PCG's inner circle included J. Edgar Hoover and
Richard Helms.
No one could be permitted by the PCG to come into power in the
White House, the CIA, the Justice Department or the FBI unless they
were part of the PCG and willing to keep quiet and help suppress
the truth about the JFK assassination. The PCG's membership
widened, of necessity, when Robert Kennedy was killed and Nixon
became president. The people involved in killing Robert Kennedy
and Nixon's top aides had to be told the truth. This included
Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Kissinger, Mitchell (who had the job of
controlling Hoover's successors in continuing the cover-ups) and
possibly others. Mitchell was instrumental in stopping Jim
Garrison's investigation of Clay Shaw and other PCG members and in
totally discrediting Garrison.[16] He was aided by Richard Helms
and others in the PCG through CIA support in the Clay Shaw trial
cover-up efforts.[17]
The White House plumber section of the PCG decided in 1972, with
or without Nixon's knowledge and approval, to assassinate George
Wallace, so that Nixon would be assured of the conservative vote.
The PCG and its debts once again grew. E. Howard Hunt and Charles
Colson, along with Tony Ulasewicz, Donald Segretti and others, were
in a position to make demands in exchange for their silence. The
Hunt million-dollar blackmail threat to reveal "seedy things" or
"hankypanky" was never explainable in terms of Watergate or the
Ellsberg break-ins. But three assassinations would certainly be
worth a cool million to keep Hunt silent. Again, the Haldeman-
Nixon June 23, 1972 tapes are revealing.[18]
When the Watergate crisis occurred, Nixon was trapped by his own
tapes, and the PCG was in grave danger. Discussions with Haldeman,
Mitchell and others mention the Kennedy assassination conspiracy
and the Wallace murder attempt on tape. The PCG was suddenly
threatened as a group. The tapes couldn't all be destroyed because
too many Secret Service people knew about them. Haldeman and Nixon
managed to erase one revealing 18 1/2 minute section about the
assassinations, but who could remember exactly what telephone calls
or Oval Office conversations might have mentioned the truth about
the three murders?
The PCG and Nixon again sensed the need for a successor who
would keep quiet. They called on Gerry Ford when Agnew was forced
out. Ford and Nixon, bound inextricably together by their mutual
cover-up of the assassinations, worked out a deal. Nixon nominated
Ford to be his Vice President. The Senate, completely bamboozled
by Nixon and Ford, never asked Ford any important questions about
the assassinations nor his performance on the Warren Commission.
When they asked Ford about his book, he committed perjury twice
before the Senate (see item # 15 in the list ennumerated below).
Nixon and Ford agreed that Ford would keep quiet if Nixon
remained silent and that Ford would succeed Nixon if he were forced
to resign or be impeached. They agreed to a pardon afterward. But
the most critical part of the arrangement was that those tapes
revealing the truth about the assassinations be kept out of
circulation. When the Supreme Court ruled that the tapes must be
turned over, it was then time to implement their agreed-upon
strategy.
In addition, Jaworski, Colson, Mitchell, Kissinger, Haldeman,
Ehrlichman, the Warren Commission, Hunt, Helms, Shaw and anyone
else in the PCG had to be bought off, pardoned, protected or killed
to insure their silences.
Leon Jaworski resigned. People asked why. The real answer was
buried in the fact that Jaworski knew what had been going on. He
knew because of information passed on to him by the Ervin Committee
and Cox regarding the assassination and the cover-up. He was also
personally involved in 1964 in the JFK cover-up.
Jaworski could have been a problem, even though he helped with
the JFK cover-up from the beginning.[19] Hunt was taken care of by
getting him out of jail, buying him a large estate in Florida and
paying him a lot of money.[20] Helms could be counted on.
Kissinger may have been a problem, but he finally agreed. His
wiretaps were ordered to find out who knew about the
assassinations. Hoover was dead. Clay Shaw was murdered.[21]
Warren was dead. Richard Russell was dead. John Sherman Cooper
was bought off (he received an important ambassadorship). John J.
McCloy was too old to worry about.
That left Colson, Mitchell, Haldeman, and Ehrlichman, plus some
other small fry. The PCG strategy as planned with these men
involved pardons for all of them in exchange for their silence,
especially Haldeman and Mitchell, who not only knew what happened
to JFK, but who also took overt actions to cover-up. (Haldeman
erased the 18 1/2 minutes of tape and Mitchell nailed Jim
Garrison.)
Newer members of the PCG may cause some problems. They all have
to know the truth by now. Rockefeller and Alex Haig must know.
George Bush, William Colby, Edward Levi and Clarence Kelly knew
because of their access to the records, and they must have agreed
to cover-up continuance. Ford and his cronies in the House had to
continue to knock out any efforts by Henry B. Gonzalez of Texas to
start a new House Committee investigation of the JFK assassination.
They were very successful in their control of the House Rules
Committee. Haig seemed to have been bought off with the promise of
a top NATO post in exchange for his silence. And control over
Frank Church and the Senate Intelligence Committee was necessary.
Gerald Ford remained committed to the PCG and to Nixon.
The tapes had to be controlled and edited at all costs. Nixon
no doubt required help in listening to the tapes after Haldeman
left and in sorting out those in which assassinations and cover-ups
were discussed. General Haig was undoubtedly the man he selected
to do the dirty work. It was almost certain that no tapes would be
turned over to Judge Sirica or to Jaworski with any assassination
references left on them. One of the tapes demanded by Jaworski had
such references. This is the recording made on June 23, 1972 in
which Nixon and Haldeman are discussing Watergate just six days
after the break-in.
The Nixon transcript of that tape turned over to Judge Sirica
upon orders of the Supreme Court showed many sections labelled
"unintelligible." It is a near certainty that the critical
sections were edited out by Nixon and General Haig before they were
turned over to Sirica and prior to their transcription. Judge
Sirica was the only person in the chain of possession of that tape
who could have been counted on to make a scientific analysis of the
tape to see whether it was tampered with before he received it.
His near brush with death in 1975 must be viewed in that light and
in the light of the PCG's use of weapon-induced heart attacks.
The rest of Nixon's tapes that were still in Gerald Ford's
possession and control might have contained many references to
assassinations and cover-ups. Rather than go through all of them
and edit or erase the critical material, it was more likely that
Ford would either turn them over to Nixon for total destruction or
sit on them as long as he was president.
The evidence for the Power Control Group's and Ford/Nixon's
strategy is as follows:</p>
<p> 1. Nixon was White House action officer on Cuban invasion
plans in 1960.</p>
<p> 2. Nixon was in contact with Hunt and others during the
Bay of Pigs planning.</p>
<p> 3. Nixon lied to the American people by his own admission
about the Bay of Pigs during his TV debates with
Kennedy in 1960.</p>
<p> 4. Nixon was financially linked to the Mafia and to Cuban
casino operations before Castro took over.</p>
<p> 5. Nixon was acquainted with Hunt, Baker, Martinez,
Sturgis, Carlos Prio Socarras, and other Watergate
people and anti-Castro people in Florida, and he was
financially linked to Baker, Martinez and Socarras.</p>
<p> 6. Hunt, Baker, Sturgis and Socarras were connected with
the assassination group in the murder of JFK.</p>
<p> 7. Nixon was in Dallas for three days, including the
morning of the JFK assassination. He was trying to
stir up trouble for Kennedy.</p>
<p> 8. Nixon went to Dallas under false pretenses. There was
no board meeting of the Pepsi Cola Company as he
announced his law firm had had to attend.</p>
<p> 9. Nixon did not admit being in Dallas on the day Kennedy
was shot and did not reveal the true reason for his
trip. He held two press conferences on the two days
before the assassination, attacking both Kennedy and
Johnson and emphasizing the Democratic political
problems in Texas.</p>
<p> 10. Research indicates that Nixon either knew in advance
about assassination plans, or learned about them soon
after the assassination.</p>
<p> 11. Nixon proposed to Lyndon Johnson that Gerald Ford serve
on the Warren Commission.</p>
<p> 12. Ford led the Commission cover-up by controlling the
questioning of key witnesses and by several other
means.</p>
<p> 13. Ford helped firmly plant the idea that Oswald was the
only assassin and that there was no conspiracy by
publishing his own book, "Lee Harvey Oswald: Portrait
of the Assassin."</p>
<p> 14. Ford purposefully covered up the conspiracy of the PCG
in the JFK assassination and also covered up the fact
that Oswald was a paid informer for the FBI. He did
this by dismissing the subject in his book as worthless
rumor and by keeping the executive sessions of the
Commission (where Oswald's FBI informer status was
discussed) classified Top Secret.</p>
<p> 15. Ford continued the cover-up when he was questioned
before being confirmed by the Senate as Vice President.
He lied under oath twice to the Senate Committee. He
stated that he had written his book about Oswald with
no access to classified documents. He lied about this
because his book used classified documents about
Oswald's FBI informer status. He lied when he said
that the book was entitled, "Lee Harvey Oswald:
Portrait of *an* Assassin." This was significant in
1973 because the public by then had become very
skeptical about a lone assassin. By changing one word
in the title, Ford made the book seem a little less
like what it actually was--an effort to make Oswald the
assassin.</p>
<p> 16. Jaworski aided in the JFK cover-up by sitting on
evidence of conspiracy accumulated by Waggoner Carr,
Texas Attorney General, who he represented in liaison
with the Warren Commission. He also stopped the
critical testimony of Jack Ruby when he testified
before the Warren Commission, and diverted attention
away from Ruby's intent to reveal the conspiracy to
kill both Kennedy and Oswald.</p>
<p> 17. Nixon became president in 1968 only because Robert
Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. Nixon was well
aware of the conspiracy whether or not he approved of
it in advance.</p>
<p> 18. John Mitchell and J. Edgar Hoover joined Nixon and the
lower level members of the PCG in covering up the RFK
murder conspiracy. They classified the evidence "Top
Secret" and murdered several witnesses, controlled the
judge in the Sirhan trial and the district attorney and
the chief of police in Los Angeles during and after the
trial. They still control these people and the Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Clarence Kelly
also became involved.</p>
<p> 19. The plumbers group ordered the assassination of George
Wallace in 1972 to insure Nixon's election by picking
up Wallace's vote (about 18%, according to polls).</p>
<p> 20. J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Helms were aware of who
killed John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. They helped
cover-up both conspiracies.</p>
<p> 21. John Mitchell controlled the trial of Clay Shaw and the
Garrison investigation and discredited Garrison by
framing him in a New Orleans gambling case.</p>
<p> 22. Nixon and Haldeman discussed the assassination of John
Kennedy, the conspiracy, Hunt's involvement, the
possibility that Hunt might talk, the cover-up, the Bay
of Pigs relationship between Nixon, Hunt and the other
PCG members, and the briefing Nixon might have had to
give anyone running against him in 1972, on matters of
"national security".</p>
<p> 23. Nixon and Mitchell discussed the assassinations and the
attempt to assassinate George Wallace. Mitchell
executed orders to suppress the truth about these
events.</p>
<p> 24. Gerald Ford had possession of the most critical tapes
on which assassinations and cover-ups were discussed.</p>
<p> 25. Jaworski could be counted on to keep the assassination
material under wraps even after his resignation. He
was aware of the conspiracy evidence and cover-up in
all three cases (JFK, RFK, George Wallace).</p>
<p> 26. Hunt was taken care of and will keep silent. He had
been out of jail and living on a beautiful $100,000
estate in Florida with plenty of money, across the
street from his Bay of Pigs friend, Manuel Artime.</p>
<p> 27. Clay Shaw was murdered by the PCG, undoubtedly to keep
him from talking once the truth about his CIA position
was revealed by Victor Marchetti. He was embalmed
before the coroner could determine the cause of death.
Evidence indicates he was killed somewhere and then
brought back to his apartment.</p>
<p> 28. Hale Boggs, a Warren, Commission member, was possibly
killed by the PCG. Bogg's airplane disappeared in
Alaska. No trace of it was ever found and no
explanation of how the plane could have crashed has
ever been given. Mrs. Boggs has expressed doubts about
it being an accident.</p>
<p> 29. Four of the seven Warren Commission members are dead:
Warren, Dulles, Russell and Boggs. Of the remaining
members, Ford was President, John McCloy is retired and
living in Connecticut, and John Sherman Cooper was made
ambassador to East Germany.</p>
<p> 30. Richard Russell, Hale Boggs and Cooper believed there
was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination. Russell and
Boggs both said so publicly.</p>
<p> 31. Haldeman erased 18 1/2 minutes of a taped discussion
with Nixon. This tape undoubtedly contained "national
security" matters. The fact that Haldeman did the
erasing can easily be determined by tracing the trail
of possession of the tape from the day it was taken out
of the vault to the day the gap was discovered.
Haldeman had the tape with the recorder alone for
nearly 48 hours. No one else had the tape alone long
enough to do the erasing.</p>
<p> 32. Ford and the PCG contemplated pardons for Mitchell,
Haldeman, Ehrlichman and possibly others who know the
number one secret.</p>
<p> 33. Ford's statements to the sub-committee of the House
Judiciary Committee concerning his pardon of Nixon
dodged the real issue. Only Elizabeth Holtzman asked
questions coming close to the number one secret. When
she asked about a prior agreement, Ford said, "I have
made no deal, there was no deal, *since I became Vice
President*." Those last few words were not reported by
the press, but a large number of Americans watched and
heard him say them. Of course he spoke truthfully
because the "deal" was made *before* he became Vice
President.</p>
<p>____________________</p>
<p> [1] Evans &amp; Novak column -- September 12. 1974.</p>
<p> [2] "Paris Herald Tribune" -- September 12, 1974.</p>
<p> [3] "Compulsive Spy," Tad Szulc, Viking Press, 1974.</p>
<p> [4] "Nixon and the Mafia," Jeff Gerth, "Sundance," December, 1972.</p>
<p> [5] "My Six Crises," Richard M. Nixon.</p>
<p> [6] "Compulsive Spy."</p>
<p> [7] "Nixon and the Mafia."</p>
<p> [8] "Nixon, Bay of Pigs &amp; Watergate," -- R.E. Sprague, "Computers and
Automation," January, 1973.</p>
<p> [9] "Nixon, Bay of Pigs &amp; Watergate."</p>
<p>[10] Trowbridge Ford, Holy Cross College, Boston, MA, Several papers and
articles.</p>
<p>[11] Warren Commission Hearings &amp; Exhibits -- Vol. 23, Pages 941-943.</p>
<p>[12] Nixon Transcript of June 23 1972 tape -- "New York Times," August
6, 1974.</p>
<p>[13] Trowbridge Ford -- Article on Gerald Ford &amp; Warren Commission.</p>
<p>[14] Ibid.</p>
<p>[15] Gerald Ford "Lee Harvey Oswald: Portrait of the Assassin."</p>
<p>[16] "The Framing of Jim Garrison", R.E. Sprague, "Computers and
Automation," December, 1973.</p>
<p>[17] "The CIA and the Kennedy Assassination" -- Unpublished article by
R.E. Sprague.</p>
<p>[18] Nixon tape, June 23, 1972.</p>
<p>[19] Warren Commission Exhibits -- Testimony of Jack Ruby, Vol. V,
Pages 181-213 and Vol. XIV, pages 504-571. Also Trowbridge Ford
article on Jaworski.</p>
<p>[20] "Washington Watch" and Triss Coffin newsletter, August 10, 1974.</p>
<p>[21] Zodiac News Service release -- August 20, 1974.</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Chapter 12
The Second Line of Defense and Cover-Ups in 1975 and 1976</p>
<p> The mini-war waged by assassination researchers and a few
Congressmen from 1964 to 1976 to reopen the major assassination
inquiries never really disturbed the Power Control Group. But in
1975, simultaneous with the revelations about all of the terrible
things the CIA and the FBI did, the researchers and a few of their
friends in the media and in Congress began to draw more attention
than was comfortable for the PCG.
A special renewed effort became necessary to extend the cover-
ups. Part of this effort was a program to bring the media back
under control and to reinforce media support of the cover-ups.
This has been discussed in some detail in Chapter 9. Another part
of this effort was the expansion of the Rockefeller Commission's
assignment to reinforce the cover-up of the JFK assassination
conspiracy. Separate new efforts were necessary to control the
courts and lawyers and other public officials in the King and
Robert Kennedy assassination conspiracies. These were brought
about by appeals for new trials by James Earl Ray and Sirhan B.
Sirhan. The appeals were accompanied by new revelations. New
publicity was given to demands for an investigation into the
Wallace shooting by prominent people, including Wallace himself.
A minor success in the JFK case was scored by researchers with
the assistance of Dick Gregory, Geraldo Rivera of ABC, Tom Snyder
of NBC, Mort Sahl and others. They managed to have the Zapruder
film and other photographic evidence of conspiracy shown on local
and national television. No one of any intelligence outside the
PCG who has even seen the Zapruder film questions the fact that
shots came from two different directions in Dealey Plaza. This
breakthrough after eleven years of effort put new public and
Congressional pressures on the PCG. It was closely followed by a
grass roots campaign conducted by Mark Lane's Citizens Commission
of Inquiry to reopen the JFK case. Pressure was brought to bear on
Congressmen by their local constituents as a result of this
campaign. Henry Gonzalez from Texas and Thomas Downing from
Virginia introduced resolutions in the House of Representatives
calling for the reopening of all four cases and the JFK case, so
the public and Congress had a formal base to work with and a goal
to reach.
New revelations were made in 1975 about the FBI's and the CIA's
information withheld from the Warren Commission. From Dallas came
the admission that Oswald had been in closer contact with the FBI
than believed and that Jack Ruby had been an FBI informer.
Perhaps the most dangerous development for the PCG was the
creation of a sub-committee under the Church committee to
investigate the JFK assassination. This two-man subcommittee
formed by Senator Gary Hart of Colorado and Senator Schweiker of
Pennsylvania became a real threat when it was given authority by
the full Senate Committee on Intelligence to conduct their own
independent investigation with a staff of nine people. It would be
harder to control their efforts than to control the Church
committee, where the PCG had several strong allies, including
Senators Goldwater and Tower.
Gerald Ford, William Colby, Richard Helms (from his faraway post
in Asia) and the other PCG members developed a three-prong strategy
for the JFK case in order to cope with all of these new problems.
First came the reinforcement of the lone-assassin Warren
Commission scenario. Ford selected David Belin to be chief of
staff of the Rockefeller Commission. Ford admitted that Belin in
his Rockefeller Commission role--as well as in his advocacy to
reopen the JFK case in order to prove the Warren Commission
findings correct--was acting as "one of our best staff members."
This was necessary so that the Rockefeller Commission could add a
new assignment to its original charter and investigate the CIA and
FBI. The new assignment was to prove that all of the new questions
about the Zapruder film and the evidence for assassins on the
grassy knoll were answerable in support of Warren Commission
conclusions.
The former Warren commissioner now President, who led the
cover-up and pardoned Nixon, nominated the Warren Commission staff
lawyer who led the cover-up at the working level as the new
Rockefeller Commission chief of staff.
Belin did his job like a faithful dog. He personally called in
the most dangerous researchers, including Cyril Wecht and Dick
Gregory's cohorts, Ralph Schoenman and Robert Groden, who had been
making all of the noise on television. With the help (and possibly
the knowledge) of only one other staff man, Belin interviewed these
witnesses briefly, almost casually: then he misquoted them, edited
their statements, or left them out of the Rockefeller Report. He
purposefully did not call any researchers other than Wecht who
might have presented some embarrassing evidence of conspiracy. He
instead called a number of "experts" from the stable of PCG people,
including some of the Ramsey Clark doctors panel that had examined
the medical evidence in 1968 to back up the Warren Commission
during the Garrison investigation and the Clay Shaw trial. He also
called on reliable Dr. Lattimer, the urologist, to testify again
about the bullet wounds above the navel.
Belin wrote the chapter of the Rockefeller Commission Report
himself. It formed a base for controlled media presentations of
the lone assassin scenario. CBS used much of the basic material in
its series in 1975. Others quoted liberally from the favorite
misquotes of Cyril Wecht and the statements of the CIA doctors
concerning the fatal shot at frame 313 of the Zapruder film. That
had always been a sticky point with Belin and the other Warren
Commission defenders and technical cover-up artists in the PCG.
Belin was nearly driven to distraction at times, trying to avoid
any discussion of the back-to-the-left acceleration of JFK's head
following the Z313 shot.
He was therefore delighted to be able to produce a medical
opinion that the back-to-the-left motion was consistent with a shot
directly from the rear. The fact that no ballistics experts or
physics experts were called to testify about Newton's second law of
motion and what happens to an object when struck by a rifle bullet
traveling at twice to three times the speed of sound was never
questioned by the Rockefeller panel or the media. Belin easily
eliminated the assassins on the grassy knoll simply by persuading
the FBI to say the assassins weren't there at all.
Over a period of several months in the second half of 1975, the
PCG (through its control agents in the 15 media organizations, and
by using Belin's creation) hammered away again at the lone assassin
thesis. They caused the wave of excitement and furor created by
Gregory, Lane, Groden, Schoenman and their friends to die out.
Lectures on university campuses, discussions on FM radio talk shows
late at night, and conspiracy books and articles in underground
newspapers appeared as always. But there was no more showing of
the Zapruder film on ABC, NBC or CBS; nor was there any talk of
conspiracy in any of the major fifteen national news media
organizations.
The second part of the strategy was to create a fall-back, or
second line of defense in the JFK case. If necessary the same idea
could also be applied in the other three cases when the situation
became too dangerous. There was less danger in 1975 in the RFK,
MLK and Wallace cases because the researchers and the media had not
yet consistently begun to tie in the CIA, FBI and other PCG high
level people. In 1976 a danger emerged in the MLK case when it was
revealed that J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI might be linked and that
Hoover attempted to get King to commit suicide. However, that
development occurred several months after the implementation of the
strategy began in the JFK case. Of course there had never been any
danger with the Chappaquiddick crime, because few researchers
realized what the PCG had accomplished in that event. No
suspicions existed in Congress either, beyond some curiosity about
Tony Ulasewicz and E. Howard Hunt's strange visits to the island
and to Hyannisport.
There may be several second lines of defense positions already
prepared for the JFK case. The one that has been implemented in
1975 and 1976 is the "Castro did it in revenge" position. The PCG
realizes that while the media will behave like slaves to present
the first line of defense (Oswald did it alone), the public isn't
buying it any more. In 1969, shortly after the Clay Shaw trial
ended, the percent of people disbelieving the lone assassin theory
fell to its all-time low of just over 50%. By 1976 it had risen to
80%, despite the faithful efforts of CBS, "Time," "Newsweek," et
al. More importantly, Richard Schweiker, Gary Hart, Henry
Gonzalez, Thomas Downing, and a very large part of the House and
Senate weren't buying the lone assassin story any more either.
So, a good second line of defense story was needed. It had to
be one that the House and Senate and Schweiker, Church, Downing and
hopefully Gonzalez would buy. It had to be one which could be
created out of existing facts and then shored up by planted
evidence, faked records, dependable witnesses lying under oath, and
once again, the control and use of the media. The "Castro did it
in revenge" story met these requirements. The media had already
helped to some extent by publishing information from Jack Anderson,
Lyndon B. Johnson and others about Castro's turning around various
CIA agents or sending agents of his own, including Oswald, to
assassinate JFK. Perhaps even more importantly, Senator Schweiker
said he believed Castro might have been behind the assassination
and that this possibility should be investigated.
The Castro story strategy was implemented in 1975. Gradually at
first, a story appeared here or there in the press about the
assassins assigned to kill Castro. Then the media began to reprint
the Jack Anderson story about Castro's turning around of some of
these agents. New authors of the story appeared. Anderson's
original story seemed to be forgotten. These articles never seemed
to have an identifiable source or any proof. Hank Greenspun of the
Las Vegas newspaper circuit and the man involved with Howard
Hughes, Larry O'Brien, released a story to the "Chicago Tribune."
He said his information came from reliable sources.
The momentum began to build. More and more "leaked" information
about Castro and assassins and Oswald being a pro-Castroite hit the
establishment media. The stories and the sequence of events began
to be predictable, if a researcher had understood the PCG and their
fight for survival in 1975 and 1976. Then the Church committee and
the Schweiker sub-committee issued statements that they were going
to investigate the "Castro did it" theory. The PCG began feeding
them information in various forms and various ways that would back
up the idea. The JFK sex scandal was released by Judith Exner.
The PCG provided her with an incentive to spice up the "Castro did
it" theory with a little sex involving JFK and one of the assassins
assigned to Castro, John Roselli.
The PCG realized they had the double advantage of drawing
attention to Roselli and Castro and the turn-around assassin idea,
while at the same time gnawing away at JFK's image. There was
press speculation that Exner was a Mafia plant in the White House
to find out how much JFK knew about the Castro assassination plans.
Since Frank Sinatra had introduced Judith to both JFK and Roselli,
there was speculation about Sinatra's Mafia friends linked to the
rat pack, to Peter Lawford, to JFK's sister and to JFK himself.
All of this was meat for the PCG's grinder. It certainly drew
Schweiker's attention away from Helms, Hunt, Gabaldin, Shaw,
Ferrie, Seymour and all of the other operatives involved in JFK's
murder. In fact, the Schweiker staff, which had the names and
locations of several participants and witnesses that could pinpoint
the Helms-Hunt-Shaw-Gabaldin group as the real assassins as early
as September, 1975 did not interview more than one or two of them
and did not follow up on the rest at all. Their attention was
diverted by the second line of defense strategy and they were also
influenced by infiltration by the PCG.
Part three of the strategy was the control of the Congress and
the committees in the House and the Senate concerned with
investigations of the intelligence community and the JFK
assassination. This subject will be covered in depth in Chapter
14. Suffice it to say here that the PCG planted people on the
staffs of the Church committee and the Schweiker sub-committee.
They exercised control over the other committees in the House and
Senate (Abzug, Don Edwards, Pike committees) and they controlled
the House Rules committee, which effectively blocked the Gonzalez
and Downing resolutions for over a year.
The CIA has always had its supporters in both House and Senate.
So has the FBI. So did J. Edgar Hoover (sometimes through
blackmail) and Richard Helms. There was a story published in the
"Washington Post" about a dinner party given by Tom Braden, former
CIA man, at which all of Richard Helms' old buddies rallied to his
defense. Several well-known Congressmen were there and Senator
Symington gave a rousing speech supporting Helms in his hour of
need.
Gerald Ford, of course, as then titular leader of the PCG, had
many old friends in the House. Nixon had many supporters in both
House and Senate and still has to this day. Thus, control by the
PCG over Congress and committees is not all that difficult.
Specific examples will be given in Chapter 14 of how this really
works. So the cover-ups continue. The PCG is still in the
driver's seat. The three parts of their strategy work very well.
The lone assassin story is repeated at least once a month in some
media source or other. The "Castro did it" story will no doubt
make its official appearance again.
The Congress is under control. Gonzalez was not under control,
nor was Downing. But they couldn't do much without the Rules
Committee, which was controlled.
The people are left with no effective way of doing anything
about the PCG and their crimes. What is worse, there is no way the
people can elect the man of their choice.</p>
<p>--
daveus rattus </p>
<p> yer friendly neighborhood ratman</p>
<p> KOYAANISQATSI</p>
<p> ko.yaa.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi Language) n. 1. crazy life. 2. life
in turmoil. 3. life out of balance. 4. life disintegrating.
5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.</p>
<p>From dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com Mon Jun 15 08:55:21 1992
Received: by icaen.uiowa.edu ( 5.52 (84)/1.1) id AA02287
on Mon, 15 Jun 92 08:55:17 CDT.
Received: from pl122c.eecs.lehigh.edu by ns-mx.uiowa.edu (5.64.jnf/920408)
on Mon, 15 Jun 92 08:56:56 -0500 id AA14903 with SMTP
Received: from SGI.COM by PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU (5.61/1.34)
id AA23617; Mon, 15 Jun 92 09:43:09 -0400
Received: from [192.102.132.11] by sgi.sgi.com via SMTP (911016.SGI/910110.SGI)
for PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA12463; Mon, 15 Jun 92 06:45:55 -0700
Received: by ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (920110.SGI/920502.SGI.AUTO)
for @sgi.sgi.com:PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA01518; Mon, 15 Jun 92 06:45:54 -0700
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 06:45:54 -0700
From: dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
<info type="Message-ID"> 9206151345.AA01518@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com</info>
To: PML3@PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU
Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (7/11)
Status: RO</p>
<p>Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (7/11)
Summary: we were robbed of our capability of electing a president we wanted
Keywords: part 7 of 11: chapter 13 thru chapter 14
Lines: 326</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Chapter 13
The 1976 Election and Conspiracy Fever</p>
<p> To dramatize what might happen and probably did happen in 1976,
this chapter has been prepared by assuming the attitude typical of
today's innocent Americans. A new disease is sweeping America.
No, it's not the flu; it's conspiracy fever.[1]
People afflicted by the disease imagine conspiracies everywhere.
They believe, for example, that the CIA arranged for the takeover
in Chile and the assassination of Salvador Allende. They even
think Henry Kissinger had something to do with it. These poor
feverish devils have the strange idea that J. Edgar Hoover was a
fiend rather than a public hero. They imagine that he ordered a
vicious campaign against Dr. Martin Luther King and a conspiracy
against most of young America called Cointelpro. Some even think
Hoover had King killed. There are some Californians with the west
coast strain of this bug who imagine that the FBI and the
California authorities created a conspiracy in San Diego and Los
Angeles against black citizens. The California group also think
there was something strange about Donald DeFreeze and the
Symbionese Liberation Army. They suspect an FBI or California
state authority conspiracy, complete with police provocateurs,
double agents, faked prison breaks, and a Patty Hearst, alias
Tania, all thrown in by our own government to create a climate that
would make the public accept the prevalence of terrorism and demand
a police state.
The disease spread to Congressmen as well. It does not seem to
be limited, as it was before Watergate, to people under the age of
30. There are even Congressmen with a more virulent form of the
malady who are convinced their telephones are still being tapped.
They, along with thousands of others who suffer, no doubt reached
this conclusion just because they were told by a CIA-controlled
media that hundreds of telephones were tapped a few years ago.
Early forms of conspiracy fever are no longer considered to be
dangerous. For example, all those sick citizens who imagined
conspiracies in the incidents at Tonkin Gulf, Songmy, Mylai, the
Pueblo and the Black Panther murders are now considered to be more
or less recovered, since it turns out it was not their imaginations
working overtime after all. Even the special variety of the fever
which caused the impression that the CIA murdered a series of
foreign heads-of-state is no longer on the danger list.
There is still one form of the illness, however, that is
officially considered to be very dangerous, virulent, and to be
stamped out at all costs. It is the version producing the illusion
that all of America's domestic assassinations were conspiracies.
Those infected believe the conspiracies are interlinked in a giant
conspiracy to take over the electoral process in the United States
and to conceal this from the American people. Some citizens are
known to have this worst form of the fever. They include a
Congressman or two. Others have come down with a milder form in
which they imagine separate conspiracies in four assassination
cases (John and Robert Kennedy, Dr. King, and the attempted
assassination of George Wallace).
Members of the Ford Administration, particularly David Belin,
Mr. Ford's staff member on the Rockefeller Commission, went along
with an analysis made by Dr. Jacob Cohen, a professional fever
analyst, that the disease has been spreading rapidly because of a
small group of "carriers" traveling around the country who are
infecting everyone else. Some of these carriers, called
assassination "buffs", were thought to have contracted the fever as
many as twelve years ago.
In the disease's worst form, the patient imagines that there
exists a powerful, high level group of individuals, some of whom
have intelligence experience. The highest level of fever in these
patients produces the idea that this high level group, usually
called the PCG, will eliminate presidential candidates not in their
favor or under their control. Others imagine that Jimmy Carter has
been brought into the PCG by threats against his children and
careful briefings by George Bush.
It is worth analyzing the sick people with this domestic
assassination conspiracy fever to see how far their imaginations
take them. They calculate that the PCG, fearing exposure if any
president is not under their control and influence, will go to
whatever lengths are required to insure the election of the man
they do control. The idea is that Gerald Ford was nicely in the
PCG's pocket because he has been covering up for them ever since
1964. He has continued to help them through 1975 and 1976 by
maintaining a steady cover-up effort on all four cases. Jimmy
Carter was perhaps brought under control. The feverish "buffs"
figure that the PCG would have been sure to eliminate Jimmy Carter
unless he could be controlled.
The scenario continues into the future. The more control
exercised by the PCG, the stronger they become and the more people
in the executive branch become beholden to them to continue
covering up the cover-ups.
So, wake up America. Wipe out this disease. It's just as
dangerous as Communism, if not more so. Like the general in "Z",
Americans must realize that such a disease has to be eliminated
whenever and wherever it appears.</p>
<p>____________________</p>
<p>[1] "Conspiracy Fever" is derived from an article with that title by
Jacob Cohen, a psychologist, in "Commentary" magazine, October,
1975.</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Chapter 14
Congress and the People</p>
<p> The last hope of the people to take back their government from
the PCG is through Congress. The executive branch is a captive of
the PCG. The legislative branch has no power in the situation.
Where courts or judges do have some small measure of power, as in
the hearings and appeals for a new trial for James Earl Ray, they
have been controlled by the PCG. The ruling of the judge in the
Ray appeals case, for example, was obviously a decision made for
him by someone higher up. He ruled that Ray could not have a new
trial after hearing a vast amount of evidence of conspiracy and
solid evidence that Percy Foreman had duped Ray into pleading
guilty.
Unless a people's revolution comes along, and that hardly seems
likely, the only possibility left is to hope that Congress can do
it. What are the odds? From what has been pointed out so far, it
is obvious that if Congress is to expose the PCG, throw the rascals
in jail, and wipe the slate clean to seize the country back for the
people, a tremendous battle will be required. All of the forces of
the PCG, including their friends in the House and Senate, will be
focussed on preventing this from happening. A power base within
both houses would have to be created that could not only do battle
with the PCG but that would not be fooled by their myriad of
fiendishly clever techniques, methods and stratagems. It would
have to be a power base that protected itself from infiltration and
usurpation of its own resources. It would have to somehow conquer
the media control problem; otherwise, no American citizen would
know what it was doing or what the battle was about.
How would such a battle start and such a power base be
constructed? An important step would be to purify the special
committee created by either resolution and to purify the staff.
Preventing infiltration of staff by the PCG is especially
important. As mentioned in Chapter 12, the Church Committee staff
and the Schweiker sub-committee staff were infiltrated by the PCG,
and specifically the CIA. A leading assassination researcher and
former intelligence officer in the Defense Intelligence Agency who
knew many, many CIA agents discovered two of them in the Church
Committee staff offices in the fall of 1975. The other staff
members had not been aware that these two men were CIA agents
because they were "deep cover" agents.
This problem is rather complex because there is always great
pressure from the House or Senate to create a balance on any
appointed committee. Thus the Church committee was hamstrung by
several of the Senators appointed to be on it: they were close
friends and supporters of the CIA and FBI. Senators Goldwater and
Tower, for example, fought very hard to block any efforts to have
the entire committee investigate potential CIA or FBI involvement
in domestic assassinations. This does not necessarily mean that
Goldwater and Tower are members of the inner circle of the PCG.
But it does mean that PCG members who know who killed John Kennedy
and why can influence Goldwater and Tower to block such efforts.
The first step in the House or Senate might be floor voting
because of the tight control exercised by the PCG over the
committee procedure on resolutions. In the House, for example, the
Rules Committee is all-powerful in determining which resolutions
are brought to the floor.
Henry Gonzalez introduced his resolution HR204 in 1975 and sent
it to the rules committee. Nearly a year passed. On March 18,
1976 Mr. Gonzalez, together with Mr. Downing, was tired of waiting
for some action by Chairman Madden and they took the issue to the
floor of the House for discussion.[1] By this time the two
representatives had 125 co-sponsors for their two resolutions (an
unusually large number). Gonzalez and Downing had taken over the
floor of the House for two hours and had several supporting
speakers. No one rose in opposition. Prior to that time,
Representative Sisk from California and Representative Bolling from
West Virginia had been vehemently outspoken in the Rules Committee
against both resolutions. Madden, Sisk and Bolling all left the
House before Downing and Gonzalez started speaking.
As a result of Gonzalez's and Downing's efforts, Madden was
forced by Speaker Albert and other members of the House and by some
of his own constituents to hold a formal hearing on the two
resolutions on March 31, 1976. The PCG controlled the hearing
through Sisk, Bolling and Lott. The resolutions were tabled,
subject to future recall by the chairman. The vote was nine to
six. Representative Bolling was called into the hearing from the
House floor to cast the ninth vote at the last minute. He heard
none of the arguments. He didn't have to. The PCG had instructed
him on how to vote.
This event is described to illustrate how difficult it would be
to overcome the control advantages on the side of the PCG. Only on
the Senate or House floor might it be possible to equalize things.
The two events, the two hour discussion on the House floor on March
18, reported by the "Congressional Record," and the hearing by the
rules committee on March 31 illustrate another problem Congress has
combatting the PCG. Not one of the major news media organizations
reported either event. Two hours on the House floor is an
incredibly long time for any subject. There were many reporters
present from television, radio, newspapers and press services. Mark
Lane saw to that. But nothing appeared on CBS, NBC, ABC, or in
"Time," "Newsweek," or the "New York Times." Why? The answer is
obvious. Very tight control over the news from the House is
exercised by the PCG.
The larger implication is there for all to see who want to open
their eyes. Seeing it and believing it are two different things.
For nearly all Congressmen who still have faith in America, the
whole point of this book, and the existence of a Power Control
Group which included Ford, Nixon, Kissinger, the CIA, the FBI, the
fifteen major news media management level people, plus nearly
anyone else of importance in the executive branch and many
Congressmen, is too much to swallow. They would rather have the
whole thing go quietly away than face up to something that
gigantic. And that is the real source of the PCG's strength, the
unbelievability of it all.</p>
<p> Addendum to Chapter 14</p>
<p> Several truly historic and highly encouraging events occurred in
the months of September and October, 1976 that could indicate a
change in the tide and power and control described in earlier
chapters.
First, on September 15, a coalition of representatives from the
Black Caucus, Henry Gonzalez and Thomas Downing managed to get
Resolution H1540 through the House Rules Committee. Mark Lane,
Coretta King and others were responsible for creating pressures
that finally convinced Speaker Carl Albert, Chairman Tom Madden of
the Rules Committee and others that this was necessary and
desirable. The new resolution, made up of parts of the Downing and
Gonzalez resolutions plus input from Representative Walter Fauntroy
from the Black Caucus called for a special 12-person committee to
reopen the JFK and Dr. King cases and any other deaths that the
committee might decide to investigate.
The Rules Committee voted nine to four in favor. Representative
Bolling, who perhaps unknowingly had lent his support to the
opposition in the earlier vote, was an important swing vote and
actually introduced the resolution in the meeting. The position of
the nine who voted for the resolution was more than vindicated two
days later, when the House, by the extraordinary vote of 280 to 64,
passed the resolution. History was made. On that day cheers
should have gone up from several hundred dedicated researchers
around the world, and the Power Control Group should have begun
looking for rocks to crawl under.
The real war was only beginning, however. The "New York Times"
barely reported the event, did not mention the vote, and buried the
story in the middle of another story with one-half inch in one
column. The "Washington Star" and "Post" carried larger stories
and the "White Plains Reporter Dispatch" made it a first page
headline story. The PCG's media control slipped a bit.
The next hurdle was for Downing, Gonzalez and Fauntroy to
convince Albert that the chairman of the new committee for 1977
should be Mr. Gonzalez since Mr. Downing had announced his
retirement. Because elections were being held in November, Mr.
Albert named Mr. Downing as chairman for the balance of 1976, with
Mr. Gonzalez as next in line. He also let it be known to the press
that Mr. Gonzalez would be the best choice to head the committee
next year.
Mr. Albert then named ten other members of the committee for the
1976 period. Four of them, Fauntroy, Burke, Stokes and Ford, were
members of the Black Caucus. Stewart McKinney, Representative from
Connecticut, is a well known supporter of the truth. Those five,
together with Downing and Gonzalez, could probably be counted on to
try to arrive at the truth. The other five representatives--Dodd
from Connecticut, Preyer from Tennessee, Devine from Ohio, Thone
from Nebraska and Talcott from California--were unknown quantities.
If the PCG theory holds up, at least one of them, and perhaps two,
will turn out to be PCG representatives.
The next event of significance occurred on October 4 when Mr.
Downing named Richard A. Sprague, former district attorney from
Philadelphia and fearless prosecutor of the Yablonski murderers, as
executive director of the committee's staff. The main significance
of this event was who was not named. Bernard Fensterwald, Jr., was
in strong contention, but he was not selected because of suspicions
that he might be a CIA agent and also because of conflicts of
interests among his clientele. Fensterwald represented Otto
Otepka, James McCord, James Earl Ray and Andrew St. George, among
others. There is certainly a strong CIA flavor and PCG influence
among his clients. Whether or not Bud Fensterwald himself works
for the CIA or the PCG, his rejection as executive director was a
healthy sign that the committee might be able to go through the
purification process described as essential in Chapter 14.
Richard A. Sprague had his hands full attempting to separate PCG
applicants for staff positions from non-PCG members. The PCG,
during the same time period (September and October) these historic
events were taking place, was very active in spreading its second
line of defense information. "Castro did it in revenge" stories
began popping up everywhere. Jack Anderson was revived to back up
the strategy by publishing another of his "Castro did it" columns.</p>
<p>____________________</p>
<p>[1] House Resolution 204 -- Henry Gonzalez
House Resolution 498 -- Thomas Downing</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p>--
daveus rattus </p>
<p> yer friendly neighborhood ratman</p>
<p> KOYAANISQATSI</p>
<p> ko.yaa.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi Language) n. 1. crazy life. 2. life
in turmoil. 3. life out of balance. 4. life disintegrating.
5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.</p>
<p>From dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com Tue Jun 16 09:54:48 1992
Received: by icaen.uiowa.edu ( 5.52 (84)/1.1) id AA04897
on Tue, 16 Jun 92 09:54:42 CDT.
Received: from pl122c.eecs.lehigh.edu by ns-mx.uiowa.edu (5.64.jnf/920408)
on Tue, 16 Jun 92 09:56:09 -0500 id AA14283 with SMTP
Received: from SGI.COM by PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU (5.61/1.34)
id AA25477; Tue, 16 Jun 92 10:39:31 -0400
Received: from [192.102.132.11] by sgi.sgi.com via SMTP (911016.SGI/910110.SGI)
for PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA17886; Tue, 16 Jun 92 07:42:10 -0700
Received: by ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (920110.SGI/920502.SGI.AUTO)
for @sgi.sgi.com:PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA00714; Tue, 16 Jun 92 07:42:08 -0700
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 07:42:08 -0700
From: dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
<info type="Message-ID"> 9206161442.AA00714@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com</info>
To: PML3@PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU
Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (8/11)
Status: RO</p>
<p>Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (8/11)
Summary: we were robbed of our capability of electing a president we wanted
Keywords: part 8 of 11: chapter 15
Lines: 1172</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Chapter 15
The Select Committee on Assassinations,
The Intelligence Community and the News Media</p>
<p> Part I</p>
<p> The Top Down vs. The Bottom Up Approach
To Assassination Investigations</p>
<p> Two vastly different views have been held by both assassination
researchers and members of Congress during the last three years
about the best way to arrive at the truth concerning political
assassinations in the United States. The conservative view
dictates we must build an investigative base from the ground
upward, beginning with the JFK assassination, and use "hard"
evidence in each assassination case. This view assumes that any
grand, overall conspiracy to cover up the cover-ups would be
detected and made public following exposure of the first layer of
cover-ups.
The less conservative view holds that the political processes
underlying the original assassinations and the massive cover-up
superstructure should be attacked and exposed simultaneously.
The resolutions to establish a Select Committee to Investigate
Assassinations, introduced by Thomas Downing and Henry Gonzalez in
the House of Representatives in 1975, were somewhat related to both
views. The conservative Downing resolution called for a sole
investigation of the JFK case. Gonzalez's resolution called for
the reopening of all four major cases--JFK, RFK, Dr. King and
George Wallace--and more importantly, it called for an
investigation of the possible links among all four. Gonzalez
stated that he believed the country might be experiencing an
assassination-controlled electoral process. His approach was
clearly allied with the less conservative view.
Research groups, such as Mark Lane's Citizen's Commission of
Inquiry (CCI), Bud Fensterwald's Committee to Investigate
Assassinations (CTIA), and Bob Katz's Assassination Information
Bureau (AIB) were also divided in their views. CCI and CTIA took
the bottom-up approach and tended to support Downing. AIB took the
overview political approach and tended to support Gonzalez. The
Black Caucus, Coretta King and others were primarily interested in
a broad overview of the King assassination.
The coalition formed by Downing, Gonzalez and the Black Caucus
finally brought about the creation of the Select Committee on
Assassinations in the House, which represents a mixture of these
views and approaches.
The work of the Select Committee will produce results if it is
recognized that the bottom-up approach alone cannot be used
successfully against the group of powerful individuals that
currently controls the environment in which any investigation
attempts are to be made. The best way the Select Committee can
succeed against this group is to use what will be labelled the "top
down" approach to investigating and exposing the truth as a
supplement to the bottom up approach.</p>
<p> The Power Control Group</p>
<p> The earlier part of this book described a group of individuals
in the United States and labelled them the "Power Control Group."
The PCG is that group of individuals or organizations that
knowingly participated in one or more of the assassination
conspiracies or related murders or attempted murders, plus the
individuals who knowingly participated or are still participating
in the cover-ups of those conspiracies or murders. The PCG
includes any people in the CIA, FBI, Justice Department, Secret
Service, local police departments or sheriffs offices in Los
Angeles, Memphis, Dallas, New Orleans or Florida, judges, district
attorneys, state attorneys general, other federal government
agencies, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White
House, the Congress, or the Department of Defense as well as any
people in the media who are under the influence of any of the
above, who participated or are participating in the cover-ups or
the cover-ups of the cover-up. There are indications that people
in every one of the above organizations or groups belong to the
PCG.</p>
<p> Hard Evidence of Conspiracy</p>
<p> Anyone who has honestly and openly taken the time to examine a
few pieces of hard evidence in any one of the four major cases has
no trouble deciding there were individual conspiracies in each. In
the face of this situation, the layman wonders why the Congress
continually demands hard evidence of conspiracy. Statements
continue to appear in the media to the effect that, "I've seen no
evidence of conspiracy." Or, "We are not sure whether there were
others involved in addition to Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan,
James Earl Ray or Arthur Bremer." These statements are made in
spite of the fact that even the most casual analysis clearly shows
that Oswald, Sirhan, and Ray did not fire any of the shots that
struck JFK, RFK and MLK, and that they were all patsies. Bremer
fired some of the shots in the Wallace case, but there is evidence
that another gun was fired.
The hard evidence is all old evidence. It goes back at least to
1967 and 1968 in the JFK case, and back to 1970 through 1972 in the
RFK and MLK cases. The Wallace evidence is a little fresher, but
nevertheless convincing. The people who demand new evidence are
either members of the PCG, or they are brainwashed by the media
members of the PCG into ignoring the old evidence. They do not
choose to see or to hear the old evidence, even when it is
literally placed before their very eyes and ears. Thus the words
"hard evidence" are merely substitutes for the words "no
conspiracy".</p>
<p> The Bottom Up Approach</p>
<p> The bottom up approach is doomed to failure no matter how the
Select Committee tries and no matter how much effort any official
body puts into attempts to offer that "bombshell" that Tip O'Neill
and others look for to prove conspiracy in the JFK and MLK cases.
The PCG is in complete control of the situation. It controls the
media and the media controls the minds of most citizens and the
Congress. The PCG is a living, dynamic body right now. They can
eliminate an investigation or investigators right now. They can
eliminate a member of the House or a member of the Select Committee
right now.
The bottom up approach will never get off the ground because the
PCG will not allow it. As long as the PCG controls all the sources
of evidence that might contain the hard evidence in the FBI, CIA
and local police files, as long as it controls the courts, and as
long as it controls the media, no one will be allowed to prove hard
evidence before the House, the Senate, the President, or any one in
the Executive Branch.</p>
<p> The Events of 1976 and 1977</p>
<p> That the PCG's control exists is more clearly evident now than
it has ever been before. The PCG is operating in an almost blatant
fashion. Any observer who keeps his eyes wide open and assumes
that such a group exists, can see it operate almost every day.
The prime objectives of the PCG in 1976 and 1977 were:</p>
<p> 1. To block and eliminate the Select Committee on
Assassinations in the House of Representatives.</p>
<p> 2. To firmly implant the idea that the JFK assassination
was a Castro plot.</p>
<p> 3. To block any Congressional attempts to investigate the
four assassination cases.</p>
<p> 4. To control the Carter Administration in such a way as
to permit only an executive branch investigation that
will conclude there was a Castro-based JFK conspiracy
and no conspiracy in the other cases.</p>
<p> The 1977 activities of the PCG lent themselves to a new
approach, the "top down" approach to exposing the truth.</p>
<p> Exposing the PCG</p>
<p> The top down approach obviously begins with exposing the PCG's
immediate, present activities. The following examples are
illustrative. The Select Committee is certainly in a better
position to know which individuals and actions taken by the PCG
since the formation of the Committee in September, 1976 would be
most easily attacked. The first example is the leaked Justice
Department report on the King case.</p>
<p> The Justice Department King Report</p>
<p> The PCG members' actions were leaked in the February 2, 1977
King report and released a few weeks later. To review the list of
PCG members involved in the cover-up of the King case: J. Edgar
Hoover, the Memphis FBI, Phil Canale (Memphis D.A.), Fred Vinson
(State Department), Judge Battle, Percy Foreman, William Bradford
Huie, Gerald Frank (author), Frank Holloman and other members of
the Memphis police and judges at the state and federal court
levels.
One of the judges who became a PCG member in later years was
Judge McCrea. He heard James Earl Ray's plea for a new trial.
Solid evidence of the conspiracy to frame Ray was introduced at
that hearing.
Everyone who read or heard the evidence, with the exception of
Judge McCrea and his law clerk, reached the conclusion that Ray was
framed and that his lawyer, Percy Foreman, deliberately mishandled
the case. Nevertheless, McCrea decided that Ray would not get a
new trial. The case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court
with no reversals of the decision.</p>
<p> Leaking the Justice Department Report on the King Case</p>
<p> Attorney General Levi some years later ordered a review by the
Justice Department of the King assassination and the FBI's handling
of its investigation. A report was prepared by Michael J. Shaheen,
who did most of the Justice Department work. No public
announcement was made in 1976 upon completion of the report.
Suddenly, on the exact day that the House was debating whether to
reconstitute the Select Committee (February 2, 1977), the King
report was leaked to the Republican minority leader of the
opposition, Representative Quillen of Tennessee. He announced he
had a copy of the report. Representative Yvonne Burke from
California, a member of the Select Committee and also a member of
the House Committee responsible for oversight of the Justice
Department, took strong issue with Quillen over the leak. She said
she had unsuccessfully tried to obtain the report that day from the
Justice Department. Quillen stated at first he did not have the
report, but had an Associated Press release describing the report.
About an hour later, he said he had received a copy of the report.
Burke stated that was very strange; not even the proper committee
of the House had received a copy.
The report was quoted to say that the Justice Department had
closed the King case and concluded James Earl Ray was the lone
assassin. Placed in the hands of the opposition to the Select
Committee, the statement was strategically useful. Quillen argued
against continuing the Committee on the strength of the conclusions
reached in the report.</p>
<p> Releasing the Report</p>
<p> On February 19, 1977, the King report was released by the
Justice Department. Blaring headlines again emphasized no
conspiracy and exonerated the FBI's conduct in their investigation.
A showdown meeting was scheduled for February 21 between Henry
Gonzalez and Tip O'Neill, to be followed the same day by a meeting
of the Select Committee to determine whether they would continue
with Richard A. Sprague as chief counsel.
The absurd report was published in the "New York Times" on
February 19, 1977. The PCG 's tactics became somewhat obvious on
that date. Attorney General Griffin Bell, having inherited the
report from Mr. Levi, let slip an important opinion on the CBS
program, "Face the Nation" on the Sunday before the report was
described as "still secret" by the UPI news release quoting Mr.
Bell.
Bell said he believed there were questions the report did not
answer. Bell clarified his concerns after the February 19 release
of the report by stating on the 24th that he might want to
interview Ray to find out where Ray obtained all of the money he
had before and after King was shot, and whether anyone helped him
obtain false passports or make travel arrangements. Perhaps Bell
was troubled by one of the report's conclusions--that one of Ray's
motives in killing King was to make a "quick profit."
This indicates that Mr. Bell, and presumably Mr. Carter, are not
members of the PCG cover-up on the King case. It also seems
obvious that Mr. Levi and the people preparing the report and
conducting the review had become members of the PCG. The timed
release and leaking of that report and the total whitewash of the
King conspiracy are too patently obvious to be coincidental. This
is one area in which the Select Committee has an excellent chance
to expose a raw nerve of the PCG.</p>
<p> Michael Shaheen -- PCG Member</p>
<p> A key PCG member in the situation would appear to be Mr.
Shaheen, Judge McCrea's law clerk mentioned earlier in the PCG
cover-up in Memphis. Shaheen was deeply involved in the old
cover-up as well as the new cover-up. He is from Memphis and part
of that closed circle of people in Tennessee who know very well
what happened to Martin Luther King and how Ray was framed. Mr.
Shaheen is now planning to become a judge in Memphis with the help
of all his co-conspirators and PCG members.
Who called the shots in this Justice Department effort? Was it
Levi? Was it the PCG members left over from the Nixon-Ford
administration? Was it members of the PCG still in the FBI? Was
it the Tennessee wing of the PCG that includes Judge McCrea, Phil
Canale, Howard Baker, Mr. Quillen and Bernard Fensterwald, Jr.?
The Select Committee should find out. The report itself is easily
attacked. It quotes the fake Charlie Stevens testimony all over
again, as if no one knew he had been bought off by Hoover to
identify Ray. Stevens was dead drunk and saw nothing on the day of
the King assassination.</p>
<p> Ignoring or Suppressing Conspiracy and Framing Evidence</p>
<p> Shaheen's review did not touch upon any of the evidence
regarding the framing of Ray that was introduced at the hearing
that Judge McCrea and Shaheen knew so very well. The witnesses who
had seen Ray at a gas station several blocks from the assassination
site when the shot was fired were ignored. Grace Walden Stevens
saw Frenchy (Raoul) in the rooming house, identified Frenchy as the
man she saw, and knew Charlie had seen nothing. She had to be
ignored. The witnesses who saw Jack Youngblood move away from the
bushes from which he had fired the shot had to be ignored. Hoover
and Fred Vinson's use of Stevens's false testimony to extradite Ray
from London had to be ignored. The FBI's role in Memphis,
including its instructions to the witnesses who had seen Frenchy to
keep quiet was to be kept a dark secret. The similarity between
Frenchy's photograph and the sketch of Raoul and Ray's subsequent
identification of Frenchy as Raoul had to be kept quiet.
More ignored evidence was turned up by Huie. He found three
witnesses who had seen Ray and Frenchy-Raoul together both in
Atlanta and Montreal. They confirmed Ray's claim that he was
framed. All of the evidence involving Youngblood and Frenchy,
uncovered by Robert Livingston and Wayne Chastain and published in
"Computers and People" in 1974, was omitted.
Livingston was Ray's attorney in Tennessee. Chastain is a
Memphis reporter. Livingston and Chastain's sighting of Frenchy-
Raoul at the Detroit airport during a meeting between Livingston,
Chastain, Bud Fensterwald and the intermediary representing Frenchy
(in an attempt to obtain immunity for him in exchange for revealing
the identity of the Tennesseans and Louisianians who had hired him)
was ignored.
Exposure of this segment of the PCG would have done more to
bolster the 1977 efforts of the Select Committee than any
presentation of conspiracy evidence in the King case itself.</p>
<p> The PCG's Tactics With the Select Committee</p>
<p> In the early days of the formation of the Committee in September
1976, the PCG might have taken the Committee very lightly. The
PCG's efforts to stop an investigation from beginning in the spring
of 1976 through its control of the Rules Committee had been
successful. Downing and Gonzalez had given up. But when the
three-way coalition suddenly brought about a reversal of their
earlier Rules Committee vote, and the House quickly and
overwhelmingly passed a resolution to set up the Committee, the PCG
was forced to go back to the drawing boards for retaliation.
Before the PCG had time to react, Downing and Gonzalez hired
Dick Sprague as chief counsel. Sprague very rapidly hired the
equivalent of his own FBI. He sensed from the start that he might
be up against both the FBI and the CIA, so he carefully screened
his investigators, lawyers, researchers and other personnel to
prevent intelligence penetration of the staff. However, some
personnel were "handed" to him by both Gonzalez and Downing.
It goes almost without saying that the PCG would have tried to
infiltrate the staff. What they learned by their early
infiltration was that Sprague and his crack team were not only on
the right track in both the JFK and MLK investigations, but also
that the tactics used by the PCG in those weeks were making the
staff and some of the committee members suspicious about the PCG
itself.</p>
<p> PCG Control of Prior Investigations</p>
<p> It became imperative for the PCG to either eliminate the entire
Committee or to gain control of it and to rid it of Dick Sprague
and the senior staff people who were loyal to him. It was no
longer possible to turn the investigations around and bury the
information that had been gathered as the PCG had done with six
prior Congressional investigations. In each of the prior
investigations (five Senate investigations and one House
investigation of the JFK assassination) the PCG had controlled the
results, disbanded the staffs and buried the evidence. The six
groups were:</p>
<p> 1. 1968--A Senate subcommittee under Senator Ed Long of
Missouri conducted a JFK investigation. Bernard
Fensterwald, Jr., was in charge of a six-person team.
2. 1974--The Ervin Committee investigated the JFK case
during the Watergate period. Samuel Dash headed a team
of four that included Terry Lenzer, Barry Schochet and
Wayne Bishop.
3. 1975--The Church Committee. A six-person team reported
to FAO Schwartz III. It included Bob Kelley, Dan
Dwyer, Ed Greissing, Paul Wallach, Pat Shea and David
Aaron.
4. 1975--The Schweiker-Hart subcommittee under the Church
Committee had a team headed by David Marston, that
included Troy Gustafson, Gaeton Fonzi, and Elliott
Maxwell.
5. 1975--Pike Committee in House. People unknown.
6. 1976--Senate Intelligence Committee under Daniel
Inouye.</p>
<p> In addition, both Howard Baker and Lowell Weicker conducted
their own investigations of the JFK case during the Watergate
period.
Sprague and his senior staff people are professionals compared
to the amateurs listed above. Wayne Bishop was the only
professional investigator in all of the staff groups. It was easy
for the PCG to cut off or alter the directions of the prior
investigations. Thus, the one with the greatest hope, the
Schweiker subcommittee, wound up not mentioning any of the
important evidence uncovered in Florida and elsewhere in their
final report. The Congress and the public were left with the
impression that there might have been a Castro conspiracy to
assassinate JFK.</p>
<p> PCG Strategy</p>
<p> Faced with the new committee and Sprague's staff, the PCG had
devise a strategy that included:</p>
<p> 1. Attacking Dick Sprague to discredit him with dirt and
print it in the media.</p>
<p> 2. Using the media to spread PCG propaganda and control
the sources of all stories concerning the Select
Committee.</p>
<p> 3. Using PCG Congressmen to provide biased, distorted
quotes to the media for its use.</p>
<p> 4. Trying to discredit the entire committee by making it
appear to be disorganized and unmanageable.</p>
<p> 5. Controlling the voting and lobbying against the
continuation of the committee in January and February.</p>
<p> 6. Influencing members of the House to vote against the
Committee through a massive letter and telegram
campaign.</p>
<p> 7. Exaggerating the emphasis placed on the size of the
budget requested by Sprague without considering the
need for such a budget.</p>
<p> 8. Demanding that the committee justify its existence by
producing new evidence.</p>
<p> 9. Splitting the committee and attempting to create
dissension; creating a battle between Henry Gonzalez
and Richard Sprague and between Gonzalez and Downing.</p>
<p> 10. Hamstringing the staff so they could not receive
salaries, could not travel, did not have subpoena
power, could not make long distance telephone calls;
blocking access to the key files at the FBI, Justice
Department, CIA and Secret Service.</p>
<p> 11. Trying to insert their own man at the head of the
staff.</p>
<p> 12. Brainwashing Henry Gonzalez into believing that Sprague
and others were agents.</p>
<p> 13. Sacrificing Henry Gonzalez when it became obvious the
PCG could not control him as their chairman.</p>
<p> 14. Leaking stories that seemed to make the committee's
efforts unnecessary.</p>
<p> Media Control</p>
<p> The primary technique used by the PCG is its nearly absolute
control of the media. This is not as difficult to achieve as one
might imagine. Since most of the stories about the committee
originate in Washington under rather tightly-knit conditions, it is
necessary to control only a small number of key reporters and their
bosses. The rest of the media follow along like sheep.
The PCG trotted out some of their old-timers in the media to
initiate the public and congressional brainwashing program against
the committee. They used the same tactic against Jim Garrison
between 1967 and 1969. The old-timers included Jeremiah O'Leary,
George Lardner, Jr., and David Burnham. Jeremiah O'Leary of the
"Washington Star" was on the CIA's list of reporters exposed the
year before. George Lardner Jr. had been in David Ferrie's
apartment until 4 AM on the morning he was murdered. Lardner was a
PCG member in 1967, while he worked as a reporter for the
"Washington Post" (he is still with the "Post"). David Burnham at
the "New York Times," one of the several reporters in Harrison
Salisbury's and Harding Bancroft, Jr.'s stable of PCG workers, was
called upon to carry the brunt of the "Times"' attack.
There were, of course, others. As in 1967 and at other times
during the first decade of media cover-ups, the major TV, radio,
wire service, magazine and newspaper media acted as a cover-up
unit. Ben Bradlee, the PCG chieftain at the "Washington Post,"
made sure that "Newsweek" did their hatchet jobs. Time, Inc., CBS
(with Eric Sevaried, Dick Salant and Leslie Midgeley), NBC (with
David Brinkley), and ABC (with Bob Clark and Howard K. Smith) all
went on the attack. The overall theme was that the committee would
soon die out.</p>
<p> Media Tactics</p>
<p> The tactics first used were to create the impression that the
Committee was not going to find anything of importance. Then Dick
Sprague became the chief target. One of the dirty tricks used
against him portrayed him as arrogant, flamboyant, power-mad, and
as a man who usurped the powers of the Committee. The writers and
editors of the PCG are very good at this sort of thing. The "New
York Times," with Burnham writing and Salisbury and Bancroft
directing, did a real hatchet job on Sprague. These techniques
convinced congressmen and much of the public. Sqrague was forced
to stay very quiet and away from reporters and cameras. That did
not deter the PCG people. Once an image of a man has been created
by the media, it is not necessary for him to appear in public. He
could even disappear for several weeks, but the flamboyant, noisy
image would go on uninterrupted. This technique is much less
obvious than murder, but it works nearly as well. When the time
comes to destroy or eliminate the man, all the PCG has to do is
create an image.</p>
<p> The Vote to Continue</p>
<p> The man chosen to eliminate Sprague was the new chairman of the
Select Committee, Henry Gonzalez. Before setting up a classic
"personality conflict" between Gonzalez and Sprague, the PCG used
another tactic. It attempted to kill the Committee with a vote not
to continue it in the 1977 Congress.
The House and media PCG members overemphasized the large budget
requested by Dick Sprague, the use of the polygraph, the use of the
psychological stress evaluator and the telephone monitoring
equipment. Rather than telling the truth about the budget,
describing how the money would be spent, and describing why and how
the equipment was going to be used, the media (aided and abetted by
PCG members in the House itself) made it seem as though the budget
was totally out of line and that citizen's rights would be violated
by the use of such equipment. The PCG planted false information
that led Don Edwards of California to play into their hands on the
equipment issue.
The year-end report of the Committee, which they and the staff
hoped would make these subjects clear, countered the media attacks.
*But*, of course, the PCG controls the media, and the report was
completely blacked out. Most citizens do not even know it exists.
Almost every U.S. citizen has heard and seen Dick Sprague called a
rattlesnake and an unscrupulous character. However, the PCG lost
the vote against continuing the Committee and used a new method to
try to kill it.</p>
<p> The New Tactic</p>
<p> The PCG decided to use Gonzalez to control the Committee. The
stage was set for the PCG to knock off Sprague and to install one
of their own men. The plan was to do this by brainwashing Henry
Gonzalez into distrusting Sprague and selected members of the
Committee and the staff.
The idea was to use Gonzalez in this way to install a PCG man
(the fact that he was a PCG man was unknown to Gonzalez) as chief
of staff. Gonzalez would fire Sprague and the key staff members,
first blocking their access to important files and witnesses. The
PCG would then have been in a position to either fold up the
Committee by March 31, or to direct its efforts toward finding a
Castro-did-it conspiracy in JFK's case and no conspiracy in the
King case.</p>
<p> Tactic Backfires</p>
<p> The PCG did not forecast one important effect their tactics
would have. By the time Henry Gonzalez became chairman, the other
eleven members of the Committee and its staff had begun to smell a
rat. They noted with curiosity all of the strange coincidences
that occurred. During the floor debate on February 2, 1977 over
continuing the Committee, Representatives Devine, Preyer, Burke and
Fauntroy let the rest of the House know that they believed
something peculiar was happening to them. The appearance of the
Justice Department report on that same day disturbed them very
much. The attacks on Sprague upset them also.
The staff were even more disturbed. Most of them had assumed
they were being asked to conduct a thorough and unbiased
investigation of two homicides. The power of the PCG became
obvious to them over a period of several weeks. The effect of this
on both the Committee and its staff was to drive all eighty-four
people (73 staff and 11 Committee members) into a solid block (the
only exceptions were Gonzalez's people on the staff), more
determined than ever to get at the truth. Some staffers began
using their own money for travel. All of them took pay cuts. Many
of them decided they would work for nothing if necessary to keep
going. The PCG's strategy had backfired. The eighty-four loyal
people were like one giant lion backed into a corner, spurred on to
greater heights to fight back.
For this reason, the PCG tactic to use a brainwashed Henry
Gonzalez failed. The eighty-four people resisted that manuever by
threatening to resign en masse. Tip O'Neill and others were forced
to go against Gonzalez. Gonzalez resigned. The House voted by a
large majority to accept his resignation and Tip O'Neill appointed
Louis Stokes as the new chairman. At this point, the PCG decided
to abandon Gonzalez and to try another tactic, signalled by an
article in the "Washington Star" on March 3, 1977. Written by
"Star" staff writer Lynn Rosellini, the article was entitled,
"Gonzalez' Action Stuns Panel but Not the Home Folks." It was
manufactured by the PCG to discredit Gonzalez and his final demise.
(It was the first anti-Gonzalez article to appear.) The PCG had
obviously decided to throw Gonzalez to the wolves. The significant
quote was supposedly from a "source familiar with Gonzalez' career"
that said "Henry focuses in on conspiracies, the weird angle of
things. Once he gets involved in something, he shakes it by the
throat until it's dead." That was a dead giveaway that the PCG no
longer wanted Henry around.</p>
<p> Next Tactic -- Death By Acclamation</p>
<p> The PCG's next tactic was to convince a majority of the House
that the Committee had had it because of the feuding as portrayed
in the press. They hoped to either eliminate the Committee
altogether or eliminate the JFK investigation or to force Sprague
to resign. (After all, the King conspiracy can always be blamed on
J. Edgar Hoover, if it comes down to that. There is no particular
spillover from the King case into JFK, RFK or Wallace, provided
Frenchy can be kept out of the limelight.) It might have been
possible for the PCG Congressmen to propose dropping the JFK case
or to propose postponing it in favor of continuing just the King
case with a reduced budget. Prior to March 31, a House floor vote
or a vote in the Rules Committee could have been proposed that
might have limited the investigations and the authority of the
Select Committee in this way. The rules under which the Select
Committee would operate were not passed by the Committee due to the
conflict between Henry Gonzalez and the rest of the members, so the
proposal could have included restrictive rules. The PCG media
could have boosted this idea with the PCG loyalists in the House.
Jim Wright appeared to be the new leader of the opposition to kill
the Select Committee. More ground was being laid every day for a
negative vote on continuation. The hint was that the Committee
must come up with a bombshell or that it will die.
The Committee fought off this tactic by diverting the attention
of the media through a series of very rapidly developing activities
and a substantial reduction in the proposed budget, which plummeted
to 2.8 million for the remainder of 1977. The House finally voted
to continue the Committee by a very narrow margin, with a swing of
25 votes determining the result.
The final weapon used to obtain a vote to continue the Committee
on March 30 was the resignation of Dick Sprague.</p>
<p> Exposing the PCG</p>
<p> The best way to expose the PCG is to demonstrate that it has
been influencing or controlling the media and attempting to control
Congress. How can this be done? It will be necessary to show who
the PCG members are in the House and the media and exactly what
they have been doing while they are doing it. Getting this kind of
information out to the public will be very difficult, since the
entire media group seems to be controlled. Live TV is not easily
controllable. If unannounced exposures of PCG members are made on
live TV there would be no way for the PCG to stop it. About the
only way to set up such a situation would be to hold public
hearings with live TV coverage.
Exposing the PCG to Congress might be accomplished on the floor
of the House. Evidence of the clandestine activities of PCG
members in the tactics described above could be introduced on the
floor without media coverage. This happened to a minor extent on
March 30 when some of the Committee members began to accuse the
media of improper influence.</p>
<p> Who Are The PCG Members</p>
<p> The PCG members presently attempting to control the Select
Committee must be clearly identified.[1] There are, no doubt, some
media people and Representatives who sincerely believe that there
were no conspiracies and who have been playing into the hands of
the PCG without realizing it. Other Representatives, and media
people by the definition of the term PCG, are purposefully
controlling the situation. It may be difficult to distinguish
between these two groups without tracing back some PCG connection
of the culprits. Any CIA or FBI clandestine relationship or any
direct connection with any of the assassination cases would be a
tip. An example of this is George Lardner, Jr.'s direct connection
with the JFK case ten years ago. (Lardner was in David Ferrie's
apartment for four hours after the midnight time of death estimated
by the New Orleans coroner. Ferrie was killed by a karate chop to
the back of his neck.) Jim Garrison interrogated Lardner at some
length, but he never received a satisfactory explanation of what he
had been doing there.
While it may be difficult to tell which congressmen are sincere
and which are knowingly trying to extend the cover-ups, the Select
Committee must turn its attention to any member of the House who
throws up roadblocks or who speaks out strongly against the
continuation of the investigations. On this basis, one must
suspect every one of the Representatives cited below.
Many questions should be asked of this group. For example, who
encouraged Mr. Bauman during that autumn and on March 30, Mr. Sisk
last spring and Mr. Quillen in February to suddenly become so
vehement about stopping investigations of the assassinations?
Their stated reasons were that the Kennedys were opposed, costs,
the lack of new evidence, the Warren Commission, etc. But these
reasons can no longer be their own true beliefs. On whose behalf
were they acting? How did Trent Lott find out that the Committee
staff made a telephone call to Cameroon, which he discussed on
March 28 at the Rules meeting?
Who talked Frank Thompson into a campaign to shut off the Select
Committee's financial resources? (The Thompson efforts cannot be
explained away by the ordinary controller's motivations.) Who
convinced Jim Wright that the Committee was doomed and that he
should personally intervene in the Gonzalez, Sprague and Committee
members' battle? And, most importantly, who brainwashed both Henry
Gonzalez and Gail Beagle into mistrusting the people they had
always trusted? Answer these questions and publicize the answers,
and the top-down approach to exposing the PCG and solving the
assassination conspiracies will be well along the path to success.</p>
<p> Part II</p>
<p> "Hard" and "Soft" Propaganda in 1977</p>
<p> When the time approached for the Select Committee on
Assassinations to ask the House of Representatives for its 1978
budget, it was interesting to once again examine the PCG's control
over the American news media and the Congress. To those who
observed the assassination scene with blinders removed, it was
patently obvious that the December 1977 date for the Select
Committee's budget approval was a target. The PCG attempted to
defeat the Committee's efforts to get at the truth underlying the
John Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations and the cover-up
crimes associated with them.
An all-out effort was mounted by the PCG to influence the
thinking of citizens and the votes of the members of the House.
This effort manifested itself in the major news media--over the
three TV networks, the "New York Times," "Washington Post,"
"Newsweek," "Time," book publishers, book reviewers, TV talk shows,
etc.
This massive campaign is a useful test to prove the validity of
contentions made by this author and others in 1976 and 1977
concerning the relationships between the Power Control Group and
the American news media, as utilized in the continuing cover-ups of
the domestic assassinations, and in the PCG's efforts to destroy
the reputations of assassination researchers[2] and the two
official investigations of the John Kennedy assassinations.[3]
New evidence surfaced in 1977 to support these contentions: a
CIA document released under the Freedom of Information Act and an
article by a new potential ally for assassination truth seekers,
Carl Bernstein. Both of these documents were provided to the
author by Ted Gandolfo in New York, who now has his own weekly
cable TV show on Friday nights on Manhattan TV entitled,
"Assassination USA."</p>
<p> Evidence of Media Control by the CIA</p>
<p> Carl Bernstein wrote an article exposing the CIA's methods of
controlling the news media.[4] The basic technique dictates
planting a Secret Team member at the top of each major media
organization, or obtaining tacit agreements from the top man to use
reporters working for the CIA, and to use CIA people, stories, and
policies on the inside of the organization. Bernstein named men
above the level named by this author as CIA people in certain
organizations. For example, the author's claim was that Harding
Bancroft, Jr. has been the CIA control point at the "New York
Times." Bernstein named Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the owner of the
"Times" and Bancroft's boss, as the CIA's man at the "Times." At
CBS, the author named Richard Salant. Bernstein names William C.
Paley. At the "Washington Post" and "Newsweek" Bernstein names
Philip Graham, Katherine Graham's husband, former owner of the
"Post" and "Newsweek," and by inference, Mrs. Graham since her
husband's death. The author named Ben Bradlee. But Bernstein's
information confirms the author's contention that the CIA controls
the 15 news media organizations in the U.S.
The other CIA top level individuals named by Bernstein are as
follows:</p>
<p> "Louisville Courier Journal"--Barry Bingham, Sr.
NBC--Richard Wald
ABC--Sam Jaffe
Time, Inc.--Henry Luce
Copley News Service--James Copley
Hearst--Seymour Freiden</p>
<p> The PCG, through their prime intelligence members, are today
still controlling what the media do and say about the subject of
assassinations and the Select Committee on Assassinations.[5] They
do this by influencing the heads of each organization who determine
media editorial policies that are carried out by their
subordinates. In some cases, however, lower level people are also
planted as reporters, editors or producers to execute the policies,
write the stories, produce the programs, review the books, or write
or publish the books. The CIA also owns and controls many
publishing houses, freelance writers or reviewers who can also be
used in this massive campaign.
However, the reader should not immediately jump to the
conclusion that all of the media people knowingly continue to
cover-up of the assassination conspiracies. It is only necessary
that they actually believe the CIA's stories and positions against
conspiracies. For example, Anthony Lewis at the "New York Times"
participates in this entire fraud, actually believing that Oswald
was the lone madman assassin.
It is inconceivable, however, that men intelligent enough to
rise to the top of CBS, NBC, ABC, the "New York Times et al." could
actually believe that Oswald was the lone assassin. Some or most
of them must be cooperating fully in the PCG cover-up efforts.</p>
<p> Proof of CIA Efforts to Discredit Researchers</p>
<p> A recently released CIA document[6] was a dispatch issued from
CIA headquarters in April 1967 to certain bases and stations to
mount a campaign through media contacts (called assets) against
certain assassination researchers. The targets included Mark Lane,
Joachim Joesten, Penn Jones, Edward Epstein and Bertrand Russell.
The document describes an entire program to be used to discredit
the "critics." Many of the exact expressions that were used by the
CIA-controlled media to attack the researchers can be found in this
document. One example is: "The CIA should use this argument in
general. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested (by
critics) would be impossible to conceal in the United States,
especially since informants could expect to receive large
royalties, etc." Another argument suggested is: "Note that Robert
Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's
brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any
conspiracy."
How many times did we hear that between 1967 and 1969?
The document also suggests using an article by Fletcher Knebel
to attack Ed Epstein's book and to attack it rather than Mark
Lane's book because "Lane's book is much more difficult to answer
as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details."
The timing of this document is particularly important. April 1,
1967 was approximately two months after Jim Garrison's
investigation surfaced, and only shortly after Garrison found David
Ferrie murdered in his own apartment and had Clay Shaw arrested.
Since we now know that both men were contract agents for the CIA
and that the CIA went to great lengths under Richard Helms'
direction to protect Clay Shaw and to keep his true identity from
being revealed, the chances are good that this document was
triggered by Garrison's investigation.
The names of the authors of the document have been blacked out
of the copy that was released. Further research might reveal who
actually wrote it and "pulled it together" (as a note in hand print
at the top states).</p>
<p> The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald</p>
<p> The top level media control was demonstrated by the ABC-TV
program, "The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald", whose co-director,
Lawrence Schiller, had to have been selected at the suggestion of
the PCG. Schiller, one of the worst people in the PCG's stable of
freelancers, is best known for his book supporting the Warren
Commission and attacking the researchers, called "The
Scavengers."[7]
Schiller is perhaps the biggest scavenger ever created. He
supposedly obtained a "deathbed" statement from Jack Ruby by
illegally and unethically sneaking a tape recorder into his
hospital room. He then parlayed this into a wide-selling record
with distasteful and untruthful propaganda. More recently he
seized the opportunity to interview Gary Gilmore before his
execution, practically holding a mike to his mouth while the
commands were being given to the firing squad.
How, the reader may ask, could Schiller become a co-producer of
a major ABC television show? The answer is simple. He is
available to attack and ridicule the assassination researchers and
reinforce the no-conspiracy idea for the PCG.
The ABC production crew had the full cooperation of the Dallas
police in re-enacting the assassination event in Dealey Plaza.
There is no way that could have happened without PCG influence.
The Dallas police, quite guilty of cover-up in the case and having
some individual members on the assassination team, would not permit
anyone to film a reenactment of the assassination showing
conspiracy or the truth. The PCG had to assure them that the
program's editorial position would be anti-conspiracy.
The "Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" was given extensive publicity
on TV, in magazines, in newspapers. In England, a special article
about it appeared in the Sunday magazine section of a London
newspaper complete with photographs from the shooting sequence as
filmed.[8] The PCG spent an enormous amount of money on the
program and a publicity campaign. There is no way ABC-TV could
have done that on their own. More than 80% of the people believe
there was a conspiracy: why wouldn't ABC go along with the 80% of
their viewers and portray the truth? The answer again is simple:
ABC is controlled from the very top, probably much higher than the
Sam Jaffe level, by the PCG and the CIA.</p>
<p> Other TV Shows</p>
<p> Both NBC and CBS are planning major TV specials on the
assassinations. CBS is planning a show on Ruby and Oswald. The
theme will be that the Warren Commission was right and that both
Oswald and Ruby were lone nuts. Mr. Paley and Mr. Salant are the
PCG people calling the shots. NBC is planning a show on Martin
Luther King which will have a section on the assassination. Even
though Abbey Mann is directing the show and he would like to bring
out some of the facts, it is certain that the PCG members of NBC,
including Richard Wald, will not permit any conclusions about Ray's
innocence or information about Frenchy-Raoul or Jack Youngblood
(the real assassins) to be included.</p>
<p> Priscilla McMillan--CIA Agent</p>
<p> One of the more remarkable things about the massive 1977
campaign of the CIA and the PCG is their blatant use of freelance
writers and news reporters who are well known CIA agents to nearly
anyone who has taken the time to pay attention. Three agents are
Priscilla McMillan and her husband, George McMillan, and Jeremiah
O'Leary of the "Washington Star." Priscilla (in particular) is so
obviously an agent that even Dick Cavett indirectly accused her of
being one when she appeared on his show with Marina Oswald to plug
her new book.
The CIA decided the perfect time to publish McMillan's book[9],
which had been completed for several years. A publisher under CIA
control was selected, and the book was published in time for the
December committee budget vote. The CIA arranged that Marina
appear with Pat on several national TV shows. Priscilla had Marina
well rehearsed for these shows--she even retold the old lies about
Oswald shooting at General Walker. The commentators selected to
interview both women, including Dick Cavett, David Hartmann (ABC),
and Tom Snyder (NBC) had their orders to deal delicately with them
and not to ask any embarrassing questions. Cavett came closest
with his essentially accusatory question about whether Priscilla
was a CIA agent.
No one asked Marina the one embarrassing question she would have
had the greatest difficulty answering regarding the picture of
Oswald holding the rifle and the communist newspaper that Marina
claimed she took of him: "How was it possible for you to have
taken a photograph that since has been demonstrated to be a
composite of three photographs, with your husband's head attached
to someone else's body at the chin line?" (flashing on the screen
Fred Newcomb's slide showing the chin level discontinuity). Cavett
actually flashed the fake photograph on the screen at the beginning
of his show, but he never mentioned it.
This monumental PCG effort that involved controlling at least
three TV networks, a CIA publisher, Marina Oswald, a CIA agent,
Priscilla McMillan, an enormous amount of time and money, and a
special book review by the "New York Times"[10] demonstrates how
much power the PCG has.
Some of those people who watched "Good Morning America" and the
"Tomorrow Show" and the "Dick Cavett Show" (three different types
of national viewing audiences) who believe the lone assassin theory
and the Warren Commission had those beliefs reinforced by Priscilla
McMillan and Marina Oswald. It is wise for researchers, the Select
Committee on Assassinations and others who know what is really
going on, not to underestimate this power of the PCG.</p>
<p> Fensterwald's Book</p>
<p> A book by Bud Fensterwald appeared in 1977 under the sponsorship
of the PCG.[11] This clever effort on the part of one of the CIA's
best agents was designed to throw people off the track who have a
somewhat deeper interest in the JFK assassination. It was meant to
divert attention away from the CIA by omitting at least twelve of
the CIA conspirators who were in the files of the Committee to
Investigate Assassinations (co-founded by Fensterwald and the
author in 1968).
No excuse can be given for leaving these key people out of the
book, because the CIA had extensive files on most of them. Bud
Fensterwald even had a personal correspondent relationship to the
key informant of the group, Richard Case Nagell. The twelve are:
William Seymour, Emilio Santana, Manuel Garcia Gonzalez, Guy
Gabaldin, Mary Hope, Richard Case Nagell, Harry Dean, Ronald
Augustinovich, Thomas Beckham, Fred Lee Crisman, Frenchy, and Jack
Lawrence. All of them were included in a description of the
details of the assassination team earlier in this book and in an
article by the author.[12]
Zebra Books, the publisher of Fensterwald's book, is a CIA-
controlled organization that has also published another
disinformation book, "Appointment in Dallas," by Hugh
MacDonald.[13] In both cases, the PCG intended to misdirect
attention away from the CIA participants while at the same time
admitting conspiracy. There is no way the story in MacDonald's
book can be true. It maintains that Oswald at least planned to
fire from the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building. As all good
researchers know, the photographs of the window, inside and
outside, prove there was no one firing from that window that day.</p>
<p> The de Mohrenschildt Murder</p>
<p> The Murder Inc. branch of the PCG killed George de Mohrenschildt
when he became too dangerous for them. The media branch of the PCG
then undertook a campaign to discredit Willem Oltmans and NOS-TV
(in Holland) who happened to be in possession of a series of video
and audio tapes of de Mohrenschildt that will be very damaging for
the PCG.
The de Mohrenschildt murder has so far been concealed by the PCG
with the help of the media and portrayed as the suicide of a man
who had become insane. As Willem Oltmans' book clearly
demonstrates[14] de Mohrenschildt was quite sane when he
disappeared from Belgium. He was in the process of giving Ed
Epstein a story about his involvement in the JFK assassination when
he was murdered in Florida.</p>
<p> Donald Donaldson's Disappearance</p>
<p> General Donald Donaldson, alias Dimitri Dimitrov alias Jim
Adams, was intimately acquainted with the CIA people who planned
JFK's assassination. He was in Holland to tell his story to NOS-TV
and Willem Oltmans. He told Oltmans that Allen Dulles was the key
CIA man in planning JFK's assassination. (Donaldson had been
brought to the U.S. as a double agent during World War II by
Franklin Roosevelt.) He held back his knowledge of the
assassination conspiracy until the Church Committee was formed. He
then took his information to Church, who brought him to President
Ford rather than having him questioned by the Church Committee or
the Schweiker sub-committee. Ford, Church and Donaldson had a
meeting in which Ford talked both of them into keeping Donaldson's
information under wraps.
When de Mohrenschildt was killed, Donaldson decided it was time
to make his information public and to offer it to the Select
Committee. He approached Oltmans, asked that his identity be kept
secret, told NOS his story, and then remained in Holland while
Oltmans attempted to tell the story to President Carter. Oltmans
revealed Donaldson's identity on American TV and to the Select
Committee when Carter refused to listen to the story. Donaldson
then moved to England, and subsequently disappeared from a London
hotel, leaving large unpaid bills at both his London and Amsterdam
hotels. The possibility is very good that he has gone the same
route as de Mohrenschildt, murdered by the PCG.</p>
<p> Attacks on the Select Committee</p>
<p> One of a series of attacks on the Select Committee in November
and December, leading up to the December vote on the 1978 budget,
took place in the form of an article by probable CIA agent George
Lardner, Jr., one of the Select Committee's biggest enemies. He is
one of the PCG's stable of reporters. Lardner wrote an article for
the Sunday "Washington Post" on November 6, 1977, portraying the
Committee as engaging in random, uncoordinated activity,
interrogating witnesses from the Garrison investigation (which
Lardner labelled, "the zany Garrison investigation", and "the
fruitless investigation"). The "New York Times," "Washington Star"
and other media can be expected to open up all barrels under PCG
direction. The general theme will no doubt be that the Committee
has done nothing at all and that Oswald acted alone.[15]
If Council Blakey or Chairman Stokes, or JFK subcommittee
Chairman Preyer try to respond to these attacks they will be ripped
to shreds by the PCG's media people. As the author pointed out in
part I of this chapter, the only chance the Committee and the House
have to keep the investigation going is to expose the PCG and their
media control, from the top down. Otherwise the Committee cannot
win the battle.</p>
<p>____________________</p>
<p> [1] Power Control Group (PCG) defined in prior articles and one book
by the author, as follows:</p>
<p> The PCG includes all organizations and individuals who
knowingly participated in any of the domestic political
assassinations or attempted assassinations, or in any of the
efforts to cover-up the truth about those assassinations. This
includes a large number of murders of witnesses and participants.
The assassinations involved include, but are not necessarily
limited to the following:</p>
<p> John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, George
Wallace and Mary Jo Kopechne.</p>
<p> The PCG is a much larger group than just the clandestine parts
of the CIA and the FBI, or the Secret Team as defined by L.
Fletcher Prouty. It would however, include all those members of
the Secret Team or the CIA or the FBI falling under the
definition.</p>
<p> [2] The author's contentions about media control by the PCG have
appeared in one self-published book and several articles:</p>
<p> (a) Book: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3," R.E. Sprague,
self-published, Hartsdale, N.Y., 1976. (First Edition. This
Third Edition contains chapters 15-17 plus the Appendix which
were written after 1977. --Editor)
(b) Articles: "The American News Media and the Assassination of
President John F. Kennedy: Accessories After Fact," R.E.
Sprague, "Computers and Automation," June, July, 1973.
(c) "The Central Intelligence Agency and the `The New York
Times,'" R.E. Sprague. (Using pseudonym Samuel F. Thurston)
"Computers and Automation," July, 1971. Republished in "People
and the Pursuit of Truth," May, 1977.
(d) "Congressional Investigation of Political Assassinations in
the United States: The Two Approaches: From the Bottom Up vs.
From the Top Down," R.E. Sprague, "People and the Pursuit of
Truth," May, 1977.</p>
<p> [3] The two official investigations of the Kennedy assassination
referred to here are:</p>
<p> (a) The investigation by the office of the district attorney of
Orleans Parish, New Orleans, La. 1966 to 1969 (Jim Garrison).
(b) The investigation by the Select Committee on Assassinations
of the U.S. House of Representatives 1976-1977.</p>
<p> The investigations by the Schweiker-Hart subcommittee of the
Church committee and the Ervin Watergate committee were never
really approved by Congress, and so lacked the power and
influence to become a threat to the PCG.</p>
<p> [4] "The CIA and the Press," Carl Bernstein, "Rolling Stone," October
4, 1977. A copy of the full unedited manuscript of this article
was also made available to the author. The "Rolling Stone"
version had selected names omitted.</p>
<p> [5] Bernstein's article also describes the CIA influence over several
other media organizations without naming the top executives.
These are:
"New York Herald Tribune"
"Saturday Evening Post"
"Scripps Howard Newspapers"
"Associated Press"
"United Press International"
"Reuters"
"Miami Herald"
And a CIA official told Bernstein, "that's just a small part of
the list."</p>
<p> [6] The CIA document was obtained by Harold Weisberg under the
Freedom of Information Act. It is dated 4/1/67 and labelled
"Dispatch to Chiefs, Certain Stations and Bases." Document
Number 1035-960 for "FOIA Review" on September 1976. Object:
Countering Criticism of the "Warren Report."</p>
<p> [7] "The Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report," Lawrence
Schiller, Dell Publishing Co., New York, 1967.</p>
<p> [8] "The Big If," "London Sunday Times," September 18, 1977.</p>
<p> [9] "Marina and Lee," Patricia McMillan, Harper &amp; Row, 1977.</p>
<p>[10] A review of the McMillan book appeared in the "Sunday New York
Times" book review section on November 6, 1977. It praised the
book to the skys, backed up the Warren Commission, and severely
attacked the researchers and the Select Committee.</p>
<p>[11] "Coincidence or Conspiracy," Bernard Fensterwald, Jr., Zebra
Books, New York, 1977.</p>
<p>[12] (a) "The Taking of America, 1-2-3," Richard E. Sprague,
self-published, 1976.</p>
<p> (b) "The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The
Involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Plans
and the Cover-Up", Richard E. Sprague -- "People and the
Pursuit of Truth," May, 1975.</p>
<p>[13] "Appointment in Dallas," Hugh C. McDonald, Zebra Books, New York,
1975.</p>
<p>[14] "George de Mohrenschildt," Willem Oltmans, Published in The
Netherlands, Unpublished in the United States.</p>
<p>[15] This chapter originally appeared as the article "Congressional
Investigation of Political Assassinations in the United States:
The Two Approaches: From the Bottom Up vs. From the Top Down,"
by the author in "People and the Pursuit of Truth," May, 1977.
Since the original article was written, in November 1977 the
Select Committee decided that the budget money approved in 1977
was sufficient to carry over a few months into 1978. No budget
request was made in December 1977. The PCG can now be expected
to continue its attacks until the spring of 1978 when the
budget request will be made. (January 4, 1978)</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p>--
daveus rattus </p>
<p> yer friendly neighborhood ratman</p>
<p> KOYAANISQATSI</p>
<p> ko.yaa.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi Language) n. 1. crazy life. 2. life
in turmoil. 3. life out of balance. 4. life disintegrating.
5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.</p>
<p>From dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com Wed Jun 17 07:55:35 1992
Received: by icaen.uiowa.edu ( 5.52 (84)/1.1) id AA07136
on Wed, 17 Jun 92 07:55:31 CDT.
Received: from pl122c.eecs.lehigh.edu by ns-mx.uiowa.edu (5.64.jnf/920408)
on Wed, 17 Jun 92 07:57:09 -0500 id AA07930 with SMTP
Received: from SGI.COM by PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU (5.61/1.34)
id AA29041; Wed, 17 Jun 92 08:43:40 -0400
Received: from [192.102.132.11] by sgi.sgi.com via SMTP (911016.SGI/910110.SGI)
for PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA13139; Wed, 17 Jun 92 05:46:23 -0700
Received: by ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (920110.SGI/920502.SGI.AUTO)
for @sgi.sgi.com:PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA07406; Wed, 17 Jun 92 05:46:21 -0700
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 92 05:46:21 -0700
From: dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
<info type="Message-ID"> 9206171246.AA07406@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com</info>
To: PML3@PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU
Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (9/11)
Status: RO</p>
<p>Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (9/11)
Summary: we were robbed of our capability of electing a president we wanted
Keywords: part 9 of 11: chapter 16
Lines: 867</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> 1979: The House Select Committee (1)</p>
<p> Chapter 16
1984 Here We Come</p>
<p> George Orwell undoubtedly did not realize how accurate his 1984
scenario would be by the year 1979. As 1978 drew to a close,
events in America made Orwell's descriptions of such concepts as
Newspeak and a supposedly open but actually closed society, very
close to reality. By 1984, now only five short years away,
Orwell's scenario will apparently be right on the nose.
Any doubts about who is in charge of America and how effective
they have become in creating our actual version of Newspeak,
disappeared as the Carter administration, congress, the courts, and
the media, all combined their coordinated efforts to cover up and
distort our current history. The hopes of thousands of Americans
that their only true representatives in government, the members of
the House, would expose the fabric of lies about our recent history
and the Power Control Group's activities were dashed to smithereens
by the House of Representative's Select Committee on
Assassinations. The hopes that Carter might be on our side, faded
away in 1978 and the intentions of the executive branch were made
quite clear by the new directors of the FBI and the CIA.
The murder incorporated group within the Power Control Group
continued to murder people in 1978, with efficiency and dispatch.
The presidential race in 1980 has been foreclosed to Ted Kennedy
for a long time, but the chances that any candidate, not willing to
extend the assassination cover-ups, could be nominated and elected,
are close to zero.
The American people, by and large, do not understand or
appreciate very much of this. The Select Committee teamed with the
media and by holding public hearings with almost no live coverage
they convinced the majority of Americans that there was no
conspiracy in the JFK case and that James Earl Ray shot Martin
Luther King although he might have had help from his brothers. The
public has never heard of most of the eight men assassinated in
1977 and 1978 by the PCG, nor do they appreciate the fact that
future assassinations will be carried off by the same bunch.
How the hell did the PCG control Congress and the Select
Committee? It wasn't easy and they very nearly didn't.
There may also be another explanation about the committee's
actions in which the word "control" is too strong. Influence,
intimidation by throwing out implied warnings or threats, or just
plain making it obvious that personal danger could be involved,
might have been used. The process was very involved and it made
use of a number of techniques and approaches, including some we can
only guess at in 1979. However, a number of the PCG's methods are
known and will be described herein.
The executive branch control by the PCG was exposed even before
Carter's election by those whose eyes were open wide enough to see
it. This author frankly admits to partially closed eyes until
1978. The significance of the Bilderberg Society and the
Trilateral Commission was not obvious until Carter had been in
office for a couple of years. Now, it is very obvious that he is
under the complete domination of the men who really run the U.S.A.,
and that he will never do anything to expose the truth about the
political assassinations or their cover-ups.
The latest indication of where the Carter administration stands
was the testimony given by FBI director William H. Webster to the
Select Committee on December 11, 1978. He said that the FBI would
freeze the scene and take full immediate control of the
investigation of any future presidential assassination or that of
any other elected U.S. leader.
In case anyone has any doubt about what he meant by "freeze the
scene", Webster went on to say, "One purpose of the FBI
investigation would be to lay to rest untrue conspiratorial
questions that have a way of rising, and avoid the sort of mistakes
that followed the assassination of President Kennedy."[1] In other
words, the FBI will suppress or destroy any evidence of conspiracy
even if they were not involved in the assassination itself. One
such "mistake" in the Dallas murder surfaced in December 1978 when
Earl Golz of the "Dallas Morning News" found a movie that the FBI
failed to "freeze". It was taken by a man named Bronson and it
shows two men, not one, in the sixth floor window of the TSBD just
five minutes before the shots were fired. One of the men is
wearing a red shirt. That filmed evidence matches the still photo
taken by an unknown photographer earlier that morning, and
developed at a Dallas photo lab by Ed Foley, the lab owner. The
author found the photo and obtained a print of it in 1967. The
Foley photo, as it became known, shows two men in the sixth floor
window, one with a black shirt and one with a bright red shirt.
Mr. red shirt matches the description of the man in the Bronson
film. He is not Lee Harvey Oswald. Neither is the man in the
black shirt. He was most probably Buel Wesley Frazier, the man who
drove Oswald to work on November 22, 1963. The facial profile and
black shirt match photos of Frazier and another man entitled to be
on that sixth floor, were there around 10 AM and at 12:25, five
minutes before the shots were fired. Mr. Webster has in mind
rounding up all such evidence and destroying it right away in the
next assassination.
The evidence discussed in earlier chapters of this book, also
not "frozen" by the FBI, proves that the "snipers nest" was no
snipers nest at all, but just an area where workers on that floor
were piling cartons to allow the floor laying crew at the west end
of that floor to do their job.
Webster would like the FBI to grab such evidence the next time,
and destroy it before "conspiracy rumors" get started. The FBI
came much closer to doing this in Memphis, but after all, they were
involved directly in the planning and execution of the
assassination of Dr. King. They had a much greater incentive for
cover-up in that murder. William Sullivan's Division Five, at the
behest of J. Edgar Hoover, carried out the King assassination using
Raoul and Jack Youngblood plus others.
Returning to the Select Committee, I must switch over to a more
personal tone because of my direct involvement with the group from
its inception. I helped Henry Gonzalez in the early days of 1975
and 1976 when the committee was just a wild dream for most people.
I made a presentation to Thomas Downing's staff members who
eventually became part of the Select Committee staff. Mark Lane
arranged that in the summer of 1976. The photographic evidence of
conspiracy in the JFK case was as overwhelming to them and to Henry
as it was to anyone who has taken the five or six hours or so to
look at it. I then became an advisor to Richard A. Sprague and Bob
Tanenbaum when the committee was formed and spent the months from
November 1976 to July 1977 helping them with the photographic
evidence and with evidence collected by the Committee to
Investigate Assassinations including Jim Garrison's evidence.
If Henry Gonzalez or Richard A. Sprague, or Thomas Downing had
stayed with the committee their work would not have been
controlled. Sprague's loyal deputy counsels, Bob Tanenbaum, in
charge of the JFK investigation and Bob Lehner in charge of the MLK
investigation had already begun to get at the real evidence of the
Power Control Group and the FBI and CIA's involvement in the two
cases and in the cover-ups. The committee members were already
becoming very suspicious of the two agencies. Walter Fauntroy,
chairman of the MLK sub-committee, even dared to speak out about
the CIA's influence. He was beaten into the ground by the PCG's
members in the House.
So Gonzalez, Sprague, Tanenbaum, Lehner and others who dared
take on the intelligence portions of the PCG, had to go. They were
forced out by one of the ancient techniques employed by the Romans
known as divide and conquer. Once Henry Gonzalez became convinced
that Richard A. Sprague was working for the CIA and the PCG, he
attacked Sprague bitterly. Henry knew there was a PCG and he knew
who had murdered John Kennedy and why. Henry had to go. He was
made to look like a paranoid fool and forced out by the key PCG
members of the House. Two PCG agents, Mr. Z and Harry Livingstone,
helped convince him that Sprague was a CIA man.
Mr. Z was brought in by Henry as a lawyer for his committee and
worked on Henry's beliefs about Richard A. Sprague. Over some
weeks he convinced Henry that Richard A. Sprague was a CIA
operative. He was supported in this activity by Harry Livingstone
(later author of "High Treason"). Harry Livingstone engaged in
various plagiaristic activities and scams, and over quite a period
of time he worked on Henry to convince him that Richard A. Sprague
was a CIA operative. At the same time Henry was developing his
beliefs with the help of Mr. Z and Mr. Livingstone, Richard A.
Sprague and his staff were developing skepticism about Henry's
integrity. The net result was both men resigned. In the next
year, 1978, the author appeared with Richard A. Sprague on a cable
television broadcast hosted by Ted Gandolfo in New York City,
named "Assassionation USA," and the three of them had a detailed
discussion about Sprague's reasons for resigning from the
Committee. To some extent his thinking was influenced by his
skepticism about Henry Gonzalez's integrity.
Once Louis Stokes took over as chairman, Sprague's men were
gradually calmed down, and the so-called search for the right chief
counsel was underway. It is difficult to detect what was going on
during that spring of 1977. Suffice it to say that the PCG was
undoubtedly pulling out every stop to get their own chief counsel
into the committee and to build up the case for getting rid of
Tanenbaum, Lehner, Donovan Gaye, and others who knew too much or
who had the gall to go up against the agencies.
The result of all this hard work by the PCG was the installation
in July 1977 of Dr. Robert Blakey as chief counsel. Tanenbaum
resigned almost immediately, making Blakey's job a little easier,
but Lehner and Gaye had to be fired by Blakey. Many others were
also weeded out. We may never know exactly what they all knew or
how they were forced out, because of the use of one of the PCG's
cleverest techniques and one of the most insidious.
Each committee staff member, each consultant and each committee
member was required to sign, as a condition of continuing
employment or membership on the committee, a nondisclosure
agreement. Now, nondisclosure agreements are nothing new,
especially in classified situations or in sensitive or patent or
copyright situations. The committee's nondisclosure agreement was
however, very unusual. Many well-known attorneys have pronounced
it illegal. Richard A. Sprague saw it and said he would absolutely
never have required the staff to sign anything like it. He said it
was illegal and unenforcable in several of its clauses. The worst
thing about it, or the best thing, from the viewpoint of the PCG,
are the paragraphs giving control over the committee to the FBI and
the CIA.[2]
The committee, under Sprague, planned to investigate the FBI and
the CIA in regard to both assassinations and the cover-ups. In
fact, Sprague had put both agencies on notice to that effect.
Subpoenas were being prepared for access to all of their withheld
information. Investigations of the CIA's role in the Mexico City
part of the assassination conspiracy, as well as Oswald's and
Ruby's connections with both agencies were under way.
The Blakey agreement automatically put a stop to all of that.
Here is one excerpt from the agreement.
"I (the staff member, committee member, or consultant) hereby
agree never to divulge, publish or reveal by words, conduct or
otherwise, . . . any information pertaining to intelligence sources
or methods as designated by the Director of Central Intelligence,
or any confidential information that is received by the Select
Committee or that comes into my possession by virtue of my position
with the Select Committee, to any person not a member of the Select
Committee, or, after the Select Committee's termination, by such
manner as the House of Representatives may determine or, in the
absence of a determination by the House, in such manner as the
Agency or Department from which the information originated may
determine."
In other words if the committee or an individual staff member,
or a consultant discovered that the CIA or part of it, was involved
in the assassination of John Kennedy, or that the FBI was in part
or in whole responsible for the death of Martin Luther King, or
that either agency was guilty of covering up the conspiracies in
both cases, the CIA and the FBI would have the right to prevent
these findings from being revealed to anyone outside the committee.
Furthermore, those agencies are still in existence today while the
Select Committee is not, so that the nondisclosure agreement which
goes on in perpetuity, gives both the FBI and CIA continuing
complete control over the individuals who signed it.
Another excerpt reads as follows:
"The Chairman of the Select Committee shall consult with the
Director of Central Intelligence for the purpose of the Chairman's
determination as to whether or not the material (any material
obtained by the signer of the agreement) contains information that
I pledge not to disclose." If that sounds like Catch-22, it is.
The interpretation that could be placed on that clause is that the
CIA has the right to decide what evidence in the JFK and MLK
assassinations should be withheld on grounds that the CIA itself
determines.
How could the committee possibly have investigated the CIA under
those terms and conditions? The answer is, they could not and did
not.
Can anyone doubt that the PCG prepared the agreement, implanted
Blakey, and coerced or blackmailed or threatened the Chairman and
the rest of the committee until they agreed to have everyone sign
it!
The most insidious part of the agreement is the clause that
could be described as the threat, or blackmail clause. It is
perhaps this clause that has closed the mouths and pens of all the
ex-staff members who knew what was going on, but who signed the
agreement. That clause reads as follows:
"In addition to any rights for criminal prosecution or for
injunctive relief the United Stated Government may have for
violation of this agreement, the United States Government may file
a civil suit in an appropriate court for damages as a consequence
of a breach of this agreement. The costs of any civil suit brought
by the United States for breach of this agreement, including court
costs, investigative expenses, and reasonable attorney fees, shall
be borne by any defendant who loses such suit." . . . "I hereby
agree that in any suit by the United States Government for
injunctive or monetary relief pursuant to the terms of this
agreement, personal jurisdiction shall obtain and venue shall lie
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
or in any other appropriate United States District Court in which
the United States may elect to bring suit. I further agree that
the law of the District of Columbia shall govern the interpretation
and construction of this agreement."
Those readers who have followed the performance of the U.S.
courts in the JFK and MLK cases through the years, will recognize
the trap in those last two sentences. Any ex-staffer or
consultant, or even a Congressman would have about as much chance
against a CIA/FBI-directed suit in a court of their choice, as the
man in the moon. The United States Government, in this clause, is
not your government or mine. It is the Power Control Group. You
can bet they would select a court already programmed for decision.
The clause is incredible on the face of it.
This was a mighty powerful weapon and the committee used it to a
maximum extent in carrying out a masterful job of continuing the
two cover-ups. It was masterful in the sense that they were not as
bold and bald about it as the Warren Commission or the Rockefeller
Commission or the Justice Department and the courts have been in
the MLK case. Their conclusions are inconclusive; sort of. They
say that to determine whether or not there really were conspiracies
in the two cases was beyond their means and the time they had
available. Nevertheless, the preponderant weight of the public
testimony before the committee was toward no conspiracy in the JFK
case and a, "Ray shot him, but might have been helped," conclusion
in the King case. But the hold they exercised over the staff and
consultants in directing their investigations away from conspiracy
was very smoothly done, with the nondisclosure agreement always
lurking in the background as a possible threat.
The agreement was used as an excuse by the committee to avoid
answering questions. For example, I wrote to Louis Stokes on April
5, October 30, and November 24, 1978 asking why the committee had
not called several important witnesses in the JFK case, including
Richard Case Nagell. Stokes had told me in a letter written on May
15, 1978, that the suggestion that Nagell be called was being
followed and that the staff was being alerted about him. Blakey
took no action and did not contact Nagell or Richard Russell, the
only person who knew where Nagell was to be found.[3]
Stokes sent me this reply to my inquiries about the witnesses on
December 4,1978.</p>
<p> "Dear Mr. Sprague:
Thank you for your letter of November 24, 1978. I am aware of
the amount of time you have spent analyzing the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy and your interest in the work of the
Select Committee on Assassinations since its inception. However, I
regret that *under our Rules*, it is impossible for us to respond
to your letter in a manner which would reveal the substance or
procedure of our investigation, or the names of those persons who
will be called to testify before the committee. The committee is,
of course, grateful for your suggestions and those of the many
other concerned citizens who have taken the time to write."
(Underlining for emphasis is the author's)
Sincerely,
Louis Stokes
Chairman</p>
<p> "The Rules" Stokes refers to include the nondisclosure
agreement. This letter implies that subsequent to December 4,
1978, the committee might be calling more JFK witnesses. Of
course, that didn't happen. Except for some high level FBI, Secret
Service and other government officials testifying about
Presidential safety and future assassination investigations, the
committee's show was already over, and Louis Stokes was well aware
of that. I'm sure Louis Stokes had his own personal reasons, not
necessarily sinister, for making that reply.
The committee had no intention of risking the appearance of any
of the more knowledgeable or involved witnesses whose names I had
given them in October 1978 as well as in May 1978 and November
1978. A list of these names appears later in this chapter.
The Warren Commission proved how easy it is to avoid finding a
conspiracy if you don't look for one, even one that seems to jump
up and smack you in the face. The Select Committee did this in
spades. The procedure was orchestrated by Robert Blakey by various
means. One of his methods was to split up the hard core Dealey
Plaza evidence and investigations into sections. He formed an
advisory panel of outside "experts", for each section; one on
medical evidence, photographic evidence, ballistics evidence,
trajectory evidence, etc. Then he made sure there was almost no
coordination, cross talk, or feedback among the panels or even
among the staff members assigned to each section, except at his
level.
There was a great amount of internal complaining about this, but
to no avail. Again, the nondisclosure agreement worked wonders.
An investigating team, in New Orleans and Dallas, headed by the JFK
task force leader Cliff Fenton, was never allowed to surface either
publicly or internally to other staff people or the committee.
Their findings alone would have blown Dr. Blakey and his CIA/FBI
friends right out of the water. They spent a lot of time with Jim
Garrison, and with many of the witnesses and the assassination
participants described in Chapter 5 of this book. The public does
not even know who these staffers are, and undoubtedly will not hear
or see what they discovered either in the committee's final report
or in the public hearings.
The separation of assignments worked wonders in explaining away
much of the hard evidence of conspiracy. Some of it during the
public hearings was like watching a magic show, for knowledgeable
researchers. For example, the medical panel and staff members
determined that the path of bullet 399 through JFK's body rear to
front was slightly upward, given that he was sitting erect. But
since the medical panel and the photographic panel were never
permitted coordination, the medical panel never realized that JFK
was sitting erect at the time bullet 399 supposedly struck.
Neither panel was allowed to communicate with the trajectory panel,
so that their representative Thomas Canning testified that bullet
399's trajectory backward from JFK's body, passed through the TSBD
sixth floor window. That erudite gentleman, a government employee
from NASA, was forced to make up his own medical evidence, which he
proceeded to do. He merely moved the exit wound in JFK's throat
down somewhat and the back of the neck wound up somewhat from where
Dr. Baden of the medical panel had placed them. He then tilted JFK
forward at about 17 or 18 degrees based on his personal observation
of one photograph, rather than on the photographic panel's
conclusions. Presto; the trajectory tilted upward and leftward
enough to pass through the sixth floor window.
Another bit of magic was presented by Canning to support the
single bullet theory. He drew a straight line between governor
Connally's back entry wound position and JFK's back entry wound
position and found that the line also passed through the sixth
floor window. To do this he moved Connally on the seat to his left
and JFK to his right, and lifted JFK up a bit on the rear seat.
Again he did this without consultation with the photographic panel.
Some hard evidence was not dealt with at all and other hard
evidence of conspiracy was presented without identifying it as such
and then just left dangling. An example of the former is all of
the photographic evidence cited earlier in this book and in my
"Computers and Automation" magazine articles, showing that the
sniper's nest was not a sniper's nest, that no one was in the
window, and that no one could have fired shots from that position
that day. I showed pictures of the nest from the inside and the
window from the outside to the JFK sub-committee in July 1977 and I
reviewed them at length for their evidenciary value with the JFK
staff, notably Ken Klein, Cliff Fenton, Bob Tanenbaum, Jackie Hess,
Donovan Gaye, Pat Orr, Chellie Mason, and Richard A. Sprague.
So the Committee cannot claim they didn't know about these
photos. They saw the Foley photo over a long period of time, and
were no doubt quite embarrassed by the unexpected appearance of the
Bronson film. Not one word about the sixth floor window, the
cartons, the planted shells, the planted rifle, and the extra rifle
found on the roof, the impossible shot, no one in the window when
the shots were fired; not one word was mentioned in the public
hearings about the photos and other evidence. Where was the
photographic panel? Asleep? Frightened by the agreement they
signed?
An example of evidence of conspiracy left dangling was the
testimony given by the photographic panel spokesman, Calvin S.
McCamy. The panel examined all of the photos of JFK during the
early part of the shot sequence, and took a vote on when the first
shot struck the President. It came out as around Z189 to Z196.
Perfect. That matches. But no one asked the trajectory panel or
the ballistics spokesman how Oswald was able to fire bullet 399
right through the center of that big oak tree at Z189-Z196. Not
even the Warren Commission would make that claim, preferring to put
the timing at Z210 or later after JFK came out from behind the
tree.
There were some anxious moments for the Select Committee, even
as well orchestrated as the whole farce was. Dr. Cyril Wecht was
his usual grand self. He blasted the committee. They said he was
part of the medical panel and therefore was asked to present a
minority view. Cyril said they weren't planning to call him until
he demanded to be allowed to testify. They tried to bamboozle him,
to discredit him (a tough assignment), to attack him and to knock
down his testimony. Lawyer Gary Cornwell was particularly
obnoxious in his questioning of Dr. Wecht. Favorable witnesses
testifying to no conspiracy were handled with kid gloves and
treated politely or dragged through an obviously rehearsed series
of questions. It was the Warren Commission revisited. Two
witnesses they couldn't mistreat were Governor and Mrs. Connally.
They politely and calmly presented believable testimony destroying
the single bullet theory. That didn't bother the committee any
more than it bothered the Warren Commission. They resurrected the
theory a few days later when the trajectory panel testified.
Dr. Barger of Bolt Baranek &amp; Newman shook them up a little with
his acoustical analysis of the police radio tape that reveals the
sounds of four, not three, shots. If Dr. Barger had been given all
of the facts initially, he probably could have helped prove where
the shots came from. Except for the grassy knoll position behind
the fence and the sixth floor TSBD window, he was not told about
any other possible firing points. For example, he knew nothing
about the Dal Tex building, the west end roof or high floor of the
TSBD, or other positions on the grassy knoll. In fact, Barger did
not know the location of the motorcycle where the microphone had
been left open, picking up the sound of the shots. His assignment
included a determination of where the motorcycle was, from the
sounds on the tape and sounds made during a re-enactment of the
firing in Dealey Plaza. The only test shots Barger had fired were
from the TSBD sixth floor window and from behind the grassy knoll
fence. The net result was that he decided the motorcycle was
trailing the Presidential limousine by 120 feet. No one on the
committee or the photographic panel ever showed Barger the Altgens
photo, the Hughes film, the Martin, Nix, Couch, Weigman, Bell or
Muchmore films or any other pictures showing there was no
motorcycle anywhere near 120 feet behind the limousine.[4] Again,
Blakey divided and conquered. Barger told me that if he had known
about the motorcycle trailing the limousine by a few feet, driven
by policeman D.L. Jackson, who disappeared completely after the
assassination, he could have altered his analysis completely. The
sounds of the last two shots may well have been from the knoll
behind the wall, and from the TSBD roof or the Dal Tex second
floor. Barger's analysis shows that the last shot sound, made by a
rifle occurred just a faction of a second after the next to the
last shot, possibly made by pistol. This would fit a pistol shot
from behind the fence fired almost simultaneously with a rifle shot
from either the TSBD west end or Dal Tex. The delay of the sound
traveling from Dal Tex is about right so that the Dal Tex shot
would strike at Z312 and the pistol or rifle shot from the right
front would strike at Z313. Prof. Mark Weiss of Queens College and
Barger were called into an executive session on December 20 after
the hearings were finished. They testified that there were
definitely four shots fired, at least one of which was from the
knoll.
This new analysis was conducted by Weiss independently from the
one done by Bolt Baranek and Newman. Weiss said that his work
proved to a 95% certainty that the third shot was a rifle shot from
a position on the knoll. He said the data pinpointed the position
to within two feet. The position was behind the fence, which
eliminates man number two at the corner of the wall and also
eliminates a pistol. However, the photos show man number two did
make a puff of smoke, whether or not he fired a shot.
Congressman Sawyer broke the news about Weiss' testimony during
a radio broadcast in Michigan, his home state. A furor broke
loose. The committee went into an executive session Friday
December 22 to discuss what to do since there were only nine days
left to the end of their existence. The radio tape and the Bronson
film seemed to shake them up considerably. Or was it all rehearsed
and planned this way by the committee. It seems incredible that
the 12 members of the committee would be shaken by the sounds from
a tape when they weren't bothered at all by photos of the Oswald
window showing that no one was there when the shots were fired.
The committee members could see those photos with their own eyes.
They had to take the word of experts about the sounds on the tape,
which cannot be heard because of the noise of the engine of the
policeman's cycle where the microphone was stuck open.[4] This was
the most blatantly dishonest stunt pulled by the Committee during
the Blakey period. Yet, the research community cannot complain too
much because it did produce a conspiracy conclusion.
The committee's distortions and omission respecting the hard
Dealey Plaza evidence is overshadowed by the key witnesses that the
committee did not call. None of the players listed in Chapter 5
were called, nor ever mentioned. One key witness, James Hosty,
insisted that he testify about Oswald's FBI involvement, but was
turned down. Hosty told the "Dallas Morning News," "They don't
want to hear what I have to say."
He might have told them the same story he told the author,
through an intermediary in 1971. Namely, that Oswald was reporting
to Hosty on the assassination plans of the CIA group based in
Mexico City. FBI agent witness, Regis Kennedy might have given
private interview evidence, but he was killed the day before he was
to meet with the committee.
Gordon Novel, Ronald Augustinovich, Richard Case Nagell, Mary
Hope, Guy Gabaldin, Manuel Garcia Gonzalez, William Seymour, Emilio
Santana, Victor Marchetti, Jack Lawrence, Major L.M. Bloomfield,
Frenchy, Sergio Arcacha Smith, Harry Williams, James Hicks, Sylvia
Odio, Jim Braden, James Hosty, Warren Du Brueys, Louis Ivon, E.
Howard Hunt and Jim Garrison were not called and no interest was
shown in having them as witnesses. Some key witnesses who were
called were not asked any important questions, or cross examined at
all. Marina Oswald Porter was one of these. Another was Gerald
Ford. Richard Helms told his standard lies, and no one asked him
about Victor Marchetti's statement about Helms protecting Clay
Shaw, or about E. Howard Hunt and Guy Gabaldin in Mexico City in
October, 1963, or about Harry William's statement that he, Helms,
Hunt, and Lyman Kirkpatrick were reconsidering another Cuban
invasion at the moment JFK was shot, in a Washington, D.C., CIA
location.
With respect to the assassination of Dr. King, the committee
also performed admirably for the PCG, in this case, the FBI wing.
They failed to deal with the important evidence of conspiracy,
failed to call the prime witnesses, and distorted or omitted
evidence. They spent a great amount of time trying to prove,
rather unsuccessfully except for media accounts, that James Earl
Ray was guilty and that he had help from his family and was
possibly financed by some wealthy sountherners.
Briefly, here is the evidence they did not cover. The witnesses
who saw a man in the rooming house--all of whom said it was not
James Earl Ray--were not called. Charles Stephens, who was bribed
and coerced by the FBI into identifying the man as Ray, but who was
dead drunk, and saw nothing, was not put on the stand with his
common law wife Grace and a cab driver who saw how drunk he was.
Confronting his testimony by cross examination and by using counter
witnesses should have been done.
The three bar maids in Montreal and Atlanta who saw Ray and
Raoul together were not called. William Bradford Huie found them
and Ray knew where they were. The committee didn't look for them.
Huie and Foreman were not put on the stand and asked all of the key
questions about why Huie changed his entire approach toward Ray as
soon as I showed him the Raoul-Frenchy photos. Foreman's role was
never explored under fierce cross examination as it would be if
Mark Lane were able to get a new trial for Ray. He should have
been asked why he told Ray he got the Frenchy photos from the FBI
when he actually got them from me!
The Frenchy-Raoul sketch comparison, made by Bill Turner and I
in the summer of 1968, should have been produced and shown to
Foreman, Huie, Ray and other witnesses.
The complete list of witnesses who saw Ray and Raoul together,
as well as the complete list who saw Ray at the gasoline station a
few blocks away from the crime at the time the shot was fired, were
not called. The committee adopted the stance that it was up to
Mark Lane and Ray to produce those witnesses, as though the
investigation of the King killing was a trial instead. The
committee, not Ray, had the responsibility of investigating and
locating those witnesses. Bob Lehner wanted to do that, but he was
fired.
The evidence about the rooming house bathroom window as an
impossible firing point, presented so well in Harold Weisberg's
book "Frame-Up: The Martin Luther King/James Earl Ray Case," was
either ignored or distorted. The evidence about the trajectory of
the shot was completely distorted. The ballistics, medical and
trajectory panels discussed the vertical angle of difference
between the "grassy knoll" firing point and bathroom window firing
point trajectories to the Lorraine Motel balcony. They stated that
the differential angle between the two trajectories was too small
to determine, from the medical evidence, whether the shot came from
the window or the knoll.
But, they failed to discuss the horizontal differential angle
between the two trajectories which was much larger, large enough to
determine the firing point.
They also failed to present a number of witnesses who saw the
actual assassin, Jack Youngblood, both before and after he fired
from the knoll. Wayne Chastain should also have been called to
testify about this evidence and those witnesses.
The evidence concerning who Jack Youngblood and Frenchy-Raoul
worked for, and their involvement, was not dealt with at all. The
committee should have presented the photographic evidence showing
Raoul was Frenchy, and should have asked Ray and the witnesses who
saw Raoul to identify him from the Frenchy photos. Jeff Paley
actually showed Frenchy's photo to witnesses in 1968 while Raoul's
face was still fresh in their minds. They recognized the face.
They certainly should have since the sketch of Raoul was made from
their recollections. They should have called Frenchy as a witness
in both JFK &amp; MLK cases. I know from an inside source on the
committee that they found Frenchy alive in 1978. They certainly
knew about Jack Youngblood because they read Wayne Chastain's
series of articles in "Computers and People."
In summary, the Select Committee performed reasonably well on
behalf of the PCG. There are no public outcrys over what they did
because the media wouldn't air them. Mark Lane held a number of
press conferences during the committee's life span, and no media
organization reported on any of them. The media, of course, were
quite willing servants of the PCG, as they always have been since
1963. The combination of the PCG, the CIA, the FBI, the Select
Committee, the House spokesmen for the PCG and the cooperative
media is really nearly unbeatable.
Some researchers hoped against hope that the Select Committee,
under Stokes, Blakey, Preyer and Fauntroy, would still unveil the
truth, as the public hearings began in August. The hopes
disappeared during the first week of hearings on the King case as
the committee demonstrated quite clearly that they were going to
continue the cover-ups and to get James Earl Ray and Mark Lane in
the bargain. Still, the hopes would not quite die. The letters I
wrote to Louis Stokes in the fall of 1978, expressed the last ditch
thought that maybe they were conducting a charade designed to fool
the FBI, CIA and the rest of the PCG into believing they were going
to cover-up the truth. It turned out be for real, no charade.
The eight people assassinated by the PCG in 1977-78 during the
Select Committee's life span are probably the best proof of who is
in charge of the U.S. and what their intentions are. The murders
are all part of the cover-up efforts and were all successfully
carried out, a la The Parallax View, with very few suspicions
raised on the part of the American media or the public. They
included William Sullivan, Regis Kennedy, George de Mohrenschildt,
Sam Giancana,[5] John Roselli, Carlos Prio Socarras, Thomas
Karamessines, Rolando Masferrer, and an attempt on the life of
Larry Flynt.
Each of these murders was carried out with great success and for
varying reasons. One common thread connects them all. Each man
knew too much about the assassinations of President Kennedy or
Martin Luther King and the subsequent cover-up conspiracies. All
but Flynt were witnesses to be called by the Select Committee or
ones that had given some information and were scheduled to give
more. Of the nine people including Flynt, the two most important
were William Sullivan and Regis Kennedy.
Regis Kennedy was one of two FBI agents in New Orleans assigned
as contact men for Lee Harvey Oswald in his role as FBI informer.
The other agent was Warren du Brueys. James Hosty was his contact
agent in Dallas. Kennedy knew a lot, but was under strict orders
from the FBI not to reveal any of it. He was called as a witness
at the trial of Clay Shaw and asked by Jim Garrison whether he
hadn't been searching for Clay Shaw under the name Clay Bertrand,
before it was known that Clay Bertrand wanted to hire a lawyer for
Lee Harvey Oswald. Kennedy took executive privilege, a popular
dodge at that time with the Nixon administration. When the judge
pressed him, he said he would have to check with the FBI and the
attorney general, John Mitchell, in Washington, D.C. Word came
through that he could answer that one question, so he said yes it
was true. He went no further however. The significance is that
the FBI knew all about Clay Shaw's involvement in the assassination
because Oswald was reporting back to them as a paid infiltrator of
Shaw's team. There is a distinct possibility that Kennedy was sent
by Hoover and Sullivan to Dallas immediately after the
assassination, to help coordinate the FBI/CIA cover-up. Beverly
Oliver, the Babushka lady, whose film was confiscated by three
government agents on Sunday November 24, 1963 at the Carousel Club
owned by Jack Ruby, made a tentative identification of Regis
Kennedy from his photograph as one of those three agents. The film
has never surfaced. It should show the assassins on the grassy
knoll quite clearly since Beverly was much closer than either
Orville Nix or Marie Muchmore and had her camera trained on JFK all
the way down Elm Street.
Kennedy died of a supposed heart attack the day before he was to
meet with the Select Committee staff. Heart attacks, as most
Americans know by now from watching the Church Committee hearings,
and seeing the Parallax View, are easily induced by a CIA-developed
pill, which leaves no trace in the autopsy, if there is one.
William Sullivan was eliminated by a clever, but simple
technique. The PCG agents who killed him knew about his hunting
haunts in New England. They also knew about a teenage son of a
state policeman living near Sullivan's country place who liked to
hunt in the same area. Two of them intercepted Sullivan early one
morning as he set out for a walk in the woods. They shot him with
a deer rifle and took his body to a spot in the woods where they
knew the boy would be. They carried a decoy inflated to the shape
resembling a deer and probably acted like one. The boy shot at him
and thought he hit a deer. The agents dropped Sullivan's body at
that spot and left. They accidentally left the pair of gloves one
of them was wearing. The boy went over to the spot in the early
morning semi-darkness, found Sullivan's body, and thought he had
killed him by mistake. He still thinks so. There was no
investigation and no questions asked.
Why was Sullivan killed? As mentioned before, William Sullivan
was J. Edgar Hoovers' right hand man in charge of Division Five,
the FBI's clandestine domestic operation that included an
assassination squad. Every likelihood exists that Hoover ordered
Sullivan's division to kill King and that Sullivan used
Frenchy/Raoul and Jack Youngblood to do the job. Sullivan was also
due to meet with the Select Committee within a day or two after the
day he was shot. Whether he would have talked or not probably
makes little difference. The PCG couldn't take the chance.
Thomas Karamessines died of an apparent heart attack at the age
of 61 on September 4, 1978 at his vacation home in Grand Lake,
Quebec. He headed the covert operations part of the CIA after
Richard Helms was promoted from that position to head of the CIA.
David Phillips, the CIA dirty tricks operative who is making public
speeches supporting the Deputy Director of Plans (dirty tricks)
function, worked for Karamessines. His knowledge of the JFK
assassination and the CIA's cover-up role was undoubtedly complete
since he inherited the whole thing from Helms.
The other dead people were bumped off figuratively, on the very
doorstep of the committee. Roselli was killed and dumped into
Miami Bay. Giancana was shot full of holes in his Chicago
residence. De Mohrenschildt was shot with a shotgun in his
daughter's friends house in Florida. All three were scheduled to
meet with the committee. Socarras was killed in a garage in
Florida. Masferrer was blown up in his car in Florida. Flynt was
shot on the street in Georgia.
Florida. Why does it keep popping up in these cases? Bay of
Pigs, No Name Key Group, anti-Castro forces, Mafia operations; it
all fits together somehow. Jim Garrison's first real breakthrough
came when he found Masferrer in Florida through Manuel Garcia
Gonzalez. That led him and the District Attorney in Dade County,
Florida, to William Seymour, Emilio Santana, Howard, Hall, Hemming
and Frenchy, all part of Socarras' and Banister's Florida-based, No
Name Key anti-Castro operations. It figured that some of them
would die in their own backyard when the committee was getting too
close. Gaeton Fonzi can personally vouch for that. He was the
committee's Florida investigator.
Why wouldn't men like Fonzi, Fenton, Fauntroy, Stokes, Preyer,
and a woman like Yvonne Burke, tell us the truth. I spent a lot of
time with all of them and got to know some of them very well. They
all impressed me as being very honest and dedicated people.
There may be another explanation, as I mentioned in the
beginning of this last chapter. A committee, is, after all, made
up of a bunch of individuals. So is a staff. Now, except for
Cliff Fenton, Ed Evans (MLK investigator) and one or two others,
these people were not professionals in the investigations and
certainly none of them had been involved in the really big game of
espionage and clandestine operations. They were, and still are,
ordinary mortals, like you and me, with fears and cautionary
attitudes toward personal safety and danger. They also have
families.
Not even Cliff Fenton had ever been involved with the kind of
monstrous game played by the spooks of the world. It is a game for
keeps, of life and death, mostly death. Let's look at it from the
viewpoint of Louis Stokes, just to take an example. He took over
the chairmanship of the committee with the following knowledge.
He suspected there was a conspiracy in the JFK case and at least
wanted to find out whether the CIA and FBI were involved in
covering it up. He may not have known all of the details, but he
was aware of the fact that many people had died. He knew that
Henry Gonzalez had nearly been killed by a rifleman while driving
through a Texas desert with his wife. This occurred just after
Henry made public statements about all four political
assassinations being related and the intelligence agencies possibly
being involved. Stokes saw how the PCG swung their weight around
in the Rules Committee and on the floor of the House when the
Select Committee in January and February 1977, asked for a new
budget and a reconstituted authority to subpoena records and
continue the investigation. He also knew that something strange
had happened to Henry Gonzalez. He told me so in a luncheon
meeting on May 10, 1977. He said Henry had cut off all
communications with him and other committee members just as he had
with me. I told Louis that I believed Henry had purposefully been
fed information by the PCG that I, Richard A. Sprague, and some of
the committee members were working for the CIA. Otherwise, why
would he have instructed the CIA and FBI to close access to their
files to the committee staff, just after he had won the fight he
fought so hard to get the subpoena power back.
Stokes agreed it must have been something like that. Stokes
also must have had a frightened reaction during 1977 and 1978 to
these eight bodies dumped on his doorstep. As in the scene in "The
Godfather", it only takes one horse's head in your bed to get the
idea you should keep your mouth closed and play it cool.
Given all of this, each committee member may have reached his or
her decision that this game was not for congressmen. In April 1977
it is possible that all of those executive sessions the committee
held were partially devoted to a discussion of the personal safety
of each member, each staffer, and all of their families. They may
have reached unanimous agreement that the only safe approach would
be to avoid sensitive areas, and not to attack the CIA or FBI, and
certainly to avoid going after any of the dangerous guys in both
assassination cases.
Yet, to keep an honest approach going they would have to listen
to any credible hard evidence of conspiracy, comment on it, but
refrain from taking a stronger course than just listening. As Dr.
Blakey told me more than once, "I'm just going to let the facts
speak for themselves." This is somewhat like the position the
Warren Commission took when Richard Russell, Hale Boggs and John
Sherman Cooper refused to sign the draft of the Warren Report until
a qualifying statement was inserted. The statement read, "Because
of the difficulty of proving negatives to a certainty the
possibility of others being involved with either Oswald or Ruby
cannot be established categorically but if there is any such
evidence it has been beyond the reach of all the investigative
agencies and resources of the United States and has not come to the
attention of this Commission."
The committee has, in its final report, taken a stronger
position than that by saying, in effect, that new evidence of
conspiracy has surfaced and that the Congress should turn the job
of pursuing that evidence and a continuing investigation over to
the executive branch. The recommendation is for the Justice
Department to determine whether further investigations are
warranted. Thus the Committee members would be off the hook and,
more importantly, still alive and safe. They can claim that the
funds they had and the time they had were not enough. Whose fault
was that? Certainly not the committee's, they can claim.
This scenario, if true, is really the only hope, though very
slim, any of us have left. All other avenues have been closed.</p>
<p>____________________</p>
<p>[1] "New York Daily News" -- Tuesday, December 12, 1979.</p>
<p>[2] See the letters in the Appendix for a copy of the nondisclosure
agreement itself as well as correspondence between the author
and Louis Stokes.</p>
<p>[3] See copies of this correspondence in the Appendix.</p>
<p>[4] Following the December 22 executive session a public hearing was
held on December 29, the last weekday of the Committee's
existence. Weiss and Barger presented the acoustical evidence
proving four shots, one from the knoll, thereby causing the
Committee to conclude there was a probable conspiracy.
But, the fact that the Couch and Weigman films prove the
acoustical analysis was incorrect because there is no motorcycle
where there was supposed to be one, was completely covered-up by
the Committee staff. Why? The answer obviously is that the
Committee wanted to close shop with a conspiracy conclusion but
one that wouldn't shake up the intelligence community and the PCG
too much. If the correct acoustical analysis had been presented,
with the motorcycle directly behind the presidential limousine,
the net result would have been the elimination of that 6th floor
window as the source of the shots. Eliminate that window and you
eliminate Oswald and open up a can of worms with a completely
different kind of conspiracy. One with a patsy and intelligence
ramifications, written all over it.
So Cornwell and Blakey, and perhaps the entire Committee decided
to prove by implication that the motorcycle was 120 feet behind
the JFK car at the time of the shot from the knoll. They showed
publicly frames from the Hughes film which shows the motorcycle
they fudged, somewhat more than 120 feet behind the limousine.
But the Hughes film ends with the cycle on Houston Street. The
cycle can be seen in the Hughes film trailing Couch's camera car.
Couch took film all the way down Houston and around the turn onto
Elm Street. The limo can be seen in all of this footage. The
cycle can not. The cycle finally catches up to Couch and passes
him after the limo is beyond the triple overpass. Couch is, at
all times including the time of the knoll shot, more than 200 feet
behind the limousine. Ergo, the cycle is more than 200 feet
behind at the critical point.
Cornwell presented the cop driving the Houston Street cycle and
attempted to elicit testimony from him that it was his microphone
that was open.</p>
<p>[5] Giancana actually died in 1975 before testifying to the Schweicker
JFK assassination subcommittee of the Church Committee.</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p>--
daveus rattus </p>
<p> yer friendly neighborhood ratman</p>
<p> KOYAANISQATSI</p>
<p> ko.yaa.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi Language) n. 1. crazy life. 2. life
in turmoil. 3. life out of balance. 4. life disintegrating.
5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
From dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com Thu Jun 18 09:38:16 1992
Received: by icaen.uiowa.edu ( 5.52 (84)/1.1) id AA10172
on Thu, 18 Jun 92 09:38:11 CDT.
Received: from pl122c.eecs.lehigh.edu by ns-mx.uiowa.edu (5.64.jnf/920408)
on Thu, 18 Jun 92 09:39:52 -0500 id AA04694 with SMTP
Received: from SGI.COM by PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU (5.61/1.34)
id AA04846; Thu, 18 Jun 92 10:25:52 -0400
Received: from [192.102.132.11] by sgi.sgi.com via SMTP (911016.SGI/910110.SGI)
for PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA23140; Thu, 18 Jun 92 07:28:19 -0700
Received: by ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (920110.SGI/920502.SGI.AUTO)
for @sgi.sgi.com:PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA10904; Thu, 18 Jun 92 07:28:15 -0700
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 92 07:28:15 -0700
From: dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
<info type="Message-ID"> 9206181428.AA10904@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com</info>
To: PML3@PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU
Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (10/11)
Status: RO</p>
<p>Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (10/11)
Summary: we were robbed of our capability of electing a president we wanted
Keywords: part 10 of 11: chapter 17
Lines: 769</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> 1985: The House Select Committee (2)</p>
<p> Chapter 17
THE FINAL COVER UP: How The CIA Controlled
The House Select Committee On Assassinations</p>
<p> Introduction</p>
<p> The final report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations
(HSCA), issued in 1979, concluded that a conspiracy existed in the
assassination of President Kennedy. This news should have
delighted hundreds of researchers who had disagreed with the no-
conspiracy finding of the Warren Commission. The fact that it did
not, is due to the HSCA conspiracy being a simple one, with Lee
Harvey Oswald still firing all but one of the shots from the sixth
floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The
existence of another shooter and another shot, from the grassy
knoll, was "proved" by the HSCA, based primarily on acoustical
evidence presented in the very last month of their public hearings.
Dr. Robert Blakey and Richard Billings, chief counsel and report
editor for the HSCA, co-authored, in 1981, a book, "The Plot to
Kill the President," following the publication of the HSCA's final
report. The book claimed that the other shooter and Oswald were
part of a Mafia plot to kill JFK.
To over simplify the current (1985) situation, most JFK
researchers feel that the American public had been deceived once
again. The HSCA reaffirmed all but one of the Warren Commission's
findings, including even the famed single bullet theory. The
simplified conspiracy finding is now subject to review by the
Justice Department and the FBI because it is based on very
questionable acoustical evidence. Justice commissioned the so-
called Ramsey Panel[1] to review this evidence, in 1981, under the
auspices of the National Academy of Sciences. It found no evidence
from the acoustics that a grassy knoll shot was fired. So, we are
back to no-conspiracy and Oswald being the lone assassin. And even
if there was a conspiracy, Blakey claims it involved the Mafia and
not the CIA. The HSCA report and all of its volumes of evidence
omitting any reference to CIA involvement, concluded that the CIA
was not involved, and did not reveal any evidence that the HSCA
staff had collected showing that CIA people murdered JFK, and that
the CIA has been covering up that fact ever since.
Any followers of CIA activities connected with the JFK
assassination, since 1963, must ask the question, how did they do
it? How did the CIA turn things completely around from the 1976
days when Henry Gonzalez, Thomas Downing, Richard A. Sprague,
Robert Tanenbaum, Cliff Fenton and others were pursuing the truth
about the assassination, to essentially the same status as when the
Warren Commission finished its work? How did they produce the
final cover-up? The answer is that the CIA controlled the HSCA and
its investigation and findings from the early part of 1977,
forward. The methods they used were as clever and devious as any
they had used previously to control the Warren Commission, the
Rockefeller Commission, the Garrison Investigation, the
Schweiker/Hart Committee[2] and the efforts of independent
researchers.</p>
<p> The Situation in 1976</p>
<p> In 1976, Henry Gonzalez, member of the House from Texas, and
Thomas Downing from Virginia, were both convinced there was a
massive conspiracy in the JFK assassination. They introduced a
joint bill in the House which resulted in the formation of the HSCA
and an investigation of the JFK and King assassinations. Gonzalez
believed there were at least four conspiracies in the
assassinations of JFK, MLK, Robert Kennedy and in the attempted
assassination of George Wallace. He introduced an original bill to
have the House investigate all four and the cover-ups and links
among them. Downing was primarily interested in the JFK case and
his original bill dealt only with that conspiracy. Mark Lane and
his committee members and supporters around the country joined
forces with Coretta King and the Black Caucus in the House to
pressure Congressmen and Tip O'Neill to investigate the King and
John Kennedy assassinations. The net result was a merging of the
Gonzalez and Downing bills into a Final HSCA bill dealing with only
two of the cases.
In the fall of 1976, with Downing as chairman, the HSCA selected
Richard A. Sprague, from the Philadelphia District Attorney's
office, to be chief counsel. Sprague hired four professional
investigators and criminal lawyers from New York City. They were
very good and completely independent of the CIA and FBI, having
been trained by one of the best professionals in the business, D.A.
Frank Hogan of New York.
Sprague and his JFK team, headed by Bob Tanenbaum, attorney, and
Cliff Fenton, chief detective, were going after the real assassins
and their bosses, whether this led them to the CIA or FBI or
anywhere else. Sprague had already made it clear to the HSCA that
he would investigate CIA involvement, and subpoena CIA people,
documents and other information, whether classified or not. He had
also had meetings with several researchers, including the author,
and made it known privately that he was going to use the talent and
knowledge of every reliable researcher on a consulting basis. He
had contacted Jim Garrison in New Orleans and informed him he would
be following up on all of his information and leads. He had
initiated an investigation of the CIA activities in Mexico City
connected with the JFK assassination, including information
supplied to Sprague by the author.[3]
R.A. Sprague and Tanenbaum were aware of the CIA connections of
the individuals involved in the JFK assassination in Dealey Plaza,
in Mexico City, in New Orleans and in the Florida Keys. They had,
in November 1976, exposed the entire HSCA staff to all of the
photographic evidence showing these people in Dealey Plaza and
elsewhere. They were aware of the assassination planning meetings
held by CIA people in Mexico City and knew who the higher level
conspirators were. They had initiated searches for the real
assassins; Frenchy, William Seymour, Emilio Santana, Jack
Lawrence, Fred Lee Crisman, Jim Braden, Jim Hicks, et al. They
were planning to interview CIA contract agents, Richard Case
Nagell, Harry Dean, Gordon Novel, Ronald Augustinovich, Mary Hope
and Guy Gabaldin. Cliff Fenton had been appointed head of a team
of investigators to follow up on the New Orleans part of the
conspiracy which had included CIA agents and people; Clay Shaw,
David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Manuel Garcia Gonzalez, Sergio Arcacha
Smith, Gordon Novel and others. They were going to contact people
who had attended assassination planning meetings in New Orleans.
From the photographic evidence surrounding the sixth floor
window, as well as the grassy knoll, Sprague, Tanenbaum and most of
the staff knew Oswald had not fired any shots, knew no shots came
from the sixth floor window, and knew there had been shots from the
Dal Tex Building and the knoll. They knew the single bullet theory
was not true, and knew there had been a well-planned crossfire in
Dealey Plaza. They were not planning to waste a lot of time
reviewing and rehashing the Dealey Plaza evidence, except as it
might lead to the real assassins.
They had set up an investigation in Florida and the Keys, of the
evidence and leads developed in 1967 by Garrison. Gaeton Fonzi was
in charge of that part of Sprague's team. They were going to check
out the people in the CIA that had been running and funding the No
Name Key group and other Anti-Castro groups. Seymour, Santana,
Manuel Garcia Gonzalez, Jerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Lawrence
Howard, Frenchy and Cubans Rolando Masferrer and Carlos Prio
Socarras were to be found and interrogated.
Tanenbaum and his research team had seen the photo collection of
Dick Billings from "Life Magazine" which was, by 1976, deposited in
the Georgetown University Library's JFK assassination collection.
The No Name Key people and others showing up in Garrison's
investigation appeared in these photos with high level CIA agents.
In 1977, Henry Gonzalez, who was far more supportive of a CIA
conspiracy idea than Tom Downing, was to become chairman of the
HSCA. Downing did not run for re-election in 1976 and was
retiring. At that point, December 1976, Gonzalez and Sprague were
of the same mind and getting along fine. Researchers were very
pleased with the way things were going and believed Sprague would
expose the CIA's involvement in the JFK cover up.</p>
<p> The CIA's problem</p>
<p> Given this background of the HSCA status in late 1976, it can
easily be seen that the CIA was up against much more serious
opposition than it ever had been before in the JFK murder and
cover-up. They had ruined Jim Garrison's reputation and curtailed
his investigation by various dirty trick means. They had been in
solid control of the Warren Commission by the simple expedient of
having four of the Commissioners belonging to them; Dulles, Ford,
McCloy and Russell. They were also able to kill enough people who
knew the truth, to slow down any truth-seeking that might have
taken place. They also hid documents, destroyed and altered
evidence, lied about other evidence, and bald facedly (Dulles)
admitted that they wouldn't tell the President or the Commission if
Lee Harvey Oswald had been a CIA agent (which he had been). In the
Rockefeller Commission situation they were in complete control of
that attempt to reinforce the Warren Commission's findings. And in
the Church Committee investigation, the Schweiker/Hart subcommittee
on the JFK case was very limited and controlled in what they could
do.
But in the new situation, in Richard A. Sprague and his
professionals with so much knowledge of the CIA's role in the
murder and the cover-up, they faced a crisis. They knew they had
to do several things to turn it around and to continue to keep the
American public from realizing what was happening. Here is what
they had to do:</p>
<p> 1. Get rid of Richard A. Sprague.</p>
<p> 2. Get rid of Henry Gonzalez.</p>
<p> 3. Get rid of Sprague's key men or keep them away from CIA
evidence or keep them quiet.</p>
<p> 4. Install their own chief counsel to control the
investigation.</p>
<p> 5. Elect a new HSCA chairman who would go along, or who
could be fooled.</p>
<p> 6. Cut off all Sprague's investigations of CIA people.
Make sure none of the people were found or bury any
testimony that had already been found, or murder CIA
people who might talk.</p>
<p> 7. Keep the committee members from knowing what was
happening and segregate the investigation from them.</p>
<p> 8. Create a new investigative environment whose purpose
would be to confirm all of the findings of the Warren
Commission and divert attention away from the who-did-
it-and-why approach.</p>
<p> 9. Control the committee staff in such a way as to keep
any of them from revealing what they already knew about
CIA involvement.</p>
<p> 10. Control committee consultants in the same way, and
staff members who might leave or who might be fired.</p>
<p> 11. Continue to control the media in such a way as to
reinforce all of the above.</p>
<p> 12. Continue to murder witnesses or assassins in emergency
situations if necessary.</p>
<p> The CIA successfully did all twelve of these things. The
techniques they used were much more subtle and devious than those
they had used before, although they did continue with murders of
potential HSCA witnesses and with media control.</p>
<p> How The CIA Did It</p>
<p> The first step taken by the CIA was to use the media they
control, along with some members of Congress they control, and two
planted agents on the staff of and consulting for, Henry Gonzalez,
to get rid of both Henry and Richard A. Sprague. In taking this
step, they used the old Roman approach of divide and conquer. They
made Gonzalez and his closest staff assistant, Gail Beagle, believe
that Sprague was a CIA agent and that Gonzalez must get rid of him.
They also made Gonzalez believe that some of his other associates,
both in the HSCA and outside, were CIA agents. At the same time,
they used the media to attack Sprague mercilessly. The key people
in doing this attack on Sprague were three CIA reporters, George
Lardner of the "Washington Post," Mr. Burnham of "The New York
Times," and Jeremiah O'Leary of the "Washington Star." In all HSCA
committee meetings and in Rules Committee and Finance Committee
meetings, these three reporters sat next to each other, passed
notes back and forth, and wrote articles continually attacking and
undermining both Sprague and Gonzalez, as well as the entire
committee. The CIA had the support of top management in all three
news organizations in doing this.
Gonzalez eventually tried to fire Sprague, was over-ruled by the
committee, and then resigned from the committee. Sprague
eventually resigned, because it became obvious that the CIA
controlled members of the Finance and Rules Committees and other
CIA allies in the House, were going to kill the committee unless he
resigned. There are many more details to this story, which
requires a book to describe. Suffice it to say, the CIA
accomplished their first two goals by March 1977. The next steps
were to install a CIA-controlled chief counsel and to get a
chairman elected who could be fooled or coerced into appointing
such a counsel. Lewis Stokes was a perfect choice for chairman.
He was, and probably still is, a good and honest man. But he was
completely bamboozled by what the CIA did and is still doing. The
selection and implementation of a CIA man as chief counsel had to
be done in an extremely subtle manner. It could not be obvious to
anyone that he was a CIA man. Stokes and the other committee
members had to be fooled into believing *they* had made the choice,
and had picked a good man. Professor Robert Blakey, an apparently
scientifically oriented, academic person, with a history of work
against organized crime, was the perfect CIA choice. Once Dr.
Blakey took over as chief counsel, he accomplished goals numbered
3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 very nicely. The fourth and fifth goals
having been achieved, Blakey set about the other parts of his
assignment very rapidly after he arrived. For Goal 3, he fired Bob
Tanenbaum, Bob Lehner, and Donovan Gay, three loyal Sprague
supporters, quickly.</p>
<p> The Nondisclosure Agreement</p>
<p> The most important weapon used by the CIA and Blakey to pursue
goals 9 and 10 was instituted within one week after Blakely
arrived. It is by far the most subtle and far reaching technique
used by the CIA to date. It is called the "Nondisclosure
Agreement" and it was signed by all members of the committee, all
staff members including Blakey, all consultants to the committee,
and several independent researchers who met with Blakey in 1977.
Signing the agreement was a condition for continued employment on
the committee staff or for continuing consulting on a contract
basis. The choice was, sign or get out. The author signed the
agreement in July 1977, without realizing its implications at the
time, in order to continue as a consultant. The agreement is
reproduced in full in the Appendix and is labelled "Exhibit A."
The author's consulting help was never sought after that and the
obvious objective was to silence a consultant and not use his
services.
This CIA weapon has several parts. First, it binds the signer,
if a consultant, to never reveal that he is working for the
committee (see paragraph 13). Second, it prevents the signer from
ever revealing to anyone in perpetuity, any information he has
learned about the committee's work as a result of working for the
committee (see paragraphs 2 and 12). Third, it gives the committee
and the House, after the committee terminates, the power to take
legal action against the signer, *in a court named by the
committee* or the House, in case the committee believes the signer
has violated the agreement. Fourth, the signer agrees to pay the
court costs for such a suit in the event he loses the suit (see
paragraphs 14 and 15).
These four parts are enough to scare most researchers or staff
members who signed it into silence forever about what they learned.
The agreement is insidious in that the signer is, in effect, giving
away his constitutional rights. Some lawyers who have seen the
agreement, including Richard A. Sprague, have expressed the opinion
it is an illegal agreement in violation of the Constitution and
several Constitutional amendments. Whether it is illegal or not,
most staff members and all consultants who signed it *have*
remained silent, even after three and a half years beyond the life
of the committee. There are only two exceptions, the author and
Gaeton Fonzi, who published a lengthy article about the HSCA
cover-up in the "Washingtonian" magazine in 1981.
The most insidious parts of the agreement, however, are
paragraphs 2, 3 and 7, which give the CIA very effective control
over what the committee could and could not do with so-called
"classified" information. The director of the CIA is given
authority to determine, in effect, what information shall remain
classified and therefore unavailable to nearly everyone. The
signer of the agreement, and remember, this includes all of the
Congressman and women who were members of the committee, agrees not
to reveal or discuss any information that the CIA decides he should
not. The chairman of the committee supposedly has the final say on
what information is included, but in practice, even an intelligent
and gutsy chairman would not be likely to override the CIA. Lewis
Stokes did not attempt any final decisions. In fact, the CIA did
not have to do very much under these clauses. The fact that Blakey
was their man and kept nearly all of the CIA sensitive information,
evidence, and witnesses away from the committee members was all
that was necessary. Stokes never knew what he should have argued
about with the CIA director. It is this document which proves
beyond doubt that the CIA controlled the HSCA.
The author attempted to point out to Stokes in a letter dated
February 10, 1978, "Exhibit B," the type of control the agreement
gives the CIA over the HSCA. Stokes replied in a March 16, 1978
letter, "Exhibit C," that he retained ultimate authority and was
not bound by the opinion of the Central Intelligence Director. He
also claimed that paragraphs 12 and 14, on extending the agreement
in perpetuity and giving the government the right to file a civil
suit in which the signer will pay all costs, were legal. He said
in the letter that the purpose of the agreement was to give the
HSCA control over the conduct of the investigation including
*control over the ultimate disclosure of information to the
American public*. That is a key admission about what has actually
happened. The only question is, who is controlling the information
in the heads of the staff investigators who discovered CIA
involvement? Was Louis Stokes working for the public or for the
CIA?</p>
<p> Examples of CIA-Control</p>
<p> Some specific examples will serve to illustrate how well the CIA
techniques have worked and are still working.</p>
<p> Garrison Evidence and Witnesses Example</p>
<p> As mentioned earlier, when Blakey arrived, an investigating team
headed by Cliff Fenton, reporting to Bob Tanenbaum, had already
been hard at work tracking down leads to the CIA conspirators
generated by Jim Garrison's investigation in New Orleans. This
team eventually had four investigators, all professionals, and
their work led them to believe that the CIA people in New Orleans
had been involved in a large conspiracy to assassinate JFK. As
Garrison told Ted Gandolfo, a New York City researcher, the Fenton
team went much further than Garrison, in locating witnesses and
other evidence of assassination planning meetings held in New
Orleans, Mexico City and Dallas. In fact, they found a CIA man who
attended those meetings, and who was willing to testify before the
committee. The evidence was far more convincing than the testimony
presented at the trial of Clay Shaw. In the Shaw Trial, CIA people
were involved in meetings in addition to the one brought out in the
trial. Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, William Seymour and others were
involved. Fenton's team discovered a lot of other facts about how
the CIA people planned and carried out the assassination. Their
report about the conspiracy was solid and convincing and they were
convinced. The CIA, through Robert Blakey, buried the Fenton
report. Committee members were not told about the team's findings.
The evidence was not included in the HSCA report, nor was it even
referred to in the volumes. The witnesses in New Orleans were
never called to testify. That included the CIA man at the
meetings. Fenton and the other three members of his team, having
signed the nondisclosure agreement, were legally sworn to secrecy,
or at least they thought so. To this day they refuse to discuss
anything with anybody.
There may also have been threats of physical violence against
them. There is no way to determine this. However, Fenton and the
others are well aware of the witnesses that the CIA murdered just
before they were about to testify before the HSCA. These included:
William Sullivan, the FBI deputy under J. Edgar Hoover, who headed
Division V, the domestic intelligence division; George de
Mohrenschildt, Oswald's CIA contact in Dallas; John Roselli, the
Mafia man involved in the CIA plots to assassinate Castro; Regis
Kennedy, the FBI agent who knew a lot about Clay Shaw, alias Clay
Bertrand, in New Orleans and who was one of Lee Harvey Oswald's FBI
contacts; Rolando Masferrer, an anti-Castro Cuban murdered in
Miami; and Carlos Prio Socarras, former Cuban premier, killed in
his garage in Miami.
With the knowledge of these murders, Fenton and his team would
not have required any more than a gentle hint, to keep quiet.</p>
<p> Frenchy Example</p>
<p> The "tramp," Frenchy, who appears in seven photos taken in
Dealey Plaza, is one of the most important CIA individuals in the
JFK assassination. Researcher Bill Turner discovered that Frenchy
had been in the Florida Keys working with CIA sponsored anti-Castro
groups. Richard A. Sprague and Bob Tanenbaum knew about his role,
and intended to go after him when the HSCA restored its subpoena
power and obtained enough money. They were aware of the evidence
that Frenchy fired the fatal shot from the grassy knoll. They had
assigned a team of investigators to follow a lead to Frenchy
provided by the author in the early part of 1977.
Unfortunately, the CIA managed to keep both the subpoena power
and the funds away from the committee until after they had forced
the resignations of Gonzalez, Sprague and Tanenbaum. The power and
funds were restored after Stokes was elected and after they
installed their own man, Blakey. The investigative team remained,
however, and they did search for and find Frenchy. But Blakey and
the CIA suppressed that fact, and suppressed anything they may have
learned from Frenchy. He is not mentioned in the report and was
not called as a witness. The author dares not reveal the source of
the above information because of the danger to staff people from
the nondisclosure agreement.</p>
<p> Nagell, Dean, Novel, and Augustinovich</p>
<p> The Garrison investigation and a subsequent series of
investigations by the author and other members of the Committee to
Investigate Assassinations in 1967 to 1973, turned up several
witnesses who were willing to talk privately about the CIA
assassination team that murdered JFK. Harry Dean and Richard Case
Nagell had been Lee Harvey Oswald's CIA contacts while he was in
Mexico City and knew about assassination planning meetings held in
Guy Gabaldin's apartment. Dean knew about William Seymour, CIA
contract agent, attending those meetings and how Seymour had been
pretending to be Oswald on many occasions. Gordon Novel knew how
the CIA had covered up the truth about the assassination and how
they went to extreme lengths to ruin Jim Garrison and his
investigation. Novel had been employed by the CIA in this effort.
Ronald Augustinovich and his friend, Mary Hope, had attended some
of the Mexico City meetings.
Richard Russell and the author tracked down all four of these
witnesses prior to the arrival of Robert Blakey at the HSCA.
Russell interviewed them and knew they would be willing to talk,
given protection and some form of immunity. The author presented
their names and their involvement to Richard A. Sprague, Henry
Gonzalez, Lewis Stokes and Robert Tanenbaum in the fall of 1976.
This was done as part of the author's consulting assignment for the
HSCA. The names were in a memorandum to Sprague, which outlined
the overall JFK conspiracy and the CIA's role, along with a
recommendation of the sequence in which witnesses should be called.
The idea was to base each witness interrogation on what had been
established from interviewing prior witnesses, working slowly from
cooperative witnesses, to non-cooperative witnesses, to actual
assassins, to higher level CIA people.[4] The highest level
people, E. Howard Hunt and Richard Helms, would be faced with
accusers.
As indicated earlier, Sprague and Tanenbaum could do nothing and
did nothing up to the day they left. By early 1978 it became
obvious that Blakey had done nothing about calling these CIA
witnesses. The author initiated a series of letter exchanges with
Blakey and Stokes, reminding them of these witnesses, and the
possibility that their lives could be in danger prior to their
being interviewed by HSCA. Dick Russell had obtained an agreement
from Nagell to meet with the committee, but no contact had been
made up to April 5, 1978, the date of the author's first letter to
Stokes on this subject, "Exhibit D." Nagell was hiding in fear of
his children's lives, not so much his own life. He was a real CIA
agent and knew how they operated. Russell was the only person who
knew where Nagell was. In the April 5th letter, a recommendation
was given to Stokes that the committee contact Nagell through
Russell, and contact the other witnesses on the original list.
Stokes wrote on May 15, 1978, "Exhibit E," that the Nagell matter had
been referred to Blakey for follow-up. Blakey never mentioned it
by telephone or by letter.
By September 1978, when the public hearings had begun, there was
no indication that Blakey was going to call the CIA witnesses.
Nagell was standing by but had not been contacted. The published,
intended witness list did not contain any of these CIA names. The
author wrote to Stokes and Representative Yvonne Burke on September
22 and 23, 1978, "Exhibits F," expressing dissatisfaction with
the committee's failure to call the CIA witnesses, and suggesting
that if they did not not, history would eventually catch up with
them. The names were repeated in the letter to Burke, and specific
mention made that the committee had never contacted Richard Case
Nagell. Louis Stokes sent back a letter dated October 10, 1978,
"Exhibit G." It is what one might call a non-answer, stating "that
the committee will make every effort to tell the whole story to the
American people." Seven years later (1985) it can be said that the
committee did not make an effort to call the most important
witnesses and therefore did not tell the whole story. Nor did
their report even mention these witnesses or any of the evidence
exposed earlier by the CTIA or Jim Garrison. Louis Stokes was
either totally fooled or he is part of the CIA's cover-up.
The author responded to Stokes' non-answer letter of October
10th with two more letters, dated October 30, 1978 and November 24,
1978, "Exhibits H &amp; I." Stokes finally answered them on December
4, 1978 with another non-answer letter, "Exhibit J." He says the
committee cannot reveal the procedure of the investigation or the
names of those persons who will be called to testify before the
committee. This implies they were planning to call more witnesses
in December 1978. The committee's life ended on January 1, 1979.
The CIA witnesses were never called nor ever mentioned right up to
the very end and the report was silent about them.</p>
<p> The Umbrella Man</p>
<p> One last example illustrates the way the CIA and Blakey worked
together to cancel-out any evidence linking the CIA people and/or
techniques used in the JFK assassination. For may years, various
researchers, including Josiah Thompson[5] and the author, had
speculated about the role of a man appearing in the photographs in
Dealey Plaza with an open umbrella. He became known as "The
Umbrella Man," or TUM for short. Thompson speculated that TUM had
been giving the various shooters in Dealey Plaza visual signals
with the umbrella, and the author agreed this could have been true.
In *1976*, the Church committee took the public testimony of
Charles Senseney, a CIA contract weapons employee at the Army
Chemical Center in Ft. Detrick, MD. Senseney described a system
used by the CIA in Vietnam and elsewhere, for killing or paralyzing
people with poisons carried in self-propelled Flechette darts. The
darts were self-propelled like solid fuel rockets and launched
silently and unobtrusively from a number of devices, including an
umbrella. A CIA catalog of available secret weapons shows a
photograph of the umbrella launching device and photos of the
Flechettes which were self-propelled from one of the hollow spokes
of the umbrella. They could even be launched through soda straws.
Researcher Robert Cutler, former Air Force Liason officer, L.
Fletcher Prouty, and the author did some additional research on the
photographic evidence and the weapon system, especially research on
the movements of JFK in the Zapruder film and various photos of TUM
and a friend he had with him in Dealey Plaza. The friend had a
two-way radio device. As a result of this research, an article was
published in "Gallery" magazine in June, 1978. The article
presented the hypothesis that TUM launched, from his umbrella, a
poison Flechette at JFK, which struck him in the throat at Zapruder
frame 189, causing complete paralysis of his upper body, hands,
arms, shoulders and head, in less than two seconds. The photos
show this paralysis and the timing matches the testimony given by
Senseney about how fast the CIA poison works and what its
paralyzing effects look like.
Whether one agrees with this hypothesis or not is incidental to
what Blakey and the HSCA did in reaction to it. Until the summer
of 1977, official investigators for the HSCA, or any of its
predecessors, had shown no more than passing curious interest in
TUM. They just paid no attention and did not take the researcher's
ideas seriously. On August 8, 1977, the author informed Robert
Blakey, in a letter of that date, about the TUM hypothesis. The
letter concerned a discussion the author and Blakey had on July 21,
1977, two days after the nondisclosure agreement had been signed.
Blakey had said that if there was a conspiracy it would not have
involved a very large number of people. He was probably already
laying the foundation for a small, Mafia type, conspiracy involving
Oswald and a Mafia friend, backed by a few Mafia Dons.
The August 8th letter maintained that the CIA had been involved
and that it had been a massive intelligence operation, rather than
a conspiracy in the sense Blakey was using the term. The CIA
Flechette, umbrella launching weapons system, if indeed it had been
used by TUM, the letter pointed out, would be solid proof of high
level CIA involvement, since that system would not have been
available to lower level agents or contract people.
Blakey did not respond right away to this letter and the author
decided to make the TUM hypothesis public by publishing it with
Cutler as co-author, in the spring of 1978, in "Gallery" magazine.
Contact was also made with Senator Richard Schweiker who had been
the member of the Church Committee responsible for interrogating
Charles Senseney. Schweiker agreed to try and find out from
Senseney what had happened to the umbrella launchers he had
constructed for the CIA; that is, who in the CIA had had access to
a launcher.
The information to be published in "Gallery" had been generated
by Bob Cutler and the author independently of any information
obtained from the HSCA, but the safest approach seemed to be an
application to them for permission to print the article under the
terms of the nondisclosure agreement. So, on January 9, 1978, the
author submitted a draft of the "Gallery" article to Blakey and, on
January 16, 1978, he wrote back stating that publishing the article
would not violate the terms of the nondisclosure agreement, "Exhibit
K." The article was published in the June 1978 issue of "Gallery"
which actually appeared in May 1978. Blakey knew in advance when
it would appear.
On August 3, 1978, the author wrote to Blakey stating that
photographic evidence showed a high probability that TUM was
actually Gordon Novel, the CIA contract agent from New Orleans, who
had been hired to ruin the Garrison investigation, "Exhibit L."
The reason that some new photo evidence was just then coming to
light was that the committee had discovered a never-before seen
film of TUM and had released a frame from this film to the press in
July 1978. Shortly after the TUM photo was released by the HSCA,
with an appeal to him to come forward, an unknown caller contacted
Penn Jones in Texas to tell him he knew who TUM was. Penn visited
Louis Witt, having been given his address, and upon seeing him,
jumped to the conclusion that he *was* TUM. This led to Mr. Witt
appearing before the committee in their televised hearings and
making the claim he was TUM. He showed the umbrella on TV that he
claimed he used.
It was immediately obvious to Bob Cutler and the author that
Witt was not TUM. He displayed the umbrella he said he had used in
Dealey Plaza and *it contained the wrong number of spokes*. His
height, weight and facial appearance did not match TUM's, and his
description of his actions did not match at all the actions TUM
took, as shown in the photos. On November 24, 1978, the author
wrote to Stokes telling him he had been fooled by a CIA plant, or
by his own staff, planting Mr. Witt, and that he should call Gordon
Novel as a witness because it was likely that Novel was TUM. HSCA
never did call Novel as a witness. Novel had visited the HSCA
during the days Richard A. Sprague was still there, but he had not
mentioned being in Dealey Plaza or that the CIA had hired him to
ruin Garrison. Blakey and Stokes avoided contacting Novel.
Now, the important thing to focus on, in this example, is the
sequence of events. The HSCA had done nothing about TUM until they
were faced with the possibility of a public article linking TUM to
the CIA through a CIA weapons system and through Gordon Novel.
They also found out that Senator Schweiker was looking into the CIA
end of it. At about the time the "Gallery" article was being
widely read, the HSCA suddenly released to the press a photo of TUM
and asked that people identify him or that he come forward. The
photo did not show his umbrella or where he was sitting in Dealey
Plaza, nor did the release mention the umbrella or the theories
about it. Just his photo. An earlier photo used by Cutler and the
author to identify Novel as TUM was not released.
In a surprisingly short time after the photo appeared, an
unknown person calls a well-known researcher and leads him to Louis
Witt. Witt in turn lies about who he was and where he was, by
claiming to be TUM. Blakey and the committee put Witt on center
stage as though it was a play, and eliminate the TUM problem by
pulling off a charade. The fine hand of the CIA can be seen in
this whole series of linked events. Blakey had to have known what
was going on, and he knows today that Witt was not TUM and the high
probability that TUM was Gordon Novel, CIA agent.
The extreme lengths that the CIA and Blakey went to in this
charade, made one believe that the umbrella probably *was* the
Charles Senseney weapon. Otherwise, why bother with TUM?</p>
<p> Goal Number Eight</p>
<p> What has been presented so far in this article represents direct
actions by the CIA to cover-up CIA involvement. Blakey played
another important role and that was to achieve the eighth goal on
the list, namely to change the public impression of HSCA's main
effort. Researchers who concentrated on attacking the Warren
Commission's Dealey Plaza or Tippit shooting findings had created
a big problem. If Oswald had fired no shots, then he must have
been framed. If Oswald was framed, the evidence against him was
planted, and multiple gunmen were involved. All of this line of
reasoning would point to a very well-organized and very well-
planned conspiracy, which would in turn point to an intelligence
style involvement.
So, Blakey set out from the beginning to create an investigative
environment and image that appeared to be based on a *highly
scientific, objective study of the Dealey Plaza evidence*. The
overall objective of this approach was to prove "scientifically"
that the Warren Commission was right, and that Lee Harvey Oswald
fired all the shots that had struck John Kennedy, Governor Connally
and policeman Tippit. That required scientific proof of the
single bullet theory, among other things. Blakey did just that.
Right up to the moment when the acoustical evidence on the Dallas
police tape reared its ugly head, only one month from the end of
the life of the committee, Blakey managed to control and manipulate
the Dealey Plaza evidence to back up the Warren Commission
completely. The author described how Blakey did this in chapter
16. One of his "magical" methods was to split up the scientific
work into subcommittees or panels of advisors, and various staff
groups, and keep them all from communicating with each other.
*Thus, even though the medical panel gave testimony showing an
upward trajectory of the single bullet (399) shot*, the trajectory
panel turned it into a downward trajectory. The photographic panel
was so isolated they never did see the most important evidence of
the sixth floor window, inside and outside.
The photo panel had a number of government and military people
on it, as did all of the other panels. Thus it was not surprising
that they testified that the fake photos of Oswald holding a rifle
were not fakes. Blakey rode roughshod over the evidence that these
photos were fakes, presenting only one witness, Jack White, to show
why they were fakes, and giving him a very rough time. Other
researchers, like Fred Newcomb and the author, who had done a lot
of work on the fake photos, were not called and not consulted by
the photo panel or Blakey and his staff. There are many more
examples of how Blakey managed this magic show on public TV, too
numerous to describe here.
One important result of this drastic change of investigative
environment compared to that existing under Richard A. Sprague, was
to draw the attention of the public during the hearings away from
the evidence and the witnesses pointing to the real assassins, and
to the fact that Oswald was framed and did not fire any shots. It
thus provided an additional shield for the CIA and in effect,
completed the cover-up.</p>
<p> Summary</p>
<p> Now, in the spring of 1985, the CIA appears to have under
control the final cover-up engineered by Robert Blakey with the
support of a few murders of key witnesses and the existence of the
insidious, illegal, nondisclosure agreement silencing the HSCA
staff, committee members, and consultants. The situation for the
American public appears to be hopeless. The CIA effectively
controlled all three branches of government when the chips were
down, and have had no problems controlling the fourth estate, the
media, or the independent researchers. By what means could the
American public combat this awesome power? It is hard to see that
there is any means available. And we have now reached and passed
1984. Would an election of Edward Kennedy to the presidency in
1988 change anything? If he lived through a presidency following
an election campaign, it probably would. Most Americans react to
that by saying, "he would be assassinated." Somehow they have
received the messages about what has gone wrong with the United
States.</p>
<p>____________________</p>
<p>[1] Chaired by Prof. Norman Ramsey of M.I.T.</p>
<p>[2] Senators Richard Schweiker of Penn. and Gary Hart of Colo. formed
a sub-committee of the Church Committee.</p>
<p>[3] The author became an advisor to Richard A. Sprague as soon as he
was appointed counsel to the HSCA.</p>
<p>[4] The names of the witnesses in the memo were:
Cooperative Witnesses:
Louis Ivon (Jim Garrison's chief investigator), Richard Case
Nagell, Harry Dean, James Hosty, Carver Gaten, Warren du Bruys,
Regis Kennedy, Victor Marchetti, Gordon Novel, Manuel Garcia
Gonzalez, Harry Williams, Jim Garrison, George de
Mohrenschildt, Charles Senseney, Mary Hope and Jim Hicks.</p>
<p> Non-Cooperative Witnesses or Assassins or Planners:
Ronald Augustinovich, Guy Gabaldin, Frenchy, William Seymour,
Emilio Santana, Jack Lawrence, Jim Braden, Sergio Arcacha
Smith, Fred Lee Crisman, William Sullivan, Carlos Prio
Socarras, Rolando Masferrer, Major L.M. Bloomfield, E. Howard
Hunt, and Richard Helms.</p>
<p>[5] In his book, "Six Seconds in Dallas," Thompson showed photos of
TUM.</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p>--</p>
<p> I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes
me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . Corporations have been
enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the
money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working
upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few
hands and the Republic is destroyed.</p>
<p> --- Abraham Lincoln (quoted in Jack London's "The Iron Heel").</p>
<p>From dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com Fri Jun 19 09:59:20 1992
Received: by icaen.uiowa.edu ( 5.52 (84)/1.1) id AA12962
on Fri, 19 Jun 92 09:59:15 CDT.
Received: from pl122c.eecs.lehigh.edu by ns-mx.uiowa.edu (5.64.jnf/920408)
on Fri, 19 Jun 92 10:00:55 -0500 id AA28160 with SMTP
Received: from SGI.COM by PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU (5.61/1.34)
id AA10490; Fri, 19 Jun 92 10:44:51 -0400
Received: from [192.102.132.11] by sgi.sgi.com via SMTP (911016.SGI/910110.SGI)
for PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA21909; Fri, 19 Jun 92 07:47:33 -0700
Received: by ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (920110.SGI/920502.SGI.AUTO)
for @sgi.sgi.com:PML3@PL122C.EECS.LEHIGH.EDU id AA14482; Fri, 19 Jun 92 07:47:30 -0700
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 92 07:47:30 -0700
From: dave@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
<info type="Message-ID"> 9206191447.AA14482@ratmandu.esd.sgi.com</info>
To: PML3@PL122c.EECS.Lehigh.EDU
Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (11/11)
Status: RO</p>
<p>Subject: "The Taking of America, 1-2-3" (11/11)
Summary: we were robbed of our capability of electing a president we wanted
Keywords: part 11 of 11: Appendix
Lines: 1151</p>
<p> * * * * * * *</p>
<p> Appendix</p>
<p> The Secrecy Oath the Author signed after Robert Blakey took over
the HSCA, and correspondence between the author and various
committee members.</p>
<p> Exhibit A
____________________________________________________________</p>
<p> Select Committee on Assassinations Nondisclosure Agreement
[Richard E. Sprague]
I, ____________________, in consideration for being
employed by or engaged by contract or otherwise to perform
services for or at the request of the House Select Committee
on Assassinations, or any Member thereof, da hereby make the
representations and accept the obligations set forth below as
conditions precedent for my employment or engagement, or for
my continuing employment or engagement, with the Select Com-
mittee, the United States House of Representatives, or the
United States Congress.
1. I have read the Rules of the Select Committee, and I
hereby agree to be bound by them and by the Rules of the House
of Representatives.
2. I hereby agree never to divulge, publish or reveal by
words, conduct or otherwise, any testimony given before the
Select Committee in executive session (including the name of any
witness who appeared or was summoned to appear before the Select
Committee in executive session), any classifiable and properly
classified information (as defined in 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b)(1)),
or any information pertaining to intelligence sources or methods
as designated by the Director of Central Intelligence, or any con-
fidential information that is received by the Select Committee
or that comes into my possession by virtue of my position with
the Select Committee, to any person not a member of the Select
Committee or its staff or the personal staff representative of
a Committee Member unless authorized in writing by the Select
Committee, or, after the Select Committee's termination, by
such manner as the House of Representatives may determine or,
in the absence of a determination by the House, in such manner
as the Agency or Department from which the information origin-
ated may determine. I further agree not to divulge, publish
or reveal by words, conduct or otherwise, any other information
which is received by the Select Committee or which comes into
my possession by virtue of my position with the Select Committee,
for the duration of the Select Committee's existence.
3. I hereby agree that any material that is based upon or
may include information that I hereby pledge not to disclose,
and that is contemplated for publication by me will, prior to
discussing it with or showing it to any publishers, editors or
literary agents, be submitted to the Select Committee to deter-
mine whether said material contains any information that I
hereby pledge not to disclose. The Chairman of the Select Com-
mittee shall consult with the Director of Central Intelligence
for the purpose of the Chairman's determination as to whether
or not the material contains information that I pledge not to
disclose. I further agree to take no steps toward publication
until authorized in writing by the Select Committee, or after
its termination, by such manner as the House of Representatives
may determine, or in the absence of a determination by the
House, in such manner as the Agency or Department from which
the information originated may determine.
4. I hereby agree to familiarize myself with the Select
Committee's security procedures, and provide at all times the
required degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure
for all information and materials that come into my possession
by virtue of my position with the Select Committee.
5. I hereby agree to immediately notify the Select Com-
mittee of any attempt by any person not a member of the Select
Committee staff to solicit information from me that I pledge
not to disclose.
6. I hereby agree to immediately notify the Select
Committee if I am called upon to testify or provide information
to the proper authorities that I pledge not to disclose. I
will request that my obligation to respond is established by
the Select Committee, or after its termination, by such manner
as the House of Representatives may determine, before I do so.
7. I hereby agree to surrender to the Select Committee
upon demand by the Chairman or upon my separation from the
Select Committee staff, any material, including any classified
information or information pertaining to intelligence sources
or methods as designated by the Director of Central Intelligence,
which comes into my possession by virtue of my position with the
Select Committee. I hereby acknowledge that all documents
acquired by me in the course of my employment are and remain the
property of the United States.
8. I understand that any violation of the Select Committee
Rules, security procedures or this agreement shall constitute
grounds for dismissal from my current employment.
9. I hereby assign to the United States Government all
rights, title and interest in any and all royalties, remunera-
tions and emoluments that have resulted or may result from any
divulgence, publication or revelation in violation of this
agreement.
10. I understand and agree that the United States Government
may choose to apply, prior to any unauthorized disclosure by
me, for a court order prohibiting disclosure. Nothing in this
agreement constitutes a waiver on the part of the United States
of the right to prosecute for any statutory violation. Nothing
in this agreement constitutes a waiver on my part of any defenses
I may otherwise have in any civil or criminal proceedings.
11. I have read the provisions of the Espionage Laws,
Sections 793, 794 and 798, Title 18, United States Code, and
of Section 783, Title 50, United States Code, and I am aware
that unauthorized disclosure of certain classified information
may subject me to prosecution. I have read Section 1001, Title
18, United States Code, and I am aware that the making of a
false statement herein is punishable as a felony. I have also
read Executive Order 11652, and the implementing National
Security Council directive of May 17, 1972, relating to the
protection of classified information.
12. Unless released in writing from this agreement or any
portion thereof by the Select Committee, I recognize that all
the conditions and obligations imposed on me by this agreement
apply during my Committee employment or engagement and continue
to apply after the relationship is terminated.
13. No consultant shall indicate, divulge or acknowledge,
without written permission of the Select Committee, the fact
that the Select Committee has engaged him or her by contract
as a consultant until after the Select Committee has terminated.
14. In addition to any rights for criminal prosecution or
for injunctive relief the United States Government may have for
violation of this agreement, the United States Government may
file a civil suit in an appropriate court for damages as a
consequence of a breach of this agreement. The costs of any
civil suit brought by the United States for breach of this
agreement, including court costs, investigative expenses, and
reasonable attorney fees, shall be borne by any defendant who
loses such suit. In any civil suit for damages successfully
brought by the United States Government for breach of this
agreement, actual damages may be recovered, or, in the event
that such actual damages may be impossible to calculate, liquidated
damages in an amount of $5,000 shall be awarded as a reasonable
estimate for damages to the credibility and effectiveness of the
investigation.
15. I hereby agree that in any suit by the United States
Government for injunctive or monetary relief pursuant to the
terms of this agreement, personal jurisdiction shall obtain and
venue shall lie in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, or in any other appropriate United States
District Court in which the United States may elect to bring
suit. I further agree that the law of the District of Columbia
shall govern the interpretation and construction of this
agreement.
16. Each provision of this agreement is severable. If a
court should find any part of this agreement to be unenforceable,
all other provisions of this agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.
I make this agreement without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion, and I agree that it may be used by the
Select Committee in carrying out its duty to protect the security
of information provided to it.
[July 19, 1977] [Richard E., Sprague]
Date: _____________________ _________________________________
[ I am submitting a list of
material and information
which has already been _________________________________
given to the committee, LOUIS STOKES, Chariman
or which I intend to Select Committee on Assassinations
give to the committee in
the near future. I intend
to publish some of this
information.]</p>
<p> Exhibit B
____________________________________________________________</p>
<p> 193 Pinewood Road
Hartsdale, NY 10530</p>
<p> February 10, 1978</p>
<p> Mr. Louis Stokes
Chairman, Select Committee on Assassinations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Louis:
As I am sure you know, I signed a non disclosure agreement for the
Select Committee, given to me on July 19, 1977 by Robert Blakey. Not
being a lawyer, I did not really appreciate some of the provisions of
that agreemont at the time I signed it, even though some things in it
seemed strange to me.
In the last fow months I have gone over the agreement several times,
with particular attention to those strange portions. The more I re-
read the agreement, the more puzzled I have become.
I was finally triggered into writing you this letter by a conversation
I had with Richard A. Sprague. As you may recall I helped him and Bob
Tanenbaum from November 1976 forward with the photographic evidence in
the JFK case, and several other areas derived from my relationship with
Jim Garrison and the Committee to Investigate Assassinations. I had no
written agreement with the Committee at that time and did not ask for
compensation for the work I had been doing. I had signed no non dis-
closure agreement and such an agreement had never been mentioned.
The first time I had any idea that the Committee would want to pay me
for my assistance was some time after Dick Sprague resigned, when Mr.
Blakey approached me about it through Bob Tanenbaum, shortly before
Bob resigned. My recent meeting with Dick Sprague naturally led to
discussion about my continuing work for the Committee. He raised the
subject of the non disclosure agreement signed by each staff member,
saying that he would never have enforced such a document while he was
chief counsel because he believes it gives the CIA and other agencies
too much power to control the activities of the Committee. It was
because of that statement that I read the agreement again in the
light of what he said.
I know that you had a lot of faith in Richard A. Sprague and did not
personally want him to resign. For that reason I'm writing to you
rather than Mr. Blakey, seeking answers to my questions.
Encloged is a copy of the agreement with my signature. I have circled
on it the paragraphs in question, and underlined the key words. My
questions, Mr. Stokes are as follows:
1. Are paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 inserted for the purpose of giving the
CIA power over the Select Committee to investigate the CIA's
role in the assassinations or the cover up crimes following the
assassinations of President Kennedy or Dr. King? I believe those
paragraphs could be so interpreted, especially if each committee
member and each staff member signed a similar agreement.
2. If the purposes of paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 are not as questioned
above, then how can the Select Committee, its staff or its con-
sultants, *ever* discover whether the CIA was involved in the
assassinations or whether the CIA, as I maintain, is *still*
involved in covering up the conspiracies?
For example, paragraph 3 states that you as chairman, shall con-
sult with the Director of Central Intelligence--to determine
whether or not the material I might receive contains information
that I pledge not to disclose.
Assuming that all committee staff people signed that paragraph,
it would seem to me that you would really be hamstrung in investi-
gating the CIA's possible role. Your staff could not be working
with any documents or other materials pointing toward CIA agents'
involvement in the assassinations, without you personally having
to show those documents to the Director of Central Intelligence
and to obtain his agreement to disclose the information to the
public.
The CIA Director has the power of judging what can be released.
Obviously, anything incriminating to the CIA, especially higher
level people who may have been involved, would be judged unreleas-
able.
None of this would take on the significance that it does, were it
not for my belief that the CIA itself has continued to cover up
the original conspiracy and that several CIA agents or contract
employees carried out the murder.
3. Is paragraph 12 really logical, or even legal? Can an agreement
with a body be extended ad infinitum after the body has dissolved?
4. Paragraph 14 bothers me. It seems to say that I agree to allow
the government to sue me and to bear the expenses of such a suit.
Is it really legal to ask me to agree to be sued as a condition
of my consulting contract? Couldn't the government sue me and
collect expenses anyway if I did something wrong, without such a
clause? Paragraph 16 seems to anticipate that Paragraph 14 may
not stand up in court. (Or some other paragraph.)
I want to make it clear that my concerns in this matter are not related
to any obligation I may have. Rather, I am concerned about the
purposes of those clauses in the agreement, as they affect the
investigations. I believe every staff member signed them.
I would appreciate hearing directly from you on these questions Mr.
Stokes, rather than referring this letter to Mr. Blakey.
Yours sincerely,
Richard E. Sprague</p>
<p> Exhibit C
____________________________________________________________</p>
<p> LOUIS STOKES, OHIO, CHAIRMAN</p>
<p>RICHARDSON PREYER, N.C. SAMUEL L. DEVINE, OHIO
WALTER E. FAUNTROY, D.C. STEWART B. MCKINNEY, CONN.
YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE, CALIF. CHARLES THONE, NEBR.
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, CONN. HAROLD S. SAWYER, MICH.
HAROLD E. FORD, TENN.
FLOYD J. FITHIAN, IND.
ROBERT W. EDGAR, PA.
------------
(202) 225-4624</p>
<p> Select Committee on Assassinations
U.S House of Representatives
3331 HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, ANNEX 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515</p>
<p> MAR 16 1978</p>
<p> Richard E. Sprague, Esq.
193 Pinewood Road
Hartsdale, New York 10530</p>
<p> Dear Mr. Sprague:</p>
<p> In response to your letter of February 10, 1978
concerning the non-disclosure agreement which you signed
with the Committee, I wish to first remind you that the
agreement was explicitly explained to you provision by
provision by Mr. Blakey, and that you were given the
opportunity to ask any questions that you desired prior
to your signing the agreement. I want to assure you that
the intent of the agreement is not to prevent information
from ultimately being disclosed to the American public.
The non-disclosure agreement only governs the timing of
disclosure of information to the public. In response to
your specific questions:
I. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 obviously are not for
the purpose of giving the CIA power over the Select Committee
to investigate the CIA's role in the assassination. If
you read these paragraphs carefully, they clearly provide
that the Select Committee, during its existence, will be in
full control and have access to all information. The paragraphs
do prevent you from disclosing the information, without the
authorization of the Select Committee.
Paragraph 3 does state that I, as Chairman, will
consult with the Director of Central Intelligence to determine
whether or not material contains information which you pledge
not to disclose. I, however, retain ultimate authority and
I only consult with the Director of Central Intelligence -
I am not bound by his opinion.
II. Paragraphs 12 and 14 are indeed legal. Should
you have any specific questions concerning the legality of
any of the provisions, I suggest you consult your own attorney.</p>
<p> I assure you that the very purpose of the non-
disclosure agreement is to give the Select Committee full
control over the conduct of the investigation, including
the ultimate disclosure of information to the American
public. In no manner should it be construed as the Committee
being restricted in its investigation by the CIA or any other
federal agency or department.
In closing, I remind you of paragraph 13 of the
non-disclosure agreement which provides that you may not
"indicate, divulge or acknowledge" the fact that you have
been retained as a consultant until after the Select Committee
has been terminated. I have seen a press release concerning
yourself issued by Mr. Altmans in conjunction with a new article
in Gallery magazine. I note that while you technically did
not violate the non-disclosure agreement which you signed,
by carefully wording the release to describe the work you
had done for the Committee in the past, this is the exact
kind of exploitation of a consultant relationship that the
Committee desires to avoid during its existence.
If you have any other questions or comments on the
non-disclosure agreement, they should be addressed to Mr.
Blakey as Chief Counsel.</p>
<p> Sincerely,</p>
<p> [Louis Stokes]</p>
<p> Louis Stokes
Chairman</p>
<p> LS:jwc</p>
<p> Exhibit D
____________________________________________________________</p>
<p> 193 Pinewood Road
Hartsdale, NY 10530</p>
<p> April 5, 1978</p>
<p> Representative Louis Stokes
U.S. House of Representatives
Raybur House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Louis,
Thank you for your most reassuring letter of March 16, 1978.
As you know I have great faith in your own personal integrity
and your goals as discussed with you at lunch nearly a year
ago. I understand the necessity for non disclosure and
sensitive discretion in the way the Select Committee is pro-
ceeding. I believe I understand it more than most researchers
because of my close working relationship with the staff and the
committee ever since it started.
You can rest assured that it is my intention to continue to
assist you and to support your efforts right up to the finish
line. I want to avoid as much as you do any exploitation of my
relationship to the committee that would cause problems for you
or for me, especially with the media.
In this regard, the press release you mentioned in your letter
from Gallery magazine was initially prepared by their public
relations department, and included a statement taht I am a
consultant to the Select Committee. I asked them to delete the
statement and they insisted on retaining something about my
assistance to the committee in order to help establish my
credibility with their readers. After some discussion I was
able to get them to modify the statement to apply to the past
work for Richard A. Sprague and Henry Gonzalez.
There will be another article in the June 1978 issue using this
same statement. I believe I mentioned the article to you several
months ago. It is about the CIA weapon system developed by
Charles Senseney at Fort Detrick, Maryland using rocket propelled
flechettes carrying paralyzing poison launched by an umbrella.
I described in the article the evidence pointing toward the use
of this weapons system in Dealey Plaza. The article will appear
on May 2 on the newsstands.
I read your March 16 letter, on March 22, upon my return from a
trip to Japan and a vacation. I contacted Gallery asking them to
delete entirely the statement about me and the Select Committee.
They told me it was too late, that the issue had already gone to
press. However, they did agree to delete the statement from any
[the remainder of this letter was missing from the copy of the
edition used to make this on-line version. --Editor]</p>
<p> Exhibit E
____________________________________________________________</p>
<p> LOUIS STOKES, OHIO, CHAIRMAN</p>
<p>RICHARDSON PREYER, N.C. SAMUEL L. DEVINE, OHIO
WALTER E. FAUNTROY, D.C. STEWART B. MCKINNEY, CONN.
YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE, CALIF. CHARLES THONE, NEBR.
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, CONN. HAROLD S. SAWYER, MICH.
HAROLD E. FORD, TENN.
FLOYD J. FITHIAN, IND.
ROBERT W. EDGAR, PA.
------------
(202) 225-4624</p>
<p> Select Committee on Assassinations
U.S House of Representatives
3331 HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, ANNEX 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515</p>
<p> May 15, 1978</p>
<p> Mr. Richard Sprague
193 Pinewood Road
Hartsdale, NY 10530
Dear Mr. Sprague:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter of April 5
and I hope that you will excuse my delay in responding.
I appreciate your expression of confidence in me
and your reassurance of your continued support. With
regard to the matter of the press release, I understand
your situation and it was most thoughtful of you to
advise me in advance about the article in the June issue
of Gallery magazine.
Your letter has been sent on to the Committee staff
in order that they might share your recommendations about
Richard Case Nagell.
Thank you again for your continuing support.
Sincerely,
[Louis Stokes]
LOUIS STOKES
Chairman
LS:thn</p>
<p> Exhibit F
____________________________________________________________</p>
<p>
193 Pinewood Road
Hartsdale, New York 10530
September 22, 1978
Representative Yvonne Burke
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mrs. Burke:
I don't know whether you recall our meeting on
July 21, 1977 when Jack White, Robert Groden and I
made presentations to the J.F.K. subcommittee of the
Select Committee on Assassinations. You may
remember my showing a summary of photographic evidence
of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. You asked
some very pertinent questions which I answered about
how to obtain films and photos from media organizations
that were stonewalling at the time.
I am truly sorry that you have missed the first
three weeks of the J.F.K. hearings because I feel that
your presence would have created at least a minority
of one against the carefully orchestrated cover up that
is now takinq place. I had great faith in the committee,
especially after a luncheon meeting with Louis Stokes
in 1977 and after the presentation to you.
I want you personally to know that I have now lost
all of that faith. The farce that is going on is really
almost unbelievable to an honest researcher. All
witnesses (except Cyril Wecht), all panels employed by
the committee, the staff and the committee members doing
the questioning, obviously made up their minds a long
time ago that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin,
that there was no conspiracy and that the Warren
Commission was right.
I cannot understand how this came about. As the
most likely committee member to still keep an open mind,
I would like to ask your opinion.
How did the committee staff ignore all of the
evidence of conspiracy. I am speaking not only
about the photographic evidence, but about the
information that Clifford Fenton and his team
uncovered in New Orleans. I know you know about
that from my conversations with Ted Gandolfo and
Jim Garrison.
Do you believe there was a conspiracy? If you
do, will you say so when you return to Washington?
Will you insist that the committee hear from the
important New Orleans witnesses as well as the
others I recommended long long ago. Specifically,
will you insist that the committee call as witnesses:
James Hosty, Warren du Bruys, Regis Kennedy, Richard
Case Nagell, Harry Dean, Ronald Augustinovich, Mary
Hope, Guy Gabaldin, Frenchy, William Seymour, Emilio
Santana, Jack Lawrence, Jim Braden, E. Howard Hunt,
Richard Helms and the others listed in the document
I gave Louis Stokes in 1977. If you can't or won't,
God help this country.
Yours sincerely,
Richard E. Sprague
P.S. In the case of key witness Richard Case Nagell,
Mr. Stokes assured me this spring that the committee
would contact him. As of this date, he has never
been contacted. He knows who killed President Kennedy.</p>
<p> Exhibit G
____________________________________________________________</p>
<p> LOUIS STOKES, OHIO, CHAIRMAN</p>
<p>RICHARDSON PREYER, N.C. SAMUEL L. DEVINE, OHIO
WALTER E. FAUNTROY, D.C. STEWART B. MCKINNEY, CONN.
YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE, CALIF. CHARLES THONE, NEBR.
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, CONN. HAROLD S. SAWYER, MICH.
HAROLD E. FORD, TENN.
FLOYD J. FITHIAN, IND.
ROBERT W. EDGAR, PA.
------------
(202) 225-4624</p>
<p> Select Committee on Assassinations
U.S House of Representatives
3331 HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, ANNEX 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515</p>
<p> October 10, 1978</p>
<p> Mr. Richard Sprague
193 Pinewood Road
Hartsdale, New York 10530
Dear Mr. Sprague:
I was greatly disturbed by your letter of September
23, 1978 in which you stated that, "I have one last hope
that what we are witnessing in your hearings is a charade
meant to fool the FBI and the CIA. If it is, you have fooled
me. If it is not, your statements to me over the past year
about getting at the truth were all meaningless. I have
lost all faith in you and the committee."
I must say that I deeply regret the fact that you
have lost faith in the performance of my committee. We
have attempted to do a thorough, competent and professional
job which would be a source of pride for you and other
concerned Americans.
I should state here for the record, Mr. Sprague, that
I find nothing inconsistent in my statements to you over the
year indicating that the committee would be seeking the truth
and nothing but the truth during the course of the investigation
and the testimony that the committee has received during its
public hearings. Perhaps you are confused because I did not
explicitly state that the truth the committee is seeking is
not your truth or my truth, but truth supported by the weight
of the evidence.
Thanks again for your past and current concerns. I
assure you that the committee will make every effort to tell
the whole story to the American people.
Sincerely,
[Louis Stokes]
Chairman
LS: icmj</p>
<p> Exhibit H
____________________________________________________________</p>
<p>
193 Pinewood Road
Hartsdale, NY 10530
October 30, 1978
Representative Louis Stokes
Select Committee on Assassinations
U.S. House of Representatives
3369 House Office Building, Annex 2
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Louis:
I appreciate your responding to my September 23 letter.
I am truly sorry to be so disturbing to you concerning
the committee's hearings. I wish I could be more
complimentary and positive about your work.
I could not agree with you more that the "truth supported
by the weight of the evidence" is what we are all after.
I'm enclosing for your information one more copy of the
document I gave to Henry Gonzalez, Richard A. Sprague,
Bob Tannenbaum, and you in 1976 and 1977.
Unless you call the witnesses listed on pages 4-6 of this
document, Louis, you have not dealt with the most impor-
tant evidence of all. How can you possibly claim to have
unearthed anything approximating the truth, unless you
and the rest of the committee interrogate with strength,
the following important witnesses that you missed:
Richard Case Nagell, James P. Hosty, Louis Ivon, Victor
Marchetti, Gorden Novel, Ronald Augustinovich, Mary Hope,
Manuel Garcia Gonzalez, William Seymour, Emilio Santana,
Guy Gabaldin, Major L.M. Bloomfield, Harry Williams,
Sylvia Odio and Jim Garrison.
The document explains how each of these witnesses was
involved in the assassination of investigations of it.
It is based, not just on my research, but on painful
hours of investigative efforts of many, many people,
including Jim Garrison's professional staff, the
Committee to Investigate Assassinations and others.
I understand that James P. Hosty is finally ready to
tell his real story, at the risk of physical harm to
himself and his family. You have not called him.
Richard Case Nagell has been ready to testify for a
long time. Despite my requests to Dr. Blakey and to
you, he has not been called and no effort has been
made to locate him through the only person who knows
where he is, Dick Russell.
If you will pardon my saying so Louis, something about
just those two failures stinks, not to mention all of
the others.
It is not too late to save your reputations. You can
still call those witnesses in December. I hope you do.
Yours Sincerely,
Dick Sprague</p>
<p> Exhibit I
____________________________________________________________</p>
<p>
193 Pinewood Road
Hartsdale, NY 10530
November 24, 1978
Representative Louis Stokes
Select Committee on Assassinations
U.S. House of Representatives
3369 House Office Building, Annex 2
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Louis:
I am still waiting for a reply to my letter of October 30,
1978. I thought I should write again to remind you that
the witnesses you should call in December are not going to
be around much longer. I'm afraid that Gorden Novel,
Richard Case Nagell, James Hosty and Warren de Brueys, in
particular may go the same way that Regis Kennedy, William
Sullivan, and George de Mohrenschildt went. You really
must call them before they die.
Regis Kennedy reportedly died of natural causes the day
before you were to talk with him. I do not believe that.
How many more key witnesses have to die before you would
be convinced? Kennedy, du Brueys and Hosty were Oswald's
points of contact in the FBI, receiving his reports on the
conspiratorial group planning JFK's assassination. I have
known this since 1971 directly from Hosty's own lips via
Carver Gaten and Jim Gochenaur. Regis Kennedy also knew
why the FBI was searching for Clay Shaw under his alias
Clay Bertrand in New Orleans, *before* Dean Andrews received
that phone call from him about defending Oswald. Kennedy
may also have been one of the three agents who took the
Babushka lady's film away from her. At least she told me
he was one of them from his photo.
So Regis Kennedy had to die. So do Warren du Brueys and
James Hosty. If they die of "natural causes" in the next
month or two, don't say I didn't warn you.
Nagell and Novel are in even greater danger. Nagell may
now be safe. He fled the country recently. However, the
CIA has tentacles everywhere, so he will not really be safe
wherever he is. Novel could easily be killed, since he is
in prison. That is one of the easiest places for the death
squad to catch up with him.
As I have had told you in previous letters, the reason you
*must* call Novel is that there is a very strong possibility
that he is the umbrella man. If you laugh at that and try
to tell me that you found the umbrella man, Mr. Witt, I'll
laugh right back at you and tell you that farce you put on
for the American public didn't fool anyone with his eyes
even half way open. In addition to the obviously planned
sequence of events and the way in which Mr. Witt surfaced,
his umbrella was certainly not the one used in Dealey Plaza.
It was the wrong size, had the wrong number of ribs, and was
missing the two round white bulbs on either end when folded
up.
No, Louis, Mr. Witt was either planted upon you or else
your staff planted him. I'll give you the benefit of the
doubt for the moment and assume that you do not know he
was a plant. If you let it go as is, you and Mr. Preyer
and the rest of the committee are going to look pretty
silly.
You absolutely must call as witnesses, Gorden Novel, and
at the other end, Charles Sensenay and the CIA people asso-
ciated with Fort Detrick, Maryland, where that umbrella
launching system was made. Incidentally, two Bulgarian
intelligence agents have recently been assassinated in
England with an umbrella weapon using poison flechettes,
very similar to the one used on JFK.
I would appreciate a response to this letter telling me
what you plan to do about those witnesses.
Best regards,
Dick Sprague</p>
<p> Exhibit J
____________________________________________________________</p>
<p> LOUIS STOKES, OHIO, CHAIRMAN</p>
<p>RICHARDSON PREYER, N.C. SAMUEL L. DEVINE, OHIO
WALTER E. FAUNTROY, D.C. STEWART B. MCKINNEY, CONN.
YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE, CALIF. CHARLES THONE, NEBR.
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, CONN. HAROLD S. SAWYER, MICH.
HAROLD E. FORD, TENN.
FLOYD J. FITHIAN, IND.
ROBERT W. EDGAR, PA.
------------
(202) 225-4624</p>
<p> Select Committee on Assassinations
U.S House of Representatives
3331 HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, ANNEX 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515</p>
<p> December 4, 1978</p>
<p> Mr. Dick Sprague
193 Pinewood Rqad
Hartsdale, New York 10530
Dear Mr. Sprague:
Thank you for your letter of November 24, 1978.
I am aware of the amount of time you have spent
analyzing the assassination of President John F. Kennedy
and your interest in the work of the Select Committee on
Assassinations since its inception.
However, I regret that under our Rules, it is
impossible for us to respond to your letter in a manner
which would reveal the substance or procedure of our
investigation, or the names of those persons who will be
called to testify before the committee.
The committee is, of course, grateful for your
suggestions and those of the many other concerned citizens
who have taken the time to write.
Sincerely,
[Louis Stokes]
LOUIS STOKES
Chairman
LS:jl</p>
<p> Exhibit K
____________________________________________________________</p>
<p> LOUIS STOKES, OHIO, CHAIRMAN</p>
<p>RICHARDSON PREYER, N.C. SAMUEL L. DEVINE, OHIO
WALTER E. FAUNTROY, D.C. STEWART B. MCKINNEY, CONN.
YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE, CALIF. CHARLES THONE, NEBR.
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, CONN. HAROLD S. SAWYER, MICH.
HAROLD E. FORD, TENN.
FLOYD J. FITHIAN, IND.
ROBERT W. EDGAR, PA.
------------
(202) 225-4624</p>
<p> Select Committee on Assassinations
U.S House of Representatives
3331 HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, ANNEX 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
</p>
<p> JAN 16 1978
</p>
<p> Richard E. Sprague, Esq.
193 Pinewood Road
Hartsdale, New York 10530
Dear Mr. Sprague:
In response to your letter of January 9,
1978, I have reviewed your proposed article "The
CIA Weapon System Used in the Assassination of
President Kennedy." It is my opinion that the article
is derived from your own sources of information, and
contains no information that has come into your
possession by virtue of your consulting work with the
Committee. Accordingly, your proposed publication of
the article does not violate the terms of your non-
disclosure agreement. As I am sure you can appreciate,
further comment by myself upon the article or its
proposed publication would be inappropriate, and
consequently I decline to express any review or
comment upon it.
Thank you for your continuing cooperation
with the Select Committee.
Sincerely,
[G. Robert Blakey]
G. Robert Blakey
GRB:jwc</p>
<p> Exhibit L
____________________________________________________________</p>
<p> 193 Pinewood Road
Hartsdale, NY 10530</p>
<p> August 3, 1978</p>
<p> Mr. Robert Blakey
Select Committee on Assassinations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Bob:
Following our telephone conversation on Tuesday August 1,
I checked with Bob Cutler, my co-author on the Umbrella
Weapon System article in Gallery June 1978. Bob told me
he left with Mr. Preyer and with you, photographic material
showing that The Umbrella Man (TUM) was quite probably
J. Gordon Novel.
Your news photo of him reinforces that belief for both of
us. I did not have that portion of the Couch film from
WFAA and so had never seen TUM's face as clearly as it
appears there. The Bothun photo of him has a light
reflection around his nose, as I'm sure you know.
We have a 1962-3 photo of Novel taken from the same angle
as the Couch, film of TUM and a photo comparison convinces
us more than ever that Novel is TUM. Mr. Preyer no doubt
told you back in April that Novel is in a jail in Georgia,
framed for a crime he and Jim Garrison, his former lawyer,
both claim he didn't commit.
Best regards,
Dick Sprague
DS/mc
P.S. I am still waiting for a response to my letters to
Louis Stokes about attending the hearings beginning
August 14.
cc: L. Stokes
R. Cutler</p>
<p>--</p>
<p> I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes
me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . Corporations have been
enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the
money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working
upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few
hands and the Republic is destroyed.</p>
<p> --- Abraham Lincoln (quoted in Jack London's "The Iron Heel").</p>
<p></p></xml>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink