2,000 Greater & Lesser Mysteries/2,000 Greater and Lesser Mysteries.iso/govern/conspjfk/mys00631.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-06-10 | 1.2 MB

Path: ns-mx!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!apple!apple!netcomsv!mork!bitbug
From: [e-mail] (James Buster)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: WARREN REPORT (1 VOLUME)
Message-ID: <fc#l#[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 01:18:30 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Lynx Real-Time Systems, Inc.
Lines: 12

In article <[e-mail]> citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron) writes:
>Sorry, but I believe I must disagree.  The Original Report was a single
>volume.  The Commission also published additional volumes of testimony
>and evidence, but technically, they were NOT part of the actual report.
>What I have is the unabridged report (sans the 25 additional volumes of
>testimony and evidence.)

I always thought that the Report consisted of all 26 volumes, not
a single volume plus 25 volumes of evidence. I guess I was wrong.
--
                James Buster
                 [e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!jmk
From: [e-mail] (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: O'Neill report
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 03:05:56 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 49

[e-mail] (steve.w.askew) writes:
>             If after only punching a hole in a 1/4 peice of skull, which
>    is all this bullet would do at the velocity at which the Oswald rifle
>    would fire. Then travel thru 8 to 10 inches of jelly like tissue, then
>    we should have another intact projectile!

This does seem surprising. Perhaps Lattimer showed that the M-C bullets would
deform like this after hitting his test skulls? If not, why not?

>    I have some other thoughts on the Oswald rifle being able to produce
>    the amount of damage that was inflicted on JFK's skull. The 6.5MM
>    projectile can and in many wildcat forms does travel the velocity
>    needed to produce that kind of damage. I personally believe that
>    no sane person would fire a cartridge handloaded to produce this
>    much velocity thru the breech of a rifle that does not have "Proof
>    Stamping" to support its ability to withstand the pressure  produced
>    by such a round.

I looked at a book titled _Cartridges of the World_ a while back at a local
gunshop. There were a number of cartridges listed for the Carcano, with
various energies. The maximum listed was the 162-grain military round as
used in the Lone Rifle. Interestingly, there was an asterisk next to it, and
the warning this round produces pressures already in excess of the maximum
recommendation. I certainly wouldn't want to try any hand-loaded hot
"wildcat" cartridge in the gun. In fact, when the Carcano was first being
imported, there was concern about its safety as there were reports of it
blowing up on people. Congress debated whether to ban the import of this
and other foreign military surplus weapons. A bill was introduced in
the Senate on May 13, 1958 by Sen. John F. Kennedy that would have prohibited
the importation into the United States of "firearms manufactured for the
Armed Forces of any country, or parts thereof for reassembly, except those
which are curios or antiques or weapons of obsolete ignition incapable of
using a fixed cartridge or fixed shotgun shell." The bill did not survive.
Rep. Albert P. Morano urged the House to adopt the exact language of
Senator Kennedy in proposing an amendment to the Mutual Security Act of
1954. Morano said, in part:

      This Carcano rifle has been bought for 79 cents by importers, brought
      into this country and sold to our sporting rifle shooters... Let us
      find out where some of these Carcano rifles have gone.

The amendment was defeated.

A question for you: what is the highest energy bullet available today (or
in 1963) in a "standard" rifle (i.e., no machine guns, etc.)? Include any
super-duper wildcat round you may have heard of.

---
Joe Knapp   [e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Abrasion collars
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 06:00:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 33

[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>(David Wright) writes...

>>As for the front wound, well
>>the only pictures I have seen show nothing of any substance what so ever.
>
>    You're right. It doesn't show much (not even so much as an
>    abrasion collar). Whether it shows anything of value depends
>    on whether you think that the semicircular shape on the
>    bottom center of the tracheostomy wound is part of the
>    bullet wound or not.

Tracheostomy wound? It looks a lot like someone took a knife and
cut JFK's throat. How do you explain the size of the wound in JFK's
throat? It's huge.

When I look at that wound, I can't help but think that somebody
went looking for a bullet, found it, and left the wound such a mess
in order to make people think the throat wound was an exit wound.

Of course, they left behind at least one metal fragment that you keep
denying is there.

>    Then there are a few other photos that have appeared in the last
>    decade or so. One of them shows the head wound from the top a
>    wound that looks to be about the same size, shape, and position, so far
>    as I can tell, as what is shown in the x-rays.

Are you talking about the photo that obviously shows a metallic device
inside what could be an empty skull. Why would there be autopsy photos
of a *reconstructed* skull, unless they were made to mislead people
about the true damage to JFK's head?
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!wupost!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy" by Jacob Cohen
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 09:06:25 GMT
References: <-3![e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Lines: 47

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Boyd Roberts) writes...
>>In article <-3![e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>>    (3) brought it to work with him the morning of the murder;

>>No one saw the parcel of ``curtain rods'' he brought to the Depository.

>    The person who drove Oswald to work that morning described the
>    bag and Oswald's claim.

The bag was to short to contain the gun, even when taken apart

>>>     (5) left the scene immediately after the shooting;

>>He was seen in the lunch room some 90 seconds after the shooting, calmly
>>drinking a coke.  He left at a later time.

>    He left just minutes after the shooting, passing Robert McNeil
>    as he went out the front door.


>>>     (6) shot an officer who attempted to question him and then
>>>     forcibly resisted arrest;

>>Oswald failed a ``nitrate test'' which proved he couldn't have fired a hand-gun
>>in the previous 24 hours.

>    No. Oswald's hands did test positive for nitrates. His cheeks
>    didn't. This in itself doesn't prove that Oswald didn't fire a
>    gun --the WC tested one of the FBI riflemen just after he fired
>    several shots from Oswald's gun, and his cheeks also showed
>    a negative nitrate test.

Perhaps you have heard about the famous "some city"-five (forgive my
failing memory), the alleged IRA-bombers. They were convicted mainly
on the basis of a nitrate test. Later it was shown that the nitrate
tests gives positive results in a lot of cases, for instance after
playing cards!!!!!! Motto: don't trust the nitrate test, a lot of
innocent people have suffered from this unfounded trust.


--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute        | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!mips!decwrl!pa.dec.com!decprl!decprl!boyd
From: [e-mail] (Boyd Roberts)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: O'Neill report
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 10:57:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Paris Research Laboratory
Lines: 20
Nntp-Posting-Host: prl313.prl.dec.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (steve.w.askew) writes:
>     Well folks Im not a doctor, but I do know my bullets. The 6.5MM
>     FMJ(full metal jacket) bullet described in the further deleted
>     text is designed to retain its mass upon entering a target. In
>     other words it is not made to disintigrate as  desribed by the
>     above outtake of the autospy.

This is one question that's been puzzling me:  Why are the wound ballistics
different between the head wound and the back/throat wound?  Isn't the head
wound consistant from a round from an AR-15 (civilian M-16) which has a
thin metal skin and is well known to disintegrate on impact causing
massive trauma?

And guess what weapon one of the SS agents in the followup car is waving?
(It's an AR-15.)


Boyd Roberts            [e-mail]

``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''
Path: ns-mx!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!ratmandu.esd.sgi.com!dave
From: [e-mail] (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
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 14:29:54 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (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



                        THE TAKING OF AMERICA, 1-2-3

                           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.


                          Richard E. Sprague 1976
                         Limited First Edition 1976
                        Revised Second Edition 1979
             Updated Third Edition 1985




                About the Author

                Publisher's Word

                Introduction

        1.      The Overview and the 1976 Election

        2.      The Power Control Group

        3.      You Can Fool the People

        4.      How It All Began--The U-2 and the Bay of Pigs

        5.      The Assassination of John Kennedy

        6.      The Assassinations of Robert Kennedy and
                Dr. Martin Luther King and
                Lyndon B. Johnson's Withdrawal in 1968

        7.      The Control of the Kennedys--Threats & Chappaquiddick

        8.      1972--Muskie, Wallace and McGovern

        9.      Control of the Media--1967 to 1976

       10.      Techniques and Weapons and 100 Dead Conspirators
                and Witnesses

       11.      Nixon and Ford - The Pardon and the Tapes

       12.      The Second Line of Defense and Cover-Ups in 1975-1976

       13.      The 1976 Election and Conspiracy Fever

       14.      Congress and the People

       15.      The Select Committee on Assassinations, The Intelligence
                Community and The News Media

       16.      1984 Here We Come--

       17.      The Final Cover-Up:  How The CIA Controlled
                The House Select Committee on Assassinations

                Appendix






                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *




                              About the Author


         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 &
      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.






                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *






                                Introduction

         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.


                                               Richard E. Sprague


                                               Hartsdale, New York
                                               July 4, 1976






                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *




                              Publisher's Word

         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.

                                                      Rush Harp
                                                   Barbara Black






                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *




                         THE TAKING OF AMERICA, 1-2-3


                                  Chapter 1
                   The Overview and the the 1976 Election

         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:


          1.  Assassinated John F. Kennedy;

          2.  Controlled Lyndon B. Johnson as president;

          3.  Forced LBJ out of the presidency;

          4.  Assassinated Robert F. Kennedy, assuring Nixon's
              election in 1968;

          5.  Assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King;

          6.  Eliminated Ted Kennedy as a contender in the 1972
              elections by framing him at Chappaquiddick and
              threatening his children;

          7.  Stopped George Wallace's campaign, assuring Nixon's
              election in 1972;

          8.  Knocked Edmund Muskie out of the 1972 election campaign
              by using dirty tricks;

          9.  Covered up all of the above;

         10.  Controlled the 15 major news media organizations;

         11.  Made Gerald Ford vice president and then president;

         12.  Insured continuity of the cover-ups by forcing Ford to
              pardon Nixon;

         13.  Murdered about 100 witnesses and participants in the
              three assassinations and one attempted assassination;

         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;

         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);

         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.

         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."






                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *




                                  Chapter 2
                           The Power Control Group

         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.



____________________

 [1] "Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal", Torbett, 1968 (Copeland
     Document)






                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *




                                  Chapter 3
                           You Can Fool the People

         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.


                         You Can Fool the People

             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

         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.



         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.

         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:

           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

         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.

         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."

           The sixteen media organizations are:

            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


         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.

         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.

         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.

         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.

         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:

      Kent State:

         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.

      Mylai:

         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.

      Communism:

         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.

      Pentagon Papers:

         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.

      Assassinations:

         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.)

      Watergate:

         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.

      Democracy and Freedom:

         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.



____________________

 [1] "Nixon and the Mafia" -- Jeff Gerth, "Sundance Magazine," December
     1972.  Charles Colson Interview, by Dick Russell - "Argosy Magazine,"
     March 1976

 [2] "Why Was Martha Mitchell Kidnapped?" -- Mae Brussell, "The Realist,"
     August 1972

     "The June 1972 Raid on Democratic Party Headquarters -- Part 1" --
     R.E. Sprague, "Computers & Automation," August 1972

     "The Raid on Democratic Party Headquarters -- The Watergate
     Incident -- Part 2", Ibid.









--
                                             daveus rattus

                                   yer friendly neighborhood ratman

                               KOYAANISQATSI

   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!caen!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!bnk
From: [e-mail] (Bob N Keenan)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: **MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY on A&E tonight (FRIDAY)**
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 15:33:39 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Lines: 11


  In case anyone did not know, A&E is re-airing its multi-part documentry
  on Kennedys assasination starting tonight (friday).


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Bob N. Keenan                     | disclaimER?? I don't even
~ University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee | KNOW HER!!!       ___o
~ [e-mail]              |                  -\ <,
~                       ......wooosh!................(*)/ (*)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u54778
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Joel and Jama (was Re: JAMA)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Jun 92 22:33:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Lines: 27

You have my consolation, Mr. Wright.  I don't blame you in the least for
finally coming to the point of calling Grant an idiot.  I'd like to think
of myself as in the anti-WC camp with an open mind.  I've seen some fine
pro-WC points made here by several posters.  Even Grant, once and a while,
stumbles onto a good point.  But the essense of Grant's arguments are a
deep and unjustified faith in whatever passes for his choice of the currently
unassailable authority, Manchester, Lattimer, JAMA, whoever is there at the
moment to bolster his quasi-argument.
  He espouses belief in science and logic and seems to abandon the basic
tenet of those diciplines by resorting to worship of authority,  In science
and logic, there should never be any authorities, only presentation of
findings that can be either questioned or confirmed but never confirmed
forever.  Grant, is not unlike those body of scholars who had a massive
amount of evidence that the land masses of the earth were unshiftable and
were in their present position unchanged from eons ago.
  Anyone who first comes to this JFK mystery with an open mind finds a
morass of questionable aspects and conflicting evidence.  Slowly they weed
through this and find a line of logic that appeals to them, whether it be
pro-WC or anti-WC.
Lattimer, Donahue, the HSCA, Lane, Roffman, Lifton, Meagher; all went down
this same path of encountering the material and finding questionable aspects
and then searching for answers.  Grant has seemed to sidestep this whole
process and places faith in whoever has an answer that corresponds with
 his preconceptions.
Flame on.

ALAN ROGERS
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!summa.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: SINGLE GUN
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 16:59:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Lines: 74
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>>Mitchell
>>>Me


>>>Roffman's book made it very clear that bullets with lands and grooves that
>>>survive microscopic examination are unlikely to have hit anything at all.

>>    Roffman's book made it clear that he knows little about bullets.
>>    He doesn't know why military bullets have full metal jackets. He
>>    thinks that military bullets are jacketed to increase their
>>    penetrating ability. In truth, military bullets are jacketed
>>    at the bequest of the Geneva Convention to reduce the severity
>>    of bullet wounds.

>You are confusing cause and effect vs. Pieces of Paper

>FMJ rounds *may* have been introduced to reduce the the severity of
>bullet wounds.
>How do you do that? Simple, you increase the penetrating capability
>of bullets by wrapping them in a hardened copper jacket.
>By increasing the penetrating capability, you reduce the deformation
>of bullets, which reduces the severity of wounds.
>The effect is less severe wounds. The cause is jacketed rounds that
>have higher penetrating capability.


    What you are saying is not at all correct. The increased
    penetrating power of FMJ bullets is an unintended, and
    ultimately unwanted, side effect of the Geneva convention.
    The reason why FMJ bullets were demanded by the GC was that
    they are *much* less likely to fragment upon entering a body,
    causing less severe wounds in the process.

    The first generation of FMJ rounds, designed in the 1890's and
    typified by none other than the MC 6.5mm type, are relatively
    long, and cylindrical with a rounded front end. All of them
    (the MC 6.5mm, the Krag .30-40, the Navy 6mm, etc) have great
    penetrating power at the expense of wounding ability. According
    the Dr M L Fackler, physicians of the time remarked about the
    relatively small amount of damamge done by these bullets.

    Just after the turn of the century, Armies turned to the
    spitzer, or ogavial bullets, such as the Mauser 7.92mm, the
    .303, or the .30-06. The ogavial shape of these bullets was
    more aerodynamic, so the trajectory was flatter over long
    ranges. There was another advantage: the spitzers tumble faster,
    causing more damage at the expense of penetrating ability.
    After WWII the Soviets seem to have designed their ammunition
    precisely to tumble quickly after impact.

    Today, everybody is designing bullets for wound performance.
    The latest military round, the FN-Herstal 5.7mm ss90, is
    admittedly and specifically designed to tumble early and often,
    in order to transmit more enrgy to the body it hits. As you
    might expect, this also degrades penetrating power.

    In the end, it is easy to see that increased penetrating
    power was an unintended consequence of the Geneva Convention,
    that bullet designers and the armies that hire them are quite
    willing to sacrifice penetrating ability for wounding ability,
    and that Roffman is just plain wrong about the matter.

                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!summa.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy" by Jacob Cohen
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 17:14:00 GMT
References: <-3![e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Lines: 41
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries) writes...
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Boyd Roberts) writes...
>>>In article <-3![e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>>>    (3) brought it to work with him the morning of the murder;

>>>No one saw the parcel of ``curtain rods'' he brought to the Depository.

>>    The person who drove Oswald to work that morning described the
>>    bag and Oswald's claim.

>The bag was to short to contain the gun, even when taken apart

    Actually, the bag (the one that was found) itself was more than
    long enough. The critic's contention is that Frazier's account
    of Oswald carrying the gun means that the package he was carrying
    was shorter than the gun could have possibly been. This argument
    is based on one assumption. Frazier claims that (and I'll use
    the closest I can remember to his own words) Oswald held one
    end of the package in one cupped hand, and had the other end under
    his armpit. The critics have assumed that this means that the
    actual butt of the package was against Oswald's armpit, making
    the package no longer than Oswald's arm. However, this does not
    recognize the possibility that the very end of the package
    extended a bit behind Oswald's armpit. I have never seen anyone
    hold a long object in the manner alleged by the WC critics.
    I have, however, seen many, many people carry things in the
    latter manner.

                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbfsb!cbnewsg.cb.att.com!kew
From: [e-mail] (steve.w.askew)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Highest Energy Bullet
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 17:25:22 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 32

Subject: Re: O'Neill report
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Distribution: usa
Summary: Highest energy Bullet available today?
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
> [e-mail] (steve.w.askew) writes:
>
> A question for you: what is the highest energy bullet available today (or
> in 1963) in a "standard" rifle (i.e., no machine guns, etc.)? Include any
> super-duper wildcat round you may have heard of.
>
> ---
> Joe Knapp   [e-mail]

    If you mean 6.5 bullets I can collect the data, Matter of fact
    I dont even know what the weight of CE399 was! Im sure someone
    here well let me know

    As far as the rest of the cartridges currently manufactured today
    I do not have specific data in front of me. I would have to say
    the 460 Weatherby magnum probably produces as much or more "ENERGY"
    than any other long gun manufactured today. The 460 W.M. produces
    around 8,000 pounds per square inch at the muzzle. The recoil from
    a rifle firing this round will cause tremedous amounts of bruising
    to the shoulder of the person firing it. This rifle is used explicitly
    for the largest African game. The projectile is 45 cal and weighs 500
    grains, or about 1.1 oz.

    Steve
    NODOTSIG
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!summa.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Abrasion collars
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 17:25:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Lines: 62
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>>(David Wright) writes...

>>>As for the front wound, well
>>>the only pictures I have seen show nothing of any substance what so ever.

>>    You're right. It doesn't show much (not even so much as an
>>    abrasion collar). Whether it shows anything of value depends
>>    on whether you think that the semicircular shape on the
>>    bottom center of the tracheostomy wound is part of the
>>    bullet wound or not.

>When I look at that wound, I can't help but think that somebody
>went looking for a bullet, found it, and left the wound such a mess
>in order to make people think the throat wound was an exit wound.

>Of course, they left behind at least one metal fragment that you keep
>denying is there.

    I deny it's there because the medical consensus is that there
    are no fragments there. There are some irregularities in the
    x-ray itself the look like they might be metallic, but they
    are due to a spot of x-ray fluid, and to imperfections on the
    x-ray cassette. Common sense should tell you that the fragments
    are bone chips: they are at the very tip of the transverse
    process of the vertebra, yet they are not displaced according
    to Lattimer. If they were bullet fragments moving in an
    A-P (or even P-A) direction, why did they not go anywhere?


>>    Then there are a few other photos that have appeared in the last
>>    decade or so. One of them shows the head wound from the top a
>>    wound that looks to be about the same size, shape, and position, so far
>>    as I can tell, as what is shown in the x-rays.

>Are you talking about the photo that obviously shows a metallic device
>inside what could be an empty skull. Why would there be autopsy photos
>of a *reconstructed* skull, unless they were made to mislead people
>about the true damage to JFK's head?

    Which photo shows this. I've seen all of the available photos
    of the skull, and I don't remember any metallic device. Also,
    do you know what the device is, and what it would be used for?

    Now, as I've said before, there are no photos that show a
    reconstructed skull, only the photos of the rear flap
    of skin pulled over part of the wound, obscuring it.


                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u54778
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy" by Jacob Cohen
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 00:08:34 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Lines: 78
In-Reply-To: 4 Jun 92 15:04:51 GMT

>     Zapruder is now dead, but Sitzman (his secretary) was interviewed
>     for a sensational five-part documentary produced by the Arts and
>     Entertainment (A&E) Network on cable TV. Somehow, the interviewer
>     did not ask her whether she noticed a man shooting the President
>     just to her right front. [where a gunman on the 'grassy knoll'
>     would have been].... notwithstanding Stone's insinuations, no one

  The crowd of people in Dealey Plaza, whose attention were glued to
a mesmerizing drama in front of them, cannot be maligned for turning
around and looking at another direction.  Besides there were numerous
testimony of hearing a shot come from there and the crowd is shown in
film running up there.  Smoke was seen coming from that area.  This does
not prove that there was a shot coming from the GK but it can't be
discounted so non-chalantly.  There are others with stronger but IMHO
totally unconvincing arguments against a GK shot.

>     ....people who claim they were roughed up and threatened because
>     they had seen inadmissible things. Stone graphically depicts these
>     alleged brutalities... Stone and others would have us believe that
>     there was a platoon of conspirators, incognito, surveying every
>     person's eyes, entering minds and cameras, knowing infallibly who
>     had incriminating evidence and who did not. Like Santa Claus, they
>     knew who had been bad or good, and they brutalized only those who
>     saw or photographed the bad thing....
>
This is the same argument lodged against all the anti-WC researchers.
If there was a conspiracy, how could some many people be in on it and
keep quiet about it through the years?  A corrolary argument is how could
people with such impeccable reputations such as Warren and RFK and those
who didn't have such high reputations but were so highly placed such as
Hoover, LBJ, and others conspire to kill a popular president and then
cover it up?  This is a strong argument and I was leaning toward it in
the mid 70's but it has a powerful answer for anyone who will look
deeper into the public evidence.

1) It is documented fact from the released memos and communications of
that small time period that Hoover, LBJ, and others were sh*ting in their
pants over the fact that LHO was a leftist who had come back from the USSR,
had just visited the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico and to all
intents and purposes looked like a communist assassin.  I won't go into
all of the aspects of this for I am writing a paper on it, but they
had every reason to believe that looking deeply into LHO would turn up
enough connections to communist countries to imflame the USA public into
a dangerous attitude, bringing us on the brink of nuclear war.
It is at this juncture that we can separate the alleged conspiracy to
kill JFK from the obvious conspiracy to coverup the facts of the killing.
[For those inclined, this scenario can be looked at as another layer of
coverup also].
2) The word goes out from the top, "find LHO not only guilty but guilty
with no one else's colusion.  From that point on, FBI agents, WC, police,
managers of news media, and all others concerned get some form of this
hidden agenda and its necessity.  "Do you want to be responsible for
starting WWIII?" is the only question necessary for anyone to be brought
into line.  This line of argument is well documented in the HSCA and can
account for all the actions mentioned above.  It will also account for
the continuance of the coverup through the years.  It requires amendment
as we moved into the 80's and 90's but I don't have the time or the
inclination to flush it out here.

>     It is often asked why Oswald denied killing the President, as though
>     guilty people do not deny things all the time.... He himself was
>     the first to insist that the backyard photo of him with a gun was
>
Again this is a very weak argument.  The point of LHO's denial is it does
not follow the pattern of other assassinators and the tenuous background
story for LHO's actions built up in the WC.  If LHO was in a fever dream
of being famous for bringing down a symbol of the capitalist world, he
would have been screaming "down with all tyrants" from his jail cell as
other assassinators did.  This holds even if he thought he could have
gotten away because he didn't and should have been quite aware that he
was caught red handed.  Just what would he gain by denial at this point?
The only argument that has merit is, by abandoning the WC setup, and
making LHO a much cleverer person who thought that he could outwit his
accussers, which does have its evidence but flies against the much
simpler argument that he was a patsy as he claimed and his denial
was his simple, straitforward reaction to be accused.

ALAN ROGERS
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: SINGLE GUN
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 17:29:33 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 38


Mitchell S Todd has been trying to smear Howard Roffman's knowledge
of military ammunition because Roffman's book "Presumed Guilty"
points out facts that prove JFK's throat wound was *not* caused by
Copper Jacketed bullets.

Lets see what Roffman has to say:

"full-jacketed military bullets are constructed so that they will
not fragment in soft tissue." [that's obvious to anyone]

"Describing antero-posterior X-ray views of the lower neck region,
the Clark Panel declared, 'Also several small metallic fragments
are present in this region.'

The prescence of mettallic particles in the neck is confirmed by
two "Outside Contact" sheets in the HSCA Vol 1 describing metal
fragment(s) in the X-Rays of JFK's neck"

"The Clark Panel says there are 'several' and they are 'small'.

Military Ammnunition (hardened copper jackets) of medium velocity
(and 6.5mm MC rounds are medium velocity) would not produce
small fragments when going through soft tissue such as JFK's neck.


Roffman's conclusions are very clear.

(1) the particular bullet traced to Oswald's rifle and alleged by
the Commission to have penetrated the President's neck could
*not* have produced the damage attributed to it.

(2) military ammunition of the general type attributed to Oswald
could not have caused these wounds.

"the fragments in the President's neck must stongly indicate
soft nosed hunting ammunition, although the government's suspect
allegedly fired jacketed bullet's."
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!jmk
From: [e-mail] (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Highest Energy Bullet
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 18:34:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 26

[e-mail] (steve.w.askew) writes:
>
>    If you mean 6.5 bullets I can collect the data,

No, any bullet. The bullet shot from the front need not have been from
a 6.5 rifle. I'm wondering that if the M-C round is not energetic enough
to cause JFK's motion, is there another round that will?

BTW, Livingstone claims in _High Treason_ that JFK was moving back at 100
feet per second. Don't believe it. His velocity was no more than 3-4 fps.
I think even the M-C round could account for this with momentum transfer
alone.

>    I do not have specific data in front of me. I would have to say
>    the 460 Weatherby magnum probably produces as much or more "ENERGY"
>    than any other long gun manufactured today. The 460 W.M. produces
>    around 8,000 pounds per square inch at the muzzle. The recoil from
>    a rifle firing this round will cause tremedous amounts of bruising
>    to the shoulder of the person firing it. This rifle is used explicitly
>    for the largest African game. The projectile is 45 cal and weighs 500
>    grains, or about 1.1 oz.

Happen to know what the muzzle velocity is?

-----
Joe Knapp    [e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu!jrblack
From: [e-mail] (James Roger Black)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: What would a grand jury say?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 02:30:45 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Lines: 125
Nntp-Posting-Host: shemtaia.weeg.uiowa.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|>
|> >Item:  At the time of the assassination, witnesses saw one or more
|> >individuals lurking behind the picket fence near the Grassy Knoll.
|>
|>     Just another spectator.

... who flees from the scene carrying a rifle?  Some "spectator".

|> >Item:  Photos taken of the Knoll at the moment of the fatal shot
|> >seem to show a gunman in firing position behind the fence.
|>
|>     People keep on saying that. Photo analysts keep on saying
|>     that there is no gun, and no gunflash.

... and other photo analysts say there is.

|> >Item:  A majority of witnesses reported that shots came from the Knoll
|> >area.
|>
|>     Not true at all. Far and away, most witnesses (some 70% of them)
|>     could not identify the source of the shots. Also, several of the
|>     people who heard shots from the knoll were in such position
|>     that the knoll lined up with the TBSD.

More precisely, then, "a majority of witnesses WHO REPORTED A DIRECTION
reported that shots came from the Knoll area".  You're evading the issue.

|> >Item:  Witnesses standing near the Grassy Knoll reported that bullets
|> >were whizzing past them from the picket-fence area.
|>
|>     So far as I can remember, only one person has said that.

No, there are at least two (Abraham Zapruder and a soldier who was taking
pictures and had his film confiscated at gunpoint moments after the fatal
shot).  I think there were others as well.

|> >Item:  In the moments after the assassination, crowds of people
|> >(including a number of police officers) surged toward the Grassy
|> >Knoll.

No cute answer for this one?

|> >Item:  There were fresh footprints and cigarette butts in the area
|> >where the gunman was reported.
|>
|>     And? (why is a sniper smoke cigarrets in his position, so the
|>     smoke would give him away?)

The motorcade was late.  The cycle time for nicotine craving is about 15
or 20 minutes.  Maybe he wanted to "calm his nerves" so he wouldn't miss.

|> >Item:  Dr. Crenshaw of Parkland Hospital states that there was an entry
|> >wound in Kennedy's right temple area.
|>
|>     Other Parkland doctors noted no right temple wound.

So is Crenshaw a liar, or just incompetent?  Be careful--you're in libel
territory now.

|> >Item:  The undertaker in DC who prepared Kennedy's body reported having
|> >to putty up an entry wound in the right temple area.
|>
|>     He had to put putty all around JFK's head.

So what?  Again, you're evading the issue.

|> >Question:  If a grand jury were convened to examine the evidence above,
|> >where would they conclude the fatal shot came from?
|>
|>     The only problem is that this is not the sum total of evidence.

Again, so what?  It is still evidence, sufficient to indict.  It still
needs to be explained--not just explained away with arm waving and
debunkers' fallacies.

|> >Item:  In the hour before the assassination, a number of vehicles
|> >were seen cruising through a supposedly secure area near the Grassy
|> >Knoll.
|>
|>     It was a used as a parking lot.

... which was supposed to be secured and sealed off.  Why were people in
civilian vehicles with out-of-state plates allowed in there?

|> >Item:  In one of the pictures, the gunman seems to be wearing a police
|> >uniform.
|>
|>     After it was arbitrarliy colorized to make it look that way.

The "badge man" is visible even without the colorization.

|> >Item:  Roscoe White was a member of the Dallas Police.  His partner
|> >was J.D. Tippit, who turned up dead shortly after the assassination.
|>
|> >Item:  Relatives of both Roscoe White and Sam Giancana have publicly
|> >stated that White was behind the fence and fired the fatal head shot.
|>
|>     Another unconfirmed report made years after the assassination.

... by people who are on the record, available for questioning, and willing
to talk.  Not exactly an unattributed rumor.

|> >Item:  In the autopsy photos the right temple area seems to have been
|> >airbrushed out; no detail at all is visible in that area.
|>
|>     A pure fabrication.
|>
|>     I see no such thing in the released autopsy photos. The
|>     HSCA photo panel saw no such thing. An independent board
|>     retained by the Baltimore _Sun_ found no such thing.

Take a look at the photos in Livingstone's "High Treason II".

|> >Item:  In the Zapruder film, the right temple area is obscured by a
|> >featureless "orange oval", which also looks suspiciously like
|> >airbrushing.
|>
|>     This, too has been checked. It's only Groden's imagination.

Again, check HT2.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Roger Black                                   [e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy" by Jacob Cohen
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 17:59:35 GMT
References: <-3![e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 42

[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>    Actually, the bag (the one that was found) itself was more than
>    long enough. The critic's contention is that Frazier's account
>    of Oswald carrying the gun means that the package he was carrying
>    was shorter than the gun could have possibly been. This argument
>    is based on one assumption. Frazier claims that (and I'll use
>    the closest I can remember to his own words) Oswald held one
>    end of the package in one cupped hand, and had the other end under
>    his armpit.


Actually Mitchell has left out all the testimony in the Warren Report
except for one little bit.

1) The longest piece of a broken down MC is 34.8 inches long.

2) Mrs Linnie Mae Randle, who saw the bag said it was no more
   than 28 inches long. When testifying before the WC she clearly
   stated the bag shown to her (the one the police claim to have found)
   was much too long to be the one Oswald was carrying that day.

3) Buell Wesley Frazier estimated the bags length as 2 feet (11 inches
   too short)

4) The bag on the 6th floor was 38 inches long, and contained
   no oil or rifle grease on it at all, even though a rifle supposedly
   was contained in it for over 24 hours. The MC *was* oily when found.

5) When demonstating how Oswald carried the package, Frazier said it
   was cupped in his hand, and under his armpit. When given a package
   of the same size needed to carry the MC, it extended to his right
   ear. This would be hard to miss.

6) Frazier marked a point on his car seat, where the bag had extended
   to from where it was wedged against the car door. That was only
   27 inches, still 8 inches too short.


   The Commission chose to dismiss the evidence of the *only* people
   who saw Oswald with this bag, and claimed he carried in a bag
   long enough to hold a broken-down Mannlicher-Carcano.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: O'Neill report
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 19:15:54 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: usa
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 25

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>CE399 damaged JFK's vertebrae. [ HSCA Vol 1]
>
>How do you explain this metal fragment in relation to your repeated
>claims the bullet did not fragment until it hit Connally in the wrist?

There are only two possible ways the SBT could be true.  First,
if Kennedy was almost bent over when it struck his back (not his
neck) so that it could pass through the thorax and out the neck.
THe WC did try this one, by moving the site of entry in the
drawings upward and bending JFK over.  Unfortunately, the
Zapruder film rules out the possibility that he was bent over
that much and there is no reason he would have unless he had
dropped something on the floor.  The second possibility is that
CE399 was deflected upward by striking bone and then out the neck.
In that case there is yet another hard bone collision which should
have deformed CE399 in addition to breaking Connolly's wrist.
Neither possibility is very tenable.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
[e-mail]   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Connallys don't quite debunk the SBT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 19:28:46 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 26

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>
>    I seriously doubt it. Nerves dont regenerate like other tissues.
>    Were the proper nerves cut by the missle, Connally would still
>    not be able to hold anything in his right hand.
>
Nerves regenerate probably better than any other tissue.  Since the
cell bodies for nerves are in the spinal cord, they will almost
always grow new axons and try to reconnect.  A transection by a
bullet would be a bad wound to recover from, but it certainly
is possible.  If Connally's medical records were released, whether
a nerve was injured or not would be clear.  However, getting
hit in the wrist by a bullet with sufficient power to break bones
would almost always result in dropping the hat.  It would be like
being hit with a sledge hammer.  You would not hold onto a hat,
nerves or not.  You would also be instantly aware of the hit.
There is no possibility of a delayed reaction here as would be
possible with a gut shot or something that didn't cause a fracture.
This is why Connally is so sure.  He knew the exact moment he was
hit without any doubt.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
[e-mail]   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Alvarez Jet Flow Theory Exonerates Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jun 92 00:03:55 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 46

As I was thunbing through Vol 1 of the HSCA Report, I came across
a paper by Luis Alvarez. A small part of the paper includes
his famous 'jet flow theory' to explain why JFK moved back and
to the left.

Alvarez's theory is that the flow of blood and brain matter leaving
the exit wound drove JFK back towards the shooters position.


Lets look at his experiment [ pp 436 - 437 for those following along]

Luis Alvarez went to the San Leandro Municipal firing range with
Sharon "Buck" Buckingham, and a bunch of melons wrapped in 1 inch
Scotch "filament tape". [Sharon is male, so you know why he uses 'Buck']


Lets look at the experiment.

Buck used a 30.06 from about 30m away, about 100 feet.
Oswald was using a Mannlicher-Carcano from 265 feet.

Buck used a 150 grain soft-nosed bullet, hitting the melon at 3000 fps.
Oswald supposedly used a 160 grain bullet that struck at 1800 fps.

And, as you know, soft-nosed bullets fragment extensively, while
copper jacketed MC rounds normally do not.

The results:

Six out of seven melons moved back and towards the gun when shot.

When Oswald supposedly fired, JFK's head went back and to the left,
even though Oswald was to JFK's right.

Hmmmm........

Aside from the obvious differences in ammunition, distance, velocity,
what does it prove?

It proves JFK was hit by a soft-nosed high velocity bullet fired from
JFK's left, such as the Dal-Tex building or the County Records
Building. The resulting flow of blood and brain tissue drove JFK back
and to the left, towards the shooter.


Thank you Professor Alvarez for demonstrating that Oswald was innocent.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!jmk
From: [e-mail] (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Momentum
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jun 92 23:50:10 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 26

Well, I borrowed _Six Seconds in Dallas_ from a friend and found the
following interview of William Newman. He of course is the man who was
shown on the ground along with Mrs. Newman protecting their children
on the grassy knoll. They were as close to JFK at the time of the head
shot as anyone.

    Thompson   Now could you tell me about the impact on the
                   President's head, what you saw?...

    Newman     ... The way he was hit, it looked like he was hit
                   with a baseball pitch...

    Thompson   But it's your feeling that the shots were coming
                   from over your... right behind you, based on (1) the
                   sound of the shots, (2) the impact on the President's
                   head, and (3) the movement of the President's head
                   after impact. Would that be a fair statement?

    Newman     Right. Well I think everybody thought the shots were
                   from where I'm saying -- behind us...

What is the point in denying it? He was hit from the front.
I believed the Lone Nut story for years, but it's a lie.

---
Joe Knapp    [e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!jmk
From: [e-mail] (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy" (LBJ and JEH)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jun 92 00:39:42 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <!![e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 23

On the subject of JFK and extremists, here are some of his own words
that ring true in some ways even today:

        And under the strains and frustrations imposed by constant tension
        and harassment, the discordant voices of extremism are once again
        heard in the land. Men who are unwilling to face up to the danger
        from without are convinced that the real danger is from within.
        They look suspiciously at their neighbors and their leaders. They
        call for "a man on horseback" because they do not trust the people.
        They find treason in our churches, in our highest court, in our
        treatment of water. They equate the Democratic Party with the
        welfare state, the welfare state with socialism, socialism with
        communism. They object quite rightly to politics intruding on the
        military -- but they are very anxious for the military to engage
        in their kind of politics... Let our patriotism be reflected in the
        creation of confidence in one another, rather than in crusades of
        suspicion.
                                                President John F. Kennedy

Yes, I realize that this quote can cut several different ways!

---
Joe Knapp    [e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Angles
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 21:04:15 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 90


re: 1496  (Bruce Schuck)


>Joel "Over_Medicated" Grant >

    No telling what those antibiotics might do, eh?

[more ranting about the mysterious word `several']

>If you can find anywhere where I said Tague was to the right of
>the midline of the limo, post it.

>I have *always* said Tague was to the right of a line drawn from
>the 6th floor TSBD to the limo and then extended past Tague's
>location. It isn't until Z frame 410 [see the FBI memo in the WC
>Hearings] that Tague lines up with the limo and a line drawn
>from the 6th floor TSBD.

    Having no desire to wade back through several hundred
    articles I won't quibble about what your position
    has *always* been.  Certainly, had you stated it
    as clearly as above we could have saved quite a
    bit of time.  Having drawn the relevant lines long
    since I don't dispute this analysis one whit.

>Who cares (I certainly don't) where Tague is in relation to the
>midline of the limo. Nobody was shooting from the limo. You claim
>Oswald was firing from a window on the 6th floor TSBD. Thats where
>you should start drawing lines.

    We are back to square one where I said: the bullet
    which hit JFK's skull fragmented and such fragments
    need not fly in precisely the same path as the
    bullet, had the bullet not been fragmented.  The position
    where the bullet hit is not inconsistent with a
    bullet fragment leaving JFK's skull.

>Oswald was always to JFK's right. Tague was always to the right
>of a line drawn from the snipers nest over top of the limo until
>frame 410. Thats why it's damned unlikely a fragment of a bullet
>fired by Oswald ever wounded Tague. Unless there were shots fired
>around Z 410.

    As I say, Tague's location is not inconsistent with
    a bullet fragment hitting JFK's skull and being
    deflected.  I said that long ago and I say it again.

>Tague's wounding was probably caused by a bullet fired from some
>other location, such as the Dal-Tex building.


>If you draw a line from the Dal-Tex to Tague, you see the limo
>was within a few feet of that line for most of the time it was
>on Elm, including the frames where shots seem to be fired.

>A miss by a shooter in the Dal-Tex is a better explanation
>than the WR's non-explanation.

    I will also agree the WR's explanation is wishy-washy.
    They are not real clear on which shots hit and which
    shots missed.  The firing tests they did on the
    skulls were far less than perfect because they were
    aiming at a point below and to the right of the actual
    entrance wound.  Lattimer's skull tests, using a more
    appropriate inshoot location demonstrated repeatedly
    the type of fragmentation and the fragments' ability
    to be deflected somewhat from the true course.

    If you draw a line from 6th floor TSBD to the
    spot where the fragment hit and then compare
    the angle to the limo at 313 you will find the
    angle is not that great.

    Now...

    While we're at it, and have got the rulers/protractors
    out and all that, care to try your hand at computing
    the angles from the stockade fence to the limo at
    313 and/or 219-221?  Angle above, angle to the right,
    correllated with angle of JFK, approx. 11 degrees
    down, 25 degrees (according to HSCA, since you have
    asked for the source) to the left.  Donahue says
    15 degrees.  Take your pick, or come up with some
    other competent analysis.  Let's see a way this
    lines-up with such wounds as you postulate.
    Test firings supporting your analysis would be
    helpful...

Joel Grant  (writing on his own behalf)
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!darwin.sura.net!cs.ucf.edu!tarpit!tous!bilver!dona
From: [e-mail] (Don Allen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy" by Jacob Cohen
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jun 92 23:43:05 GMT
References: <-3![e-mail]>
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Lines: 65

In article <-3![e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>The "non-conspiracy" version of the Kennedy assassination is argued for
>in great detail in an article on p. 32 of the June, 1992 issue of "Commentary"
>by Jacob Cohen, Chairman of the Department of American Studies at
>Brandeis University: "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy."
>
>
>Cohen examines in detail the implausible assumptions underlying the
>various "conspiracy" claims. Some brief quotes:
>
>    Zapruder is now dead, but Sitzman (his secretary) was interviewed
>    for a sensational five-part documentary produced by the Arts and
>    Entertainment (A&E) Network on cable TV. Somehow, the interviewer
>    did not ask her whether she noticed a man shooting the President
>    just to her right front. [where a gunman on the 'grassy knoll'
>    would have been].... notwithstanding Stone's insinuations, no one
>    saw a gun on the knoll, though it would have been in the clear
>    line of sight of hundreds of the 692 people who have been identified
>    in Dealy Plaza.
>
>    ....people who claim they were roughed up and threatened because
>    they had seen inadmissible things. Stone graphically depicts these
>    alleged brutalities... Stone and others would have us believe that
>    there was a platoon of conspirators, incognito, surveying every
>    person's eyes, entering minds and cameras, knowing infallibly who
>    had incriminating evidence and who did not. Like Santa Claus, they
>    knew who had been bad or good, and they brutalized only those who
>    saw or photographed the bad thing....
>
>    It is often asked why Oswald denied killing the President, as though
>    guilty people do not deny things all the time.... He himself was
>    the first to insist that the backyard photo of him with a gun was
>    a forgery... he made up an easily contraindicated story that the
>    manager of the Depository brought a rifle to the building ... he
>    denied using an alias at his rooming house...
>
>    To sum up: (1) Oswald worked in the building which was the only
>    source of the shots; (2) owned and possessed the one and only
>    murder rifle; (3) brought it to work with him the morning of
>    the murder; (4) was at the murder window at the time the President
>    was shot; (5) left the scene immediately after the shooting;
>    (6) shot an officer who attempted to question him and then
>    forcibly resisted arrest; (7) lied about crucial matters of fact
>    when interrogated. [(8): this was not his *first* assassination
>    attempt: General Walker].

Robert, I realize you didn't write this and am just passing it on, but
my opinion is simply one word: BULLSHIT!

Just the inconsistencies regarding the actual rifle are enough to poke
holes in the lone gunman *theory*. What about all the witnesses who
heard shots coming FROM the grassy knoll area? The sounds heard on the
Dictabelt recording? The rush to get JFK's body out of Texas? Etc,etc
and ad nausuem.

Lone gunman? Right..sure..go back to sleep. :-)


Don

--
-* Don Allen *-               // Only   | Tavistock + Esalen = "New Age"
Internet: [e-mail]  \X/ Amiga   | Rothschild + Rockefeller = FED
UUCP: .uunet!peora!bilver!vicstoy!dona  | UN + Maitreya = "Twilight Zone"
"A democracy cannot be both ignorant and free"  - Thomas Jefferson
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!wupost!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!citylit!boyd.naron
From: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: WILL FRITZ REPORT PART 1
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 19:43:00 GMT
Reply-To: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Organization: The City Lights PCBoard - Sacramento, CA - [phone]
Lines: 188

There  has  been much mystery surrounding the events from the  time  Lee
Harvey  Oswald  was  arrested  on  November  22,  1963,  until  his  own
assassination two days later.  Was he mistreated?  What were the  police
interrogations like?  What did Oswald tell the police while in jail?

Direct  from  the  pages of the Warren Report itself is  the  report  by
Captain  J. W. Fritz, who during the almost two days that Oswald was  in
his  custody, interviewed and interrogated him more than any  other  law
enforcement officer in Dallas.  Hopefully you will read this and pick up
on a couple of things I managed to notice as well.

The report is without a doubt one of the worst I've ever read.  It tends
to show a total lack of professionalism on the part of the Dallas Police
Department  during this period of time.  It's as if everyone  in  Dallas
was  a  couple  of  cards  short of a  full  deck.   They  were  totally
unprepared for the pressure that erupted during their investigation  and
as a result, performed poorly. (and that's being kind!)

Anyway,  I offer this transcript of Captain Fritz's report.   Please  do
not blame me for the grammar or the spelling.  I verified that what  you
see  below and in the subsequent messages is EXACTLY what was  published
in the Warren Report!

                        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

               REPORT OF CAPT. J. W. FRITZ, DALLAS POLICE
                               DEPARTMENT

                   INTERROGATION OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD


building on November 22, 1963, immediately after the President was  shot
and after we had found the location where Lee Harvey Oswald had done the
shooting from and left three empty cartridge cases on the floor and  the
rifle  had  been found partially hidden under some boxes near  the  back
stairway.   These pieces of evidence were protected until the Crime  Lab
could  get pictures and make a search for fingerprints.  After Lt.  Day,
of  the Crime Lab, had finished his work with the rifle, I picked it  up
and  found  that  it had a cartridge in the chamber,  which  I  ejected.
About  this  time some officer came to me and told me that  Mr.  Roy  S.
Truly wanted to see me, as one of his men had left the building.  I  had
talked to Mr. Truly previously, and at that time he thought everyone was
accounted  for  who worked in the building.  Mr. Truly  then  came  with
another  officer  and  told me that a Lee Harvey  Oswald  had  left  the
building.   I  asked if he had an address where this man lived,  and  he
told me that he did, that it was in Irving at 2515 W. 5th Street.

I  then left the rest of the search of the building with  Chief  Lumpkin
and  other officers who were there and told Dets. R. M. Sims and  E.  L.
Boyd to accompany me to the City Hall where we could make a quick  check
for police record and any other information of value, and we would  then
go to Irving, Texas, in an effort to apprehend this man.  While I was in
the building, I was told that Officer J. D. Tippit had been shot in  Oak
Cliff.  Immediately after I reached my office, I asked the officers  who
had  brought in a prisoner from the Tippit shooting who the man was  who
shot  the officer.  They told me his name was Lee Harvey Oswald,  and  I
replied  that  that  was  our suspect in  the  President's  killing.   I
instructed the officers to bring this man into the office after  talking
to the officers for a few minutes in the presence of Officers R. M. Sims
and  E. L. Boyd of the Homicide Bureau and possibly some Secret  Service
men.  Just as I had started questioning this man I received a call  from
Gordon  Shanklin, Agent in Charge of the FBI office here in Dallas,  who
asked  me to let him talk to Jim Bookhout, one of his agents.   He  told
Mr.  Bookhout  that he would like for James P. Hosty to sit in  on  this
interview as he knew about these people and had interviewed them before.
I invited Mr. Bookhout and Mr. Hosty in to help with the interview.

After some questions about this man's full name I asked him if he worked
for  the Texas School Book Depository, and he told me he did.   I  asked
him  which floor he worked on, and he said usually on the  second  floor
but  sometimes his work took him to all the different floors.   I  asked
him  what part of the building he was in at the time the  President  was
shot, and he said that he was having lunch about that time on the  first
floor.   Mr.  Truly  had told me that one of  the  police  officers  had
stopped this man immediately after the shooting somewhere near the  back
stairway, so I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer  topped
him.   He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when  the
officer  came  in.  I asked him why he left the building,  and  he  said
there was so much excitement he didn't this there would be any more work
done  that day, and that as this company wasn't particular  about  their
hours, that they did not punch a clock, and that he thought it would  be
just as well that he left for the rest of the afternoon.  I asked him is
he owned a rifle, and he said that he did not.  He said that he had seen
one  at  the  building  a few days ago, and  that  Mr.  Truly  and  some
employees  looking  at it.  I asked him where he went to  when  he  left
work,  and he told me that he had a room on 1026 North Beckley, that  he
went over there and changed his trousers and got his pistol and went  to
the  picture  show.   I  asked him why he carried  his  pistol,  and  he
remarked,  "You know how boys do when they have a gun, they  just  carry
it."

Mr.  Hosty asked Oswald if he had been in Russia, He told him, "Yes,  he
had been in Russia three years."  He asked him if he had written to  the
Russian  Embassy,  and he said he had.  This man became very  upset  and
arrogant  with  Agent Hosty when he questioned him and  accused  him  of
accosting  his wife two different times.  When Agent Hosty attempted  to
talk  to  this man, he would hit his fist on the desk.  I  asked  Oswald
what  he meant by accosting his wife when he was talking to  Mr.  Hosty.
He said Mr. Hosty mistreated his wife two different times when he talked
with  her, practically accosted her.  Mr. Hosty also asked Oswald if  he
had been to Mexico City, which he denied.  During the interview he  told
me  that he had gone to school in New York and Fort Worth,  Texas,  that
after  going  into the Marines, finished his high school  education.   I
asked  him if he won any medals for rifle shooting in the  Marines.   He
said that he had the usual medals.

I asked him what his political beliefs were, and he said he had none but
that  he belonged to the Fair Play For Cuba Committee and told  me  that
they  had  headquarters in New York and that he had been  Secretary  for
this organization in New Orleans when he lived there.  He also said that
he supports the Castro Revolution.  One of the officers had told me that
he had rented the room on Beckley under the name of O. H. Lee.  I  asked
him  why  he  did  this.   He said the  landlady  did  it.   She  didn't
understand his name correctly.

Oswald asked if he was allowed an attorney and I told him he could  have
any attorney he liked, and that the telephone would be available to  him
up  in  the jail and he could call anyone he wished.  I believe  it  was
during  this interview that he first expressed a desire to talk  to  Mr.
Abt,  an attorney in New York.  Interviews on this day were  interrupted
by  showups where witnesses identified Oswald positively as the man  who
killed Tippit, and the time I would have to talk with another witness or
to  some of the officers.  One of these showups was held at 4:35 pm  and
the next one at 6:30 pm and at 7:55 pm  At 7:05 pm I signed a  complaint
before Bill Alexander of the District Attorney's office, charging Oswald
with  the Tippit murder.  At 7:10 pm Tippit (sic) was  arraigned  before
Judge  Johnston.  During the second day interviews I asked Oswald  about
the  card that he had in his purse showing that he belonged to the  Fair
Play  For Cuba Committee, which he admitted was his.  I asked him  about
another  identification  card  in his pocket bearing the  name  of  Alex
Hidell.  He said he picked up that name in New Orleans while working  in
the Fair Play FOr Cuba organization.  He said he spoke Russian, that  he
corresponded with people in Russia, and that he received Newspapers from
Russia.

I  showed  the  rifle to Marina Oswald, and  she  could  not  positively
identify it, but that it looked like the rifle that her husband had  and
that  he  had  been keeping it in the garage at  Mrs.  Paine's  home  in
Irving.  After this, I questioned Oswald further about the rifle, but he
denied  owning a rifle at all, and said that he did have a  small  rifle
some  years  back.  I asked him if he owned a rifle in  Russia,  and  he
said,  "You  know  you can't buy a rifle in Russia,  you  can  only  buy
shotguns."   "I  had a shotgun in Russia and hunted some  while  there."
Marina  Oswald  had  told me that she thought  her  husband  might  have
brought the rifle from New Orleans, which he denied.  He told me that he
had  some things stored in a garage at Mrs. Paine's home in  Irving  and
that he had a few personal effects at his room on Beckley.  I instructed
the officers to make a thorough search of both of these places.

After  reviewing  all  of  the evidence pertaining  to  the  killing  of
President Kennedy before District Attorney Henry Wade and his assistant,
Bill Alexander, and Jim Allen, former First District Attorney of  Dallas
County,  I  signed  a complaint before the  District  Attorney  charging
Oswald  with the murder of President Kennedy.  This was at 11:26 pm   He
was arraigned before Judge David Johnston at 1:35 am, November 23, 1963.

Oswald was placed in jail about 12:00 midnight and brought from the jail
for arraignment, before Judge David Johnston at 1:36 am.

On  November  23  at  10:25  AM Oswald was  brought  from  jail  for  an
interview.   Present  at this time was FBI Agent Jim  Bookhout,  Forrest
Sorrels,  special  agent  in charge of  Secret  Service,  United  States
Marshall  Robert Nash, and Homicide officers.  During this  interview  I
talked to Oswald about his leaving the building, and he told me he  left
by bus and rode to a stop near home and walked on to his house.  At  the
time  of  Oswald's  arrest  he had a bus transfer  in  his  pocket.   He
admitted  this was given to him by the bus driver when he rode  the  bus
after leaving the building.

One of the officers had told me that a cab driver, William Wayne Whaley,
thought he had recognized Oswald's picture as the man who had gotten  in
his cab near the bus station and rode to Beckley Avenue.  I asked Oswald
if  he had ridden a cab on that day, and he said, "Yes, I did ride in  a
cab.  The bus I got on near where I work got into heavy traffic and  was
traveling too slow, and I got off and caught a cab."  I asked him  about
his  conversation  with the cab driver, and he said he  remembered  that
when  he got in the cab a lady came up to who also wanted a cab, and  he
told Oswald to tell the lady to "take another cab".

We  found  from the investigation the day before that when  Oswald  left
home,  he was carrying a long package.  He usually went to see his  wife
of week ends, but this time he had gone on Thursday night.  I asked  him
if  he  had told Buell Wesley Frazier why he had gone home  a  different
night, and if he had told him anything about bringing back some  curtain
rods.  He denied it.

<<Continued in Next Message>>

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!wupost!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!citylit!boyd.naron
From: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: HILL TESTIMONY PART 2
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 20:04:00 GMT
Reply-To: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Organization: The City Lights PCBoard - Sacramento, CA - [phone]
Lines: 192

SP:  And how far was the President's car in front of the President's
     followup car during the course of the motorcade?

HI:  Approximately 5 feet.

SP:  Is there some well-established practice as to the spacing between
     the President's car and the President's followup car?

HI:  It would depend upon speed.  We attempt to stay as close to the
     President's car as practical.  At high rates of speed it is rather
     difficult to stay close because od the danger involved.  Slow
     speeds, the followup car stays as close as possible so that the
     agents on the followup car can get to the Presidential car as
     quickly as possible.

SP:  What was the first car to the rear of the President's followup
     car?

HI:  The Vice-Presidential automobile.

SP:  What car was immmediately behind the Vice President's automobile?

HI:  The Vice-Presidential followup car.

SP:  Do you know what cars in the Dallas motorcade followed the Vice-
     Presient's followup car?

HI:  Well, I couldn't say which car any individual rode in after that
     particular automobile, but I could say they were occupied by
     members of the staff, both President Kennedy's and Vide President
     Johnson's; Congressmen, Senators who were on this particular trip;
     newspaper personnel who were on this trip.

SP:  Would you identify the occupants of the President's followup car
     and indicate where each was in the automobile?

HI:  The car itself was driven by Special Agent Sam Kinney, and
     Assistant to the Special Agent in Charge Emory Roberts was riding
     in the right front seat.  I was assigned to work the left running
     board of the automobile; forward portion of that running board.
     McIntyre was assigned to work the rear portion of the left running
     board.  Special Agent John Ready was assigned the forward portion
     of the right running board; Special Agent Paul Landis was assigned
     the rear portion of the right running board.  There were two jump
     seats, and they were occupied by two Presidential aides, Mr.
     O'Donnell and Mr. Powers.  Mr. Powers was sitting on the right-
     hand side; Mr. O'Donnell on the left.  The rear seat was occupied,
     left rear by Special Agent Hickey, right rear, Special Agent
     Bennett.

SP:  How were the agents armed at that time?

HI:  All the agents were armed with their hand weapons.

SP:  And is there any weapon in the automobile in addition to the hand
     weapons?

HI:  Yes.  There is an AR-15, which is an automatic rifle, and a
     shotgun.

SP:  And where is the AR-15 kept?

HI:  Between the two agents in the rear seat.

SP:  How about the shotgun; where is it kept?

HI:  In a compartment immediately in front of the jump seats.

SP:  Is the President's followup car a specially constructed
     automobile?

HI:  Yes, sir; it is.

SP:  Ans what is the make and model and general description of that
     vehicle?

HI:  It is a 1955 Cadillac, nine-passenger touring sedan.  It is a
     convertible type.

SP:  Was that automobile flown in specially from Washington for the
     occasion?

HI:  Yes; it was, sir.

SP:  Do you know how that automobile was trasnported to Dallas, Tex.?

HI:  Generally, it is flown in a C-130 by the Air Force.  I am not sure
     how on this particular occasion.

SP:  Will you describe, in a general way, the composition of the crowds
     en route from Love Field down to the center of Dallas, please?

HI:  Well, when we left Love Field, we went away from the crowd to get
     to the exit point at Love Field, and there were no crowds at all,
     and then we, departing Love Field, found the crowds were sporadic.
     There were people here and there.  Some places they had built up
     and other places they were thinned out.  The speed of the
     motorcade was adjusted accordingly.  Whenever there were large
     groups of people, the motorcade slowed down to give the people the
     opportunity to view the President.  When there were not many
     people along the side of the street, we speeded up.  We didn't
     really hit the crowds until we hit Main Street.

SP:  What is you best estimate of the maximum speed of the automobile
     from the time you left Love Field until the time you arrived at
     downtown Dallas?

HI:  I would say we never ran any faster than 25 to 30 miles per hour.

SP:  What is your best estimate of the minimum speed during this same
     interval?

HI:  Twelve to fifteen miles per hour.  We did stop.

SP:  On what occasion did you stop?

HI:  Between Love Field and Main Street, downtown Dallas, on the right
     hand side of the street there were a group of people with a long
     banner which said "Please, Mr. President, stop and shake our
     hands."  And the President requested the motorcade to stop, and he
     beckoned to the people and asked them to come and chake his hand,
     which they did.

SP:  Did the President disembark from his automobile at that time?

HI:  No; he remained in his seat.

SP:  At that time what action, if any, did you take?

HI:  I jumped from the followup car and ran up to the left rear portion
     of the automobile with my back toward Mrs. Kennedy viewing those
     persons on the left-hand side of the street.

SP:  What action was taken by any other Secret Service agent which you
     observed at that time.

HI:  Special Agent Ready, who was working the forward portion of the
     right running board, did the same thing, only on the President's
     side, placing his back toward the car, and viewed the people
     facing the President.  Assistant in Charge Kellerman opened the
     door of the President's car and stepped out on the street.

SP:  What action was taken by Special Agent McIntyre, if you know?

HI:  I do not know.

SP:  How about Special Agent Landis?

HI:  I do not know.

SP:  What is your normal procedure for action in the event the
     President's car is stopped, as it did in that event?

HI:  Special Agent McIntyre would normally jump off the car and run to
     the forward portion of the left-hand side of the car; Special
     Agent Landis would move to the right-hand forward portion of the
     automobile.

SP:  Did anything else which was unusual occur en route from Love Field
     to the downtown area of Dallas?

HI:  Before we hit Main Street?

SP:  Yes, sir.

HI:  Not that I recall.

SP:  Did you have occasion to leave the President's followup car at any
     time?

HI:  When we finally did reach Main Street, the crowds had built up to
     a point where they were surging into the street.  We had
     motorcycles running adjacent to both the Presidential automobile
     and the followup car, as well as in front of the Presidential
     automobile, and because of the crowds in the streetm the
     President's sriver, Special Agent Greer, was running the car more
     to the left-hand side of the street more than he was to the right
     to keep the President as far away from the crowd as possible. and
     because pf this the motorcycles on the left-hand side could not
     get past the crowd and alongside the car, and they were forced to
     drop back.  I jumped from the followup car, ran up and got on top
     of the rear portion of the Presidential to be close to Mrs.
     Kennedy in the event that someone attempted to grab her from the
     crowds or throw anything in the car.

SP:  When you say the rear portion of the automobile, can you, by
     referring to Commission Exhibit No. 345, heretofore identified as
     the President's automobile, specify by penciled "X" where you
     stood?

<<Continued in Next Message>>

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!wupost!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!citylit!boyd.naron
From: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: HILL TESTIMONY PART 1
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 20:04:00 GMT
Reply-To: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Organization: The City Lights PCBoard - Sacramento, CA - [phone]
Lines: 191

The following is a transcript of the testimony given by Special Agent
Clinton J. Hill, Secret Service, before the Warren Commission.  You
maybe be more familiar with Special Agent Hill as the only agent to
have done ANYTHING during the actual assassination of President
Kennedy.  In all of the films, Special Agent Hill is seen, climbing
onto the Presidential limousine from the rear to protect the
Presidential party.

I do not have the date of his appearance before the Warren Commission,
nor do I know the identity of the "Mr. Craig" mentioned near the end of
the transcript.

Feel free to spread this transcript around as much as you like.  I
would ask, since I spent we over eight hours typing this in, that if
you have a similar transcript, maybe of some other 'principle' in the
JFK assassination, that you send me a copy.

My internet address is (citylit![e-mail])

     Boyd Naron

                         =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

                              Principles:

                                            Initials
                      Name                     Used

                    Arlen Spector             - SP
                    Clinton Hill              - HI
                    Representative Boggs      - BO
                    Representative Ford       - FO
                    Chief Justice Earl Warren - WA
                    A Mr. Craig (unknown)     - CR

                          (Transcript Begins)

SP:  Mr Hill, would you state your full name for the record, please?

HI:  Clinton J. Hill

SP:  How old are you, sir?

HI:  Thirty-two

SP:  What is your educational background?

HI:  I went to secondary educational high school in Washburn, North
     Dakota and then went on to Concordia College, Moorhead, Minnesota.
     I was a history and education major, with a minor in physical
     education.

SP:  What year were you graduated?

HI:  1954

SP:  What have you done since the time of graduation from college, Mr.
     Hill?

HI:  I went into the Army in 1954; remained in the Army until 1957.
     Then I couldn't determine what I wanted to do; whether to go to
     law school or not, and I took a couple of odd jobs.  I worked for
     a finance company at one time.  Then I went to work for the
     Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad as a spcial agent int he
     spring of 1958, and entered the Secret Service in September 1958.

SP:  You have been with the Secret Service since September 1958 to the
     present time?

HI:  Yes I have.

SP:  Will you outline for the Commission your duties with the Secret
     Service during your tenure there?

HI:  I entered the Secret Service in Denver, and during that period I
     did noth investigative and protection work.  I was assigned to
     Mrs. Doud, the mother-in-law of President Eisenhower.  I attended
     the Treasury Law Enforcement School during my first year, and was
     sent to the White House for a 30-day temporary assignment at the
     White House in June 1959.  In November of 1959, November 1, I was
     transferred to the White House on a permanent basis as a special
     agent assigned to the White House Detail.  I have been at the
     White House since that time.

SP:  Now, were you assigned to duties on the trip of President Kennedy
     to Texas in November 1963?

HI:  Yes, sir; I was.

SP:  Did you have any special duty assigned to you at that time?

HI:  Yes, sir.

SP:  In connection with the trip?

HI:  I was responsible for the protection of Mrs. Kennedy.

SP:  And, in a general way, what does that sort of assignment involve?

HI:  I tried to remain as close to her at all times as possible, and in
     this particular trip that meant being with the President because
     all of their doings on this trip were together rather than
     separate.  I would go over her schedule to make sure she knows
     what she is expected to do; discuss it with her; remain in her
     general area all the time; protect her from any danger.

SP:  Would you tell us, in a general way, what were the activities of
     the President and Mrs. Kennedy on the morning of Friday, November
     22, before they arrived in Dallas?

HI:  I went to the fifth floor, I believe it was, where the President
     and Mrs. Kennedy were staying in the Texas Hotel in Fort Worth at
     8:15 in the morning.  President Kennedy was to go downstairs and
     across the street to make a speech to a gathering in a parking
     lot.  I remained on the floor during the period the President was
     gone.

     It was raining outside, I recall.  About 9:25 I received word from
     Special Agent Duncan that the President requested Mrs. Kennedy to
     come to the mezzanine, where a breakfast was being held in his
     honor, and where he was about to speak.  I went in and advised
     Mrs. Kennedy of this, and took her down to where the President was
     speaking; remained with her adjacent to the head table in this
     particular area during the speech; and accompanied she and the
     President back up to the, I believe it was, the fifth floor of the
     hotel; their residential area; remained on that floor until we
     left, went downstairs; got into the motorcade, and departed the
     hotel for the airport to leave Fort Worth for Dallas.

     We were airborne approximately 11:20, I believe, in Air Force 1.
     I was in the aft compartment, which is the residential
     compartment, and we arrived in Dallas at 11:40.

SP:  Would you describe, in a general way, what the President and Mrs.
     Kennedy did upon arrival in Dallas?

HI:  The debarked the rear ramp opf the aircraft first, followed by
     Governor and Mrs. Connally, various Congressmen and Senators.  And
     Special Agent in Charge Kellerman and myself went down the ramp,
     and somebody gave Mrs. Kennedy some red roses, I recall.  I walked
     immediately to the followup car and placed my topcoat, which is a
     raincoat, and small envelope containing some information
     concerning the Dallas stop in the followup car, returning to where
     the President and Mrs. Kennedy were at the time greeting a
     crippled lady in a wheelchair.

SP:  What do you esitmate the size of the crowd to have been at Dallas
     that morning?

HI:  At the airport?

SP:  Yes, sir.

HI:  It is rather sifficult to day.  They were behind a chain-link
     fence, not on the airport ramp itself, and they were jammed up
     against the fence holding placards, and many young people in the
     crowd.  I would say probably 2,000 people there.

SP:  At approximately what time did the motorcade depart from Love
     Field to Dallas?

HI:  Approximately 11:55

SP:  Do you know approximately how many automobiles there were in the
     motorcade?

HI:  No, sir; I do not.

SP:  In which car in the motorcade were you positioned?

HI:  I was working the followup car, which is the car immediately
     behind the Presidential car.

SP:  And how many cars are there ahead of the followup car, then, in
     the entire motorcade?

HI:  There was a lead car ahead of the President's car, the President's
     car, then this particular followup car.

SP:  Do you know whether there was any car in advance of the car termed
     the lead car?

HI:  There could have been a pilot car, but I'm not sure.

SP:  Now, approximately how far in front of the President's car did the
     lead car stay during the course of the motorcade?

HI:  I would say a half block, maybe.

<<Continued in Next Message>>

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!wupost!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!citylit!boyd.naron
From: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: WILL FRITZ REPORT PART 2
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 19:44:00 GMT
Reply-To: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Organization: The City Lights PCBoard - Sacramento, CA - [phone]
Lines: 95

During  this  conversation  he told me he reached his home  by  cab  and
changed  his shirt and trousers before going to the show.  He  said  his
cab  fare  was 85 cents.  When asked what he did with his  clothing,  he
took off when he got home, he said he put them in the dirty clothes.  In
talking  with him further about his location at the time  the  President
was  killed,  he  said he ate lunch with some of the  colored  boys  who
worked with him.  One of them was called "Junior" and the other one  was
a little short man whose name he did not know.  He said he had a  cheese
sandwich  and  some fruit and that was the only package he  had  brought
with him to work and denied that he had brought a long package described
by Mr. Frazier and his sister.

I asked him why he lived in a room, while his wife lived in Irving.   He
said  Mrs.  Paine, the lady his wife lived with, was  learning  Russian,
that  is wife needed help with the young baby, and that it made  a  nice
arrangement for the both of them.  He said he didn't know Mr. Paine very
well,  but Mrs. Paine and his wife, he thought, were separated  a  great
deal of the time.  He said he owned no car, but that the Paines have two
cars,  and told that in the garage at the Paine's home he had  some  sea
bags  that had a lot of his personal belongings, that he had  left  them
there after coming back from New Orleans in September.

He  said  he had a brother, Robert, who lived in Fort Worth.   We  later
found that this brother lived in Denton.  He said the Paines were  close
friends of his.

I  asked him if he belonged to the Communist Party, but he said that  he
had never had a card, but repeated that he belonged to the Fair Play For
Cuba  organization, and he said that he belonged to the  American  Civil
Liberties  Union and paid $5.00 dues.  I asked him again why he  carried
the  pistol to the show.  He refused to answer the questions  about  the
pistol.   He  did  tell me, however, that he bought  it  several  months
before in Fort Worth, Texas.

I  noted that in questioning him that he did answer very quickly, and  I
asked him if he had ever been questioned before, and he told me that  he
had.  He was questioned one time for a long time by the FBI after he had
returned  from Russia.  He said they used different methods, they  tried
the hard soft, and the buddy method, and said he was very familiar  with
interrogation.   He  reminded  me that he did not  have  to  answer  any
questions  at all until he talked to his attorney, and I told him  again
that  he could have an attorney any time he wished.  He said  he  didn't
have  money  to  pay for a phone call to Mr. Abt.  I told  him  to  call
"collect",  if  he liked, to use the jail phone or that  he  could  have
another attorney if he wished.  He said he didn't want another attorney,
he  wanted to talk to this attorney first.  I believe he made this  call
later  as he thanked me later during one of our interviews for  allowing
him  to use the telephone.  I explained to him that all  prisoners  were
allowed  to  use  the telephone.  I asked him why  he  wanted  Mr.  Abt,
instead  of some available attorney.  He told me he didn't know Mr.  Abt
personally, but that he was familiar with a case where Mr. Abt  defended
some people for a violation of the Smith Act, and that if he didn't  get
Mr.  Abt,  that he felt sure the American Civil  Liberties  Union  would
furnish him a lawyer.  He explained to me that this organization  helped
people who needed attorneys and weren't able to get them.

While  in New Orleans, he lived at 4907 Magazine Street and at one  time
worked  for  the William Riley Company near that  address.   When  asked
about  previous  arrests, he told me that he had had  a  little  trouble
while working with the Fair Play For Cuba Committee and had a fight with
some  anti-Castro  people.  He also told me of a debate  on  some  radio
station in New Orleans where he debated with some anti-Castro people.

I asked him what he thought of President Kennedy and his family, and  he
said  he didn't have any views on the President.  He said, "I  like  the
President's  family  very  well.  I have my  own  views  about  national
policies."   I  asked  him about a polygraph test.  He told  me  he  had
refused  a polygraph test with the FBI, and he certainly  wouldn't  take
one  at this time.  Both Mr. Bookhout, of the FBI, and Mr.  Kelley,  and
the Marshall asked Oswald some questions during this interview.

Oswald  was  placed back in jail at 11:35 am.  At 12:35  pm  Oswald  was
brought  to the office for another interview with Inspector  Kelley  and
some  of  the other officers and myself.  I talked to Oswald  about  the
different  places he had lived in Dallas in an effort to find  where  he
was living when the picture was made of him holding a rifle which looked
to be the same rifle we had recovered.  This picture showed to be  taken
near a stairway with many identifying things in the back yard.  He  told
me abOut one of the places he had lived.

Mr. Paine had told me about where Oswald lived on Neely Street.   Oswald
was very evasive about this location.  We found later that this was  the
place where the picture was made.  I again asked him about his  property
and  where his things might be kept, and he told me about the things  at
Mrs. Paine's residence and a few things at Beckley.  He was placed  back
in jail at 1:10 pm.

At  6:00  PM  I instructed the officers to bring Oswald  back  into  the
office,  and  in the presence of Jim Bookhout,  Homicide  officers,  and
Inspector  Kelley,  of the Secret Service, I showed Oswald  an  enlarged
picture  of him holding a rifle and wearing a pistol.  This picture  had
been  enlarged  by our Crime Lab from a picture found in the  garage  at
Mrs.  Paine's home.  He said the picture was not him, that the face  was
his  face, but that this picture had been made by someone  superimposing
his  face, the othe
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!wupost!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!citylit!boyd.naron
From: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: HILL TESTIMONY PART 3
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 20:04:00 GMT
Reply-To: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Organization: The City Lights PCBoard - Sacramento, CA - [phone]
Lines: 190

HI:  Yes, sir [indicating].

SP:  Will you describe for the record just what area it is back there
     on which you stood?

HI:  That is a step built into the rear bumber of the automobile, and
     on top of the rear trunk there is a handguard which you grab for
     and hang onto when you are standing up.

SP:  Are identical objects of those descriptions existing on each side
     of the President's car?

HI:  Yes, sir; they do.

SP:  Did you have any other occasion en route from Love Field to
     downtown Dallas to leave the followup car and mount that portion
     of the President's car?

HI:  I did the same thing approximately four times.

SP:  What is the standard regulations and practices, if any, governing
     such an action on your part?

HI:  It is left to the agent's discretion more or less to move to that
     particular postion when he feels that there is a danger to the
     President; place himself as close to the President or First Lady
     as my case was, as possible, which I did.

SP:  Are those practices specified in any written documents of the
     Secret Service?

HI:  No; they are not.

SP:  Now, had there been any intructions or comment about your
     performance of that type of duty with respect to anything that
     President Kennedy himself had said in the period immediately
     preceding the trip to Texas?

HI:  Yes, sir; there was.  The preceding Monday, the President was on a
     trip in Tampa, Fla., and he requested that the agents not ride on
     either of those two steps.

SP:  And to whom did the President make this request?

HI:  Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring.

SP:  Was Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring the individual in
     charge of that trip to Florida?

HI:  He was riding in the Presidential automobile on that trip in
     Florida, and I presume that he was.  I was not along.

SP:  Well, on that occasion would he have been in a position comparable
     to that occupied by Special Agent Kellerman on this trip to Texas?

HI:  Yes, sir; the same position.

SP:  And Special Agent Boring informed you of that instruction by the
     President?

HI:  Yes, sir; he did.

SP:  And as a result of what President Kennedy said to him, did he
     instruct you to observe that Presidential admonition?

HI:  Yes, sir.

SP:  How, if at all, did that instruction of President Kennedy affect
     your action and -- your action in safeguarding him on this trip to
     Dallas?

HI:  We did not ride on the rear portions of the automobile.  I did on
     those four occasions because the motorcycles had to drop back and
     there was no protection on the left-hand side of the car.

SP:  When the President's automobile was proceding in dowtown Dallas,
     what was the ordinary speed of the automobile, based on your best
     estimate?

HI:  We were running approximately 12 to 15 miles per hour, I would
     say.

SP:  I show you a document which we have marked as Commission Exhibit
     No. 354, which is an aerial photograph identical with the
     photograph already marked as Commission Exhibit No. 247.

(The photograph referred to was marked Exhibit No. 354 for
identification.)

SP:  I ask you if, referring to Exhibit 354, you are able to identify
     what the scene is?

HI:  Yes, sir; I am.

SP:  Are you able to indicate the route which the President's motorcade
     followed through that area?

HI:  Yes, sir; I am.

SP:  And what does that scene depict -- what city is it?

HI:  That is Dallas, Tex.  It shows Main Street, Houston Street, and
     Elm Street.

SP:  Will you write on the picture itself where Main Street is?  Would
     you now write, as best you can, which street is Houston Street?

HI:  Yes, sir.

SP:  And would you now write which street is Elm?

HI:  Yes, sir.

    (At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)

SP:  Now, would you indicate, if you know, which as a generally
     northerly direction on that picture?

HI:  Yes, sir.

SP:  All right.  What was the condition of the crowd as the motorcade
     made a right hand turn off of Main Street onto Houston?

HI:  The crowd was very large on Main Street, and it was thinning down
     considerably when we reached the end of it, and turned right onto
     Houston Street.  Noticeably on my side of the car, which was the
     left-hand side of the street.

SP:  And what was your best estimate as to the speed of the President's
     car at the time it made the right-hand turn onto Houston Street?

HI:  In the curve?

SP:  The speed -- in the curve itself; yes.

HI:  We were running generally 12 to 15 miles per hour.  I would say
     that in the curve we perhaps slowed to maybe 10 miles per hour.

SP:  And how far behind the President's car was the Presidential
     followup car as the turn was made onto Houston Street?

HI:  Four to five feet, at the most.

SP:  I show you a photograph of a building which as already been marked
     as Commission Exhibit No. 348, and ask you if this time you can
     identify what that building is?

HI:  I believe I can, sir; yes.

SP:  And what is that building?

HI:  It is the Texas School Book Depository.

SP:  Now, does that building appear on the Commission Exhibit No. 354?

HI:  Yes, sir; it does.

SP:  Did you have any occasion to notice the Texas School Book
     Depository Building as you proceeded in a generally northerly
     direction on Houston Street?

HI:  Yes, sir.  It was immediately in front of us and to our left.

SP:  Did you notice anything unusual about it?

HI:  Nothing more unusual than any other building along the way.

SP:  What is your general practice, if any, in observing such buildings
     along the route of a Presidential motorcade?

HI:  We scan the buildings and look specifically for open windows, for
     people hanging out, and there had been, on almost every building
     along the way, people hanging out, windows open.

SP:  And did you observe, as you recollect at this moment, any open
     windows in the Texas School Book Depository Building?

HI:  Yes, sir; there were.

SP:  Are you able to recollect specifically which windows were open at
     this time?

HI:  No, sir; I cannot.

SP:  What was the condition of the crowd along the streets, if any,
     along Elm Street, in front of the Texas School Book Depository
     Building?

<<Continued in Next Message>>

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!wupost!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!citylit!boyd.naron
From: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: HILL TESTIMONY PART 4
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 20:05:00 GMT
Reply-To: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Organization: The City Lights PCBoard - Sacramento, CA - [phone]
Lines: 192

HI:  On the left-hand side of the street, which is the side I was on,
     the crowd was very thin.  And it was a general park area.  There
     were people scattered throughout the entire park.

SP:  Now, what is your best estimate of the speed of the President's
     automobile as it turned off Houston onto Elm Street?

HI:  We were running still 12 to 15 miles per hour, but in the curve I
     believe we slowed down maybe to 10, maybe to 9.

SP:  How far back of the President's automobile was the Presidential
     followup car when the President's followup car had just
     straightened out on Elm Street?

HI:  Approximately 5 feet.

SP:  Now, as the motorcade proceeded at that point, tell us what
     happened?

HI:  Well, as we came out of the curve, and began to straighten up, I
     was viewing the area which looked to be a park.  There were people
     scattered throughout the entire park.  And I heard a noise from my
     right rear, which to me seemed to be a fircracker.  I immediately
     looked to my right, and in so doing, my eyes had to cross the
     Presidential limousine and I saw President Kennedy grab himself
     and lurch forward and to the left.

SP:  Why don't you just proceed, in narrative form, to tell us?

BO:  This was the first shot?

HI:  This was the first sound that I heard; yes, sir.  I jumped from
     the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the
     Presidential limousine.  Just about as I reached it, there was
     another sound, which was different than the first sound.  I think
     I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a
     revolver into a hard object -- it seemed to have some type of an
     echo.  I put my right foot, I believe it was, on the left rear
     step of the automobile, and I had hold of the handgrip with my
     hand, when the car lurched forward.  I lost my footing and I had
     to run about three or four steps before I could get back up in the
     car.

     Between the time I originally grabbed the handhold and until I was
     up on the car, Mrs. Kennedy -- the second noise that I heard had
     removed a portion of the President's head, and he had slumped
     noticeably to his left.  Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat
     and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the
     right rear bumper of the car, the right rear tail, when she
     noticed that I was trying to climb on the car.  Che turned toward
     me and I grabbed her and put her back in the abck seat, crawled up
     on top of the back seat and lay there.

SP:  Now, referring to Commission Exhibit No. 354, would you mark an
     "X", as best you can, at the spot where the Presidential
     automobile was at the time the first shot occurred?

HI:  Approximately there.

SP:  And would you mark a "X" at the approximate position where the
     President's car was at the second shot you have described?  What
     is your best estimate of the speed of the President's car at the
     precise time of the first shot, Mr. Hill?

HI:  We were running between 12 to 15 miles per hour, but no faster
     than 15 miles per hour.

SP:  How many shots have you described that you heard?

HI:  Two.

SP:  Did you hear more than two shots?

HI:  No, sir.

SP:  And what is your best estimate of the speed of the President's
     automobile at the time of the second shot?

HI:  Approximately the same speed as that of the first -- Although at
     the time that I jumped on the car, the car had surged forward.
     The President at that time had been shot in the head.

SP:  When, in relationship to the second shot, did the car accelerate -
     - that is, the President's car?

HI:  Almost immediately.

SP:  You testified just amoment ago that the President grabbed at
     himself immediately after the first noise which you described as
     sounding liek a firecracker.

HI:  Yes, sir.

SP:  Would you tell us with more particularity in what way he grabbed
     at himself?

HI:  He grabbed in this general area.

SP:  You are indicating that your right hand is coming up to you -- to
     the throat.

HI:  Yes, sir.

SP:  And the left hand crosses under the right hand.

HI:  To the chest area.

SP:  To the chest area.  Was tehre any movement of the President's ehad
     or shoulders immediately after the first shot, that you recollect?

HI:  Yes, sir.  Immediately whan I saw him, he was like this, and going
     left and forward.

SP:  Indicating a little fall to the left front.

HI:  Yes, sir.

BO:  This was after a head wound?

HI:  No, sir.

BO:  Before the head wound?

HI:  Yes, sir; this was the first shot.

SP:  Now, what is your best estimate on the timespan between the first
     firecracker-type noise you heard and the second shot which you
     described?

HI:  Approximately 5 seconds.

SP:  Now, did the impact on the President's head occur simutaneously,
     before, or after the second noise which you described?

HI:  Almost simultaneously.

FO:  Did you see the President put his hands to his throat and chest
     while you were still on the followup car, or after you had left
     it?

HI:  As I was leaving it.  And that is one of the reasons I jumped,
     because I saw him grab himself and pitch forward and to the left.
     I knew something was wrong.

FO:  It was 5 seconds from the firecracker noise that you think you got
     to the automobile?

HI:  Until I reached the handhold, had placed my foot on the left rear
     step.

SP:  When, in relationship to the second shot, did Mrs. Kennedy move
     out of the read seat?

HI:  Just after it.

SP:  You say that it appeared that she was reaching as if something was
     coming over to the rear portion of the car, back in the area where
     you were coming to?

HI:  Yes, sir.

SP:  Was there anything back there that you observed, that she might
     have been reaching for?

HI:  I thought I saw something come off the back, too, but I cannot say
     that there was.  I do know that the next day we found the portion
     of the President's head.

SP:  Where did you find that portion of the President's head?

HI:  It was found in the street.  It was turned in, I believe, by a
     medical student or somebody in Dallas.

SP:  Did you have any difficulty maintaining your baclance on the back
     of the car after you had come up on the top of it?

HI:  Not until we turned off to enter the Parkland Hospital.

SP:  Now, what action did you take specifically with respect to placing
     Mrs. Kennedy back in the rear seat?

HI:  I simply just pushed and she moved -- somewhat voluntarily --
     right back into the same seat she was in.  The President -- when
     she had attempted to get out onto the trunk of the car, his body
     apparently did not move too much, because when she got back into
     the car he was at that time, when I got on top of the car, face up
     in her lap.

SP:  And that was after she was back in the rear seat?

<<Continued in Next Message>>

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!wupost!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!citylit!boyd.naron
From: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: HILL TESTIMONY PART 5
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 20:06:00 GMT
Reply-To: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Organization: The City Lights PCBoard - Sacramento, CA - [phone]
Lines: 193

HI:  Yes, sir.

SP:  And where were the President's legs at that time?

HI:  Inside the car.

SP:  Now, what, if anything, did you observe as to the condition of
     Governor Connally at that time?

HI:  After going under the underpass, I looked forward to the jump
     seats, where Mrs. COnnally and Governor Connally were sitting.
     Mrs. Connally had been leaning over her husband.  And I had no
     idea that he had been shot.  And when she leaned back at one time,
     I noticed that his coat was unbuttoned, and that the lower portion
     of his abdomen was completely covered with blood.

SP:  When was it that you first observed that?

HI:  Just after going under the underpass.

SP:  Were you able to observe anything which was occurring on the
     overpass as the President's motorcade moved toward the overpass?

HI:  From the time I got on the back of the Presidential limousine, I
     didn't really pay any attention to what was going on outside the
     automobile.

SP:  Had you noticed the overpass prior to the time you got on the
     Presidential Automobile?

HI:  Yes; I had scanned it.

SP:  And do you recollect what, if anything, you observed on the
     overpass at that time?

HI:  There were some people there, but I also noticed there was a
     policeman there.

SP:  Approximately how many people would you say were there?

HI:  Very few, I would say -- maybe five, six.

SP:  And how were you able to identify that there was a policeman
     there?

HI:  He was wearing the uniform -- presumably a policeman.

SP:  What color uniform was it?

HI:  I think it was bluse of some shade.

SP:  Did you identify it at the time as being of the identical color
     which other Dallas policemen were wearing whom you had observed in
     the area?

HI:  That's correct, sir.

SP:  Can you characterize the type of acceleration which the car made
     after it started to speed forward -- that is, the Presidential
     car.

HI:  Well, the initial surge was quite violent, because it almost
     jerked me off the left rear step board.  Then after that it was
     apparently gradual, because I did not notice it any more.

SP:  What is your best estimate of the distance from the time of the
     shooting to Parkland Hospital?

HI:  In time or --

SP:  Time and distance.

HI:  Distance, I have no idea.

SP:  How about time?

HI:  I would say toughly 4 minutes.

SP:  Did Mrs. Kennedy say anything as you were proceeding from the time
     of the shooting to Parkland Hospital?

HI:  At the time of the shooting, when I got into the rear of the car,
     she said, "My God, they have shot his head off."  Between there
     and the hospital she just said, "Jack, Jack, what have they done
     to you." and sobbed.

SP:  Was there any coversation by anybody else in the President's
     automobile from the time of the shooting to the arrival at
     Parkland Hospital?

HI:  I heard Special Agent Kellerman say on the radio, "To the nearest
     hospital, quick."

SP:  Any other comment?

HI:  He said, "We have been hit."

SP:  Now, was there any other comment you heard Special Agent Kellerman
     make?

HI:  Not that I recall.

SP:  Did Special Agent Greer say anything?

HI:  No, sir.

SP:  Mrs Connally say anything?

HI:  No, sir.

BO:  Was Governor Connally conscious?

HI:  Yes, sir; he was.

SP:  Did Governor Connally say anything?

HI:  No, sir.

SP:  Did President Kennedy say anything?

HI:  No, sir.

SP:  What is your best estimate on the speed at which the President's
     car traveled from the point of the shooting to Parkland Hospital?

HI:  It is a little bit hard for me to judge, since I was lying across
     the rear portion of the automobile.  I had no trouble staying in
     that particular position -- until we approached the hospital, I
     recall, I believe it was a left-hand turn and I started slipping
     off to the right-hand portion of the car.  So I would say that we
     went 60 maybe 65 at the most.

SP:  Were you able to secure a handhold or a leghold or any sort of a
     hold on the automobile as you moved forward?

HI:  Yes, sir.  I had my legs -- I had my body above the rear seat, and
     my legs hooked down into the rear seat, one foot outside the car.

SP:  What is your best estimate of the time of the assassination
     itself?

HI:  Approximately 12:30

SP:  I am not sure whether I asked you about this -- about how long did
     it take to get from the shooting to the hospital?

HI:  Approximately 4 minutes.

SP:  What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on
     arrival at the hospital?

HI:  The right rear portion of his head was missing.  It was lying in
     the rear seat of the car.  His brain was exposed.  There was blood
     and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car.
     Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood.  There was so much
     blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound of not,
     except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of
     the head.

SP:  Did you have any apportunity to observe the front of his body, to
     see whether there was any tear or rip in the clothing on the
     front?

HI:  I saw him lying there in the back of the car, when I was
     immediately above him.  I cannot recall noticing anything that was
     ripped in the forward portion of his body.

SP:  What action, if any, did you take to shield the President's body?

HI:  I kept myself above the President and Mrs. Kennedy on the trip to
     Parkland.

SP:  Did you do anything with your coat upon arrival at Parkland
     Hospital to shield the President?

HI:  Yes, sir.  I removed it and covered the President's head and upper
     chest.

SP:  What, if anything, did you observe as to Governor Connally's
     condition on arrival at Parkland?

HI:  He was conscious.  There was a large amount of blood in the lower
     abdominal area.  He was helped from the automobile to the
     stretcher, and I do not recall him saying anything, but I do know
     he was conscious.  He was wheeled immediately into, I think,
     emergency room No. 2.

SP:  And who was removed first from the automobile?

HI:  Governor Connally.

<<Continued in Next Message>>

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!wupost!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!citylit!boyd.naron
From: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: HILL TESTIMONY PART 6
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 20:06:00 GMT
Reply-To: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Organization: The City Lights PCBoard - Sacramento, CA - [phone]
Lines: 193

SP:  How long after the President's car arrived at Parkland Hospital
     did medical personnel come to the scene to remove the victims?

HI:  Seconds.  They were there when we were there almost -- almost
     simultaneously with the arrival.

SP:  Do you know where President Kennedy was taken in the hospital?

HI:  Yes, sir.  I accompanied he and Mrs. Kennedy to the emergency
     room.

SP:  Now, tell us what you did at the hospital from the time of arrival
     on, please.

HI:  I went into the emergency room with the President, but it was so
     small, and there were so many people in there that I decided I had
     better leave and let the doctors take care of the situation.  So I
     walked outside; asked for the nearest telephone; walked to the
     nearest telephone.  About the time Special Agent in Charge
     Kellerman came outside and said, "Get the White House."

     I asked Special Agent Lawson for the local number in Dallas of the
     White House switchboard, which he gave me.  I called the
     switchboard in Dallas; asked for the line to be open to
     Washington, and remain open continuously.  And then I asked for
     Special Agent in Charge Behn's office.  Mr. Kellerman came out of
     the emrgency room about that time, took the telephone and called
     Special Agent in Charge Behn that we had a double tragedy; that
     both Governor Connally and President Kennedy had been shot.  And
     that was about as much as he said.  I then took the telephone and
     shortly thereafter Mr. Kellerman came out of the mergency room and
     said, "Clint, tell Jerry this is unofficial and not for release,
     but the man is dead."  Which I did.  During the two calls, I
     talked to the Attorney General, who attempted to reach me, and
     told him that his brother had been seriously wounded, that we
     would keep him advised as to his condition.

SP:  Where was Mrs. Kennedy all this time, if you know?

HI:  Immediately upon arrival, she went into the emergency room.  And a
     few mintues afterward, she was convinced to wait outside, which
     she did, remained there the rest of the period of time that we
     were there.

SP:  And was there any pronouncement that the President had died?

HI:  Not that I know of.  Apparently there was.  I was requested by Mr.
     O'Donnell, one of the Presidential assistants, to obtain a casket,
     because they wanted to return to Washington immediately.  I
     contacted the administrator of the hospital and asked him to take
     me where I could telephone the nearest mortuary, which I did,
     requested their best available casket be brought to the emergency
     entrance in my name immediately.

SP:  And what action was taken as a result of that request by you?

HI:  The casket did arrive from the O'Neal Mortuary, Inc., in their own
     hearse, which we then wheeled into the emergency room.  I left the
     emergency room and asked that two of our agents, Special Agent
     Sulliman and Assistant Special Agent in Charge Stout clear all the
     corridors, and I checked the closest and most immediate route to
     the ambulance.  We took the body from the hospital and departed
     the Parkland Hospital about 2:04 p.m.  The ambulance was driven by
     Special Agent Berger.  Special Agent in Charge Kellerman and
     Assistant Special Agent in Charge Stout were riding in the front
     seat; Mrs. Kennedy, Dr. Burkley, the President's body, and my self
     rode in the rear portion of the ambulance.

SP:  Approximately how long did it take you to reach the airplane at
     Love Field?

HI:  We arrived at Love Field at 2:14.

SP:  And were you present during the swearing-in ceremonies of
     President Johnson?

HI:  I was aboard the aircraft; yes, sir.

SP:  Did you witness those ceremonies?

HI:  Well, the Presidential compartment was so small that not all
     persons on the aircraft could get in.  I was in the forward
     portion of the aircraft, right adjacent to the area that the
     President was sworn in.

SP:  Do you know the time of the swearing in?

HI:  2:38

SP:  And what time did the Presidential aircraft depart?

HI:  2:47

SP:  Do you know what time it arrived in the Washington area?

HI:  5:59, I believe, sir.

SP:  And where did it land?

HI:  We landed at Andrews Air Force Base.

SP:  And what action, if any, in connection with this matter did you
     take following landing?

HI:  I assisted Mrs. Kennedy and the Attorney General, who had joined
     her at that time, into the ambulance bearing the President's body,
     and I entered the automobile immediately behind the ambulance with
     Dr. John Walsh, Mrs. Kennedy's physician, and members of President
     Kennedy's staff.

SP:  And where did you go then?

HI:  Immediately to Bethesda Naval Hospital.

SP:  And did you stay with the President's family at that time?

HI:  When we arrived there, I went to the 17th floor with Mrs. Kennedy
     and I remained with Mrs. Kennedy except for one time when I was
     requested to come to the morgue to view the President's body.

SP:  And did you view the President's body?

HI:  Yes, sir.

SP:  What action did you take following the time you viewed the
     President's body in the morgue?

HI:  After viewing the President's body?

SP:  Yes.

HI:  I returned to the 17th floor and remained with Mrs. Kennedy until
     we departed the hospital.

BO:  May I ask a question?  At the hospital in Texas, you had seen --
     had you seen the whole body, or just the back of the President's
     head?

HI:  I had seen the whole body, but he was still cold when I saw him.

BO:  At the morgue in Bethesda he was not cold?

HI:  Yes, sir; the autopsy had been completed, and the Lawler Martuaty
     Co. was preparing the body for placement in the casket.

BO:  At this time did you see the whole body?

HI:  Yes, sir.

BO:  Did you see any other wound other than the head wound?

HI:  Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the
     neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.

BO:  Was there a frontal neck injury?

HI:  There was an area here that had been opened but --

SP:  You are indicating --

HI:  In the neck.  It was my understanding at the time that this was
     done by a tracheotomy.

SP:  What else, if anything, of importance did you do between the time
     you viewed the body in the morgue until the termination of your
     duties on that date, Mr. Hill?

HI:  We handled all communications on the 17th floor, up to the 17th
     floor, for Mrs. Kennedy, members of her family, Cabinet members
     who were there at that time, and secured the 17th floor for all
     personnel.  No one was permitted there that we did not know.

SP:  What time did you leave the 17th floor?

HI:  I believe, sir, it was 3:56, but I am not sure of the exact time.

SP:  Where did you go from there?

HI:  We went downstairs to the rear of the hospital, where the body was
     placed in a naval ambulance.  I entered an automobile immediately
     nehind the ambulance with the body.

SP:  And from there, where did you go?

HI:  I accompanied them to the White House.

SP:  And did that mark the termination of your duties for that day?

HI:  No, sir.  I remained on duty until approximately 6:30 in the
     morning; went home, changed clothes, and came back.

<<Continued in Next Message>>

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!wupost!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!citylit!boyd.naron
From: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: HILL TESTIMONY PART 7
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 20:07:00 GMT
Reply-To: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Organization: The City Lights PCBoard - Sacramento, CA - [phone]
Lines: 50

SP:  I believe you testified as to the impression you had as to the
     source of the first shot.  To be sure that the record is complete,
     what was your reaction as to where the first shot came from, Mr.
     Hill?

HI:  Right rear.

SP:   And did you have a reaction or impression as to the source of
     point of origin of the second shot that you described?

HI:  It was right, but I cannot say for usre that it was rear, because
     when I mounted the car it was -- it had a different sound, first
     of all, than the first sound that I heard.  The second one has
     almost a double sound -- as though you were standing against
     something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of
     the gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal
     place, which could have been caused by the hard surface of the
     ehad.  But I am not sure that that is what caused it.

SP:  Are you describing this double shot sound with respect to what you
     heard on the occasion of the second shot?

HI:  The second shot that I heard; yes, sir.

SP:  Now, do you now or have you ever had the impression or
     reactionthat there was a shot which originated from the front of
     the Presidential car?

HI:  No.

SP:  That is all I have.

WA:  Congressman Ford, any questions you would like to ask?

FO:  No.

BO:  I have no questions, Mr. Chief Justice.

WA:  Mr. Craig.

CR:  No thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

WA:  If not, thank you very much.  We appreciate your coming.

HI:  Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice

              (Warren Commission. Vol II, pages 132-144)

<<End of Transcript>>

Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!citylit!boyd.naron
From: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: BETHESDA AUTOPSY PART 1
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 23:37:00 GMT
Reply-To: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Organization: The City Lights PCBoard - Sacramento, CA - [phone]
Lines: 186

Well folks, there has been a lot of discussion regarding the autopsy of
John F. Kennedy and "what it showed" and "didn't show."  Since it's in
the news these days, I thought you might like to read what all of the
"BROO-HA-HA" is all about.  Below and for the next few messages, you
will find the complete text of the original autopsy report of November
22, 1963.  One note:  The first page of the report is more of an
administrative form identifying the deceased, and the autopsy
physicians, as well as the general description of the deceased; the
height, weight, etc.  I have not tried to transcribe page one since
there is little of value there.  This transcript starts with page 2.


======================================================================
<<Autopsy report begins>>

          PATHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION REPORT  A63-272      PAGE 2

CLINICAL SUMMARY

According  to the available information the deceased, President John  F.
Kennedy,  was  riding in an open car in a motorcade during  an  official
visit  to Dallas, Texas on 22 December 1963.  The President was  sitting
in the right rear seat with Mrs. Kennedy seated on the same seat to  his
left.   Sitting directly in front of the President was Governor John  B.
Connally  of  Texas  and  directly in front of  Mrs.  Kennedy  was  Mrs.
Connally.   The  vehicle  was moving at a slow rate  of  speed  down  an
include  into an underpass that leads to a freeway route to  the  Dallas
Trade Mart where the President was to deliver an address.

Three shots were heard and the President fell forward bleeding from  the
head.   (Governor Connally was seriously wounded by the  same  gunfire.)
According  to newspaper reports  ("Washington Post" November  23,  1963)
Bob Jackson, a Dallas "Times Herald" photographer, said he looked around
as he heard the shots ans saw a rifle barrel disappearing into a  window
on an upper floor of the nearby Texas School Book Depository Building.

Shortly  following  the wounding of the two men the car  was  driven  to
Parkland  Hospital in Dallas.  In the emergency room of  that  hospital,
the   President   was  attended  by  Dr.   Malcolm   Perry.    Telephone
communication with Dr. Perry on November 23, 1963 develops the following
information  relative  to  the  observations  made  by  Dr.  Perry   and
procedures performed there prior to death.

Dr. Perry noted the massive wound of the head and a second much  smaller
wound   of  the  lower  anterior  in  approximately  the   midline.    A
tracheostomy was performed by extending the latter wound.  At this point
bloody air was noted bubbling from the wound and an injury to the  right
lateral  wall of the trachea was observed.  Incisions were made  in  the
upper  anterior chest wall bilaterally to combat  possible  subcutaneous
emphysema.   Intravaneous infusions of blood and saline were  begun  and
oxygen was administered.  Despite these measures cardiac arrest occurred
and closed chest cardiac massage failed to re-establish cardiac  action.
The President was pronounced dead approximately thirty to forty  minutes
after receiving his wounds.

The  remains were transported via the Presidential plane to  Washington,
D.C.  and  subsequently  to ht e Baval Medical  School,  National  Naval
Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland for postmortem examination.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BODY

The body is that of a muscular, well-developed and well nourished  adult
Caucasian  male measuring 72 1/2 inches and weighing  approximately  170
pounds.  There is beginning rigor mortis, minimal dependent liver mortis
of  the dorsum, and early algor mortis.  The hair is reddish  brown  and
abundant,  the  eyes  are  blus, the right pupil  meassuring  8  mm.  in
diameter,  the  left 4mm.  There is adema and ecchymosis  of  the  inner
canthus  region  of the left eyelid measuring approximately 1.5  cm.  in
greatest  diameter.   There is edem and ecchymosis  diffusely  over  the
right supra-orbital ridge with abnormal mobility of the underlying bone.
(The remainder of the scalp will be described with the skull.)

There  is  clotted blood on the external ears but  otherwise  the  ears,
nose,  and  mouth  are  essentially  unremarkable.   The  teeth  are  in
excellent repair and there is some pallor of the oral muccus membrane.

Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border
of  the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound.  This  wound  is
measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and  14
cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.

Situated  in  the low abterior neck at approximately the  level  of  the
third and fourth tracheal rings is a 6.5 cm. long transverse wound  with
widely gaping irregular edges.  (The depth and character of these wounds
will be further described below.)

Situated on the anterior chest wall in the  nipple line are bilateral  2
cm.  long  recent transverse surgical incisions  into  the  subcutaneous
tissue.   The one on the left is situated 11 cm. cephalad to the  nipple
and  the one on the right is 8 cm cephalad to the nipple.  There  is  no
hemorrhage or ecchymosis associated with these wounds.  A similar  clean
wound measuring 2 cm. in length is situated on the antero-lateral aspect
of  the  left mid arm.  Situated on the antero-lateral  aspect  of  each
ankle is a recent transverse incision into the subcutaneous tissue.

There is an old well healed 8 cm. McBurney abdominal incision.  Over the
lumbar  spince  in  the midline is an old, well  healed  15  cm.  scavr.
Situated  on  the upper antero-lateral aspect of the right thigh  is  an
old, well healed 8 cm. scar.

MISSILE WOUNDS:

1.   There is a large irregular defect of chiefly the parietal bone  but
extending  somewhat  into the temporal and occipital regions.   In  this
region  there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a  defect
which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.

From  the  irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears  extend  in
stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp as follows:

a.   From  the right inferior temporo-perietal margin  anterior  to  the
right ear to a point slightly above the trague.

b.   From  the anterior parietal margin anteriorly on  the  forehead  to
approximately 4 cm. above the right orbital ridge.

c.   From the left margin of the main defect across the midline  antero-
laterally for a distance of approximately 8 cm.

d.  From the same starting point as c. 10 cm postero-laterally.

Situated  in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to  the
right  and  slightly  above the external  occipital  protuberance  is  a
lacerated wound through the skull shich exhibits beveling of the margins
of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull.

Clearly  visible in the above described large skull defect  and  exuding
from  it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection  proves  to
represent  the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.  At  this
point  it  is noted the the falx cerebri is extensively  lacerated  with
disruption of the superior saggital sinus.

Upon  reflection the scalp muliple complete fracture lines are  seen  to
radiate  from both the large defect at vertex and the smaller  wound  at
the  occiput.  These vary greatly in length and direction,  the  longest
measuring  approximately  19  cm.  These result  in  the  production  of
numerous  fragments which vary in size from a few millimeters to 10  cm.
in greatest diameter.

The  complexity of these fractures and the fragments thus  produced  tax
satisfactory   verbal   description  and  are  better   appreciated   in
photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared.

The brain is removed and preserved for further study following  formalin
fixation.

Received as separate specimens from Dallas, Texas are three fragments of
skull bone which in aggregate roughly approximate the dimensions of  the
large  defect  described above.  At one angle of the  largest  of  these
fragments  is  a portion of the perimeter of a  roughly  circular  wound
presumably  of exit which exhibits beveling of the outer aspect  of  the
bone  and  is  estimated  to measure approximately 2.5  to  3.0  cm.  in
diameter.   Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute  metallic
fragments  along  a  line corresponding with a line  joining  the  above
described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge.  From
the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex two small irregularly
shaped fragments of metal are recovered.  These measure 7 x 2 mm. and  3
x  1 mm.  These are placed in the custody of Agents Francis X.  O'Neill,
Jr.  and  James W. Sibert, of the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,  who
executed a receipt therefor (attached).

2.  The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in  the
upper  right posterior thorax.  Beneath the skin there is ecchymosis  of
subcutaneous  tissue  and  musculature.  The missile  path  through  the
fascia and musculature cannot be easily probed.  The wound presumably of
exit  was  that  described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of  Dallas  in  the  low
anterior cervical region.  When observed by Dr. Perry the wound measured
"a  few  millimeters  in  diameter",  however  it  was  extended  as   a
tracheostomy incision and thus its character is distorted at the time of
autopsy.  However, there is considerable ecchymosis of the strap muscles
of the right side of the neck and the fascia about the trachea  adjacent
to the line of the tracheostomy wound.  The third point of reference  in
connecting these two wounds is in the apex (supra-clavicular portion) of
the  right  pleural cavity.  In this region there is  contusion  of  the
perietal  pleura  and of the extreme apical portion of the  right  upper
lobe  of  the  lung.  In both instances the diameter  of  contusion  and
ecchymosis at the point of maximal involvement measures 5 cm.  Both  the
visceral  and  parietal pleura are intact overlying these areas  of  the
trachea.

INCISIONS:

The  scalpe  wounds area extended in the coronal plane  to  examine  the
cranial content and the customary (Y) shaped incision is used to examine
the body cavities.

Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!citylit!boyd.naron
From: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: BETHESDA AUTOPSY PART 2
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 23:38:00 GMT
Reply-To: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Organization: The City Lights PCBoard - Sacramento, CA - [phone]
Lines: 102

THORACIC CAVITY:

The bony cage is unremarkable.  The thoracic orgams are in their  normal
positions  and  relationships and there is no increase in  free  pleural
fluid.   The above described area of contusion in the apical portion  of
hte right pleural cavity is noted.

LUNGS:

The  lungs are of essentially similar appearance the right weighing  320
Gm., the left 290 Gm.  The lungs are well aerated with smooth glistening
pleural  surfaces  and  gray-pink  color.  A  5  cm.  diameter  area  of
purpleish  red  discoloration  and increased firmness  to  palpation  is
situated  in  the  apical  portion  of  the  right  upper  lobe.    This
corresponds  to  the similar area described in the  overlaying  parietal
pleura.   Incision  to  this region  recent  hemorrhage  into  pulmonary
parenchyma.

HEART:

The  pericardial cavity is smooth walled and contains  approximately  10
cc. of straw-colored fluid.  The heart is of essentially normal external
contour  and weighs 250 Gm.  The pulmonary artery is opened in situ  and
no  abnormalities  are  noted.  The cardiac  chambers  contain  moderate
amounts  of postmortem clotted blood.  There are no gross  abnormalities
of  the  leaflets of any of the cardiac valves.  The following  are  the
circumferences  of the acrdiac valves:  aortic 7.5 cm., pulmonic 7  cm.,
tricuspid  12  cm., mitral 11 cm.  The myocardium is  firm  and  reddish
brown.   The left ventricular myocardium averages 1.2 cm. in  thickness,
the  right  ventricular myocardium 0.4 cm.  The  coronary  arteries  are
dissected  and are of normal distribution and smooth walled and  elastic
throughout.

ABDOMINAL CAVITY:

The abdominal organs are in their normal positions and relationships and
there  is no increase in free peritoneal fluid.  The vermiform  appendix
is  sugically absent and there are a few adhesions joing the  region  of
the  cecum  to  the ventral abdominal wall at the  above  described  old
abdominal incisional scar.

SKELETAL SYSTEM:

Aside  from  the above described skull wounds there are  no  significant
gross skeletal abnormalities.

PHOTOGRAPHY:

Black and white and color photographs depicting significant findings are
exposed but not developed.  These photographs were placed in the custody
of  Agent  Roy H. Kellerman of the U.S. Secret Service, who  executed  a
receipt therefore (attached).

ROENTGENOGRAMS:

Roentgenograms  are  made  of  the entire body  and  of  the  seperately
submitted  three fragments of skull bone.  These are developed and  were
placed  in  the  custody of Agent Roy H. Kellerman of  the  U.S.  Secret
Service, who executed a receipt therefor (attached).

SUMMARY:

Based  upon the above observations it is our opinion that  the  deceased
died  as  a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted  by  high
velocity  projectiles  fired  by  a  person  or  persons  unknown.   The
projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the  level
of  the  deceased.  The observations and available  information  do  not
permit a satisfactory estimate as to the sequence of the two wounds.

The  fatal  missile  entered the skull above and to  the  right  of  the
external occipital protuberance.  A portion of the projectile  traversed
the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see lateral  skull
roentgenograms)  depositing minute particles along its path.  A  portion
of  the projectile made its exit through the parietal bone on the  right
carrying  with  it portions of the cerebrum, skull and scalp.   The  two
wounds  of  the skull combined with the force of  the  missile  produced
extensive  fragmentation  of  the  skull,  laceration  of  the  superior
saggital sinus, and of the right cerebral hemisphere.

The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above  the
supra-clavicular  portions  of the base of the right side of  the  neck.
This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and
of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung.  The  missile
contused  the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,  damaged  the
trachea  and made it exit through the anterior surface of the neck.   As
far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony structures in  its
path through the body.

In addition, it is out opinion that the wound of the skull produced such
extensive  damage  to the brain as to preclude the  possibility  of  the
deceased surviving this injury.

A  supplementary   report  will be  submitted  following  more  detailed
examination  of the brain and of microscopic sections.  However,  it  is
not  anticipated  that  these examinations  will  materially  alter  the
findings

 (signed)                        (signed)               (signed)
J.J. HUMES                 "J" THORNTON BOSWELL      PIERRE A. FINCK
CDR, MC, USN (497831)      CDR, MC, USN (489878)     LT COL, MC, USA
                                                     (04-043-322)

Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!citylit!boyd.naron
From: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: METALLIC DEVICE
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 00:03:00 GMT
Reply-To: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Organization: The City Lights PCBoard - Sacramento, CA - [phone]
Lines: 51

Bruce Schuck writes:

->
-> The photo I'm talking about appears to show a skull held together by
-> a metallic device, which means reconstruction of skull pieces before
-> the photo was taken.

Sorry Bruce, I just don't see what you are referring to.  I have both
the original 1980 release of Lifton as well as his more recent 1988
release and the picture you refer to just does not, at least to me, look
like there's some sort of metal device inside the skull.

If it weren't for the caption below the photo telling me what the author
thinks it is, I'd believe it were nothing more than blood matted hair.

I have the feeling Lifton is just grasping at straws to try persuading
the reading public that conspirators photographed a reconstructed head
and let the prosthetics (sp) show.

Now, to the point I really wanted to make. (I tend to get sidetracked
occasionally, like the time....Uhh....Some other time maybe!)

I have a deep belief that there is a great possibility that Kennedy was
assassinated as a direct result of a conspiracy, but I do not wish to
ruin my own credibility by jumping up and down and agreeing with
Lifton's suggestion of actual cranial reconstruction.

I tend to admit that although I believe there was a conspiracy, I have
no "legal" proof.  What I tend to believe is that "in simplicity lies
the answer."  What I mean by that is that if you take all of the
evidence in the assassination and attempt to fit them into a single
scenario, you should look for the simplest solution.

Having someone believe that a single bullet wounded both the President
and Governor Connally, then fell out of a shallow thigh wound at the
hospital; and only lost approximately 2 grams of lead from its base,
tends to attack the sensibilities of even the most die-hard Warren
Report supporter; or at least it should.  Not because it absolutely,
positively is impossible, but rather, it asks that the public believe
too much in the way of coincidental circumstances, and in some cases,
one-in-a-million coincidences.

Just about ANYTHING is possible, but chances are, there is a much more
simple answer to the shooting, and to me, it DOES suggest multiple
shooters.

Cheers, and salutations,

              Boyd Naron
(citylit![e-mail])

Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!csus.edu!ucdavis!csusac!citylit!boyd.naron
From: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: BETHESDA SUPPLEMENTARY
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 23:39:00 GMT
Reply-To: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Organization: The City Lights PCBoard - Sacramento, CA - [phone]
Lines: 110


             SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF AUTOPSY NUMBER A63-272
                       PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

PATHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION REPORT          No. A63-272         Page 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GROSS DESCRIPTION OF BRAIN:  Following formalin fixation the brain
weighs 1500 gms.  The right cerebral hemisphere is found to be markedly
disrupted.  There is a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere
which is para-sagittal in position approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of
the midline which extends from the tip of the occipital lobe posteriorly
to the tip of the frontal lobe anteriorly.  The base of the laceration,
is situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter.
There is considerable loss of cortical substance above the base of the
laceration, particularly in the parietal lobe.  The margins of this
laceration are at all points jagged and irregular, with additional
lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances
from the main laceration.  In addition, there is a laceration of the
corpus callosum extending from the genu to the tail.  Exposed in this
latter laceration are the interiors of the right lateral and third
ventricles.

When viewed from the vertex the left cerebral hemisphere is intact.
There is a marked engorgement of the meningeal blood vessels of the left
temporal and frontal regions with considerable associated sub-arachnoid
hemorrhage.  The gyri and sulci over the left hemisphere are of
essentially normal size and distribution.  Those on the right are too
fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description.

When viewed from the basilar aspect the disruption of the right cortex
is again obvious.  There is a longitudinal laceration of the mid-brain
through the floor of the third ventrical just behind the optic chiasm
and the mammillary bodies.  This laceration partially communicates with
the oblique 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral peduncle.  There are
irregular superficial lacerations over the basilar aspects of the left
temporal and frontal lobes.

In the interest of preserving the specimen coronal sections are not
made.  The following sections are taken for microscopic examination:

  a.  From the margin of the laceration in the front parietal lobe.

  b.  From the margin of the laceration in the corpus callosum.

  c.  From the anterior portion of the laceration in the right frontal
      lobe.

  d.  From the contused left fronto-parietal cortex.

  e.  From the line of transection of the spinal cord.

  f.  From the right ceberal cortex.

  g.  From the superficial laceration of the basilar aspect of the left
      temporal lobe.


PATHOLOGICAL EXMAMINATION REPORT          No. A63-272         Page 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

During the course of this examination seven (7) black and white and six
(6) color 4x5 inch negatives were exposed but not developed (the
cassettes containing these negatives have been delivered by hand to Rear
Admiral George W. Burkley, MC, USN, White House Physician).

MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION:

BRAIN: Multiple sections from representative areas as noted above are
examined.  All sections are essentially similar and show extensive
disruption of brain tissue with associated hemorrhage.  In noe of the
sections examined are there significant abnormalities other than those
directly related to the recent trauma.

HEART: Sections show a moderate amount of sub-epicardial fat.  The
coronary arteries, myocardial fibers, and endocardium are unremarkable.

LUNGS: Sections through the grossly described area of contusion in the
right upper lobe exhibit disruption of exhibit alveolar walls and recent
hemorrhage into alveoli.  Sections are otherwise essentially
unremarkable.

LIVER: Sections show the normal hepatic architecture to be well
preserved.  The parenchymal cells exhibit markedly granular cytoplasm
indicating high glycogen content which is characteristic of the "liver
biopsy pattern" of sudden death.

SPLEEN: Sections show no significant abnormalities.

KIDNEYS: Sections show no significant abnormalities aside from
dilatation and engorgement of blood vessels of all calibers.

SKIN WOUNDS:  Sections through the wounds in the occipital and upper
right posterior thoracic regions are essentially similar.  In each there
is loss of continuity of the epidermis with coagulation necrosis of the
tissues at the wound margins.  The scalp wound exhibits several small
fragments of bone at its margins in the subcutatneous tissue.

FINAL SUMMARY:  This supplementary report covers in more detail the
extensive degree of cerebral trauma in this case.  However neither this
portion of the examination not the microscopic examinations alter the
previously submitted report or add significant details to the cause of
death.



                                        (signed)
                                       J. J. HUMES
                                       CDR, MC, USN, 497831

Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u54778
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,chi.general,chi.places
Subject: JFK SYMPOSIUM
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 05:19:17 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Lines: 107
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:15414 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1538


     When my fellow Third  Decade group member told me that  he wanted
     to put  together a big  midwest symposium, I thought  he was just
     going to get  one or two speakers.   Wow!!! I had no  idea he had
     such clout.   For  all  those who  are  interested and  have  the
     opportunity  to  come  to Chicago,  I  don't  think  you will  be
     disappointed.
     ------------------Begin of Announcement---------------------


ANNOUNCING............

The  THIRD  DECADE,  a  research  organization  for  the  John  F.  Kennedy
assassination presents.........

                  A MIDWEST SYMPOSIUM ON THE ASSASSINATION
                                     OF
                              JOHN F. KENNEDY

                  Including lectures on the assassination
             of Robert F. Kennedy & Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

           ****  DINNER PARTY, 6 PM FRIDAY, JUNE 26TH, $55  ****
                CHICAGO MARRIOT HOTEL 540 N. Michigan Blvd.

                            Master of Ceremonies
                                 Jim Wright
                       Former Speaker of the House &
              Presidential Motorcade Passenger in Dallas, 1963

                              KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

         Ed Asner                         Dick Gregory
         Activist,                         Activist,
       Supporting Actor, "JFK"         Co-author, "Code Name Zorro"

Dinner starts at 6PM followed by speakers.

             ***************  PUBLIC LECTURES  ****************
             ****                                          ****
             **    SATURDAY, JUNE 27TH & SUNDAY, JUNE 28TH   **
             *     Thorne Hall, Northwestern University,      *
             **    Chicago Campus,  375 E. Chicago Avenue    **
             ****                  $55                     ****
             ***************  PUBLIC LECTURES  ****************

                              Host & Moderator
                            George Michael Evica
                      Author, "And We Are All Mortal"

 Saturday, June 27th:                   Sunday, June 28th:

 The Movie & The Media                  The Emergency Room at Parkland
 ---------------------                  ------------------------------
    Jane Rusconi                            Dr. Charles Crenshaw
Oliver Stone's "JFK"                    Author  of   "JFK:  Conspiracy of
Research Coordinator                              Silence"

                                        The JFK, RFK Autopsies
   Jerry Policoff                       ----------------------
Assassination Researcher &                  Dr. Cyril Wecht
Media Critic                            JFK, RFK Autopsy Expert,
                                        Forensic Pathologist,
The Photographic Evidence               Advisor to Oliver Stone
-------------------------
   Robert Groden                        The Vietnam Policy Hypothesis
Co-author, High Treason,                -----------------------------
JFK: The Case for Conspiracy                Dr. John Newman
                                        Author, "JFK and Vietnam:
                                        Deception, Intrigue &
FOIA & The Assassination Files          the Struggle for Power"
------------------------------
   Jim Lesar                            LBJ Theories
Pres., Assassination                    ------------
Archives & Research Center                 Craig Zirbel
                                        Author, "The Texas Connection"
The 1992 Hearings/The MLK Inquest
---------------------------------
    John Judge
Founder, Committee for an Open Archive

Both lecture days begin at 9AM with breaks for Lunch and Dinner.

             TICKETS & REGISTRATION: 1-800-323-4961, Ext. 450,
            VISA & Mastercard Accepted.  All sales are final.

                  The Third Decade reserves the right to
                 substitute speakers as conditions warrant.

              On site registrations will be an additional $10.

The Third  Decade would appreciate  donations to help  pay for  this event.
Please send donations to:
                         The Third Decade
                         P.O. Box 48089,
                         Niles, IL 60648
Please be aware that The Third Decade is not a tax exempt organization.  As
a result, your donation is not tax deductible.
------------------End of Announcement--------------------------------

This is  all the information  you should need.   As many  of you know  from
following this mystery, most of these speakers  are prime public figures in
this controversy.   If you  haven't made vacation  plans, you  should start
planning to hit Chicago at  the end of the month.   I wouldn't worry  about
the disclaimer on substitutions.  There are plenty of people in  the wings,
just in case of a no show.
ALAN ROGERS
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u54778
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy" by Jacob Cohen
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 5 Jun 92 05:38:43 GMT
References: <-3![e-mail]>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Lines: 79


>     Zapruder is now dead, but Sitzman (his secretary) was interviewed
>     for a sensational five-part documentary produced by the Arts and
>     Entertainment (A&E) Network on cable TV. Somehow, the interviewer
>     did not ask her whether she noticed a man shooting the President
>     just to her right front. [where a gunman on the 'grassy knoll'
>     would have been].... notwithstanding Stone's insinuations, no one

  The crowd of people in Dealey Plaza, whose attention were glued to
a mesmerizing drama in front of them, cannot be maligned for not turning
around and looking at another direction.  Besides there were numerous
testimony of hearing a shot come from there and the crowd is shown in
film running up there.  Smoke was seen coming from that area.  This does
not prove that there was a shot coming from the GK but it can't be
discounted so non-chalantly.  There are others with stronger but IMHO
totally unconvincing arguments against a GK shot.

>     ....people who claim they were roughed up and threatened because
>     they had seen inadmissible things. Stone graphically depicts these
>     alleged brutalities... Stone and others would have us believe that
>     there was a platoon of conspirators, incognito, surveying every
>     person's eyes, entering minds and cameras, knowing infallibly who
>     had incriminating evidence and who did not. Like Santa Claus, they
>     knew who had been bad or good, and they brutalized only those who
>     saw or photographed the bad thing....
>
This is the same argument lodged against all the anti-WC researchers.
If there was a conspiracy, how could some many people be in on it and
keep quiet about it through the years?  A corrolary argument is how could
people with such impeccable reputations such as Warren and RFK and those
who didn't have such high reputations but were so highly placed such as
Hoover, LBJ, and others conspire to kill a popular president and then
cover it up?  This is a strong argument and I was leaning toward it in
the mid 70's but it has a powerful answer for anyone who will look
deeper into the public evidence.

1) It is documented fact from the released memos and communications of
that small time period that Hoover, LBJ, and others were sh*ting in their
pants over the fact that LHO was a leftist who had come back from the USSR,
had just visited the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico and to all
intents and purposes looked like a communist assassin.  I won't go into
all of the aspects of this for I am writing a paper on it, but they
had every reason to believe that looking deeply into LHO would turn up
enough connections to communist countries to imflame the USA public into
a dangerous attitude, bringing us on the brink of nuclear war.
It is at this juncture that we can separate the alleged conspiracy to
kill JFK from the obvious conspiracy to coverup the facts of the killing.
[For those inclined, this scenario can be looked at as another layer of
coverup also].
2) The word goes out from the top, "find LHO not only guilty but guilty
with no one else's colusion.  From that point on, FBI agents, WC, police,
managers of news media, and all others concerned get some form of this
hidden agenda and its necessity.  "Do you want to be responsible for
starting WWIII?" is the only question necessary for anyone to be brought
into line.  This line of argument is well documented in the HSCA and can
account for all the actions mentioned above.  It will also account for
the continuance of the coverup through the years.  It requires amendment
as we moved into the 80's and 90's but I don't have the time or the
inclination to flush it out here.

>     It is often asked why Oswald denied killing the President, as though
>     guilty people do not deny things all the time.... He himself was
>     the first to insist that the backyard photo of him with a gun was
>
Again this is a very weak argument.  The point of LHO's denial is it does
not follow the pattern of other assassinators and the tenuous background
story for LHO's actions built up in the WC.  If LHO was in a fever dream
of being famous for bringing down a symbol of the capitalist world, he
would have been screaming "down with all tyrants" from his jail cell as
other assassinators did.  This holds even if he thought he could have
gotten away because he didn't and should have been quite aware that he
was caught red handed.  Just what would he gain by denial at this point?
The only argument that has merit is, by abandoning the WC setup, and
making LHO a much cleverer person who thought that he could outwit his
accussers, which does have its evidence but flies against the much
simpler argument that he was a patsy as he claimed and his denial
was his simple, straitforward reaction to be accused.

ALAN ROGERS
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u54778
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: CHICAGO JFK SYMPOSIUM
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jun 92 07:33:19 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Lines: 91



ANNOUNCING............

The  THIRD  DECADE,  a  research  organization  for  the  John  F.  Kennedy
assassination presents.........

                  A MIDWEST SYMPOSIUM ON THE ASSASSINATION
                                     OF
                              JOHN F. KENNEDY

                  Including lectures on the assassination
             of Robert F. Kennedy & Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

           ****  DINNER PARTY, 6 PM FRIDAY, JUNE 26TH, $55  ****
                CHICAGO MARRIOT HOTEL 540 N. Michigan Blvd.

                            Master of Ceremonies
                                 Jim Wright
                       Former Speaker of the House &
              Presidential Motorcade Passenger in Dallas, 1963

                              KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

         Ed Asner                         Dick Gregory
         Activist,                         Activist,
       Supporting Actor, "JFK"         Co-author, "Code Name Zorro"

Dinner starts at 6PM followed by speakers.

             ***************  PUBLIC LECTURES  ****************
             ****                                          ****
             **    SATURDAY, JUNE 27TH & SUNDAY, JUNE 28TH   **
             *     Thorne Hall, Northwestern University,      *
             **    Chicago Campus,  375 E. Chicago Avenue    **
             ****                  $55                     ****
             ***************  PUBLIC LECTURES  ****************

                              Host & Moderator
                            George Michael Evica
                      Author, "And We Are All Mortal"

 Saturday, June 27th:                   Sunday, June 28th:

 The Movie & The Media                  The Emergency Room at Parkland
 ---------------------                  ------------------------------
    Jane Rusconi                            Dr. Charles Crenshaw
Oliver Stone's "JFK"                    Author  of   "JFK:  Conspiracy of
Research Coordinator                              Silence"

                                        The JFK, RFK Autopsies
   Jerry Policoff                       ----------------------
Assassination Researcher &                  Dr. Cyril Wecht
Media Critic                            JFK, RFK Autopsy Expert,
                                        Forensic Pathologist,
The Photographic Evidence               Advisor to Oliver Stone
-------------------------
   Robert Groden                        The Vietnam Policy Hypothesis
Co-author, High Treason,                -----------------------------
JFK: The Case for Conspiracy                Dr. John Newman
                                        Author, "JFK and Vietnam:
                                        Deception, Intrigue &
FOIA & The Assassination Files          the Struggle for Power"
------------------------------
   Jim Lesar                            LBJ Theories
Pres., Assassination                    ------------
Archives & Research Center                 Craig Zirbel
                                        Author, "The Texas Connection"
The 1992 Hearings/The MLK Inquest
---------------------------------
    John Judge
Founder, Committee for an Open Archive

Both lecture days begin at 9AM with breaks for Lunch and Dinner.

             TICKETS & REGISTRATION: 1-800-323-4961, Ext. 450,
            VISA & Mastercard Accepted.  All sales are final.

                  The Third Decade reserves the right to
                 substitute speakers as conditions warrant.

              On site registrations will be an additional $10.

The Third  Decade would appreciate  donations to help  pay for  this event.
Please send donations to:
                         The Third Decade
                         P.O. Box 48089,
                         Niles, IL 60648
Please be aware that The Third Decade is not a tax exempt organization.  As
a result, your donation is not tax deductible.
ALAN ROGERS
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Neutron Activation Analysis Table of Results
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 19:48:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Lines: 137
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

[e-mail], raising himself to the level of being an expert in
Nuclear chemistry, writes:

>This table of data is taken from the HSCA Vol 1 pp 538
>study of Neutron Activation Analysis.
>It compares the magic bullet CE399, with the fragments
>taken from John Connally.

    [Table deleted, 'cause it's incomplete.]


>Only lead is the same, Silver , and manganese just barely overlap.
>All the other elements differ in composition, from 5% to 2400% to
>aluminum where CE399 didn't have any at all.
>And remember, if the magic bullet theory is correct, the samples
>were taken within 1 or 2 mmm from where the original pieces came off.
>If the samples were from the same bullet, they would have the same
>composition within a standard error.

    Dr Guinn doesn't think so. Deatils below.

>The conclusion is obvious, the Connally Wrist Fragments come from
>a different bullet than CE399.

    What is really obvious is that you either didn't read Guinn's
    report, or that you don't care much about complete and correct
    information.

    To begin with, this is the whole table published by the HSCA.

    CE399 is the so called "pristine bullet"
    CE842 are the fragments recovered from Connally's wrist
    CE843 are tow fragments recovered from JFK's brain during the autopsy
    CE567 is a lump of misshapen core attributed to the JFK head bullet
    CE840 are fragments recovered from the presidential limo
          (there were two samples tested from CE840)




          CE399      CE842        CE843    CE567    CE840
==============================================================================
% Lead    |     108      106         97    97    96    105
     |        100      102        93    93    92    103
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ppm    |    892      804        625    606    642    643
Antimony|    874      790        617    598    634    651
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ppm    |    9.3      10.3        8.2    8.7    8.9    8.4
Silver    |    6.5       9.3        7.6    7.5    8.3    7.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ppm    |    61      1001        42     41    46    44
Copper    |    65      987        38    39    42    40
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ppm    |    Not      9.5        6.2    1.5    3.3    2.9
Aluminum|     detected      6.7        4.8     .7    2.1    1.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ppm    |    .11      .09        .11    .02    .07    .06
Manganes|    .07      .05        .09    .00    .05    .04
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ppm    |    6      124        137    10    14    20
Sodium    |    4      116        131     8    12    18
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ppm    |    31      271        69    28    45    48
Chlorine|     7      243        49    16    31    32
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notes:

       The key elements are Silver and Antimony. Although Copper,
       Aluminum, Tin, Manganese, Sodium, and Chlorine often
       show up in the Neutron Activation Analysis of bullets,
       the amounts of these elements "have not generally proved
       to be consistent enough to be useful for comparison."
       Levels of Sodium and Chlorine, particularly, tend to
       be the result of contamination of the sample by handling,
       bodily fluids, etc, rather than inherent properties of the
       alloy.

       Dr Guinn had tested several, if not many WCC 6.5mm bullets
       for Dr John Nichols. Guinn found that the amounts of trace
       metals  in this brand of bullet fluctuate markedly from
       bullet to bullet (this implies some variance within the
       bullet itself), even two adjacent bullets from the same box.

       All of the samples were washed with distilled water, however,
       Dr Guin says that he cannot insure that all contamination
       would have been cleansed away.

       Ranges of trace-element concentrations for WCC 6.5mm bullets
       from lot 6003:

        Ag: 7.9 to 15.9 ppm
        Sb: 80  to 730  ppm
        Cu: 17    to 62    ppm



    It is interesting that the two bullets that were totally immersed
    in biological tissue for significant amounts of time have
    abnormally high amounts of Sodium and Chlorine (two elements common
    in blood and other bodily fluids) when compared to the other
    samples.

    As for the differences in Copper concentrations between
    CE399 and CE842, it is worth remembering that none of the
    lead in the CE399 sample was located adjacent to the
    copper-alloy jacket. The base extrusion (which is allegedly
    the source of the wrist fragments), however, contained lead
    that did lie adjacent to the copper jacket. because of this,
    and because that in the process of the lead being extruded from
    the base, it probably scraped off small amounts of copper, it
    would be expected that CE842 would have a higher copper content
    than CE399.


    In the end, Dr Guinn is an expert at NAA of bullets, unlike
    either me or Bruce Schuck. He has something that neither
    of us do: a body of knowledge and expertise concerning what to
    expect from NAA of bullets.

    Dr Guinn believes, on the basis of the evidence, and on the
    basis of his own experience, that not only did CE842 quite likely
    come from CE399, but that the other three samples also represent pieces
    of a singel bullet.

                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\

Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy" by Jacob Cohen
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 20:29:00 GMT
References: <-3![e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Lines: 87
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>>    Actually, the bag (the one that was found) itself was more than
>>    long enough. The critic's contention is that Frazier's account
>>    of Oswald carrying the gun means that the package he was carrying
>>    was shorter than the gun could have possibly been. This argument
>>    is based on one assumption. Frazier claims that (and I'll use
>>    the closest I can remember to his own words) Oswald held one
>>    end of the package in one cupped hand, and had the other end under
>>    his armpit.

>Actually Mitchell has left out all the testimony in the Warren Report
>except for one little bit.

>1) The longest piece of a broken down MC is 34.8 inches long.

>2) Mrs Linnie Mae Randle, who saw the bag said it was no more
>   than 28 inches long. When testifying before the WC she clearly
>   stated the bag shown to her (the one the police claim to have found)
>   was much too long to be the one Oswald was carrying that day.

>3) Buell Wesley Frazier estimated the bags length as 2 feet (11 inches
>   too short)


    To begin with, I'll bet neither Frazier or Randle had yardsticks
    with them, or that they paid much attention to the package
    that Oswald was carrying. People are not exactly the best
    yardsticks (Dr Shaw claims that the excised wound in JFK's
    back was 3cm. Baden measured it to be 5cm, almost twice
    a long as Shaw remembers).


>4) The bag on the 6th floor was 38 inches long, and contained
>   no oil or rifle grease on it at all, even though a rifle supposedly
>   was contained in it for over 24 hours. The MC *was* oily when found.

    The bag was also found with a blanket that had oil on it.
    fibers from this blanket were found on the MC. Holtz went
    through this a long time ago.


>5) When demonstating how Oswald carried the package, Frazier said it
>   was cupped in his hand, and under his armpit. When given a package
>   of the same size needed to carry the MC, it extended to his right
>   ear. This would be hard to miss.

    It depends on the position Owald carried it in. I seriously doubt
    it would be carried vertically.


>6) Frazier marked a point on his car seat, where the bag had extended
>   to from where it was wedged against the car door. That was only
>   27 inches, still 8 inches too short.

    That would depend on things like the angle at which the package
    was on the car seat. If it's not parallel exactly to the seat,
    It will measure "shorter" based on the spto on the seat
    at which it ends.


>   The Commission chose to dismiss the evidence of the *only* people
>   who saw Oswald with this bag, and claimed he carried in a bag
>   long enough to hold a broken-down Mannlicher-Carcano.

    Maybe, but think about this:

    Who takes curtain rods to work with them? Especially
    when there is no reason for Oswald to do such a thing?

    Also, if there was a bag with curtain rods, why was it
    never found, either at the depository or among any of
    Oswald's other effects?


                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\

Path: ns-mx!uunet!wupost!csus.edu!netcomsv!mork!bprofane
From: [e-mail] (Gert Niewahr)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy" (LBJ and JEH)
Message-ID: <!![e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 20:12:27 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 88

In article <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> writes:
>1) It is documented fact from the released memos and communications of
>that small time period that Hoover, LBJ, and others were sh*ting in their
>pants over the fact that LHO was a leftist who had come back from the USSR,
>had just visited the Cuban and Russian embassies in Mexico and to all
>intents and purposes looked like a communist assassin.  I won't go into
>all of the aspects of this for I am writing a paper on it, but they
>had every reason to believe that looking deeply into LHO would turn up
>enough connections to communist countries to imflame the USA public into
>a dangerous attitude, bringing us on the brink of nuclear war.
>It is at this juncture that we can separate the alleged conspiracy to
>kill JFK from the obvious conspiracy to coverup the facts of the killing.
>[For those inclined, this scenario can be looked at as another layer of
>coverup also].

It doesn't have to be tied to a conspiracy scenario, but it's
pretty clear now that the "Commies killed Kennedy" theories
shuffling around the FBI and White House just after the
assassination *were* part of a disinformation campaign by LBJ and
Hoover.  If you're writing a paper, you'd better get this right:

  Hoover sent out a memo detailing Oswald's defection and seemingly
  pro-Castro work almost before JFK was dead.  One of the prime
  reasons people suspect a right-wing conspiracy is that it looks
  like Hoover had a "lone pinko" cover story ready to go.  There is
  testimony from FBI agents (albeit well after the fact) that
  Hoover was on the phone to LBJ with a detailed Oswald bio.
  shortly after the assassination, including information on Oswald
  that wasn't in the normal FBI files at that time.
  Hoover, of course, had deep ties with the radical right Bircher
  extremists.  Even if he didn't have foreknowledge of the
  assassination, he had the motive and means to finger
  a leftist as the assassin and thereby focus
  suspicions away from all the right-wingers who had been openly
  threatening to kill JFK.  The obvious rebuttal to this is that
  Hoover, as head of the FBI, had a clear imperative to identify an
  assassin quickly and stave off crazy theories, but Hoover was
  blanketing the press with Oswald accusation while there were all
  sorts of other leads still outstanding, stifled all other
  agencies and police departments from investigating the
  assassination, then shutdown all FBI investigation into
  non-Oswald leads.

  From the testimony of his aides, it is clear that LBJ was really
  worried that people would think *he* was behind the
  assassination.  It made sense to a lot of people:  LBJ had a deep
  thirst for the presidency; he was one of the dirtiest and most
  devious politicians in American history and he knew that insiders
  knew that; he was so unhappy as VP that he was thinking of
  quitting and lots of people in the Senate knew that (see Bobby
  Baker's autobiography for details on how LBJ planned to keep his
  power as Senate Majority Leader even after he became VP); he was
  convinced JFK was going to dump him from the ticket in '64, and
  he knew that people knew that.  LBJ knew instantly--very savvy
  politico that he was--that people would think he'd gotten Texas
  right-wingers to kill JFK so he could take over the presidency.
  Consequently, when he was handed a pinko killer in the form of
  Oswald by Hoover, he seized on him as cover.  Remember that when
  examining LBJ's policies you should *never* go by written
  evidence if it was counter to LBJ's self-interest.  Any number of
  biographies (Caro, Baker, and Connally detail this quite clearly)
  say that LBJ routinely used written memorandum to cover his ass
  with misdirection.  If he cooked up some political scheme, he'd
  always write up an antithetical memo that he could use later to
  deny what he'd done.  He never let his insiders take notes on
  what he wanted them to do so that he could later deny it.  So
  given that he was telling his aides that people were sure to
  think he'd had JFK killed, and that he went to the trouble to
  draft memos laying out his theories of a communist plot, it's
  safe to say that he really believed the former.

The question has always been, was LBJ really in on it or did any
possible conspirators--maybe including Hoover passively--know that
they could count on LBJ seizing on a leftist assassin story?  It
seems LBJ answered this himself.  After he quit in '68 and was
mending fences with aides he'd screwed over years ago and was
generally in a more honest mode than he'd ever been in his life, he
made his famous claim that he thought the CIA had killed Kennedy.
The subtext that always seems to come with this quote is that LBJ,
the consumate operator, was deeply shamed to have been roped into
complicity in the killing of a president by an obvious ploy, that
he was duped with the same kind of trick that he would have used on
someone else and then crowed about.

Anyway, even if Oswald was a true pinko and really was the lone
gunman, it's pretty indisputable at this point that Hoover and LBJ
promoted his guilt so quickly and zealously to throw suspicion off
themselves.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: What would a grand jury say?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 21:27:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Lines: 253
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James Roger Black) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>|> >Item:  At the time of the assassination, witnesses saw one or more
>|> >individuals lurking behind the picket fence near the Grassy Knoll.

>|>     Just another spectator.

>.... who flees from the scene carrying a rifle?  Some "spectator".

    Which witness said this, or is it another person who came
    forward some twenty years after the incident?



>|> >Item:  Photos taken of the Knoll at the moment of the fatal shot
>|> >seem to show a gunman in firing position behind the fence.

>|>     People keep on saying that. Photo analysts keep on saying
>|>     that there is no gun, and no gunflash.

>.... and other photo analysts say there is.

    Which ones? Groden? Where's his credentials? Jack White? He's
    admitted that he's no expert.


>|> >Item:  A majority of witnesses reported that shots came from the Knoll
>|> >area.

>|>     Not true at all. Far and away, most witnesses (some 70% of them)
>|>     could not identify the source of the shots. Also, several of the
>|>     people who heard shots from the knoll were in such position
>|>     that the knoll lined up with the TBSD.

>More precisely, then, "a majority of witnesses WHO REPORTED A DIRECTION
>reported that shots came from the Knoll area".  You're evading the issue.

    I'm not evading the issue. You're making into more than it's
    worth.

    Thompson's survey, which is the one most commonly
    used by the anti-WC ignores seven people in the motorcade
    who heard the shots coming from "behind and to the left,"
    ie, in the direction of the TBSD. Further, for several of the
    people on the RR overpass, the knoll and the TBSD are in the
    same direction. Once that is taken into account, you now
    have a majority of witnesses who report reporting shots in the
    direction of the TBSD.

    The HSCA produced a group of psycologists who have done
    research into the perception of gunshots. They claimed that
    people often have problems divining the source of gunshots,
    especially when the bullets in question are travelling
    past the sound barrier. Often, false "clues" created by
    the bullet's shock wave can cause people to think that a
    shot came from the wrong direction.

    Most importantly, two thirds of the people at Dealy who were
    interviewed could not place the direction of gunfire. Given
    this, how much weight are you willing to put on that survey?
    The numbers of people who thought the shots were coming
    from any direction may well just be random fluctuations,
    statistically speaking.

    Finally, the one unambiguous piece of information from the
    surveys of Dealy Plaza witnesses is that most people
    heard three shots. Of the knoll-gunman theories, I have
    yet to see one that postulates fewer than four.


>|> >Item:  Witnesses standing near the Grassy Knoll reported that bullets
>|> >were whizzing past them from the picket-fence area.

>|>     So far as I can remember, only one person has said that.

>No, there are at least two (Abraham Zapruder and a soldier who was taking
>pictures and had his film confiscated at gunpoint moments after the fatal
>shot).  I think there were others as well.

    I remember that Zapruder never heard bullets "whizzing by him",
    only that he thought he herd shots coming from behind him,
    from the direction of the knoll.


>|> >Item:  In the moments after the assassination, crowds of people
>|> >(including a number of police officers) surged toward the Grassy
>|> >Knoll.

>No cute answer for this one?

    Think about it, Einstein. Some people thought that they
    heard shots coming from the direction of the Grassy Knoll.
    They decided to investigate.


>|> >Item:  There were fresh footprints and cigarette butts in the area
>|> >where the gunman was reported.

>|>     And? (why is a sniper smoke cigarrets in his position, so the
>|>     smoke would give him away?)

>The motorcade was late.  The cycle time for nicotine craving is about 15
>or 20 minutes.  Maybe he wanted to "calm his nerves" so he wouldn't miss.

    When given the choice between having a nic fit and being
    discovered, I'd rather have a nic fit. Further, since
    the shooting at Dealy didn't exactly require William Tell-
    like grand marksmanship, I don't think it would matter.


>|> >Item:  Dr. Crenshaw of Parkland Hospital states that there was an entry
>|> >wound in Kennedy's right temple area.

>|>     Other Parkland doctors noted no right temple wound.

>So is Crenshaw a liar, or just incompetent?  Be careful--you're in libel
>territory now.


    Well, if he sues me, I'll just bring up members of the Parkland
    staff who said they saw no right temple wound. Dr Crenshaw's
    job at Parkland was to stick IV tubes into people. His position
    was insignificant enough that several members of the ER team
    don't even remember him being in the ER. Crenshaw was, in fact,
    only a first year resident with limited experience in gunshots
    or anything else.


>|> >Item:  The undertaker in DC who prepared Kennedy's body reported having
>|> >to putty up an entry wound in the right temple area.

>|>     He had to put putty all around JFK's head.

>So what?  Again, you're evading the issue.

    let me put it this way: since when is an undertaker an expert in
    gunshot wounds?


>|> >Question:  If a grand jury were convened to examine the evidence above,
>|> >where would they conclude the fatal shot came from?

>|>     The only problem is that this is not the sum total of evidence.

>Again, so what?  It is still evidence, sufficient to indict.  It still
>needs to be explained--not just explained away with arm waving and
>debunkers' fallacies.


    Cute. You accuse me of evading the issues, and then you turn
    around and do the same thing with a mighty "so what?"

    You referred to a full blown trial, not to a grand jury. In the
    trial, the undertaker would probably not be allowed to testify, since
    he would likely not be able to establish himself as an expert.
    I doubt Groden would, either. Jack White would be laughed out
    of court.


>|> >Item:  In the hour before the assassination, a number of vehicles
>|> >were seen cruising through a supposedly secure area near the Grassy
>|> >Knoll.

>|>     It was a used as a parking lot.
    [I should have added that it still is a parking lot]

>.... which was supposed to be secured and sealed off.  Why were people in
>civilian vehicles with out-of-state plates allowed in there?

    From several descriptions I recall, the lot had many, many
    civilian vehicles in it. It also seems to have been patrolled by
    at least one officer. As for vehicles "cruising" the lot,
    are you sure they weren't just looking for a parking space?

    I doubt out-of-state plates would signal anything particularly
    sinister, anyway.


>|> >Item:  In one of the pictures, the gunman seems to be wearing a police
>|> >uniform.

>|>     After it was arbitrarliy colorized to make it look that way.

>The "badge man" is visible even without the colorization.

    A man is. The "badge" is just a bright blur. It could be many,
    many things.


>|> >Item:  Roscoe White was a member of the Dallas Police.  His partner
>|> >was J.D. Tippit, who turned up dead shortly after the assassination.

>|> >Item:  Relatives of both Roscoe White and Sam Giancana have publicly
>|> >stated that White was behind the fence and fired the fatal head shot.

>|>     Another unconfirmed report made years after the assassination.

>.... by people who are on the record, available for questioning, and willing
>to talk.  Not exactly an unattributed rumor.

    Sam Giancana's daughter says her cousin and uncle are full of
    shit, and she's not exactly enamored with her own father, either.

    Further, are you sure that the Giancana's didn't pick up the
    Roscoe White Story after hearing it themselves and deciding
    that they wanted to include it?


>|> >Item:  In the autopsy photos the right temple area seems to have been
>|> >airbrushed out; no detail at all is visible in that area.

>|>     A pure fabrication.

>|>     I see no such thing in the released autopsy photos. The
>|>     HSCA photo panel saw no such thing. An independent board
>|>     retained by the Baltimore _Sun_ found no such thing.

>Take a look at the photos in Livingstone's "High Treason II".

    I *have* looked at several of them, along with Livingstone's
    explanations. They are not at all convincing. Then again,
    look who he using for his photo expert.


>|> >Item:  In the Zapruder film, the right temple area is obscured by a
>|> >featureless "orange oval", which also looks suspiciously like
>|> >airbrushing.

>|>     This, too has been checked. It's only Groden's imagination.

>Again, check HT2.

    Yes, I've seen it. I've seen Groden say this on some cheap
    late night talk show. Not impressed.

    Groden is supposed to be an experty who has studied the
    Z-film for years. Yet, as late as HT1, he still seems to
    think that JFK had his hands around his throat, something
    that Thompson pointed out to not be true some twenty
    years ago.

                        |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uflorida!reef.cis.ufl.edu!rwt
From: [e-mail] (Robert Trabucco)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: The Men Who Killed Kennedy
Summary: A&E To Reshow
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Jun 92 16:48:42 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.
Lines: 6
Nntp-Posting-Host: reef.cis.ufl.edu


The Men Who Killed Kennedy will be reshown on A&E June 5th 9pm.

A must see!

Bob
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Neutron Activation Analysis Table of Results
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 22:09:07 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 183

[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>[e-mail], raising himself to the level of being an expert in
>Nuclear chemistry, writes:

>>This table of data is taken from the HSCA Vol 1 pp 538
>>study of Neutron Activation Analysis.
>>It compares the magic bullet CE399, with the fragments
>>taken from John Connally.

>    [Table deleted, 'cause it's incomplete.]

Incomplete? It leaves out the other samples tested becuase they are
irrelevant.

>>Only lead is the same, Silver , and manganese just barely overlap.
>>All the other elements differ in composition, from 5% to 2400% to
>>aluminum where CE399 didn't have any at all.
>>And remember, if the magic bullet theory is correct, the samples
>>were taken within 1 or 2 mmm from where the original pieces came off.
>>If the samples were from the same bullet, they would have the same
>>composition within a standard error.

>    Dr Guinn doesn't think so. Deatils below.

Dr Guinn was just giving the HSCA what it wanted in terms of a
conclusion.

>>The conclusion is obvious, the Connally Wrist Fragments come from
>>a different bullet than CE399.

>    What is really obvious is that you either didn't read Guinn's
>    report, or that you don't care much about complete and correct
>    information.

I read the whole thing, including his paper in analytical chemistry
where he deliberately left out all the elements that disproved his
conclusions.

>    To begin with, this is the whole table published by the HSCA.

>    CE399 is the so called "pristine bullet"
>    CE842 are the fragments recovered from Connally's wrist
>    CE843 are tow fragments recovered from JFK's brain during the autopsy

Two out of 40+ fragments.

>    CE567 is a lump of misshapen core attributed to the JFK head bullet
>    CE840 are fragments recovered from the presidential limo
>          (there were two samples tested from CE840)

>


>          CE399      CE842        CE843    CE567    CE840
>==============================================================================
>% Lead    |     108      106         97    97    96    105
>     |        100      102        93    93    92    103
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ppm    |    892      804        625    606    642    643
>Antimony|    874      790        617    598    634    651
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As anyone can see, there is *no* overlap between the antimony when
looking at CE399 and CE842.


>ppm    |    9.3      10.3        8.2    8.7    8.9    8.4
>Silver    |    6.5       9.3        7.6    7.5    8.3    7.4
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just barely is ther overlap, the average difference is 25%.

>ppm    |    61      1001        42     41    46    44
>Copper    |    65      987        38    39    42    40
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Massive difference.

>ppm    |    Not      9.5        6.2    1.5    3.3    2.9
>Aluminum|     detected      6.7        4.8     .7    2.1    1.9
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ppm    |    .11      .09        .11    .02    .07    .06
>Manganes|    .07      .05        .09    .00    .05    .04
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ppm    |    6      124        137    10    14    20
>Sodium    |    4      116        131     8    12    18
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ppm    |    31      271        69    28    45    48
>Chlorine|     7      243        49    16    31    32
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    Notes:

>       The key elements are Silver and Antimony. Although Copper,
>       Aluminum, Tin, Manganese, Sodium, and Chlorine often
>       show up in the Neutron Activation Analysis of bullets,
>       the amounts of these elements "have not generally proved
>       to be consistent enough to be useful for comparison."

Lets quote from  Guinn's own report (you say you read it)

"In previous extensive INAA studies of bullet-lead specimens,
(of many different calibers, manufacturers, and production lots),
it was found that three key elements were almost always detectably
present, but at widely differnt concentrations depending on the source
of the bullet lead; antimony, silver, and copper."

Guinn has chosen to ignore the vast differnce in copper amounts,
and the 25% difference in silver, and the fact that the antimony
amounts do not overlap.

>       Levels of Sodium and Chlorine, particularly, tend to
>       be the result of contamination of the sample by handling,
>       bodily fluids, etc, rather than inherent properties of the
>       alloy.

The samples were washed several times.

>       Dr Guinn had tested several, if not many WCC 6.5mm bullets
>       for Dr John Nichols. Guinn found that the amounts of trace
>       metals  in this brand of bullet fluctuate markedly from
>       bullet to bullet (this implies some variance within the
>       bullet itself), even two adjacent bullets from the same box.
>
>       All of the samples were washed with distilled water, however,
>       Dr Guin says that he cannot insure that all contamination
>       would have been cleansed away.

>       Ranges of trace-element concentrations for WCC 6.5mm bullets
>       from lot 6003:

>        Ag: 7.9 to 15.9 ppm
>        Sb: 80  to 730  ppm
>        Cu: 17    to 62    ppm
>


>    It is interesting that the two bullets that were totally immersed
>    in biological tissue for significant amounts of time have
>    abnormally high amounts of Sodium and Chlorine (two elements common
>    in blood and other bodily fluids) when compared to the other
>    samples.

>    As for the differences in Copper concentrations between
>    CE399 and CE842, it is worth remembering that none of the
>    lead in the CE399 sample was located adjacent to the
>    copper-alloy jacket. The base extrusion (which is allegedly
>    the source of the wrist fragments), however, contained lead
>    that did lie adjacent to the copper jacket. because of this,
>    and because that in the process of the lead being extruded from
>    the base, it probably scraped off small amounts of copper, it
>    would be expected that CE842 would have a higher copper content
>    than CE399.

First, there is no proof that the copper in CE842 came from the
jacket. The jacket is not damaged.

Second, the difference is immense, certainly not explainable by
external contamination. The copper must have been a part of the
samples, not just a little bit on the outside.

>    In the end, Dr Guinn is an expert at NAA of bullets, unlike
>    either me or Bruce Schuck. He has something that neither
>    of us do: a body of knowledge and expertise concerning what to
>    expect from NAA of bullets.

Dr Guinn gave the HSCA exacly what they wanted, an analysis that
ignores the results of his own tests, and a conclusion that supports
the single bullet theory.

Remember, 25% difference in Silver, *no* match in the antimony, and
850% difference in copper, which are the three common elements
in bullets.

As well, 8.1ppm aluminum, while CE399 had none. Plus a massive
difference in Chlorine and Sodium, despite repeated washing of the samples.

If the wrist fragments were from a location within 1 or 2 mm of the
samples taken form CE399, they should have been *identical*.

They are *far* from being identical. They are not from the same
bullet.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: What would a grand jury say?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 22:40:51 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 17

[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>    Finally, the one unambiguous piece of information from the
>    surveys of Dealy Plaza witnesses is that most people
>    heard three shots. Of the knoll-gunman theories, I have
>    yet to see one that postulates fewer than four.

There are many witnesses, including SS Agents in the Motorcade,
who described the last shot as a double shot, two bangs very close
together. It would be easy for many of the witnesses to have heard
these last two shots as one.

The acoustical analysis from the HSCA puts two shots very close
together, one of them from the grassy knoll.

Two shots, fired almost simultaneously , would explain JFK's wounds,
and movement, as well as explain how some people only heard 3 shots.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!darwin.sura.net!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: METALLIC DEVICE
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 22:52:45 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 47

citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron) writes:

>Bruce Schuck writes:

>->
>-> The photo I'm talking about appears to show a skull held together by
>-> a metallic device, which means reconstruction of skull pieces before
>-> the photo was taken.

>Sorry Bruce, I just don't see what you are referring to.  I have both
>the original 1980 release of Lifton as well as his more recent 1988
>release and the picture you refer to just does not, at least to me, look
>like there's some sort of metal device inside the skull.

Even if you don't think it's a man-made device (although the top of
the T is too straight to be anything else), take another look.

It is obvious there is a crevice in the centre of the top of JFK's
skull. And it is just as obvious to me that there is something
man made in that crevice. It looks like it is there to hold the skull
together. From Humes description of the skull, the portion being held
on by this "clip" is the part that Humes described as being missing,
and later had parts of skull delivered by FBI Agents
[ See FBI Supplementry ] during the autopsy.

>If it weren't for the caption below the photo telling me what the author
>thinks it is, I'd believe it were nothing more than blood matted hair.

It doesn't look like blood matted hair to me. Did you miss the obvious
crevice/hole in JFK's head as well. There's a hole there, in a place
that is missing in the X-Rays.

Take a look at photo 32, the anterior-posterior X-Ray. The crevice
matches up very closely with the edge of the missing skull section
in the X-Rays.

I think they reconstructed JFK's skull, put the massive skin flap
back over the wound and photographed it

>I have the feeling Lifton is just grasping at straws to try persuading
>the reading public that conspirators photographed a reconstructed head
>and let the prosthetics (sp) show.

Take another look, along with the X-Ray. Look at the margin of the
missing skull in the X-Ray. Compare it with the location of the crevice.

They match.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u54778
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy" (LBJ and JEH)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jun 92 09:38:02 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <!![e-mail]>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Lines: 49

In article <!![e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gert Niewahr)
says:
>It doesn't have to be tied to a conspiracy scenario, but it's
>pretty clear now that the "Commies killed Kennedy" theories
>shuffling around the FBI and White House just after the
>assassination *were* part of a disinformation campaign by LBJ and
>Hoover.  If you're writing a paper, you'd better get this right:

[much good speculation Omitted]

I have no quarrel with all of what you have stated.  And I have much
the same suspicians as you do.  But there is a separation here between
what we suspect and what we have hardcopy on.

We have memos, documents, and testimony showing a distinct scenario for
all the elements of the official establishment acting in ways that can
be seen as colluding in a coverup.  It was precisely to this point
that my post is aimed at.  How can so many people, agents, reporters,
policemen, owners of news media, medical experts and others possibly
be persuaded to involve themselves in such a heinious coverup?  It was
to avoid the unthinkable.  It was preserve their country.  It was to
leave a world intact for their children and grandchildren.  The fact
that we now suspect that they were flim-flamed is beside the point.
Thats what they believed they were doing then and probably still
believe it.

And as for what we suspect, we don't really don't have solid evidence.
Whatever might have been there has been destroyed by the coverup.
We can only comb through it again and again hopeing to find slivers
of evidence.  In the end, our suspicions will mostly be speculation.
For all we know, LBJ, Hoover, and other officials could have been
hoodwinked into the "the commies did it" cover story also.

The general public, since the event, has always believed that they
weren't told the whole truth as shown by polls.  But their disbelief
has always been vaguely grounded in the incredible features of the
reported event.  Lone nuts killing lone nuts.  Hard to believe.
They've always been held back from going beyond this by the pundits
throwing the question of how could so many people, some with
impecable credentials and reputations possibly have colluded in such
a heinious coverup of a national crime.
If it was up to me to try to make a public case for coverup and
conspiracy, before I would try to make a case of head wounds being
reconstructed, photos faked, witnesses intimidated, lab results
falsified and miscontrued, I would present the abundant evidence
showing motivation for any and all these people doing these things.
And keeping quiet afterwards for years.
Motive first, then opportunity and means.
ALAN ROGERS
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: [e-mail] (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
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jun 92 13:49:47 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (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


                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *




                                  Chapter 4
               How It All Began - The U-2 and the Bay of Pigs

         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:


                     Nixon's Statements in "Six Crises"

         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 & 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]


                               E. Howard Hunt

         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]


                         Kennedy-Nixon Debates, 1960

         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.


                         Attack on Kennedy by Lying

         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.


                         Protection of Hunt and Co.

         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.



____________________

 [1] "Six Crises," Richard M. Nixon, Doubleday, 1962.

 [2] "The Invisible Government,"  Wise & Ross, Random House, 1964.

 [3] Ibid.

 [4] Brother of Earl Cabell, mayor of Dallas when Kennedy was assassinated.

 [5] Ibid.

 [6] "New York Times" articles on Watergate, June 18 to July 2, 1972.

 [7] "Time" magazine, September 8, 1972.

 [8] This episode is related in detail in "The Invisible Government."

 [9] "Six Crises".

[10] "The Invisible Government."

[11] "400,000 Dollars Pour Abattre Kennedy a Paris," Camille Giles, Julliard
     Press, Paris 1973.







                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *




                                  Chapter 5
                      The Assassination of John Kennedy

         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.


                                How It Began

         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.


                                Oswald's Role

         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.


                                 Mexico City

         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.


                              Oswald, the Patsy

         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.


                              Financial Support

         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.


                           Plans for Three Cities

         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.


                                 CIA Support

         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.


                                   Dallas

         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.


                           Where the Teams Stayed

         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.


                               Framing Oswald

         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.


                          Dallas Policemen Involved

         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.


                  Other Persons Involved in Framing Oswald

         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.)


                                Dealey Plaza

         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.


                                  The Shots

         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.


                              Oswald's Actions

         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!


                                  Jack Ruby

         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.


                              Planted Evidence

         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 .


                                Escape Plans

         As mentioned before, plans were made for the team to escape by
      car, train, and airplane.  Evidence shows:


          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.

          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.

          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.

          4.  A police car stopped in front of Oswald's rooming house
              and honked twice around 1:10 p.m.

          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.

          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.

          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.


                                Escape Routes

         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.


                              Tippit Shooting

         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.


                  Comments and Congressional Actions Needed

         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:


         (1)  The Senate;

         (2)  The House Special Committee on Intelligence;

         (3)  Thomas Downing, Representative from Virginia, who
              introduced House Resolution 498 to reopen the JFK
              assassination investigation;

         (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.


                              The Two Documents

      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.


                              Dramatis Personae

      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.



____________________

[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.

[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.

    Also "Postmortem," by Harold Weisberg, page 266, the missile receipt.

[3] As mentioned earlier, it is also possible that one of the team called
    him from a telephone inside the TSBD.







                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *
--
                                             daveus rattus

                                   yer friendly neighborhood ratman

                               KOYAANISQATSI

   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!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!jmk
From: [e-mail] (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy" (LBJ and JEH)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 7 Jun 92 15:12:19 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <!![e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 41

[e-mail] (Gert Niewahr) writes:
>
>It doesn't have to be tied to a conspiracy scenario, but it's
>pretty clear now that the "Commies killed Kennedy" theories
>shuffling around the FBI and White House just after the
>assassination *were* part of a disinformation campaign by LBJ and
>Hoover.
>...
>                                               One of the prime
>  reasons people suspect a right-wing conspiracy is that it looks
>  like Hoover had a "lone pinko" cover story ready to go.

An interesting tidbit from _Jack Ruby_ by Gary Wills and Ovid Demaris (1967),
p. 70, quoting Dallas DA William Alexander:

    Cap Fritz and I had decided to file on him for Tippit, before
    some Communist lawyer tried to get him out on bond... We decided
    to file on Oswald for Kennedy's killing as well as Tippit's. When
    we went back to City Hall, I went after publicity for the first
    time in fifteen years. George Carter of the _Times Herald_ asked
    me 'Are you going to file?' I said yes. 'When?' 'As soon as I can
    draw up the complaint.' 'For what?' 'Murder.' 'How will it read?'
    'Did then and there voluntarily and with malice aforethought kill
    John F. Kennedy by shooting him with a gun *in the furtherance of
    a Communist conspiracy*.' I knew I couldn't draw up an indictment
    like that, but I wanted to kill all the talk about right-wingers in
    Dallas. I didn't know anything about plots, but I knew this
    sonvabitch was a Communist. Reporters are so afraid of libel they
    wouldn't run that as our opinion; they'd print it only if they
    could say it was our formal charge. Well, George took it and ran with
    it. In about fifteen minutes, Wade got the word from Washington to
    knock off this Communist stuff. But we had done our job.
    ... The press had to be shown that the Dallas force was doing its
    job properly. And they had to be disabused of the Dallas right-winger
    idea.

Conspiracy in action, with operatives, chumps and patsies at all levels,
and with different motivations.

----
Joe Knapp    [e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: METALLIC DEVICE
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jun 92 14:19:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Lines: 29

In <[e-mail]> citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron) writes:

>Bruce Schuck writes:

>->
>-> The photo I'm talking about appears to show a skull held together by
>-> a metallic device, which means reconstruction of skull pieces before
>-> the photo was taken.

>Sorry Bruce, I just don't see what you are referring to.  I have both
>the original 1980 release of Lifton as well as his more recent 1988
>release and the picture you refer to just does not, at least to me, look
>like there's some sort of metal device inside the skull.

Well, I just bought a copy of Best Evidence and have studied all the
photos. Quite interesting material, makes the book worth its money.
The device Bruce is refering to seems rather clear to me. It can't be
mistaken by hair or so.

BTW: I noticed a caption that describes a few witnesses: Jean Hill and
Mary Moorman and what Lifton calls an unidentified woman. It's the so called
Babuschka lady. I thought she had been identified long ago as Beverly
Oliver. Is this typical of Lifton's (sloppy) research?
Interestingly, Beverly Oliver was one of Ruby's dancers.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute        | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Neutron Activation Analysis Table of Results
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jun 92 14:27:49 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Lines: 52

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:


>    CE399 is the so called "pristine bullet"
>    CE842 are the fragments recovered from Connally's wrist
>    CE843 are tow fragments recovered from JFK's brain during the autopsy
>    CE567 is a lump of misshapen core attributed to the JFK head bullet
>    CE840 are fragments recovered from the presidential limo
>          (there were two samples tested from CE840)

>


>          CE399      CE842        CE843    CE567    CE840
>==============================================================================
>% Lead    |     108*      106*         97    97    96    105*
>     |        100*      102*        93    93    92    103*
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ppm    |    892      804        625    606    642    643
>Antimony|    874      790        617    598    634    651**
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ppm    |    9.3      10.3        8.2    8.7    8.9    8.4
>Silver    |    6.5       9.3        7.6    7.5    8.3    7.4
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ppm    |    61      1001        42     41    46    44
>Copper    |    65      987        38    39    42    40
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ppm    |    Not      9.5        6.2    1.5    3.3    2.9
>Aluminum|     detected      6.7        4.8     .7    2.1    1.9
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ppm    |    .11      .09        .11    .02    .07    .06
>Manganes|    .07      .05        .09    .00    .05    .04
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ppm    |    6      124        137    10    14    20
>Sodium    |    4      116        131     8    12    18
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ppm    |    31      271        69    28    45    48
>Chlorine|     7      243        49    16    31    32
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------


two questions (see stars in table):
*  What does a percentage higher than 100 mean?
** You didn't explain what the two numbers in each table position
   indicate. I take it from their consequent ordering that these
   are the maximum and minimum measured values. It seems then, that
   the value of 651 is a typo, right?
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute        | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Alvarez Jet Flow Theory Exonerates Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jun 92 14:31:11 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Lines: 57

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>As I was thunbing through Vol 1 of the HSCA Report, I came across
>a paper by Luis Alvarez. A small part of the paper includes
>his famous 'jet flow theory' to explain why JFK moved back and
>to the left.

>Alvarez's theory is that the flow of blood and brain matter leaving
>the exit wound drove JFK back towards the shooters position.


>Lets look at his experiment [ pp 436 - 437 for those following along]

>Luis Alvarez went to the San Leandro Municipal firing range with
>Sharon "Buck" Buckingham, and a bunch of melons wrapped in 1 inch
>Scotch "filament tape". [Sharon is male, so you know why he uses 'Buck']


>Lets look at the experiment.

>Buck used a 30.06 from about 30m away, about 100 feet.
>Oswald was using a Mannlicher-Carcano from 265 feet.

>Buck used a 150 grain soft-nosed bullet, hitting the melon at 3000 fps.
>Oswald supposedly used a 160 grain bullet that struck at 1800 fps.

>And, as you know, soft-nosed bullets fragment extensively, while
>copper jacketed MC rounds normally do not.

>The results:

>Six out of seven melons moved back and towards the gun when shot.

>When Oswald supposedly fired, JFK's head went back and to the left,
>even though Oswald was to JFK's right.

>Hmmmm........

>Aside from the obvious differences in ammunition, distance, velocity,
>what does it prove?

>It proves JFK was hit by a soft-nosed high velocity bullet fired from
>JFK's left, such as the Dal-Tex building or the County Records
>Building. The resulting flow of blood and brain tissue drove JFK back
>and to the left, towards the shooter.


>Thank you Professor Alvarez for demonstrating that Oswald was innocent.

Bruce, from previous postings on this topic I understood that you didn't
believe in the jet-flow theory. Changed your opinion?

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute        | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: the Texas Gun Depository
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jun 92 14:50:37 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Lines: 19

In two recent postings (Dave Ratcliffe - Oswald citations and
Boyd Naron -capt Fritz' report) there was a claim about a gun
being found a few days before the assasination. In Garrison's
Trail of the assasins, JG describes the finding of a rifle on
the ROOF of the TSBD, which was filmed by one of the local tv
stations. It didn't have a mounted sight so it couldn't be the
MC. And there is (or isn't) the Mauser rifle. So we have rumours
of at least four rifles. Especially the first one I find very
suspicious.
And what about the one found on the roof? Could a bullet fired
from the roof be distinguished from one fired a floor below?
Was this perhaps a way to frame Oswald?


--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute        | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: another palm print question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jun 92 15:03:19 GMT
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Lines: 15

Imagine that the palm print said to be found on the MC was real.
This indicates that LHO wasn't wearing any gloves. Why then didn't
the police find any fingerprints on the rifle, on the cartridges, on the
window etc.?

Why the hell did LHO deny shooting when he knew that
a. the gun he owned was on the 6th floor of the TSBD
b. and was probably covered with his fingerprints

Possible conclusion: he didn't know of this.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute        | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!dxc4
From: [e-mail] (David Condon)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: practicing paleontology without a licence
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jun 92 18:16:04 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 13
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns5.ins.cwru.edu


I work in a natural history museum, so I asked our paleontologist about
Alvarez' theory about the Cretaceous extinction being caused by a
meteor strike. He basically said it's not generally accepted by any
means, but not entirely dismissed either. At any rate, it's not
considered totally wacko. He and our other paleontologist come down
against it though.
--

"The new designer CLUB colors are the perfect complement to today's lifestyle."

                                        -- television advertisement
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Alvarez Jet Flow Theory Exonerates Oswald
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jun 92 18:06:33 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 33

[e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries) writes:

>Bruce, from previous postings on this topic I understood that you didn't
>believe in the jet-flow theory. Changed your opinion?

My post was mostly sarcasm. I had heard about the jet flow theory, but
i hadn't seen the experimental data.

Alvarez used a bullet 1200 fps faster, from 165 feet closer, that was
soft-nosed lead instead of copper jacketed, and he still didn't get
his JFK substitute melons to move the way JFK did.

His experimental data did point out that a shooter firing from the
Dal-Tex with soft-nosed high velocity hunting ammunition could
have caused melons to move towards the shooter.

My current thinking is that there was a shooter in the lower floors
of the Dal-Tex with soft-nosed or dum-dum ammunition.

There *is* physical evidence of a lead bullet hitting JFK from
the rear. There is *no* evidence of JFK being hit in the head by
a copper jacketed bullet.


I'm glad Alvarez's theory agrees more with my theory,[of which I am
not the only one] than with the WC theory of a shooter from
the 6th floor TSBD with military ammunition.

He does a good job of pointing the HSCA in the right direction, but
they thought he was incriminating Oswald, when he was actually
exonerating him. :)

Maybe the pro-WC supporters will stop quoting him now. :)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Angles
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 6 Jun 92 03:30:19 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 126



Joel "Still SLightly Medicated" Grant >

Bruce Schuck >>

>>I have *always* said Tague was to the right of a line drawn from
>>the 6th floor TSBD to the limo and then extended past Tague's
>>location. It isn't until Z frame 410 [see the FBI memo in the WC
>>Hearings] that Tague lines up with the limo and a line drawn
>>from the 6th floor TSBD.

>    Having no desire to wade back through several hundred
>    articles I won't quibble about what your position
>    has *always* been.  Certainly, had you stated it
>    as clearly as above we could have saved quite a
>    bit of time.  Having drawn the relevant lines long
>    since I don't dispute this analysis one whit.

It's about time.

>>Who cares (I certainly don't) where Tague is in relation to the
>>midline of the limo. Nobody was shooting from the limo. You claim
>>Oswald was firing from a window on the 6th floor TSBD. Thats where
>>you should start drawing lines.

>    We are back to square one where I said: the bullet
>    which hit JFK's skull fragmented and such fragments
>    need not fly in precisely the same path as the
>    bullet, had the bullet not been fragmented.  The position
>    where the bullet hit is not inconsistent with a
>    bullet fragment leaving JFK's skull.

Do you have a map of Dealey Plaza handy?

Draw a line from the 6th floor snipers nest to where JFK's head was.

Remember the limo is angled to the right, and JFK is angled to
the left [within the limo].

Point out where the HSCA or WC put the entrance wound.

Now draw a line from the entrance wound to Tague [ remember, he
was in between Main and Commerce just outside the Triple Underpass.

The result is that there are two things in between JFK and Tague.

#1 is the windshield of the limo.

#2 is JFK's forehead.

Tell me how the bullet or fragment got through both without
anyone noticing.

A much better explanation than a fragment from the shot at 312
is a missed shot from another location.


If you draw a line from the Dal-Tex to Tague, you see the limo
was within a few feet of that line for most of the time it was
on Elm, including the frames where shots seem to be fired.


>    While we're at it, and have got the rulers/protractors
>    out and all that, care to try your hand at computing
>    the angles from the stockade fence to the limo at
>    313 and/or 219-221?  Angle above, angle to the right,
>    correllated with angle of JFK, approx. 11 degrees
>    down, 25 degrees (according to HSCA, since you have
>    asked for the source) to the left.  Donahue says
>    15 degrees.  Take your pick, or come up with some
>    other competent analysis.  Let's see a way this
>    lines-up with such wounds as you postulate.

A straight shot from the stockade fence to the side of JFK's head
with a dum-dum . The bullet would fragment extensively, with
some pieces ending up strewn all around the right side of JFK's head.

Brain and skull and lead splash outwards in all directions
from the entrance, exactly the same way water splashes backwards
when a bullet is fired into water.

Some fragments would end up in the rear left of JFK's head.
[Cyril Wecht says they are there] Fragments would also have blown
out the back of JFK's head, splattering motorcycle policeman
on JFK's left [and only those on his left]

JFK would be blown to the rear and his left.

As he bounces off the rear seat, he is hit again, only this time
from the rear. This propels him forward again , seen in 327 to 335.
This bullet leaves a distinctive lead ring embedded in the back of
JFK's skull, consistent with a *lead* bullet not a copper jacketed
one. This bullet also fragments, blowing apart the right side
of JFK's head, and blowing out much of the right side of JFK's
brain. Again, if you look at 335, you can see the skin flap is
much bigger than it was in 313.

This bullet was probably fired from the lower floors of the Dal-Tex,
and leaves lead fragments on the inside of the windshield. If the
bullet had been travelling downwards, the fragments probably would
have hit the SS Agent in the front seat.

Much of the evidence from the first head shot is expelled along
with the right side of JFK's brain.

Jackie pushes the skin flap back in place as she cradles JFK's
skull leaving only the wound in the rear for the Parkland Doctors
to see.

At Bethesda, a coverup is ordered for National Security Reasons.

The wound in the back of the head is covered up.

The wound in the throat is enlarged by someone fishing for a
bullet that entered from the front.

The autopsists, cooperating through a combination of orders and fear
of WWIII, claim there was only two shots from the rear.

How's that for a scenario?

>    Test firings supporting your analysis would be
>    helpful...

Are you volunteering to sit in the limo?
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Covering the angles
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jun 92 21:15:29 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 201


re: 1522 (Bruce Schuck)

>>    We are back to square one where I said: the bullet
>>    which hit JFK's skull fragmented and such fragments
>>    need not fly in precisely the same path as the
>>    bullet, had the bullet not been fragmented.  The position
>>    where the bullet hit is not inconsistent with a
>>    bullet fragment leaving JFK's skull.

>Do you have a map of Dealey Plaza handy?

>Draw a line from the 6th floor snipers nest to where JFK's head was.

>Remember the limo is angled to the right, and JFK is angled to
>the left [within the limo].

>Point out where the HSCA or WC put the entrance wound.

>Now draw a line from the entrance wound to Tague [ remember, he
>was in between Main and Commerce just outside the Triple Underpass.

>The result is that there are two things in between JFK and Tague.

>#1 is the windshield of the limo.

>#2 is JFK's forehead.

>Tell me how the bullet or fragment got through both without
>anyone noticing.

>A much better explanation than a fragment from the shot at 312
>is a missed shot from another location.

    Not only do I have the maps I have been to Dealy
    Plaza and stood where the fragment hit the
    concrete while a friend stood on the sidewalk
    at the point where the limo was at 312.  The angle
    is not at all inconsistent with a *deflecting* fragment
    from the final Oswald bullet.  Firing tests show that
    fragments regularly deflect *upward*, as in over the
    windshield.  As far as JFK's forehead being in the way,
    it isn't, if the fragment deflects upward as demonstrated
    via repeated and repeatable tests.


>If you draw a line from the Dal-Tex to Tague, you see the limo
>was within a few feet of that line for most of the time it was
>on Elm, including the frames where shots seem to be fired.

    How well a window at Dal-Tex lines up with the place
    where the concrete was struck depends upon which window.
    The only place that seems to line up would be roughly
    on the south side of Dal-Tex, near the roof, and
    then we have to wonder how the shooter could miss so
    badly.  The lower floors must deal with the tree near
    the southeast corner of Elm and Houston.  Depending
    upon how low you go, you also have to deal with the
    SS limo immediately following the President's.

    This is why detailed trajectory analysis is necessary.
    I have eyeballed the scene firsthand and those are
    my impressions.  You have done the same (I assume)
    and have different impressions.   Nowhere to go
    without far more detailed studies.

    But, anyway, using Tague as evidence for a Dal-Tex assassin
    is very thin as compared to the excruciatingly
    documented 6th floor, TSBD.


>>    While we're at it, and have got the rulers/protractors
>>    out and all that, care to try your hand at computing
>>    the angles from the stockade fence to the limo at
>>    313 and/or 219-221?  Angle above, angle to the right,
>>    correllated with angle of JFK, approx. 11 degrees
>>    down, 25 degrees (according to HSCA, since you have
>>    asked for the source) to the left.  Donahue says
>>    15 degrees.  Take your pick, or come up with some
>>    other competent analysis.  Let's see a way this
>>    lines-up with such wounds as you postulate.

>A straight shot from the stockade fence to the side of JFK's head
>with a dum-dum . The bullet would fragment extensively, with
>some pieces ending up strewn all around the right side of JFK's head.

    And so where are the firing tests showing bullet
    and skull deformation consistent with your
    assertions above?  Nothing in the autopsy or
    subsequent examinations even remotely suggests
    a shot from the right with a dum-dum bullet.

>Brain and skull and lead splash outwards in all directions
>from the entrance, exactly the same way water splashes backwards
>when a bullet is fired into water.

>Some fragments would end up in the rear left of JFK's head.
>[Cyril Wecht says they are there] Fragments would also have blown
>out the back of JFK's head, splattering motorcycle policeman
>on JFK's left [and only those on his left]

    If Cyril says that he is the only one.  The source
    of the shots to JFK's head is very clear from the
    autopsy: from above and from behind.  And given how
    high in the air the skull and dura matter and brain
    flew - 30 to 40 feet - it is pretty clear that the
    motorcycle cop in the left rear had to ride *into*
    this hideous cloud.

>JFK would be blown to the rear and his left.

    We've been through this one before and it is
    being argued again, I note.

>As he bounces off the rear seat, he is hit again, only this time
>from the rear. This propels him forward again , seen in 327 to 335.
>This bullet leaves a distinctive lead ring embedded in the back of
>JFK's skull, consistent with a *lead* bullet not a copper jacketed
>one. This bullet also fragments, blowing apart the right side
>of JFK's head, and blowing out much of the right side of JFK's
>brain. Again, if you look at 335, you can see the skin flap is
>much bigger than it was in 313.

    There is no supporting forensic evidence for this.
    You have not pointed to any experiments which
    support this theory.

>This bullet was probably fired from the lower floors of the Dal-Tex,
>and leaves lead fragments on the inside of the windshield. If the
>bullet had been travelling downwards, the fragments probably would
>have hit the SS Agent in the front seat.

    One of the limo fragments was the copper jacket of
    a Western Cartridge carcano bullet.  And both
    limo fragments have been tied ballistically to
    LHO's rifle.  Not because of the rifling, which
    was destroyed.  One doesn't tie a bullet to a
    specific rifle on those characteristics anyway, since
    they may be generic to a certain model.  One ties
    bullets to specific rifles via microscopic characteristics.
    Sufficient metal was left to perform this analysis,
    and the fragments matched LHO's rifle.

>Much of the evidence from the first head shot is expelled along
>with the right side of JFK's brain.

    Recovered pieces of JFK's skull provide support only
    for a bullet fired from behind.

>Jackie pushes the skin flap back in place as she cradles JFK's
>skull leaving only the wound in the rear for the Parkland Doctors
>to see.

>At Bethesda, a coverup is ordered for National Security Reasons.

>The wound in the back of the head is covered up.

>The wound in the throat is enlarged by someone fishing for a
>bullet that entered from the front.

    Dr. Perry, who performed the tracheostomy, disagrees.
    Drs. Baxter and Carrico, who assisted, and Dr. Jenkins,
    who closely observed the procedure also disagree.  And
    if you think they're lying leaf through any standard
    handbook of surgery and note the appearance of a
    transverse tracheostomy - in size, not much different
    from the wound observed in the autopsy photos.

>The autopsists, cooperating through a combination of orders and fear
>of WWIII, claim there was only two shots from the rear.

    Drs. Humes and Boswell disagree.  And surely by now
    their fear of WWIII would have diminished?

>How's that for a scenario?

    It is quite unsupported by the evidence but
    it is a step ahead of: the WC is wrong.

>>    Test firings supporting your analysis would be
>>    helpful...

>Are you volunteering to sit in the limo?

    Cute.

    Actually, for the past several months I have been working
    on a project that might, in the future, provide funds
    for such test firings.  I do not at all agree with any
    shots-from-the-front hypotheses, but I do not see why they
    would be any less amenable to testing than the WC and
    HSCA findings.  I would love to engage competent personnel
    to perform various second-gunman theory tests.  I expect
    the theory to fail all such tests.  But if the theory
    *passes* tests I shall be far more impressed than I am.

    You would think, though, that after all these years
    the pro-second gunman theorists would have gotten
    around to testing their theories?

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uunet.ca!canrem!dosgate![[e-mail]]
From: [e-mail] (danny papagiannis)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: where find jama
Message-ID: <1992Jun8.306.1491@dosgate>
Date: 8 Jun 92 21:52:45 GMT
Reply-To: "danny papagiannis" <[e-mail]>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Lines: 6


        Where can you find the JAMA report? Local bookstores do not have
it. How much does it cost?
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Covering the angles
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 8 Jun 92 23:02:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 157

[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:

>re: 1522 (Bruce Schuck)

>    Not only do I have the maps I have been to Dealy
>    Plaza and stood where the fragment hit the
>    concrete while a friend stood on the sidewalk
>    at the point where the limo was at 312.

Did you then have someone stand where Tague was standing?
There is a picture of him standing almost under the Triple
Underpass. The bullet hit in front of him about 20 feet or so.

>       The angle
>    is not at all inconsistent with a *deflecting* fragment
>    from the final Oswald bullet.  Firing tests show that
>    fragments regularly deflect *upward*, as in over the
>    windshield.  As far as JFK's forehead being in the way,
>    it isn't, if the fragment deflects upward as demonstrated
>    via repeated and repeatable tests.

If the fragment deflected upwards, it is very unlikely to have had
enough energy after arcing and travelling another 100 feet or so
to do the damage it did.

Did anybody do tests trying to simulate the Tague shot.
I'm sure if they had, it would have been consistent with a lead
bullet hitting the curb directly. They only dismissed this because
they claimed there was no copper on the curb. They didn't
even speculate about a lead bullet, becuase they had already
convicted Oswald, who supposedly was using copper jacketed bullets.

>
>
>>If you draw a line from the Dal-Tex to Tague, you see the limo
>>was within a few feet of that line for most of the time it was
>>on Elm, including the frames where shots seem to be fired.

>    then we have to wonder how the shooter could miss so
>    badly.

Miss so badly? If the Dal-Tex shooter was firing from the second
floor, all he had to do was overshoot JFK by a foot or so to hit the
curb near Tague.

>    But, anyway, using Tague as evidence for a Dal-Tex assassin
>    is very thin as compared to the excruciatingly
>    documented 6th floor, TSBD.

Documented? Where in the WR is there *any* documentation linking
the Tague bullet to the 6th floor TSBD? Hell...they didn't even test
the rifle to see if it had been fired *that* day.

>>A straight shot from the stockade fence to the side of JFK's head
>>with a dum-dum . The bullet would fragment extensively, with
>>some pieces ending up strewn all around the right side of JFK's head.

>    And so where are the firing tests showing bullet
>    and skull deformation consistent with your
>    assertions above?  Nothing in the autopsy or
>    subsequent examinations even remotely suggests
>    a shot from the right with a dum-dum bullet.

We've been over this before, but lets say it again.
There is *no* physical evidence of a copper jacketed bullet
hitting JFK in the head. The fragments left in his head, and
the fragmentation pattern are more associated with the impact
of a soft-nosed of dum-dum bullet.

In fact, Luis Alvarez used a soft-nosed high velocity bullet to
test his jet-flow theory. He didn't even use copper jacketed
rounds, because he knew they wouldn't fragment like the bullet that
hit JFK's head. An FMJ round would have punched nice neat holes
in his melons.

>    If Cyril says that he is the only one.  The source
>    of the shots to JFK's head is very clear from the
>    autopsy: from above and from behind.  And given how
>    high in the air the skull and dura matter and brain
>    flew - 30 to 40 feet - it is pretty clear that the
>    motorcycle cop in the left rear had to ride *into*
>    this hideous cloud.

Why is that clear at all? Unless there is the hole in the back
of JFK's head [the one described by Hill and the Parkland Staff]
there is *no* material on the left side. It should have been the
right side cops who got showered. they didn't.

>>As he bounces off the rear seat, he is hit again, only this time
>>from the rear. This propels him forward again , seen in 327 to 335.
>>This bullet leaves a distinctive lead ring embedded in the back of
>>JFK's skull, consistent with a *lead* bullet not a copper jacketed
>>one. This bullet also fragments, blowing apart the right side
>>of JFK's head, and blowing out much of the right side of JFK's
>>brain. Again, if you look at 335, you can see the skin flap is
>>much bigger than it was in 313.

>    There is no supporting forensic evidence for this.

Yes there is. There is the lead ring, embedded in the back of JFK's
skull which is consistent with the impact of a lead bullet, and
completely inconsistent with the impact of a copper jacketed bullet.
See the Clark Panel Report.

>>This bullet was probably fired from the lower floors of the Dal-Tex,
>>and leaves lead fragments on the inside of the windshield. If the
>>bullet had been travelling downwards, the fragments probably would
>>have hit the SS Agent in the front seat.

>    One of the limo fragments was the copper jacket of
>    a Western Cartridge carcano bullet.  And both
>    limo fragments have been tied ballistically to
>    LHO's rifle.  Not because of the rifling, which
>    was destroyed.  One doesn't tie a bullet to a
>    specific rifle on those characteristics anyway, since
>    they may be generic to a certain model.  One ties
>    bullets to specific rifles via microscopic characteristics.
>    Sufficient metal was left to perform this analysis,
>    and the fragments matched LHO's rifle.

Nope. Not true.

>>Much of the evidence from the first head shot is expelled along
>>with the right side of JFK's brain.

>    Recovered pieces of JFK's skull provide support only
>    for a bullet fired from behind.

>>Jackie pushes the skin flap back in place as she cradles JFK's
>>skull leaving only the wound in the rear for the Parkland Doctors
>>to see.

>>At Bethesda, a coverup is ordered for National Security Reasons.

>>The wound in the back of the head is covered up.

>>The wound in the throat is enlarged by someone fishing for a
>>bullet that entered from the front.

>    Dr. Perry, who performed the tracheostomy, disagrees.
>    Drs. Baxter and Carrico, who assisted, and Dr. Jenkins,
>    who closely observed the procedure also disagree.  And
>    if you think they're lying leaf through any standard
>    handbook of surgery and note the appearance of a
>    transverse tracheostomy - in size, not much different
>    from the wound observed in the autopsy photos.

Since you've looked at these books, please post the standard
length of a tracheotomy incision. A 6.5cm incision is overkill for
the insertion of a tube between 1 and 2 cm in diameter.

>    You would think, though, that after all these years
>    the pro-second gunman theorists would have gotten
>    around to testing their theories?

The acoustical test done by the HSCA proved with 90-95% accuracy
that at least one shot was fired from the grassy knoll.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Big Conspiracy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jun 92 07:18:34 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 7
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:15465 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1563

Does anyone know if there has been any work done to link the killings
of jfk, Marilyn Monroe, Bobby K, Malcom X and Martin Luther King altogether??

After all they were linked in real life and (except Monroe) they all wanted to
make `uncomfortable' changes.

Are any of the killers of Malcom X, MLK and Bobby K still alive??
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic
Subject: Bobby Kennedy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jun 92 07:11:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 8
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:15466 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1564 sci.skeptic:25396


At the time jfk died, wasn't Bobby Kennedy some cheif DA or something
like that? (ie. more powerful than Jim Garrison).

If that is the case then does anyone know why Bobby didn't initiate his own
investigations, if there really was some kind of conspiracy??

Surely, he more than anybody else would have wanted justice.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!uicvm.uic.edu!u54778
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: another palm print question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jun 92 05:18:37 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Lines: 10

The palm print was reportedly found on the underside of the barrel, as if
LHO had wiped all the prints off the gun in that humongous amount of time
he had to get from the sixth floor to the second floor, and had to miss
the one that had been left when he was supposedly cleaning the gun at an
earlier time.  The FBI lab man swears that he checked that whole rifle over
and found no prints.  The print was reported by the DPD lab man after the
rifle was returned to them and LHO was in the morgue.  Flame in some
former postings have some defenders claiming that the DPD print specimin
would have nullified it's finding by the FBI lab.  Gee, I wonder why the
lifting wasn't reported to the FBI in the first place.  How convenient.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!regeorge
From: [e-mail] (Robert E George)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Big Conspiracy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jun 92 10:36:13 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 19
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:15467 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1566
Nntp-Posting-Host: bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

In article <[e-mail]> dabbott@augea
n.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>Does anyone know if there has been any work done to link the killings
>of jfk, Marilyn Monroe, Bobby K, Malcom X and Martin Luther King altogether??
Read David Scheim's book -- I think it's called "Contract on America"
[NO ENDORSEMENT OF THAT BOOK IMPLIED!]

>
>After all they were linked in real life and (except Monroe) they all wanted to
>make `uncomfortable' changes.
>
>Are any of the killers of Malcom X, MLK and Bobby K still alive??

   James Earl Ray (convicted assassin of MLK) is still alive
   Sirhan Sirhan  (convicted assassin of Bobby K) is still alive
   I do not anything about the Malcolm X assassination.

Robert George
(speaking only for myself)
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!jmk
From: [e-mail] (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Bobby Kennedy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jun 92 13:34:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 10

[e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
>If that is the case then does anyone know why Bobby didn't initiate his own
>investigations, if there really was some kind of conspiracy??

His political base disappeared when his brother was killed and RFK arch-enemy
LBJ assumed the Presidency. In the words of the immortal Carlos Marcello,
"cut off the head of the dog and the tail is taken care of."

---
Joe Knapp   [e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!lims01.lerc.nasa.gov!scdorcy
From: [e-mail] (JAMES DORCEY)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Covering the angles
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jun 92 14:57:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Lines: 20
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Joel Grant) writes...

>    One of the limo fragments was the copper jacket of
>    a Western Cartridge carcano bullet.  And both
>    limo fragments have been tied ballistically to
>    LHO's rifle.  Not because of the rifling, which
>    was destroyed.  One doesn't tie a bullet to a
>    specific rifle on those characteristics anyway, since
>    they may be generic to a certain model.  One ties
>    bullets to specific rifles via microscopic characteristics.
>    Sufficient metal was left to perform this analysis,
>    and the fragments matched LHO's rifle.

Joel -

Could you expand on this?  I am curious as to what was left of the jacket
and how it was tied to a specific rifle.

Jim Dorcey
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!lims01.lerc.nasa.gov!scdorcy
From: [e-mail] (JAMES DORCEY)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Bobby Kennedy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jun 92 15:14:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Lines: 25
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes...
>
>At the time jfk died, wasn't Bobby Kennedy some cheif DA or something
>like that? (ie. more powerful than Jim Garrison).

Attorney General of the United States.  It would be fair to say that a
person in that position would be more powerful than the District Attorney
in New Orleans.

>If that is the case then does anyone know why Bobby didn't initiate his own
>investigations, if there really was some kind of conspiracy??

The "true" answer to this died in Los Angeles 24 years ago, although
speculation ranges from RFK's concurrence with the WR to possible plans by
RFK to reopen the investigation following his inauguration as President in
January 1969.  With Bobby's reported lifestyle, blackmail could very well
have kept him from opening an investigation in 1963 (plus a less than
congenial relationship with LBJ).

>Surely, he more than anybody else would have wanted justice.

Maybe he felt that Jack Ruby provided it.

JD
Path: ns-mx!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!ratmandu.esd.sgi.com!dave
From: [e-mail] (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
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jun 92 16:15:56 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (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


                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *




                                  Chapter 6
                  The Assassinations of Robert Kennedy and
                         Dr. Martin Luther King and
                   Lyndon B. Johnson's Withdrawal in 1968

         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]



____________________


[1] "The Fourth Force" -- L. Fletcher Prouty -- "Gallery Magazine" --
    December, 1975

[2] "Frame Up:  The Martin Luther King/James Earl Ray Case" -- Harold
    Weisberg -- E.P. Dutton -- 1971

    "The Assassination of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr." -- R.E.
    Sprague -- "Computers & Automation," December 1970

    "The Assassination of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. --  Parts I to
    II" -- Wayne Chastain -- "Computers & Automation," December 1974.

[3] Most of the above information has been published in a series of
    articles and in two books and one movie.

    "The Assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy" -- R.E. Sprague --
    "Computers & Automation" -- September 1972 and October 1970

    "RFK Must Die" -- Robert Blair Kaiser -- 1970

    "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, A Searching Look at the
    Conspiracy and Cover-Up 1968-1978" -- William Turner and John
    Christian -- 1978

    "The Second Gun" --  Documentary Movie -- Ted Charach -- American
    Films -- Beverly Hills







                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *




                                  Chapter 7
           The Control of the Kennedys - Threats & Chappaquiddick

         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]



____________________

[1] "The fabulous Jackie" -- Christian Cafarakis -- Productions de Paris
    -- 1972

[2] "You the Jury" -- Robert Cutler -- Self Published -- 1974

[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.

[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.

[5] On page 121, "White House Tapes," Paperback Edition, published by New
    York Times







                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *




                                  Chapter 8
                     1972 - Muskie, Wallace and McGovern

         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.



____________________

[1] "Report of an Investigation" by William Turner for the Committee
    on Government Intelligence.

    References:

    "Bremer Wallace and Hunt", The New York Review of Books -- Gore
    Vidal -- December 13, 1973.

    "The Wallace Shooting" -- Alan Stang -- "American Opinion" --
    October, 1972.

    "Why Was Wallace Shot?" -- R.F. Salant -- Self Published --
    Monsey, N.Y.

    "Interview With Charles Colson" -- Dick Russell -- "Argosy" --
    March, 1976.







                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *

--
                                             daveus rattus

                                   yer friendly neighborhood ratman

                               KOYAANISQATSI

   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!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy" by Jacob Cohen
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Jun 92 17:25:23 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 151


In article <-3![e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer)
 writes...
>The "non-conspiracy" version of the Kennedy assassination is argued for
>in great detail in an article on p. 32 of the June, 1992 issue of "Commentary"
>by Jacob Cohen, Chairman of the Department of American Studies at
>Brandeis University: "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy."


  Never heard of this guy Cohen before but I have to say quite a lot of
 his so-called `facts' are inaccurate.......as I shall point out below.


>
>
>Cohen examines in detail the implausible assumptions underlying the
>various "conspiracy" claims. Some brief quotes:
>
>    Zapruder is now dead, but Sitzman (his secretary) was interviewed
>    for a sensational five-part documentary produced by the Arts and
>    Entertainment (A&E) Network on cable TV. Somehow, the interviewer
>    did not ask her whether she noticed a man shooting the President
>    just to her right front. [where a gunman on the 'grassy knoll'
>    would have been]....


   Wrong. Where Zapruder and Sitzman were standing the alledged `second
  gunman' would have been to their right rear, not front. This I base on
  where various conspiracy authors placed the `second gunman'.



> notwithstanding Stone's insinuations, no one
>    saw a gun on the knoll, though it would have been in the clear
>    line of sight of hundreds of the 692 people who have been identified
>    in Dealy Plaza.


   Wrong again. Where various conspiracy authors have placed the second
  gunman, behind the fence at the back of the knoll, he would have been
  behind most of the spectators except the few that were standing on the
  south side of Elm facing north.



>
>    ....people who claim they were roughed up and threatened because
>    they had seen inadmissible things. Stone graphically depicts these
>    alleged brutalities... Stone and others would have us believe that
>    there was a platoon of conspirators, incognito, surveying every
>    person's eyes, entering minds and cameras, knowing infallibly who
>    had incriminating evidence and who did not. Like Santa Claus, they
>    knew who had been bad or good, and they brutalized only those who
>    saw or photographed the bad thing....



   Watch the `Men Who Killed Kennedy' again. Specifically where Gordon
  Arnold is interviewed. He seems totally sincere in what he states WRT
  the second gunman roughing him up and taking his film. If he's not
  telling the truth, he is either a pathological liar or he deserves
  an Academy Award for best actor......



>
>    It is often asked why Oswald denied killing the President, as though
>    guilty people do not deny things all the time.... He himself was
>    the first to insist that the backyard photo of him with a gun was
>    a forgery..


   This has been proved to be a forgery by a member of Scotland Yards'
  photographic experts. (Can't remember his name. See `High Treason')



>. he made up an easily contraindicated story that the
>    manager of the Depository brought a rifle to the building ...



  Ahhh, but the manager of the TSBD, Mr. Roy Truly, had brought a rifle
 into the building a day or so before the assassination......this is
 documented fact in a number of publications....



> he
>    denied using an alias at his rooming house...
>
>    To sum up: (1) Oswald worked in the building which was the only
>    source of the shots; (2) owned and possessed the one and only
>    murder rifle;


    No one has ever been able to prove conclusively that LHO owned,
  or had in his possession at any time, that Mannlicher-Carcano.


> (3) brought it to work with him the morning of
>    the murder;


    Again, there is no proof nor even testimony WRT to this statement....


> (4) was at the murder window at the time the President
>    was shot;


    Again, there is no proof nor even testimony.......


> (5) left the scene immediately after the shooting;
>    (6) shot an officer who attempted to question him and then
>    forcibly resisted arrest; (7) lied about crucial matters of fact
>    when interrogated.


    This is real good. Was Mr. Cohen, in fact, there at DPD HQ when Oswald
   was interrogated? If not,(I'm sure he wasn't) how does he know that
   LHO `lied about crucial matters of fact' when none of the interrogations
   were recorded on tape or paper.



> [(8): this was not his *first* assassination
>    attempt: General Walker].


    Wrong, Big Time. According to the DPD report of the incident, the bullet
  removed from the wall within Gen. Edwin Walkers' home proved to be a .30-06
  caliber. When and where did LHO get a .30-06? He never had one.



>
>                                     - Jacob Cohen, B.S.(couldn't help but add
                                                          this)    ;^)



<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Paul R. Busta    [e-mail]                       Salem,N.H.
        --or-- ...!decwrl!kozmic.enet.dec.com!busta    603-894-3962
        --or-- [e-mail]

           "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
                            -U.S. Vice President J. Danforth Quayle
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!caen!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: This and That
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jun 92 20:52:40 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 285


re: 1568 (Jim Dorcey) - question about limo fragment ID - this
is quick, edited onto a prepared file. (see below)  Shortest
answer: see Appendix X of the WCR, testimony by Robert Frazier.
He discusses the general principles as well as the limo fragments
specifically.  If you would like, I will quote from that.  Also
see below in answer to Bruce Schuck.

[prepared file below]

This is primarily a reply to Bruce Schuck's 1561, but
first a couple of general notes:

1. June, 1992 "Commentary" article by Jacob Cohen. (Chairman,
Department of American Studies, Brandeis University)  This is
in fact a very good article.  The precis in here did not do it
justice, but this is not a criticism of the alt.jfk writer; it
isn't at all easy to summarize *any* article.   Cohen clearly
knows very well what he is talking about, and clearly has
encountered the sort of objections to his thesis as have
been found in here.  He mentions another "Commentary" article
from he wrote back in 1975 ("seventeen years ago") and so has
been at this for quite some time.  As I say, very good
article.   His analogy for relationship between Zapruder position
and alleged grassy knoll assassin is, IMO, very good and I think
borne out by anyone who has checked this out at Dealy Plaza.


re: assassination photos

While at the library at lunch I looked again (after the passage
of many years) at two key "Life" magazine issues, each issue
featuring excellent reproductions of assassination photos.

1. November 22, 1966 - this is the issue in which Gov. Connally
views the Z-film frame-by-frame and decides that he was struck
at frame 234.  WC rebuttal by Arlen Specter.  "Life" concludes
there is "reasonable doubt" and calls for a re-opening of
the case.  Probably the best Z-film frames most of us will
ever see.  Frames 193, 206, 312, and 222-244, all in color,
about 2" by 4" in size.  Also, numerous frames blown up to
half or third page size.

2. November 24, 1967 - quite a few photos that are seldom
seen.  In fact, only a few are from the "usual suspects"
generally printed.  Willis slide #5, for instance, is
included and it is a very good copy.  Photos include:

Early Willis slides
large color Roberth Hughes frame
Elsie Dorman frames
Jim Towner slides
Tina Towner (his daughter) frames
Hugh Betzner (standing next to Willis - clearest view of Zapruder)
Patsy Paschall frames
Wilma Bond frames
Mark Bell frames

Truly, it will be worth your time to view these at your local
library.

re: 1561  (Bruce Schuck)

>>    Not only do I have the maps I have been to Dealy
>>    Plaza and stood where the fragment hit the
>>    concrete while a friend stood on the sidewalk
>>    at the point where the limo was at 312.

>Did you then have someone stand where Tague was standing?
>There is a picture of him standing almost under the Triple
>Underpass. The bullet hit in front of him about 20 feet or so.

    No, but since it was so close it didn't seem necessary.
    (it looked farther than 20 feet to me, but we were
    admittedly estimating)  The important point was to see
    where it landed and if that location seemed to be
    inconsistent with a deflected bullet fragment.  It did
    not seem to be inconsistent, nor did Tague's location
    relative to where the bullet struck the pavement seem
    to be inconsistent with these angles.

>>       The angle
>>    is not at all inconsistent with a *deflecting* fragment
>>    from the final Oswald bullet.  Firing tests show that
>>    fragments regularly deflect *upward*, as in over the
>>    windshield.  As far as JFK's forehead being in the way,
>>    it isn't, if the fragment deflects upward as demonstrated
>>    via repeated and repeatable tests.

>If the fragment deflected upwards, it is very unlikely to have had
>enough energy after arcing and travelling another 100 feet or so
>to do the damage it did.

    I have no idea how fast the bullet would have been
    traveling at that point.  But it really didn't do
    all that much damage - concrete is easily chipped.

>Did anybody do tests trying to simulate the Tague shot.
>I'm sure if they had, it would have been consistent with a lead
>bullet hitting the curb directly. They only dismissed this because
>they claimed there was no copper on the curb. They didn't
>even speculate about a lead bullet, becuase they had already
>convicted Oswald, who supposedly was using copper jacketed bullets.

    I am not aware of any such tests.

>>    then we have to wonder how the shooter could miss so
>>    badly.

>Miss so badly? If the Dal-Tex shooter was firing from the second
>floor, all he had to do was overshoot JFK by a foot or so to hit the
>curb near Tague.
        How much of a miss depends upon where the shooter was.  From
    south and highI would estimate it at more like two and a half
    feet or so, but even a foot is a miss inconsistent with a trained
    assassin.  And then there is the 28 inch miss that hit
    Connally. (if you reject SBT)  And the miss from the
    grassy knoll at Z-film 295-296. (if you accept HSCA
    offical version)  Seems like we've got a lot of assassins
    missing alot of shots!  ;^)

>>    But, anyway, using Tague as evidence for a Dal-Tex assassin
>>    is very thin as compared to the excruciatingly
>>    documented 6th floor, TSBD.

>Documented? Where in the WR is there *any* documentation linking
>the Tague bullet to the 6th floor TSBD? Hell...they didn't even test
>the rifle to see if it had been fired *that* day.

    I didn't say the Tague fragment was linked to 6th floor
    TSBD, only that a 6th floor TSBD *assassin* was documented
    excruciatingly.

>>>A straight shot from the stockade fence to the side of JFK's head
>>>with a dum-dum . The bullet would fragment extensively, with
>>>some pieces ending up strewn all around the right side of JFK's head.

>>    And so where are the firing tests showing bullet
>>    and skull deformation consistent with your
>>    assertions above?  Nothing in the autopsy or
>>    subsequent examinations even remotely suggests
>>    a shot from the right with a dum-dum bullet.

>We've been over this before, but lets say it again.
>There is *no* physical evidence of a copper jacketed bullet
>hitting JFK in the head. The fragments left in his head, and
>the fragmentation pattern are more associated with the impact
>of a soft-nosed of dum-dum bullet.

    Yes, we have been over this before, so let me state
    once again that Lattimer's firing tests with
    copper-jacketed bullets showed bullet and skull
    deformation quite consistent with the actual bullet
    and skull deformation.


>In fact, Luis Alvarez used a soft-nosed high velocity bullet to
>test his jet-flow theory. He didn't even use copper jacketed
>rounds, because he knew they wouldn't fragment like the bullet that
>hit JFK's head. An FMJ round would have punched nice neat holes
>in his melons.

    Alvarez established one principle and falsified another.
    Alvarez established that the melons - and by extension
    a skull - will not move in the direction of the
    bullet, as if struck by a baseball.  They will move
    in a direction opposite to a large exit wound.

    Lattimer's tests on skulls filled with brain matter
    and paint (for better filmic visibility) using
    copper jacketed bullets demonstrated the same
    phenomenom.

>>    If Cyril says that he is the only one.  The source
>>    of the shots to JFK's head is very clear from the
>>    autopsy: from above and from behind.  And given how
>>    high in the air the skull and dura matter and brain
>>    flew - 30 to 40 feet - it is pretty clear that the
>>    motorcycle cop in the left rear had to ride *into*
>>    this hideous cloud.

>Why is that clear at all? Unless there is the hole in the back
>of JFK's head [the one described by Hill and the Parkland Staff]
>there is *no* material on the left side. It should have been the
>right side cops who got showered. they didn't.

     It is clear from the Z-film that the skull and brain
     matter went primarily forward and somewhat left, as you
     would expect from a shot coming from the right rear.
     I'll take your word for it that none of the motorcycle
     escort north of the limo were hit.

>>>As he bounces off the rear seat, he is hit again, only this time
>>>from the rear. This propels him forward again , seen in 327 to 335.
>>>This bullet leaves a distinctive lead ring embedded in the back of
>>>JFK's skull, consistent with a *lead* bullet not a copper jacketed
>>>one. This bullet also fragments, blowing apart the right side
>>>of JFK's head, and blowing out much of the right side of JFK's
>>>brain. Again, if you look at 335, you can see the skin flap is
>>>much bigger than it was in 313.

>>    There is no supporting forensic evidence for this.

>Yes there is. There is the lead ring, embedded in the back of JFK's
>skull which is consistent with the impact of a lead bullet, and
>completely inconsistent with the impact of a copper jacketed bullet.
>See the Clark Panel Report.

    The Clark Panel Report specifically states that the
    wound of entrance in the back of President Kennedy's
    skull is consistent with a wound made by a bullet such
    as CE399.  They make no mention of a "lead" ring.
    They do mention a round "metal" fragment.

>>    One of the limo fragments was the copper jacket of
>>    a Western Cartridge carcano bullet.  And both
>>    limo fragments have been tied ballistically to
>>    LHO's rifle.  Not because of the rifling, which
>>    was destroyed.  One doesn't tie a bullet to a
>>    specific rifle on those characteristics anyway, since
>>    they may be generic to a certain model.  One ties
>>    bullets to specific rifles via microscopic characteristics.
>>    Sufficient metal was left to perform this analysis,
>>    and the fragments matched LHO's rifle.

>Nope. Not true.

    According to Frazier's testimony certain unique marks
    are made during manufacture but that use of the weapon
    changes some characteristics.  On the basis of unique
    characteristics, observed only through a microscope,
    Frazier positively identified both limo fragments as
    coming from LHO's rifle, to the exclusion of all other
    rifles in the world.

>>>The wound in the throat is enlarged by someone fishing for a
>>>bullet that entered from the front.

>>    Dr. Perry, who performed the tracheostomy, disagrees.
>>    Drs. Baxter and Carrico, who assisted, and Dr. Jenkins,
>>    who closely observed the procedure also disagree.  And
>>    if you think they're lying leaf through any standard
>>    handbook of surgery and note the appearance of a
>>    transverse tracheostomy - in size, not much different
>>    from the wound observed in the autopsy photos.

>Since you've looked at these books, please post the standard
>length of a tracheotomy incision. A 6.5cm incision is overkill for
>the insertion of a tube between 1 and 2 cm in diameter.

    I haven't seen measurements in a book.  I definitely recommend
    seeing for yourself one of the anatomical diagrams
    in a book such as _Essentials of Surgery_ by
    David C. Saberton, Jr. MD. 1987, W.B. Saunders Co.
    The diagram in this book shows a procedure that looks
    alot like other diagrams I have seen in other books,
    all of which resemble the tracheostomy incision
    seen in the autopsy photos.  The diameter of the
    wound is utterly consistent, though as some
    commentators have mentioned, it is somewhat lower
    than normal.  It does seem to be extended *across*
    rather farther than the diagrams, but remember
    that the procedure done by Dr. Perry was in an
    extreme state of emergency.  As Dr. Perry has
    said: "I grabbed a knife and made a quick and
    large incision; it only took two or three minutes."

>>    You would think, though, that after all these years
>>    the pro-second gunman theorists would have gotten
>>    around to testing their theories?

>The acoustical test done by the HSCA proved with 90-95% accuracy
>that at least one shot was fired from the grassy knoll.

     I've got an note written by a man who worked with
    the acoustic experts and until very recently supported
    the dictabelt evidence.  He now is extremely skeptical.
    If I get his permission to post his comments here will
    you read them?

    In either case, this is also a situation we have gone
    over in detail many times in the past.


Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!stanford.edu!mcnc!rock!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!saseph
From: [e-mail] (Ed Hughes)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: where find jama
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jun 92 13:08:14 GMT
References: <1992Jun8.306.1491@dosgate>
Sender: [e-mail] (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Distribution: alt
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 16
Originator: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: hal.unx.sas.com


In article <1992Jun8.306.1491@dosgate>, [e-mail] (danny papagiannis) writes:
>
>        Where can you find the JAMA report? Local bookstores do not have
>it. How much does it cost?

Choose a university near you that has a medical school.
Then find the specialized library that the doctors and
med students use--at UNC, it's called the Health Sciences
Library.  They should subscribe to JAMA.  If you can get
into the library, you should be able to photocopy the
article.
--
Ed Hughes, SAS Institute  | "I'll stay here and take more lithium."
Cary, NC                  | --Crow, "Women of the Prehistoric Planet," MST3000
                          |
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!hsdndev!taco!rock!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!saseph
From: [e-mail] (Ed Hughes)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Question about JAMA article
Keywords: JAMA, cushingoid
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jun 92 14:39:48 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Distribution: na
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 19
Originator: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: hal.unx.sas.com



In the JAMA article, Lundberg asks "some questions that
remain official mysteries."  One of them inquires about
the condition of Kennedy's adrenal glands, and Humes
answers, with some agitation, that Kennedy was definitely
NOT 'cushingoid' and did not have the associated facial
puffiness and odd fat deposits.
What the heck are they talking about?!  I thought I'd seen
all manner of speculation about the killing hashed out here,
but I don't recall reading any discussion of JFK's adrenal
glands.  So what's the deal?  What is 'cushingoid?'



--
Ed Hughes, SAS Institute  | "I'll stay here and take more lithium."
Cary, NC                  | --Crow, "Women of the Prehistoric Planet," MST3000
                          |
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Question about JAMA article
Keywords: JAMA, cushingoid
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jun 92 23:10:19 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: na
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 23

[e-mail] (Ed Hughes) writes:

>In the JAMA article, Lundberg asks "some questions that
>remain official mysteries."  One of them inquires about
>the condition of Kennedy's adrenal glands, and Humes
>answers, with some agitation, that Kennedy was definitely
>NOT 'cushingoid' and did not have the associated facial
>puffiness and odd fat deposits.
>What the heck are they talking about?!  I thought I'd seen
>all manner of speculation about the killing hashed out here,
>but I don't recall reading any discussion of JFK's adrenal
>glands.  So what's the deal?  What is 'cushingoid?'

I'm not sure.

JFK had Addison's disease, which until a few years before he got
it would have been fatal. He was taking medication for this disease
all through his Presidency. This medication, which I forget, can
leave the patient kind of 'high' [whether JFK was mentally fit
under medication is an interesting question], it can also greatly
enhance a patients sex drive [ well documented in the case of JFK ]

Maybe they were referring to Addison's disease.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: This and That
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jun 92 23:22:50 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 83

[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:

>>Miss so badly? If the Dal-Tex shooter was firing from the second
>>floor, all he had to do was overshoot JFK by a foot or so to hit the
>>curb near Tague.

>        How much of a miss depends upon where the shooter was.  From
>    south and highI would estimate it at more like two and a half
>    feet or so, but even a foot is a miss inconsistent with a trained
>    assassin.  And then there is the 28 inch miss that hit
>    Connally. (if you reject SBT)  And the miss from the
>    grassy knoll at Z-film 295-296. (if you accept HSCA
>    offical version)  Seems like we've got a lot of assassins
>    missing alot of shots!  ;^)

I don't think the grassy knoll shot was a miss.

The HSCA chickened out and put the grassy knoll shot at 295, to
avoid the kill shot coming from the grassy knoll.

JFK's movements, and the physical evidence , can be better explained
by two head shots almost simulataneously.

If shot one is the grassy knoll at 312, and shot two is at 325,
it fits a lot better.

>>Documented? Where in the WR is there *any* documentation linking
>>the Tague bullet to the 6th floor TSBD? Hell...they didn't even test
>>the rifle to see if it had been fired *that* day.

>    I didn't say the Tague fragment was linked to 6th floor
>    TSBD, only that a 6th floor TSBD *assassin* was documented
>    excruciatingly.

You means *assassins* don't you? More witnesses saw two shooters
in the TSBD than witnesses who only saw one.

>>We've been over this before, but lets say it again.
>>There is *no* physical evidence of a copper jacketed bullet
>>hitting JFK in the head. The fragments left in his head, and
>>the fragmentation pattern are more associated with the impact
>>of a soft-nosed of dum-dum bullet.

>    Yes, we have been over this before, so let me state
>    once again that Lattimer's firing tests with
>    copper-jacketed bullets showed bullet and skull
>    deformation quite consistent with the actual bullet
>    and skull deformation.

Only because Lattimer used dried out skulls with *no* scalp
simulation. A live skull with scalp needs a lot more force to
fragment. That force is possible with soft-nosed high velocity
bullets , not with medium velocity copper jacketed bullets.

>
>>In fact, Luis Alvarez used a soft-nosed high velocity bullet to
>>test his jet-flow theory. He didn't even use copper jacketed
>>rounds, because he knew they wouldn't fragment like the bullet that
>>hit JFK's head. An FMJ round would have punched nice neat holes
>>in his melons.

>    Alvarez established one principle and falsified another.
>    Alvarez established that the melons - and by extension
>    a skull - will not move in the direction of the
>    bullet, as if struck by a baseball.  They will move
>    in a direction opposite to a large exit wound.

If you use high velocity , soft nosed bullets. Alvarez *never*
tested medium velocity copper jacketed rounds.

And remember, JFK never moved towards Oswald, he moved towards
the Dal-Tex building.

>>The acoustical test done by the HSCA proved with 90-95% accuracy
>>that at least one shot was fired from the grassy knoll.

>     I've got an note written by a man who worked with
>    the acoustic experts and until very recently supported
>    the dictabelt evidence.  He now is extremely skeptical.
>    If I get his permission to post his comments here will
>    you read them?

Sure.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: erratum
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 00:24:34 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 7


I just noticed that I made a date mistake in my last article.
The 1966 "Life" magazine is dated November 25, 1966, *not*
November 22, 1966.  Wonder how I could have accidentally
typed *that* date in?   ;^)

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!eecae.ee.msu.edu!grimm
From: [e-mail] (Jerry Michael Grimm)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Big Conspiracy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 02:46:17 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Michigan State University
Lines: 32
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:15492 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1578

[e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:

>Does anyone know if there has been any work done to link the killings
>of jfk, Marilyn Monroe, Bobby K, Malcom X and Martin Luther King altogether??

>After all they were linked in real life and (except Monroe) they all wanted to
>make `uncomfortable' changes.

>Are any of the killers of Malcom X, MLK and Bobby K still alive??

I find it difficult to belive that anyone involved with Malcom X's death
were conspirators to kill MLK, RFK and JFK.  Malcolm X basically repudiated
the NAtion of Islam and Elijah Mohammed in the year before his untimely
assassination.

MAlcolm X had become disenchanted with Elijah Mohammed's practices (read
Autobiograph ... by Alex Haley).  AFter Malcolm's pilgrammage to Mecca,
he changed very completely.  He broke 100% with NAtion of Islam, making
big news and taking a lot of followers (And follower's donations) with
hime (That is, NAtion of ISlam lost a lot of "tithing" income).

Besides, Malcolm made the whites very nervous, but he was viewed for the
most part, by the establishment, as a minor nuisance, in comparison to the
influence MLK was.  Advocating separatism, and to a lesser extent violence,
was not taken to heart by the bulwark of the black community; rather,
MLK's message WAS.

Now, a plot to get MLK, RFK, JFK -- that I would believe.

I still think that JFK was got by the mob, however.

MG
Path: ns-mx!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Arrest at the Texas Theatre
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 06:59:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Organization: Electrical & Electronic Eng., The University of Adelaide
Lines: 8
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:15500 sci.skeptic:25489 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1579

The Dallas police apparently picked up Oswald at the Texas Theatre
for walking in without paying for a ticket.

By what stroke of intuition did they then connect him with the
Tippett killing??

Then by what stroke of intuition did they make a mental
jump from Tippett to jfk ?
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!sersun1!essex.ac.uk!woocm
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: JFK - Archive Site??
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 13:53:46 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Essex, U.K.
Lines: 19


    I do apologise if this is an FAQ, but after a
couple of years without alt.conspiracy I have lost what
has been going on. We now have it again, and i see a
dedicated JFK newsgroup. What i would like to know is
if there is a FTP site that contains material about the
JFK conspiracy. I lost all my old postings and would like
catch up again, but without asking questions that have
been fully explored before my subscription, I know it pisses
me off when other people do it! :-)

    Thanks,

    C.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Wood,          |Pretentious Quote:    "Uzi Nine Millimetre"   |
University Of Essex. |                              (Shakespeare)   |
[e-mail]    |Disclaimer: I never wear fluffy pink slippers.|
Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Directions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 14:32:38 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 171


re: 1576  (Bruce Schuck)

>I don't think the grassy knoll shot was a miss.

>The HSCA chickened out and put the grassy knoll shot at 295, to
>avoid the kill shot coming from the grassy knoll.

>JFK's movements, and the physical evidence , can be better explained
>by two head shots almost simulataneously.

>If shot one is the grassy knoll at 312, and shot two is at 325,
>it fits a lot better.

    The medical evidence for a head shot from behind and
    only from behind is stated very clearly by the
    pathologist who performed the autopsy, Dr. Humes:

"If a bullet or a BB were fired through that window, it would
leave a small hole where it entered and a beveled crater where
it exited.  That is what `J' [Boswell - jg] and I found when we
examined the President's skull.  There was a small ellipitical
entrance wound on the outside of the back of the skull, where the
bullet entered, and a beveled larger wound on the inside
of the back of the skull where the bullet tore through and exploded
out the right side of his head.  When we recovered the missing
bone fragments and reconstructed this gaping wound where the
bullet exited, we found this same pattern - a small wound where
the bullet struck the inside of the skull and a beveled larger wound
where it exited.  This is *always* [italics in original - jg] the
pattern of a through-and-through wound of the cranium - the beveling
or crater effect appears on the *inside* of the skull at the *entrance*
wound and on the *outside* of the skull at the *exit* wound... President
Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot.  The pattern
of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we
stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this
proff.  It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until
I die.  This is the essense of our autopsy, and it is supreme
ignorance to argue any other scenario.  This is a law of physics
and it is foolproof - absolutely, unequivocally, and without question.
The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific
fact, and everything else is hogwash."  (from 5/27/92 JAMA)

    And recall that the central facts of Humes's autopsy
    have been verified repeatedly over the years.  JFK
    was struck in the head by a high-powered rifle bullet
    fired from above and from behind, and there is not
    a scrap of credible evidence on the contrary side
    of the argument.

>>    I didn't say the Tague fragment was linked to 6th floor
>>    TSBD, only that a 6th floor TSBD *assassin* was documented
>>    excruciatingly.

>You means *assassins* don't you? More witnesses saw two shooters
>in the TSBD than witnesses who only saw one.

    I can think (offhand) of two people who claim to have seen, prior
    to the assassination, two men with guns in the TSBD.
    The wife of one of these witnesses said that her husband
    liked to make up stories.  Six witnesses saw a rifle and/or
    a man with a rifle in the area of the 6th floor, TSBD and
    nowhere else.  The FBI interviewed every single TSBD
    employee who was in the building that day and not a single
    one saw any strangers in the building at any time even
    remotely near the time of the assassination.  Such descriptions
    as were given of the "second shooter" do not match the
    descriptions of any of the TSBD employees.  Only one gun
    was found, and that was on the sixth floor.  Three
    shells were found on the floor in the SE corner and those
    shells matched the rifle which was found, which rifle
    belonged to LHO.

>>    Yes, we have been over this before, so let me state
>>    once again that Lattimer's firing tests with
>>    copper-jacketed bullets showed bullet and skull
>>    deformation quite consistent with the actual bullet
>>    and skull deformation.

>Only because Lattimer used dried out skulls with *no* scalp
>simulation. A live skull with scalp needs a lot more force to
>fragment. That force is possible with soft-nosed high velocity
>bullets , not with medium velocity copper jacketed bullets.

    If you can refute Dr. Lattimer's tests with better
    tests I will listen very carefully.  It is not
    immediately obvious to me that the presence of
    scalp would make it more difficult for a bullet
    to fragment; and Lattimer's skulls were as "fresh"
    as he could get them.  Lattimer had extensive
    experience in WWII with high-powered German and
    Italian army rifles firing the kind of bullets used
    by LHO.  His observations in the field of battle
    convinced him the the WC illustration of JFK's head
    wound was wrong, because he knew the type of rifle
    and ammo LHO was using would in fact cause very extensive
    skull fragmentation.  Lattimer's examination of the
    autopsy X-rays and photos satisfied him that JFK's
    skull, which was thoroughly trashed, was utterly
    consistent with a shot as postulated by the WC.

>>    Alvarez established one principle and falsified another.
>>    Alvarez established that the melons - and by extension
>>    a skull - will not move in the direction of the
>>    bullet, as if struck by a baseball.  They will move
>>    in a direction opposite to a large exit wound.

>If you use high velocity , soft nosed bullets. Alvarez *never*
>tested medium velocity copper jacketed rounds.

>And remember, JFK never moved towards Oswald, he moved towards
>the Dal-Tex building.

    The principle holds true no matter what object creates
    the small entrance and large exit holes provided the
    force is sufficient to create the jet propulsion effect.
    JFK's exit wound was on the right side of his head and,
    following the principle established by Alvarez, JFK's
    head is seen to move in a direction opposite to the
    exit wound - although the jet propulsion effect accounts
    for only a portion of JFK's movements.

>>     I've got an note written by a man who worked with
>>    the acoustic experts and until very recently supported
>>    the dictabelt evidence.  He now is extremely skeptical.
>>    If I get his permission to post his comments here will
>>    you read them?

>Sure.

    OK, I'll seek his permission - his name is Dan Kalikow.

re: 1578

>The Dallas police apparently picked up Oswald at the Texas Theatre
>for walking in without paying for a ticket.

>By what stroke of intuition did they then connect him with the
>Tippett killing??

    It wasn't intuition.  The Tippit killing was very
    quickly broadcast over the radio stations.  (I
    presume police bands were being monitored)  A
    clerk in a shoe store just down the street from
    the Texas Theater named Johnny Calvin Brewer
    heard the broadcasts and noticed a suspicious
    character duck into the foyer of his store as
    a police car drove by.  When the car left the
    area the suspicious character moved off and
    Brewer popped his head out to watch his movements.
    The theatre ticket-taker, distracted by all the
    commotion, didn't notice the man duck into the
    theater.

    Brewer and the ticket taker (I forget her name)
    felt that the man who had ducked into the
    theater might be the man the police were looking
    for in connection with the Tippit murder.  So
    they called the police.

>Then by what stroke of intuition did they make a mental
>jump from Tippett to jfk ?

    Again, no intuition was required.  The police had
    determined that LHO was missing from the TSBD and
    that he roughly matched the description of the
    shooter supplied by eyewitness Howard Brennan.
    They were looking for LHO - and there he was, already
    in custody.

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!ratmandu.esd.sgi.com!dave
From: [e-mail] (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
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
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 14:58:42 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Net News)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Lines: 985
Xref: ns-mx alt.activism:27454 alt.conspiracy:15503 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1582
Nntp-Posting-Host: ratmandu.esd.sgi.com


    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




                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *




                                  Chapter 9
                            Control of the Media

         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 & FBI antics, the Jack Anderson
      papers, and IT&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 & Radio CBS-TV & Radio, ABC-TV & Radio,
      Associated Press, United Press, "Time-Life-Fortune-Sports
      Illustrated," McGraw Hill "Business Week," "Newsweek," "U.S.  News
      & 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.


                                  Time-Life

         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:

         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

      (See "Computers and Automation," May 1970)

         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.


                                     CBS

         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.


                            "The New York Times"

         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]


                                     NBC

         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.


                                    ABC

         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.


                         United Press International

         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.


                                     AP

         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.


                                 "Newsweek"

         "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.


                           "Saturday Evening Post"

         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.


                          Capital City Broadcasting

         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.


                      North American Newspaper Alliance

         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.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Directions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 15:44:53 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 92

[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:


>re: 1576  (Bruce Schuck)


>    The medical evidence for a head shot from behind and
>    only from behind is stated very clearly by the
>    pathologist who performed the autopsy, Dr. Humes:

[ Quote from Humes ]

Lets remember three things about the autopsy.

1. Humes was very inexperienced at autospying gunshot wounds.
   'Several' is the number quoted by Joel.

2. During the autopsy, Humes could find nothing to indicate
   which direction the shots came from until an FBI Agent walked in
   with a piece of skull that Humes later claimed to have bevelling
   on it that 'proved' the shot came from behind.

3. The shredding of the brain and the destruction of the right
   side of JFK's skull is more congruent with the impact of
   a soft-nosed lead bullet travelling at high velocity than
   the impact of a medium velocity FMJ round. Humes found *no*
   physical evidence linking the wound to an FMJ round.

>>>    I didn't say the Tague fragment was linked to 6th floor
>>>    TSBD, only that a 6th floor TSBD *assassin* was documented
>>>    excruciatingly.

>>You means *assassins* don't you? More witnesses saw two shooters
>>in the TSBD than witnesses who only saw one.

>    I can think (offhand) of two people who claim to have seen, prior
>    to the assassination, two men with guns in the TSBD.

There were a lot more than two, and many were *never* interviewed
by the WC becuase they cast too much doubt on the lone gunman theory.

>>Only because Lattimer used dried out skulls with *no* scalp
>>simulation. A live skull with scalp needs a lot more force to
>>fragment. That force is possible with soft-nosed high velocity
>>bullets , not with medium velocity copper jacketed bullets.

>    If you can refute Dr. Lattimer's tests with better
>    tests I will listen very carefully.  It is not
>    immediately obvious to me that the presence of
>    scalp would make it more difficult for a bullet
>    to fragment;

Lattimer and other experimenters had no trouble getting the *skull*
to fragment when using scalpless dried out old skulls.

They *never* succeeded in getting the FMJ rounds to fragment.

They also *never* duplicated the shredding of the brain that occurred
in JFK.

The experimental results [if you read them, instead of the
conclusions] point away from jacketed rounds.

JFK was hit by a lead bullet not a copper jacketed one.


>        and Lattimer's skulls were as "fresh"
>    as he could get them.

"Fresh" is a relative term. They were old and dried out.

>>If you use high velocity , soft nosed bullets. Alvarez *never*
>>tested medium velocity copper jacketed rounds.

>>And remember, JFK never moved towards Oswald, he moved towards
>>the Dal-Tex building.

>    The principle holds true no matter what object creates
>    the small entrance and large exit holes provided the
>    force is sufficient to create the jet propulsion effect.

Nonsense. If you read the HSCA testimony of Larry Sturdivan you will
noticed the term 'backsplash'. Bullets entering a liquid substance,
such as blood and brain tissue, will eject a lot of material out
the entrance wound as well as the exit wound. Of course, you
need rounds that fragment easily to do this. Medium velocity FMJ
rounds do *not* fragment easily. None of the firing tests
succedded in fragmenting the FMJ rounds consistently.

Alvarez used soft-nosed high velocity rounds because he wanted a
lot of material ejected from his melons. If he had used FMJ rounds,
he would have punched neat little entrance and exit holes.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!summa.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: What would a grand jury say?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 16:57:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Lines: 46
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>>    Finally, the one unambiguous piece of information from the
>>    surveys of Dealy Plaza witnesses is that most people
>>    heard three shots. Of the knoll-gunman theories, I have
>>    yet to see one that postulates fewer than four.

>There are many witnesses, including SS Agents in the Motorcade,
>who described the last shot as a double shot, two bangs very close
>together. It would be easy for many of the witnesses to have heard
>these last two shots as one.

    There are a handful, at most, who claimed that there was
    a "double shot." I've only seen one person who has been
    explicitly quoted as saying there was a double shot. I've
    heard "double shots" before, and all of them were echos.
    Considering the presence of a large limestone wall and
    a five foot high fence the the Z-313 end of Dealy Plaza,
    I wouldn't reccomend making too much of the "double shot".


>The acoustical analysis from the HSCA puts two shots very close
>together, one of them from the grassy knoll.
>Two shots, fired almost simultaneously , would explain JFK's wounds,
>and movement, as well as explain how some people only heard 3 shots.

    "Some people," Bruce? Most! About two-thirds of the survey, in fact.

    .8 seconds is not "almost simultaneously." So far as hearing
    goes, it's a suprisingly long amount of time. Had there been
    two shots fired some .8 seconds apart, I am quite sure that
    a hell of a lot more people would have reported a "double
    shot."

                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!summa.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: "Yes, Oswald Alone Killed Kennedy" by Jacob Cohen
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 17:10:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Lines: 53
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>In article <-3![e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Sheaffer)
> writes...
>>    It is often asked why Oswald denied killing the President, as though
>>    guilty people do not deny things all the time.... He himself was
>>    the first to insist that the backyard photo of him with a gun was
>>    a forgery..

>   This has been proved to be a forgery by a member of Scotland Yards'
>  photographic experts. (Can't remember his name. See `High Treason')

    You claim that Cohen is full of shit, and then you bring up
    Groden's use of Malcom Thompsen in High Treason. The HSCA
    photographic panel gave a copy of its report to Thomspen
    (the HSCA determined that there was no evidence of fakery),
    and Thompsen deferred to the report. Groden, a member of
    the HSCA staff, curiously seems to have forgotten about
    that little fact.


>> he denied using an alias at his rooming house...

>>    To sum up: (1) Oswald worked in the building which was the only
>>    source of the shots; (2) owned and possessed the one and only
>>    murder rifle;

>    No one has ever been able to prove conclusively that LHO owned,
>  or had in his possession at any time, that Mannlicher-Carcano.

    There is quite a bit of evidence that Oswald owned the rifle.

    The rifle was ordered under Oswald's alias, and sent to
    a mail box that Oswlad was renting at the time. Marina has
    stated that LHO owned a rifle, one that looked like the M-C
    (though she could not positively identify it). No rifle was
    found during search of Oswald's room and the Paine's after
    the assassination. There are the photos of Oswald with the
    gun. etc.




                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!summa.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: SINGLE GUN
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 17:23:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Lines: 49
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...

>Mitchell S Todd has been trying to smear Howard Roffman's knowledge
>of military ammunition because Roffman's book "Presumed Guilty"
>points out facts that prove JFK's throat wound was *not* caused by
>Copper Jacketed bullets.

    If Roffman is ignorant, he's ignorant.


>Lets see what Roffman has to say:

>"Describing antero-posterior X-ray views of the lower neck region,
>the Clark Panel declared, 'Also several small metallic fragments
>are present in this region.'

>The prescence of mettallic particles in the neck is confirmed by
>two "Outside Contact" sheets in the HSCA Vol 1 describing metal
>fragment(s) in the X-Rays of JFK's neck"

    I looked and looked through the HSCA vol 1 and vol 7 for
    this. In the outside contact reports, the "several small
    metallic fragments" were found to be the result of a
    defect in the cassette that holds the x-ray film, since the
    exact same pattern (with reespect to the picture plane)
    of fragments also shows up in different x-rays. There is
    a second, larger "opacity" in the upper thoractic region,
    however, it appears only in the post-autopsy x-rays (I guess
    Humes was implanting bullet fragments to throw off the
    WC critics)


>Roffman's conclusions are very clear.

    So are the HSCA's that there were no metallic fragments in
    JFK's neck/back when he arrived at Bethseda.


                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!rutgers!noao!arizona.edu!skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu!lippard
From: [e-mail] (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Arrest at the Texas Theatre
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 17:27:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Lines: 60
Nntp-Posting-Host: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes...
>The Dallas police apparently picked up Oswald at the Texas Theatre
>for walking in without paying for a ticket.
>
>By what stroke of intuition did they then connect him with the
>Tippett killing??

The official story doesn't involve any "strokes of intuition."

Tippit was killed near the corner of 10th St. and Patton Ave. at about
1:16 p.m.
Domingo Benavides was in a truck on that street and heard the shots,
saw the dead officer, and watched a man walk on 10th towards Patton
Ave.  Helen Markham who had been walking south on Patton Ave., was at
the northwest corner of the intersection when the shooting took place,
witnessed the gunman cut across the lawn of the corner house and head
south on Patton Ave.  Mrs. Barbara Jeanette Davis and her sister-in-law,
Mrs. Virginia Davis, heard the shots and ran to their door in time to
see the gunman cross their lawn shaking a revolver as if emptying it
of cartridge cases, and each later found one near the house.  William
W. Scoggins, a taxicab driver parked on Patton a few feet from 10th
street, also witnessed the slaying and observed the gunman cross to
the west side of Patton and run south towards Jefferson Boulevard.
Ted Callaway, a used car salesman who heard the shots, ran to the
sidewalk on Patton near Jefferson to observe a man with a gun rush
past and turn right on Jefferson.  In a shoe store on Jefferson,
its manager, Johnny Calvin Brewer, heard the siren of a police car
moments after the radio in his store announced the shooting of a police
officer in the area.  He saw a man step into the entranceway of
the store and stand there with his back to the street as a police
car drove toward the location of the Tippit shooting, then left.
Brewer followed him, and observed him enter the Texas Theatre without
buying a ticket.  He notified the cashier, Mrs. Julia Postal, who
called the police at about 1:40 p.m.  The theatre was surrounded by
the police, the house lights raised, and Oswald--pistol in hand--was
arrested.

At 7:10 p.m., Oswald was advised that he had been charged with the
murder of Tippit after being identified in police lineups by several
of the above witnesses.  The cartridge cases found at the scene were
later linked to the revolver in Oswald's possession when he was
arrested.

>Then by what stroke of intuition did they make a mental
>jump from Tippett to jfk ?

At 1:29 p.m., the police radio had noted the similarity in the
description of the suspects in the Tippit shooting and in the
assassination.  Roy Truly, the building superintendent of the
Texas School Book Depository, told Dallas PD Capt. J. Will Fritz
that the one (of 15) warehouse employees who was missing was
Lee Harvey Oswald.  When Fritz returned to the station and was
conversing with officers who had picked up the Texas Theatre
suspect, he mentioned the name and was informed that the suspect
was in the interrogation room.

Jim Lippard              [e-mail]
Dept. of Philosophy      [e-mail]
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!summa.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: This and That
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 17:41:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Lines: 66
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:


>>    I didn't say the Tague fragment was linked to 6th floor
>>    TSBD, only that a 6th floor TSBD *assassin* was documented
>>    excruciatingly.

>You means *assassins* don't you? More witnesses saw two shooters
>in the TSBD than witnesses who only saw one.

    No one saw two *shooters* in the TSBD. Some people have claimed
    to have seen two gunman, and some claim to have seen two
    people on an upper floor on the TSBD.


>>    Yes, we have been over this before, so let me state
>>    once again that Lattimer's firing tests with
>>    copper-jacketed bullets showed bullet and skull
>>    deformation quite consistent with the actual bullet
>>    and skull deformation.

>Only because Lattimer used dried out skulls with *no* scalp
>simulation. A live skull with scalp needs a lot more force to
>fragment. That force is possible with soft-nosed high velocity
>bullets , not with medium velocity copper jacketed bullets.

    Lattimer used both "old dry bone" and "fresh tough bone"
    in his skull tests. As for your assertion that skin somehow
    makes the underlying bone harder to fragment, you are wrong.
    The fracturing, and therefore the fragmentation, of the
    skull is independent of the skin. The skin just lets fewer of
    the broken pieces fly away.


>>    Alvarez established one principle and falsified another.
>>    Alvarez established that the melons - and by extension
>>    a skull - will not move in the direction of the
>>    bullet, as if struck by a baseball.  They will move
>>    in a direction opposite to a large exit wound.

>If you use high velocity , soft nosed bullets. Alvarez *never*
>tested medium velocity copper jacketed rounds.

    No, but Lattimer did, and he got the same results.


>And remember, JFK never moved towards Oswald, he moved towards
>the Dal-Tex building.

    Considering that JFK's head wound was a divot type wound caused
    by forces mainly acting perpendicularly to the path of the
    bullet, this is probably understandable.


                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!lims01.lerc.nasa.gov!scdorcy
From: [e-mail] (JAMES DORCEY)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Headshots - Try another source [was Re: Directions]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 18:56:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Lines: 71
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:
>>>Only because Lattimer used dried out skulls with *no* scalp
>>>simulation. A live skull with scalp needs a lot more force to
>>>fragment. That force is possible with soft-nosed high velocity
>>>bullets , not with medium velocity copper jacketed bullets.
>
>>    If you can refute Dr. Lattimer's tests with better
>>    tests I will listen very carefully.  It is not
>>    immediately obvious to me that the presence of
>>    scalp would make it more difficult for a bullet
>>    to fragment;
>
>Lattimer and other experimenters had no trouble getting the *skull*
>to fragment when using scalpless dried out old skulls.
>
>They *never* succeeded in getting the FMJ rounds to fragment.
>
>They also *never* duplicated the shredding of the brain that occurred
>in JFK.
>
>The experimental results [if you read them, instead of the
>conclusions] point away from jacketed rounds.
>
>JFK was hit by a lead bullet not a copper jacketed one.
>
>
>>        and Lattimer's skulls were as "fresh"
>>    as he could get them.
>
>"Fresh" is a relative term. They were old and dried out.
>
>>>If you use high velocity , soft nosed bullets. Alvarez *never*
>>>tested medium velocity copper jacketed rounds.
>
>>>And remember, JFK never moved towards Oswald, he moved towards
>>>the Dal-Tex building.
>
>>    The principle holds true no matter what object creates
>>    the small entrance and large exit holes provided the
>>    force is sufficient to create the jet propulsion effect.
>
>Nonsense. If you read the HSCA testimony of Larry Sturdivan you will
>noticed the term 'backsplash'. Bullets entering a liquid substance,
>such as blood and brain tissue, will eject a lot of material out
>the entrance wound as well as the exit wound. Of course, you
>need rounds that fragment easily to do this. Medium velocity FMJ
>rounds do *not* fragment easily. None of the firing tests
>succedded in fragmenting the FMJ rounds consistently.
>
>Alvarez used soft-nosed high velocity rounds because he wanted a
>lot of material ejected from his melons. If he had used FMJ rounds,
>he would have punched neat little entrance and exit holes.

While I have found the discussion of Lattimer, dried skulls, melons, etc.
fascinating, there's a place in Quantico, VA which, among other things,
trains people to perform headshots with FMJ ammo (specifically USMC Sniper
School).  Sniper team members, particularly with experience in SEA (
SouthEast Asia), should have a pretty good idea as to what the end effect
of a headshot with FMJ ammo is like on a _real_ human target.  While, to my
knowledge, sniper teams do not perform autopsies on their targets, the
spotter in a two-man shooter-spotter team would have experience in the
visual aspect of target reaction.  While there are differences between
6.5mm and .30in (as in .308 Winchester, .30-06 Springfield, and .300
Winchester Magnum) sizes and muzzle velocities, there should be similarity
in terminal velocities due to the longer range shots taken by military
snipers.  My point is that there should be some _real_ data out there which
could make Bruce, Joel, and maybe even Mitchell happy (what the hell is the
story behind that .sig anyway?).

JD
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!jmk
From: [e-mail] (joseph.m.knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: What would a grand jury say?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 18:52:03 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T
Lines: 20

[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>    There are a handful, at most, who claimed that there was
>    a "double shot." I've only seen one person who has been
>    explicitly quoted as saying there was a double shot. I've
>    heard "double shots" before, and all of them were echos.
>    Considering the presence of a large limestone wall and
>    a five foot high fence the the Z-313 end of Dealy Plaza,

Mr. Holland, standing on the overpass, reported a double shot. He also
said that the two shots sounded different. His opinion was that JFK was
hit by both shots. (_Six Seconds in Dallas_)

One possibility: could listeners have confused the shock wave
coming off the bullet with a separate shot? At 100 yards, the sound from
the rifle cartridge would arrive about .12 seconds after the shock wave passed.
Pretty close together, but discernable as two separate "shots," perhaps?
Has anyone had the pleasure of being downrange from a high-velocity rifle?

---
Joe Knapp   [e-mail]
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: What would a grand jury say?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 19:58:05 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 34

Mitchell >

Bruce >>

>>The acoustical analysis from the HSCA puts two shots very close
>>together, one of them from the grassy knoll.
>>Two shots, fired almost simultaneously , would explain JFK's wounds,
>>and movement, as well as explain how some people only heard 3 shots.

>    .8 seconds is not "almost simultaneously." So far as hearing
>    goes, it's a suprisingly long amount of time. Had there been
>    two shots fired some .8 seconds apart, I am quite sure that
>    a hell of a lot more people would have reported a "double
>    shot."

I'm not sure how far apart the shots were 'fired'.

The microphone 'heard' them .8 seconds apart.

Depending on the location of the people, the time between the shots
would be different.

Lets say 1 shot was fired 50 feet from the microphone, and 1 shot was
fired from 250 feet away from the microphone, they would be heard .2
seconds apart.

People closer to a midline would hear the shots closer together.

The Zapruder film shows Kennedy getting hit at about 312 and some
people think he was hit again around 324, which would be 2/3 of a
second apart. I'm not as sure as Mitchell that most people in
Dealy Plaza would have found it easy to differentiate between
shots 2/3 of a second apart, when the sound might have reached them
less than .5 seconds apart.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: SINGLE GUN
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 20:13:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 64

[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...

>>Mitchell S Todd has been trying to smear Howard Roffman's knowledge
>>of military ammunition because Roffman's book "Presumed Guilty"
>>points out facts that prove JFK's throat wound was *not* caused by
>>Copper Jacketed bullets.

>    If Roffman is ignorant, he's ignorant.

Ignorant? He's damned good at shredding the pro-WC case. That's why
you have to attack him so much.

>>Lets see what Roffman has to say:

>>"Describing antero-posterior X-ray views of the lower neck region,
>>the Clark Panel declared, 'Also several small metallic fragments
>>are present in this region.'

>>The prescence of mettallic particles in the neck is confirmed by
>>two "Outside Contact" sheets in the HSCA Vol 1 describing metal
>>fragment(s) in the X-Rays of JFK's neck"

>    I looked and looked through the HSCA vol 1 and vol 7 for
>    this. In the outside contact reports, the "several small
>    metallic fragments" were found to be the result of a
>    defect in the cassette that holds the x-ray film, since the
>    exact same pattern (with reespect to the picture plane)
>    of fragments also shows up in different x-rays.

Bullshit. The "Outside Contact Reports" differentiate between the
defect on the film and the fragment they saw.

It was there. 1 x 2.5mm.

>       There is
>    a second, larger "opacity" in the upper thoractic region,
>    however, it appears only in the post-autopsy x-rays (I guess
>    Humes was implanting bullet fragments to throw off the
>    WC critics)

The fragments are there. You dismiss them so quickly because they
succeed in destroying the 'magic' bullet theory.

>>Roffman's conclusions are very clear.

>    So are the HSCA's that there were no metallic fragments in
>    JFK's neck/back when he arrived at Bethseda.

The Clark Panel saw the metal fragments, two other Doctors saw the
fragments.


The fragments are there.


It is so tiring to listen to the pro-WC dismiss every bit of evidence
they dislike.

That was the whole strategy of the WC. Call witnesses that agree with
them. Ignore witnesses that didn't.

Use evidence they like, casually dismiss evidence they don't.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Question about JAMA article
Keywords: JAMA, cushingoid
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 20:05:39 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: na
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 33

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ed Hughes) writes:
>
>
>In the JAMA article, Lundberg asks "some questions that
>remain official mysteries."  One of them inquires about
>the condition of Kennedy's adrenal glands, and Humes
>answers, with some agitation, that Kennedy was definitely
>NOT 'cushingoid' and did not have the associated facial
>puffiness and odd fat deposits.

Kennedy had Addison's disease, and it was concealed for
political purposes.  Addison's disease is adrenal insufficiency
and is treated with replacement hormone.  I don't understand
why Humes was talking about Cushingoid features, since Cushing's
disease is adrenal hyperplasia and overproduction of adrenal
hormones.  If Jack had been overmedicated, then becoming
Cushingoid would be a possibility, but no one had ever
alleged that he had Cushing's disease itself.  People had
remarked that he had looked puffy because of the steroids that
he had to take, but that is not usually a big problem with
Addison's disease.  Clearly Humes did not want to reveal
the results of the autopsy on the adrenals (if they were normal,
he surely would have), thus merely confirming the information
from other sources that JFK did indeed have Addison's and had
lied about it.



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
[e-mail]   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pitt.edu!pitt!geb
From: [e-mail] (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Question about JAMA article
Keywords: JAMA, cushingoid
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 20:08:59 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: na
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 21

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
>JFK had Addison's disease, which until a few years before he got
>it would have been fatal. He was taking medication for this disease
>all through his Presidency. This medication, which I forget, can
>leave the patient kind of 'high' [whether JFK was mentally fit
>under medication is an interesting question], it can also greatly
>enhance a patients sex drive [ well documented in the case of JFK ]
>
The combination of glucocorticoid and mineralocorticoid taken
for Addison's should not give a high unless given in a massive
overdose.  Neither will it enhance the sex drive.  JFK's
satyrism was well documented from his teenage years (runs in the
family, both old Joe, young Joe, Bobby, and Teddy had/have the
same problem), long before he was taking any medication.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
[e-mail]   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: This and That
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 20:23:30 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 69

[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>>[e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:

>>Only because Lattimer used dried out skulls with *no* scalp
>>simulation. A live skull with scalp needs a lot more force to
>>fragment. That force is possible with soft-nosed high velocity
>>bullets , not with medium velocity copper jacketed bullets.

>    Lattimer used both "old dry bone" and "fresh tough bone"
>    in his skull tests. As for your assertion that skin somehow
>    makes the underlying bone harder to fragment, you are wrong.
>    The fracturing, and therefore the fragmentation, of the
>    skull is independent of the skin. The skin just lets fewer of
>    the broken pieces fly away.

Do you have some sort of proof of that? The scalp is *very* good
at helping the skull resist fragmentation.

>>>    Alvarez established one principle and falsified another.
>>>    Alvarez established that the melons - and by extension
>>>    a skull - will not move in the direction of the
>>>    bullet, as if struck by a baseball.  They will move
>>>    in a direction opposite to a large exit wound.

>>If you use high velocity , soft nosed bullets. Alvarez *never*
>>tested medium velocity copper jacketed rounds.

>    No, but Lattimer did, and he got the same results.

If you read Lattimer carefully, you find he got the dry skull's
to fragment easily.

He *never* got the FMJ rounds to fragment and leave 40 pieces of lead
in the gelatin filled skull, the same way 40 fragments were found
in JFK's skull.

Lattimer never got the shredding of the gel [brain substitute] the
same way the right side JFK's brain was shredded.

All Lattimer proved was that dried out skull's shatter easily.
He never came close to duplicating the damage done to JFK's brain.

FMJ rounds do *not* regularly fragment in contact with human skull's.

Soft nosed , high velocity bullets do fragment easily. That's what
they were designed to do.

An objective person looking at the ballistic evidence would conclude
that JFK was hit in the head by at least one soft nosed high velocity
bullet.


>>And remember, JFK never moved towards Oswald, he moved towards
>>the Dal-Tex building.

>    Considering that JFK's head wound was a divot type wound caused
>    by forces mainly acting perpendicularly to the path of the
>    bullet, this is probably understandable.

Perpendicular? The HSCA claimed he was hit near the top of the head.

This should have caused his head to do a nose dive into the floor of
the limo. Instead he was forced back and to his right.

And don't bother with Alvarez's explanation, unless you are ready
to finally admit JFK was hit by a soft-nosed high velocity hunting
round fired from the Dal-Tex building.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: another palm print question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 21:03:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Lines: 45
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries) writes...
>Imagine that the palm print said to be found on the MC was real.
>This indicates that LHO wasn't wearing any gloves. Why then didn't
>the police find any fingerprints on the rifle, on the cartridges, on the
>window etc.?

    The palm print was on the underside of the barrel, in a place
    where the forestock covered it up. It was supposed to have been
    found only when the rifle was disassembled. If this is true,
    then it is possible that Oswald wiped off the rifle with
    something after he fired it. This would erase or seriously
    distort any fingerprints on the outside surfaces of the rifle,
    but the palm print would still be in readable condition.

    The FBI thought that there were fingerprints on the stock
    of the rifle, but they could not be recovered due to the
    condition of the wood.


>Why the hell did LHO deny shooting when he knew that
>a. the gun he owned was on the 6th floor of the TSBD
>b. and was probably covered with his fingerprints

>Possible conclusion: he didn't know of this.

    Another possible conclusion: Oswald wasn't going to admit he
    did it. He was only facing the death penalty for this (not
    to mention the probability of being lynched, which is
    what happened anway). Assuming that Oswald thought he destroyed the
    fingerprints on the rifle, and that he'd ordered the rifle
    through an alias, he might think that he could not be connected
    to the rifle.


                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\

Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!tamsun.tamu.edu!rigel.tamu.edu!mst4298
From: [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: What would a grand jury say?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 21:16:00 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Read News)
Organization: Applied Upyerstemmatey Corp
Lines: 40
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (joseph.m.knapp) writes...
>[e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>>    There are a handful, at most, who claimed that there was
>>    a "double shot." I've only seen one person who has been
>>    explicitly quoted as saying there was a double shot. I've
>>    heard "double shots" before, and all of them were echos.
>>    Considering the presence of a large limestone wall and
>>    a five foot high fence the the Z-313 end of Dealy Plaza,

>Mr. Holland, standing on the overpass, reported a double shot. He also
>said that the two shots sounded different. His opinion was that JFK was
>hit by both shots. (_Six Seconds in Dallas_)

    [I'll note here that echos of gunshots often don't sound like
     the original gunshot, at least in my experience]

>One possibility: could listeners have confused the shock wave
>coming off the bullet with a separate shot? At 100 yards, the sound from
>the rifle cartridge would arrive about .12 seconds after the shock wave passed.
>Pretty close together, but discernable as two separate "shots," perhaps?
>Has anyone had the pleasure of being downrange from a high-velocity rifle?

    Actually, for a long time in my shooting life, I'd never even
    thought you could hear a bullet's shock wave, until I made
    a $20 bet. Needless to say, I lost after a fairly risky
    experiment (I'm not going to get into the mechanics thereof).
    The shock wave sounds like a pop or snap. I doubt people would
    think the shock wave was a gunshot.

                                |
                      \ | /
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ [e-mail] / / | \ \\           Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\

Path: ns-mx!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!mips!mips!decwrl!pa.dec.com!decprl!decprl!boyd
From: [e-mail] (Boyd Roberts)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Arrest at the Texas Theatre
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 21:11:10 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Paris Research Laboratory
Lines: 13
Nntp-Posting-Host: prl313.prl.dec.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James J. Lippard) writes:
> The cartridge cases found at the scene were
> later linked to the revolver in Oswald's possession when he was
> arrested.
>

This is exactly the point in question.  The `cartridge cases' were consistant
with those from Oswald's revolver, but the slugs found in Tippits body were not.


Boyd Roberts            [e-mail]

``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!david
From: [e-mail] (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Directions
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 22:39:11 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 78


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

|Lets remember three things about the autopsy.
|
|
|2. During the autopsy, Humes could find nothing to indicate
|   which direction the shots came from until an FBI Agent walked in
|   with a piece of skull that Humes later claimed to have bevelling
|   on it that 'proved' the shot came from behind.

But don't you already grant a back head wound? The point I think you are trying
to make is that a rear head wound with a FMJ round will not cause the damage
that JFK's head went through. None the less, I think we agree that there
probably was a back head wound and a front head wound with a dum dum bullet.

|Lattimer and other experimenters had no trouble getting the *skull*
|to fragment when using scalpless dried out old skulls.
|
|They *never* succeeded in getting the FMJ rounds to fragment.

I believe Lattimer got the FMJ round looking very similiar to the
two pieces in the car. We do not know, since Lattimer did not give us
any real statistical analysis, weheather this was a freak or normal. Basically
he found that the lead core excruded from the bullet, and the copper
was wrapped up like a twisted ball. However, I think you may be correct in the
Lattimer did not test or find fragmenting particles or grains.

He was also sitting up rather close, I think 100 yards, from what you have
posted in the yard. This, and the fact the skulls are dry, would definitely
split the bones in the head apart.

|||And remember, JFK never moved towards Oswald, he moved towards
|||the Dal-Tex building.
|
||    The principle holds true no matter what object creates
||    the small entrance and large exit holes provided the
||    force is sufficient to create the jet propulsion effect.
|
|Nonsense.

I believe that Mitchell finally gave up the Jet Effect when a few netters
tried to find out, being generous, the kind of flow one would need to get
Kennedy's head to move like that. I think everyone agreed that it would have
to be a fairly large spray that no one sees in the Zapruder film. Instead,
the Zapruder film shows spray in no particularly strong direction, although two
small streams go nearly straight up and forward, and of course there are
large masses thrown *backwards* which would negate any movement at all from
this flow. Added to this is the fact that the left rear, and not the right
rear cops got blasted with stuff, as well as the Connellys, and the
Alverez-Lattimer scenario is really out to lunch.

| If you read the HSCA testimony of Larry Sturdivan you will
|noticed the term 'backsplash'. Bullets entering a liquid substance,
|such as blood and brain tissue, will eject a lot of material out
|the entrance wound as well as the exit wound.

This bit of common sense is ignored by Alverez Mellon worshipers. This flow,
which can look dramatic, has fairly low mass and velocity, and not
unidirectional in nature.

|Alvarez used soft-nosed high velocity rounds because he wanted a
|lot of material ejected from his melons. If he had used FMJ rounds,
|he would have punched neat little entrance and exit holes.

I believe that Lattimer used FMJ on the mellons and got the same effect,
although less so. However, Lattimer, giving no statisical evidence, does not
explain this in any detail, except to say that one of the mellons had enough
backward force to be thrown off it's string.
--
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that    |
   |      |      | distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            |
   | (o)(o)      O         Kenneth Boulding                            |
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Arrest at the Texas Theatre
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 23:35:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 21

[e-mail] (Boyd Roberts) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James J. Lippard) writes:
>> The cartridge cases found at the scene were
>> later linked to the revolver in Oswald's possession when he was
>> arrested.
>>

>This is exactly the point in question.  The `cartridge cases' were consistant
>with those from Oswald's revolver, but the slugs found in Tippits body were not.

Also one of the first Police Officers at the scene radioed in that
they had found cartridge cases from an "automatic" , *not* a revolver.

The cartridge cases from Oswalds revolver did not surface until well
after the Tippit shooting.

It's hard to believe the Shooter of Tippit would deliberatley unload
the cartridges at the scene if he was using a revolver.

If an automatic was used, there would be no choice.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: The Warren-Ford Connection
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 06:19:59 GMT
Organization: Electrical & Electronic Eng., The University of Adelaide
Lines: 11
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:15518 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1601

It's only just come to mind that Gerrald Ford's wife, Betty, had
`Warren' as her maiden name.

Does anyone know whether she is related to Earl Warren of the Warren
Commision?? Could she be his daughter?

Ford was on the Warren Committee, himself, so if he is a relative of Earl
Warren that would seem fishy to me.

Selecting members to be on the committee that Warren has infleunce over
is fishy.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Ford
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 07:17:35 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 11
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:15520 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1602


ex-Pres. Ford was part of the Warren Commission. If it is true
that the Warren commission were part of the cover up, then that puts
guys like Ford (who are still alive) in the poo.

It would be interesting to find out, as momentum against the
Warren Commission increases, following the jfk movie, if guys like
Ford start behaving in an unusual way (eg. transferring assets to
other family members etc.) that indicate "getting prepared to be
uncovered." Have there been any such observations made by the
press lately??
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,misc.legal
Subject: President Ford
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 07:26:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 13
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:15521 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1603 misc.legal:32848

The film jfk clearly involves the Warren Commission in a cover-up
conspiracy.

As ex-Pres. Ford was part of the Warren Commision doesn't the movie by
implication slurr Ford's reputation?

Is there is visible slurring of Ford in the USA today?

If so, then can Ford legally sue Oliver Stone for libel?

If he theoretically could, then it would be interesting to see
if he does. Because if he doesn't, that would say something about
his innocence.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: another palm print question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 08:47:44 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Lines: 51

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries) writes...
>>Imagine that the palm print said to be found on the MC was real.
>>This indicates that LHO wasn't wearing any gloves. Why then didn't
>>the police find any fingerprints on the rifle, on the cartridges, on the
>>window etc.?

>    The palm print was on the underside of the barrel, in a place
>    where the forestock covered it up. It was supposed to have been
>    found only when the rifle was disassembled. If this is true,
>    then it is possible that Oswald wiped off the rifle with
>    something after he fired it. This would erase or seriously

    How much time do you estimate this would have taken? And what
        about hiding the rifle? Wasn't that in the other cormer of the
        6th floor? Than run down to the canteen, and this all within the
        few minutes it took patrolman Baker to reach the second floor??

>    distort any fingerprints on the outside surfaces of the rifle,
>    but the palm print would still be in readable condition.

>    The FBI thought that there were fingerprints on the stock
>    of the rifle, but they could not be recovered due to the
>    condition of the wood.

    Why did they think that? Just an educated guess? They
        could have powdered the prints and photograph them?

>>Why the hell did LHO deny shooting when he knew that
>>a. the gun he owned was on the 6th floor of the TSBD
>>b. and was probably covered with his fingerprints

>>Possible conclusion: he didn't know of this.

>    Another possible conclusion: Oswald wasn't going to admit he
>    did it. He was only facing the death penalty for this (not
>    to mention the probability of being lynched, which is
>    what happened anway). Assuming that Oswald thought he destroyed the
>    fingerprints on the rifle, and that he'd ordered the rifle
>    through an alias, he might think that he could not be connected
>    to the rifle.
>

Surely you're joking mr. Todd. How could Oswald assume that his alias
was save when he was carrying ID's with this alias?
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute        | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!sersun1!essex.ac.uk!woocm
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Processed Images - A Question.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 10:14:53 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Essex, U.K.
Lines: 24


    A couple of weeks ago i went to a seminar that was
concerned with the use of photography within the whole
incedent. The lecturer showed a couple of images that were
surposed to be images processed from the corner of a couple
of photos taken on the day. The first image when _surposedly_
processed shows a man holding a rifle behind the left side of
the fence aiming towards JFK. The second is _surposed_ to be
an outline of a man behind the right side of the fence, I
think. The second man when processed was shown to have a badge
(!) on his left breast. One of the pictures i'm sure he said
was processed by some French experts, I may be wrong, he only
briefly showed the original photo and the _enhanced_ images,
and smiled!

    Can anybody tell me who processed the images, and when
they were done. I never got a chance to speak to the lecturer.

    C.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Wood,          |Pretentious Quote:    "Uzi Nine Millimetre"   |
University Of Essex. |                              (Shakespeare)   |
[e-mail]    |Disclaimer: I never wear fluffy pink slippers.|
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!sersun1!essex.ac.uk!woocm
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: GIF's available of the Assasination??
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 10:19:17 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Essex, U.K.
Lines: 13


    Sorry, meant to put this at the bottom of my last
post. Are there any GIF's/other formats of any of the
photos taken on the day available? Sorry if it's an FAQ.

    Thanks,

    C.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Wood,          |Pretentious Quote:    "Uzi Nine Millimetre"   |
University Of Essex. |                              (Shakespeare)   |
[e-mail]    |Disclaimer: I never wear fluffy pink slippers.|
Path: ns-mx!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!ratmandu.esd.sgi.com!dave
From: [e-mail] (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
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
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 13:26:25 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Net News)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Lines: 902
Xref: ns-mx alt.activism:27513 alt.conspiracy:15525 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1607
Nntp-Posting-Host: ratmandu.esd.sgi.com


                              Dallas Newspapers

         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 & 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.


                         Fort Worth "Star Telegram"

         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.


                               TV Station WFAA

         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.


                              WBAP -- Ft. Worth

         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.


                               KTTV -- Dallas

         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.


                           New Orleans Newspapers

         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]


                           WDSU-TV -- New Orleans

         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?


                                 Conclusions

         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."


                                    1976

         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.)


                            What is the Evidence?

         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.


                        Hard Evidence Never Mentioned

         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.


                 The Forces of Good vs. the Forces of Evil:

                          A Life and Death Struggle

         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.


                         "I've Seen No New Evidence"

         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]


                              Pure Coincidence?

         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]


                     CBS.  Cover-Up Broadcasting System

         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.


                             Too Perfect Timing

         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.


                       "Newsweek" Editorial Position:
                Schweiker, Hart and Gonzalez Misled by Kooks

         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.


                          Eliminate Areas of Doubt

         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."


        UPI:  Accessory After the Fact in the JFK Conspiracy Cover-Up

         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.


                              "Expert" Opinions

         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.)


                  AP:  Faithful to the White House and CIA

         Associated Press has been editorially silent since 1969.  They
      have faithfully broadcast all of the White House-CIA cover or
      planted stories without comment.


                             Keeping the Lid On

         "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.


                  Zapruder Film Broadcast on Two Occasions

         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.


                             "Conspiracy Fever"

         "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.


                            A Straight News Story

         "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.


                            A Breath of Fresh Air

         "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.


                  CIA Operatives Are Serving as Journalists
                        For News Organizations Abroad

         "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.


                                 Conclusions

         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.


                                 Postscript

         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").



____________________

 [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.

 [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.

 [3] Samuel Thurston, "The Central Intelligence Agency and `The New
     York Times,'" "Computers and Automation," July, 1971.

 [4] CBS-TV Special on the Assassination of John Kennedy -- June 25,
     26, 27 and 28, 1972.

 [5] "Computers and Automation," July, 1971

 [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.'"

 [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.

 [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.

 [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."

[10] Prouty, L. Fletcher, "The Secret Team," Prentice Hall, 1973.

[11] Policoff, Jerry, "The Media and the Murder of John Kennedy", "New
     Times," October, 1975.

[12] "Who Killed JFK?  Just One Assassin," "Time" magazine, November
     24, 1975.

[13] "Up Front -- Did One Man With One Gun Kill John F, Kennedy?
     Eight Skeptics Who Say No," "People," November 3, 1975.

[14] Author's discussion with Jerry Policoff, November 29, 1975.

[15] "Warren Panel Aide Calls for 2nd Inquiry Into Kennedy Killing",
     "New York Times," November 23, 1975, p. 1.

[16] Transcript of Gerald Ford Press Conference "New York Times,"
     November 27, 1975.

[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.

[18] Phelan, James R., "The Assassination," "New York Times Magazine
     Section," November 23, 1975.

[19] Thurston, Samuel F. (psuedonym for Richard E. Sprague), "The
     Central Intelligence Agency and `The New York Times'" "Computers
     and Automation," July, 1971.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[23] "Dallas:  New Questions and Answers," "Newsweek," April 28, 1975.

[24] Schonfeld, Maurice W., "The Shadow of a Gunman," "Columbia
     Journalism Review," July-August, 1975.

[25] Cohen, John, "Conspiracy Fever," "Commentary," October, 1975.

[26] "Saturday Evening Post," September, October, November and
     December, 1975 issues.

[27] "D.C. Digs Deep Into TV News Ties With CIA," "Variety," November
     12, 1975.

[28] Prouty, L. Fletcher, "The Fourth Force," "Gallery," November,
     1975.

[29] "CIA Will Keep More Than 25 Journalist-Agents," "New York Times,"
     April 27, 1976, p. 26.







                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *


--
                                             daveus rattus

                                   yer friendly neighborhood ratman

                               KOYAANISQATSI

   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!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!orca!orca!apetty
From: [e-mail] (Annie Petty)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: A&E- Investigative Report
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 13:27:36 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Lines: 6
Nntp-Posting-Host: 130.187.90.138


    Did anyone tape part 1 of this series?  I believe it
    was on last Friday (5th).    I didn't realize that
    it was on again so I missed it.

    Annie
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!mips!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: real tests vs. non-existent tests
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 14:39:29 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 177


re: 1582  (Bruce Schuck)

>>    The medical evidence for a head shot from behind and
>>    only from behind is stated very clearly by the
>>    pathologist who performed the autopsy, Dr. Humes:

>[ Quote from Humes ]

>Lets remember three things about the autopsy.

>1. Humes was very inexperienced at autospying gunshot wounds.
>   'Several' is the number quoted by Joel.

    `Several' is the word used in the JAMA article, and
    it contrasts with your previous statements that Dr.
    Humes was not "trained medical personnel."  ;^)
    But Dr. Humes has certainly been criticized by some
    of his peers, including those who admit he was quite
    correct in determining the central facts of JFK's death.

>2. During the autopsy, Humes could find nothing to indicate
>   which direction the shots came from until an FBI Agent walked in
>   with a piece of skull that Humes later claimed to have bevelling
>   on it that 'proved' the shot came from behind.

    I understand "Citizen Kane" wasn't so hot in the
    daily rushes, but the final cut sure was a great
    movie, eh?  In the same way, this autopsy having been
    conducted so publicly, Dr. Humes's tentative speculations
    have been held up as evidence of his alleged incompetence.
    And yet, again, I note he got it right, at least according
    to virtually every pathologist who has viewed the
    full range of the autopsy materials.

>3. The shredding of the brain and the destruction of the right
>   side of JFK's skull is more congruent with the impact of
>   a soft-nosed lead bullet travelling at high velocity than
>   the impact of a medium velocity FMJ round. Humes found *no*
>   physical evidence linking the wound to an FMJ round.

    Dr. Humes did not speculate as to the type of bullet
    that struck JFK in the back of the head; other evidence
    shows it to be a FMJ bullet.  But as for the destruction
    of the skull and brain not being consistent with a
    bullet entering the back of JFK's skull and exiting
    on the right occipital region, I refer again to Dr. Humes's
    explanation of why the entrance and exit patterns are
    consistent with his conclusions and no other conclusions,
    on the order of 100 times out of 100.

    And since the limo fragments were in fact matched
    ballistically to LHO's gun, and the limo fragments
    began as a FMJ bullet, I'm not sure where the
    compelling `lead bullet' arises from.  No such fragments
    were found; FMJ fragments were.
>
There were a lot more than two, and many were *never* interviewed
>by the WC becuase they cast too much doubt on the lone gunman theory.

    Either that or they did not have that story to tell at
    that time.  The effort the WC undertook to investigate
    Arnold Rowland's story demonstrates their committment
    to thorough examination of the evidence.  In fact, it
    is only in the WC and the HSCA that you will find a
    committment to presenting conflicting stories and a
    professional attempt to sort it all out.  Conspiracy
    Central Books are fond of leaving out embarrassing
    facts.

>>    If you can refute Dr. Lattimer's tests with better
>>    tests I will listen very carefully.  It is not
>>    immediately obvious to me that the presence of
>>    scalp would make it more difficult for a bullet
>>    to fragment;

>Lattimer and other experimenters had no trouble getting the *skull*
>to fragment when using scalpless dried out old skulls.

    Lattimer describes the skulls he used as "tough,
    fresh bone" and contrasts their conditions to those
    used by Olivier.

>They *never* succeeded in getting the FMJ rounds to fragment.

    I would refer you to page 219 in his book in which we
    see photos of the actual limo fragments, the fragments
    which were created, from FMJ bullets by Olivier's tests,
    and the fragments created by Lattimer's FMJ tests.  Other
    sections of the book go into even greater detail.

    In more recent postings I have seen you refer to Lattimer's
    tests not showing a frag trail in the skull.  I would be
    interested to hear your source for this.  It isn't Lattimer,
    because Lattimer doesn't mention this.  He doesn't mention
    this because he wasn't testing for it.

    But, as always, one does best refuting tests with tests
    and I haven't seen any of the pro-second gunman camp
    trot on out to the firing range recently to see what
    happens to a skull hit a.) by a dum-dum bullet fired
    from the extreme right, and then b.) by a lead bullet
    fired from behind, angle not calculated.  My guess, and
    it is only a guess, is that there wouldn't be much
    left of the skull.  At any rate, one who has no tests
    certainly may criticize those who do have tests; but in
    the end, we need to see something more tangible than guesses.
>
They also *never* duplicated the shredding of the brain that occurred
>in JFK.

    I am not aware of any tests in which a skull, containing
    an attached brain, was used.  And, again, since this wasn't
    being tested, I haven't seen Lattimer actually comment on
    this in that context.  Certainly, his general comments
    about the effects of a through and through FMJ bullet
    do not leave much room to doubt that the brain deformation
    was consistent with his military experience.

>The experimental results [if you read them, instead of the
>conclusions] point away from jacketed rounds.

    Since the experimental results showed deformation of
    the FMJ bullets remarkably similar to the deformation
    to the fragmented FMJ bullet (portion) found in the
    limo I must say I disagree.

>JFK was hit by a lead bullet not a copper jacketed one.

    As always, I am open to competing and/or better
    firing tests.

>>    The principle holds true no matter what object creates
>>    the small entrance and large exit holes provided the
>>    force is sufficient to create the jet propulsion effect.

>Nonsense. If you read the HSCA testimony of Larry Sturdivan you will
>noticed the term 'backsplash'. Bullets entering a liquid substance,
>such as blood and brain tissue, will eject a lot of material out
>the entrance wound as well as the exit wound. Of course, you
>need rounds that fragment easily to do this. Medium velocity FMJ
>rounds do *not* fragment easily. None of the firing tests
>succedded in fragmenting the FMJ rounds consistently.

    The firing tests did show some material being ejected
    from the entrance wound, but they showed far more material
    being ejected from the exit wound.  And, again, the test
    FMJ bullets did indeed fragment, with dried out skulls and
    with fresh skulls.

>Alvarez used soft-nosed high velocity rounds because he wanted a
>lot of material ejected from his melons. If he had used FMJ rounds,
>he would have punched neat little entrance and exit holes.

    I believe you are correct in assessing Alvarez's intentions
    in using softer bullets.  After all, a melon, even tightly
    taped, is not a skull.  But, as I have said, Alvarez was
    trying to establish a particular physical principle.  He
    was compelled to alter some conditions in order to create
    a similar situation, but once having created the situation,
    the principle holds true in all cases meeting the basic
    criteria.

    If you are shooting melons you may need softer bullets.
    Tests with skulls and FMJ bullets showed, repeatedly,
    the same effect Alvarez demonstrated with the melons.
    Lattimer in fact experimented with various target objects.
    And the result, if the appropriate conditions are created
    by the bullet, are predictable: an energetic movement
    in one direction will create, in the mass from which
    it was ejected, movement in the opposite direction.

    Sort of like the controlled explosion coming out of the
    bottom of a rocket that shoots that sucker up into space.
    The jet propulsion effect...

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!linus!linus.mitre.org!bird!howells
From: howells@bird (Timothy P. Howells)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: another palm print question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 13:50:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Service)
Organization: Research Computer Facility, The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA
Lines: 24
Nntp-Posting-Host: bird.mitre.org


 Mitchell S Todd writes:

>        Another possible conclusion: Oswald wasn't going to admit he
>        did it. He was only facing the death penalty for this (not
>        to mention the probability of being lynched, which is
>        what happened anway).

Do you really believe that Ruby killed Oswald out of righteous anger?
Ruby stated that the story he told regarding being motivated by
sympathy for Jackie and the kids was urged on him by one of his
lawyers.  He also told Earl Warren that there was a complicated story
behind his real motivations, but that he couldn't testify safely in
Dallas.  He offered to give the details if Warren had him moved to
Washington.  Warren refused.  I don't have the references handy, but I
can get them.

Ruby's involvement in organized crime (the Warren report to the
contratry) is well documented.

I can't believe that any one really believes that Ruby acted as a
citizen outraged over the death of his president.

Tim Howells
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!mips!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!csc32.enet.dec.com!m_henderson
From: [e-mail] (Marty Henderson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Processed Images - A Question.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 15:27:36 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Marty Henderson)
Distribution: alt
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. (VMS Software Support - Colorado)
Lines: 43

--
The images you refer to are probably the blown up images taken from the
Moorman photo. Am I right? Wasent it the Moorman photo?

Mary (?) Moorman was on the side of the street oposite the grassy knoll area.
When the limo came by she just happened to snap a shot about 1/6 of a second
after the fatal head impact. The grassy knoll area - including the fence - was
in the background of her picture. You can clearly see the president slumping
back and to his left in the picture. Jackie had not yet jumped on the the
trunk of the car. Many assassination books include this picture.

Now remember - this was a low quality black and white camera focusing on the
limo which was maybee - oh say 20 feet away or so (?) - and the knoll area was
in the unfocused background in the distance.

The fence area that has been blown up is about 1/4 inch square on the original
b/w picture. They blew that 1/4 inch area up to a large - say 12 by 12 or so -
picture. (My dimensions are guesses)

The A & E show "The Men Who Shot Kennedy" part 2 displays this blown-up picture. By the way, I think part 2 of this show airs this Friday at 9 Eastern on A & E.

I have seen part 2 of the A & E show. I must admit that I had to stretch my
abstract imagination to see the images BEFORE they outlined them in white on
the screen. They did this much like the "telesrator" thing is used on NBA
games on NBC. After they outlined it you could see fairly clearly the images - the 2 men, the gun, the badge, the police hat etc...

But you did have to really strain to comprehend it. I have not personally passed
judgement as to whether this cheap/old camera really did capture vague images of
the killers OR if it's just a fluke. It's kind of hard to tell even though I do believe that the fatal head shot came from the knoll. It's just that it's hard to see the images in this blowup concretely.

What do some of you other people think about it?

Marty

P.S. Now - if we just had the "other" movie of the assassination that was filmed
from the side of the stree which had a view of the knoll - then we might be in
the money! This film was taken imediately after the assassination "by the FBI"and has never been seen again. At least by the public.

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 M_Henderson               | "Could you please continue the petty bickering?
 Marty Henderson           |  I find it most intriguing."   ---    Data,
 Woodland Park, Colorado   |  Star Trek, The Next Generation, "Haven"
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: ns-mx!uunet!oracle!unrepliable!bounce
From: [e-mail] (Chuck Dupree)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Big Conspiracy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jun 92 22:40:19 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
    <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Oracle News Poster)
Organization: Oracle Corp., Belmont CA
Lines: 36
Xref: ns-mx alt.conspiracy:15527 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1612
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 9 Jun 92 10:36:13 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: hqsun2.us.oracle.com
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

Robert George writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>Does anyone know if there has been any work done to link the killings
>>of jfk, Marilyn Monroe, Bobby K, Malcom X and Martin Luther King altogether??

>Read David Scheim's book -- I think it's called "Contract on America"
>[NO ENDORSEMENT OF THAT BOOK IMPLIED!]

>>After all they were linked in real life and (except Monroe) they all
>>wanted to make `uncomfortable' changes.
>>
>>Are any of the killers of Malcom X, MLK and Bobby K still alive??

>   James Earl Ray (convicted assassin of MLK) is still alive
>   Sirhan Sirhan  (convicted assassin of Bobby K) is still alive
>   I do not anything about the Malcolm X assassination.

>Robert George

Many researchers, however, do not believe that Sirhan killed Bobby;
the bullet that killed him was fired at a range of 3 to 6 inches from
the right rear of his head, and not a single witness places Sirhan in
position to fire such a shot.  On the other hand, a security guard who
admits to having drawn his gun was in exactly the right spot to fire
such a shot.  Of course, the guard claims not to have fired.

It's my impression that no witnesses placed James Earl Ray in Memphis
at the time of MLK's assassination.  Does anyone know more about this?

This is not to dispute Robert's information.  Everything he says is
true; Sirhan was convicted, as was Ray.  The question is whether they
actually committed the crimes of which they were convicted.

- Chuck Dupree
Path: ns-mx!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Arrest at the Texas Theatre
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 16:00:25 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Lines: 57

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James J. Lippard) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes...
>>The Dallas police apparently picked up Oswald at the Texas Theatre
>>for walking in without paying for a ticket.
>>
>>By what stroke of intuition did they then connect him with the
>>Tippett killing??

>The official story doesn't involve any "strokes of intuition."

>Tippit was killed near the corner of 10th St. and Patton Ave. at about
>1:16 p.m.
>Domingo Benavides was in a truck on that street and heard the shots,
>saw the dead officer, and watched a man walk on 10th towards Patton
>Ave.  Helen Markham who had been walking south on Patton Ave., was at
>the northwest corner of the intersection when the shooting took place,
>witnessed the gunman cut across the lawn of the corner house and head
>south on Patton Ave.  Mrs. Barbara Jeanette Davis and her sister-in-law,
>Mrs. Virginia Davis, heard the shots and ran to their door in time to
>see the gunman cross their lawn shaking a revolver as if emptying it
>of cartridge cases, and each later found one near the house.  William
>W. Scoggins, a taxicab driver parked on Patton a few feet from 10th
>street, also witnessed the slaying and observed the gunman cross to
>the west side of Patton and run south towards Jefferson Boulevard.
>Ted Callaway, a used car salesman who heard the shots, ran to the
>sidewalk on Patton near Jefferson to observe a man with a gun rush
>past and turn right on Jefferson.  In a shoe store on Jefferson,
>its manager, Johnny Calvin Brewer, heard the siren of a police car
>moments after the radio in his store announced the shooting of a police
>officer in the area.  He saw a man step into the entranceway of
>the store and stand there with his back to the street as a police
>car drove toward the location of the Tippit shooting, then left.
>Brewer followed him, and observed him enter the Texas Theatre without
>buying a ticket.  He notified the cashier, Mrs. Julia Postal, who
>called the police at about 1:40 p.m.  The theatre was surrounded by
>the police, the house lights raised, and Oswald--pistol in hand--was
>arrested.

    There were also some witnesses who saw a man who didn't fit
        LHO's description at all, or who saw two men.

>At 7:10 p.m., Oswald was advised that he had been charged with the
>murder of Tippit after being identified in police lineups by several
>of the above witnesses.

        The lineups were a travesty of justice. LHO was clothed
        differently compared to the other guys in the line, he
        was bruised, had to tell his name and occupation (at the TSBD
        from which the shots were fired, at least, a lot of news
        broadcast had told that).

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute        | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!stanford.edu!hsdndev!taco!rock!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!sasdwf
From: [e-mail] (Dan Fowler)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: another palm print question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 17:15:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 33
Originator: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: copano.unx.sas.com


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries) writes...
>>Imagine that the palm print said to be found on the MC was real.
>>This indicates that LHO wasn't wearing any gloves. Why then didn't
>>the police find any fingerprints on the rifle, on the cartridges, on the
>>window etc.?
>
>       The palm print was on the underside of the barrel, in a place
>       where the forestock covered it up. It was supposed to have been
>       found only when the rifle was disassembled. If this is true,
>       then it is possible that Oswald wiped off the rifle with
>       something after he fired it. This would erase or seriously
>       distort any fingerprints on the outside surfaces of the rifle,
>       but the palm print would still be in readable condition.
>
1.  What did he wipe the rifle off with and where did he place the
    material used to wipe the rifle after he was finished.  Was this
    wiping material found afterwards?  If you speculate that the
    blanket was used for this purpose, were there any forensic traces
    found that would substantiate the claim (oil smears on gun, blanket
    fibers under Oswald's fingerprints, oil smears on blanket, etc).
2.  Was this taken into account in the recreation of Oswald's
    movements which the Warren Commission employed to prove that he
    could have made it to the 2nd floor lunchroom in 90 seconds or
    less?  (Sorry, don't have a WC Report handy).
>
>
--
Dan Fowler          |
Austin QA Dept      |   "Facts are useless in emergencies."
SAS Institute       |    David Byrne
[e-mail]  |
Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!csus.edu!netcomsv!mork!bprofane
From: [e-mail] (Gert Niewahr)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Processed Images - A Question.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 18:03:33 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: alt
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 23

The problem with the Moorman photo is that it both shows JFK's head
still intact, yet the infamous blow-ups of the "badge man" show
part of his body obscured by what is supposed to be the muzzle
blast of the headshot.  Unless Moorman was incredibly lucky and
snapped a picture as the bullet was in flight, this photo show the
knoll gunman missing JFK.  It's also possible that the bloom of
obscuring glare is due to overexposure of that part of the
negative, but it does look like muzzle blast.

Also, it seems to show JFK's head twisted to his left such that the
right side of his skull is almost perpendicular to the knoll.  A
knoll shot from the supposed gunman's position hitting JFK in the
right temple would have exited the *left* rear of his head.  This
is the problem I've always had with the knoll headshot: For the
angles to be right, the shot would have had to be fired from the
area of the knoll near the overpass, and that area was not obscured
by trees and easily visible to people on the overpass.

However, all of the anti-conspiracists say that there was no one
behind the stockade *at the time of the shooting* despite the
testimony of the railroad yard dispatcher and others.  The Moorman
photo provides the final corroboration that there were two people
behind the stockade.
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!pa.dec.com!decprl!decprl!boyd
From: [e-mail] (Boyd Roberts)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: real tests vs. non-existent tests
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 19:54:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Paris Research Laboratory
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: prl313.prl.dec.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:
>     Dr. Humes did not speculate as to the type of bullet
>     that struck JFK in the back of the head; other evidence
>     shows it to be a FMJ bullet.  But as for the destruction
>     of the skull and brain not being consistent with a
>     bullet entering the back of JFK's skull and exiting
>     on the right occipital region, I refer again to Dr. Humes's
>     explanation of why the entrance and exit patterns are
>     consistent with his conclusions and no other conclusions,
>     on the order of 100 times out of 100.
>     firing tests.

Sorry?  Just how can a bullet enter `the back of JFK's skull' and exit
on the `right occipital region'?  You do know that the occipital bone
is part of the back of the skull?

So, what we have here, is a shot perpendicular to JFK's head.


Boyd Roberts            [e-mail]

``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!hsdndev!taco!rock!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!sasdwf
From: [e-mail] (Dan Fowler)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Question about JAMA article
Keywords: JAMA, cushingoid
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 18:08:11 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Distribution: na
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 57
Originator: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: copano.unx.sas.com


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (gordon e. banks) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ed Hughes) writes:
>>
>>
>>In the JAMA article, Lundberg asks "some questions that
>>remain official mysteries."  One of them inquires about
>>the condition of Kennedy's adrenal glands, and Humes
>>answers, with some agitation, that Kennedy was definitely
>>NOT 'cushingoid' and did not have the associated facial
>>puffiness and odd fat deposits.
>
>Kennedy had Addison's disease, and it was concealed for
>political purposes.  Addison's disease is adrenal insufficiency
>and is treated with replacement hormone.  I don't understand
>why Humes was talking about Cushingoid features, since Cushing's
>disease is adrenal hyperplasia and overproduction of adrenal
>hormones.  If Jack had been overmedicated, then becoming
>Cushingoid would be a possibility, but no one had ever
>alleged that he had Cushing's disease itself.  People had
>remarked that he had looked puffy because of the steroids that
>he had to take, but that is not usually a big problem with
>Addison's disease.  Clearly Humes did not want to reveal
>the results of the autopsy on the adrenals (if they were normal,
>he surely would have), thus merely confirming the information
>from other sources that JFK did indeed have Addison's and had
>lied about it.
>

Harrison Livingstone in HIGH TREASON II speculates that JFK may
have been suffering from Pott's disease  (TB of the spine) instead
of Addison's disease.  The cortisone administered to JFK regularly
would have activated the TB and also lead to Cushing's syndrome
which "in this case is caused by a prolonged administration of
large doses of adrenocortical hormones." (HTII, p. 179).  He quotes
Dr. Robert Karnei, a pathologist present through most of the
autopsy, as saying " And he (JFK) had been on steroids, of course,
for many years, and he was Cushionoid.  He had the hump back--
the whole nine yards, as far as being on exogenous steroids.  A
combination of the two--atrophy of the adrenals and then, of course,
the exogenous steroids contributed to that.  There was total atrophy
(of the adrenals) as far as we can see at the autopsy.  I mean they
cut that fat to a fare-thee-well trying to find anything that
looked like adrenals, and there just wasn't."  Absence of information
on the adrenals and on the state of the spinal cord fuels this
speculation.  I noticed in the JAMA article that Humes said "At
some time in the near future, J and I will have to sit down adn
write for history our report of the condition of the President's
adrenal glands."  (JAMA article p. 2803)

I am not sure what part, if any, this information plays in the
assassination scheme of things.
--
Dan Fowler          |
Austin QA Dept      |   "Facts are useless in emergencies."
SAS Institute       |    David Byrne
[e-mail]  |
Path: ns-mx!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Processed Images - A Question.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 20:37:52 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Distribution: alt
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 55

[e-mail] (Gert Niewahr) writes:

>The problem with the Moorman photo is that it both shows JFK's head
>still intact, yet the infamous blow-ups of the "badge man" show
>part of his body obscured by what is supposed to be the muzzle
>blast of the headshot.  Unless Moorman was incredibly lucky and
>snapped a picture as the bullet was in flight, this photo show the
>knoll gunman missing JFK.  It's also possible that the bloom of
>obscuring glare is due to overexposure of that part of the
>negative, but it does look like muzzle blast.

An alternative explanation is that it is reflected light off the smoke
leaving the barrel. [ And don't say smokeless powders emit *no* smoke,
they do]

>Also, it seems to show JFK's head twisted to his left such that the
>right side of his skull is almost perpendicular to the knoll.  A
>knoll shot from the supposed gunman's position hitting JFK in the
>right temple would have exited the *left* rear of his head.

There is evidence [in the Z film, and forensically] of two shots
hitting JFK in the skull almost simultaneously. Some people think
he was hit in the back of the head first [possibly from the Dal-Tex]
and then hit in the side of the head next. I favor the opposite,
a soft-nosed or dum-dum bullet hitting him in the side of the head,
exitting from the rear, and then a shot from the Dal-Tex impacting
the rear of his head.

Dr. Crenshaw [I think] desribed a groove [sort of] extending from the
front to back. Depending on how the bullet fragmented, it is not
that hard to imagine it deflecting slightly more towards the back
of the head as it impacted and fragmented.

The bullet [or its remains] could have then created the 2-3 inch hole
in the back of the head described by most people who saw the wound.

The testimony of the Willis family, in the A & E series currently
being broadcast, vividly recounted how they saw the back of JFK's
head explode outwards.

As I watched the good copy of the Z film in the A & E show, I stared
at the back of JFK's head. It appeared to me some of the hair on the
back of his head jumped.

>However, all of the anti-conspiracists say that there was no one
>behind the stockade *at the time of the shooting* despite the
>testimony of the railroad yard dispatcher and others.  The Moorman
>photo provides the final corroboration that there were two people
>behind the stockade.

Absolutely correct. The physical evidence was there from the
beginning. Hundreds of muddy footprints indicating someone standing
around waiting for something [JFK]. Cigarette butts. The people
who smelled gunpowder near the knoll [ including Senator Yarborough
in the motorcade]. Smoke from the shot.
Path: ns-mx!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: dem bones
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 11 Jun 92 21:46:37 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 40


re: 1615 (Boyd Roberts)

>>     Dr. Humes did not speculate as to the type of bullet
>>     that struck JFK in the back of the head; other evidence
>>     shows it to be a FMJ bullet.  But as for the destruction
>>     of the skull and brain not being consistent with a
>>     bullet entering the back of JFK's skull and exiting
>>     on the right occipital region, I refer again to Dr. Humes's
>>     explanation of why the entrance and exit patterns are
>>     consistent with his conclusions and no other conclusions,
>>     on the order of 100 times out of 100.
>>     firing tests.

>Sorry?  Just how can a bullet enter `the back of JFK's skull' and exit
>on the `right occipital region'?  You do know that the occipital bone
>is part of the back of the skull?

>So, what we have here, is a shot perpendicular to JFK's head.

    Quite right, the wound was in the parietal region,
    extending "somewhat" into the occipital and temporal
    area.  Good catch.  One's hand and/or head sometimes
    slips typing these longish articles.

    JFK's head was angled downward approximately 11 degrees
    and to the left approximately 25 degrees.  Since an
    assassin in the TSBD window could slightly change the
    angle by moving the gun it is impossible to determine
    the precise angle of the gun relative to JFK.  Thompson says
    about 6 degrees, I have heard other figures up to
    ten degrees.  In either case, LHO was at less of an
    angle to JFK's right (6-10 degrees) than JFK's head
    was angled to the left, which means the bullet, which
    entered slightly to the right of the midline, went
    on to exit and fragment out of (chiefly) the right
    side of JFK's head.  This damage can be seen pretty
    clearly in the Groden-enhanced Z-film.

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15634 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1649 sci.skeptic:25737
Path: news.uiowa.edu!ns-mx!uunet!sybus.sybus.com!myrddin!pdn!lej
From: [e-mail] (Leo James)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Taking of America 1 2 3
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Jun 92 13:35:31 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Subsystem)
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: singaport

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>The "Taking of America 1 2 3" is a very entertaining book. Howver,
>where it lacks substance is there is no explaination of where this
>"power control group" gets its cohesion from.
>
>For people in various high offices to all collude with organized
>cohesion you need them to all belong to some properly organized
>group. This "power control group" is too airy fairy as it is just a
>lable and not a real entity.
>
>Now if we were to postulate that the jfk conpsirators  all belonged
>to some secret brotherhood......now that would be interesting.
>
>Do people in high levels of American society belong to groups such as the
>Freemasons, as readily as they do in Europe???

Let's cut to the chase. You are suggesting that the "Power Control Group"
are the freemasons.  Correct?  If so, do you have any evidence to support
this position?  If not, exactly what are you saying?
--
+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|Leopold E. James     | "A heart, a soul, AND | AT&T Paradyne         |
|ph: [phone]   |  a mind are terrible  | P.O. Box 2826, LG-132,|
|[e-mail] |  things to waste."    | Largo, FL 34649 (USA) |
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!mips!decwrl!bu.edu!transfer!necis!dlyons
From: [e-mail] (Dave Lyons)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: A&E- INVESTIGATIVE REPORT (2nd segment)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Jun 92 15:17:40 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: NEC Information Systems, Acton, MA
Lines: 39

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) wrote:
> <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>>    This has always bothered me.  Before they show him the
>>    enhanced Muchmoor still, I am silently screaming at the
>>    TV, "Can you give us a description of the badge man?"
>
> I know what you are getting at, but I remember Arnold's description as
> being a man in a policeman's uniform with no hat, and having dirty
> hands. I don't think he offered any facial description.
>
I don't know about this one guys.  First, Arnold says that he was
chased off from his position behind the fence.  He describes how he
walked all the way around until he was on the knoll itself.  Then the
color-enhanced still is shown to him.  It appears to be a guy in
uniform (himself) next to badge man who appears to be holding
something that is giving off a bright flash.  Now Arnold says that if
badge man is shooting at JFK, he was right there and must have seen
him.  I would think his memory of a rifle going off a few feet away
would stick in his mind better than remembering being chased away
from the scene.  Add to that his statement that he remembers hearing
bullets whiz past (and overhead after he drops to the ground).  How
could he be both in front of the shooter (his statement before seeing
the picture) and next to him (his statement after seeing the picture)
at the same time.  The picture looks to me MUCH more like one of those
ink-blot thingys that psychologists are so fond of.  If you look at
them long enough you can see just about anything you want to see.  As
much as I'd like to see some real evidence to back up what I believe
was a conspiracy to kill the president, I don't think this is it.  I
think this is more likely an old man, whose memory of that sad day is
clouded by the last 29 years, reacting to something created by
well-meaning people who can only see what they want to see to the
exclusion of anything else.
                                      -- Dave --
--
***************************************************************************
DaveJ Lyons       DoD #0633         [e-mail]  [phone] BBS
Opinions expressed are mine. My company doesn't even know I'm here (Shhhh!)
***************************************************************************
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15647 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1651 sci.skeptic:25752
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu!wb9omc
From: [e-mail] (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Taking of America 1 2 3
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Jun 92 17:45:19 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET news)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 37

[e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:

>The "Taking of America 1 2 3" is a very entertaining book. Howver,
>where it lacks substance is there is no explaination of where this
>"power control group" gets its cohesion from.
>For people in various high offices to all collude with organized
>cohesion you need them to all belong to some properly organized
>group. This "power control group" is too airy fairy as it is just a
>lable and not a real entity.

    I disagree wholeheartedly.  It is said that absolute power
corrupts absolutely.  Thus, any group of people such as Sprague
is describing once being used to having the sort of power they
wielded, will wish to keep such power.  In order to do that, they
need the support of other people of power.

    By banding together, they use their various types of "power"
to cover each other's butts and fend off attempts to remove them
from power.

    We can see smaller examples of this just by examining the
little cliques' of the wealthy and well connected in any American
town or city of even modest size.  They have the ultimate power of
the US, the DOLLAR.  Using their dollars, they buy and sell people's
loyalty and services, primarily for one purpose - to STAY wealthy
and powerful.

    Money and power are perhaps the two most seductive things in
our society today.  It has been said that most men of power would
rather have the money and power INSTEAD of food, drink or sex; three
things which had traditionally been considered among the most powerful
vices.

    It isn't hard to think of other examples - the congress is
a good place to start!

Duane
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15648 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1652 sci.skeptic:25756
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!linus!linus.mitre.org!bistromath!ptrei
From: [e-mail] (Peter Trei)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic
Subject: Subject: Derek Abbot (was: Masons, JFK, "The Taking of America 1 2 3")
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Jun 92 17:33:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Jun15.173329.1376
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Service)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Lines: 48
Nntp-Posting-Host: bistromath.mitre.org

Subject: Masons
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
> Is freemasonry a purely European phenomenon, or is it also pretty
> widespread in the USA?

     Derek, if you'd actually read Knight (whom you reference in
another post), you'd know that Masonry IS pretty widespread in
America. Last time I checked, there were about 2.75 million of us. I'd
lay even money that there are more Masons in America than in the rest
of the world put together.


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic
Subject: Taking of America 1 2 3
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Now if we were to postulate that the jfk conpsirators all belonged to
>some secret brotherhood......now that would be interesting.

     You can postulate all you like, but in the absence of evidence
most intelligent people will apply Occam's Razor and reject weird and
complex theories in preference for simple and straightforward ones.
You might as well "postulate" that JFK was actually done in by the
Galactic Girl Guides (anyone get that reference :-)?

>Do people in high levels of American society belong to groups such as
>the Freemasons, as readily as they do in Europe???

      I have no idea how readily influential people join the Masons in
Europe (and btw, Europe is a big and diverse place, and it's pretty
silly to lump it all together).

      In America, men in all walks of life join the Masons.

                    Peter Trei
                    Senior Warden
                    Wilder Lodge
                    Ancient Free and Accepted Masons
                    Leominster, MA
                    Editor: Masonic Digest
                    [e-mail]

ObParanoia (for those reading on alt.conspiracy): Derek's name has
been passed on to the Grand Lodge of South Australia for "processing."
:-) :-) :-)

Disclaimer: Anyone who thinks this has something to do with my
employer probably has other delusions too.
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15649 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1653
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!stanford.edu!mcnc!samba!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Robert Daniels)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: X
Summary: How about less speculation, more information?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Jun 92 18:25:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: samba.1992Jun15.182510.17600
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Lines: 41
Nntp-Posting-Host: lambada.oit.unc.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
>The guy named `X' in Oliver Stone's jfk, could be a decoy.
>
>If the conspiracy theory is true, X could have been a conspirator.
>
>My logic is this: The conspirators didn't want Garrison to give up
>his investigations. So to prevent him loosing heart, they sent in
>X to tell him he was on the right track and encourage him.
>
>The reason why it was to their advantage to have Garrison continue
>his investigations, is that they wanted him to get a "critical mass" of
>sensation rolling, so they they could then plant a mass of other
>conspiracy theories and trashy books on the market so as to create a smoke
>screen of confusion.
>
>We are dealing with brilliant tacticians here.
>
>You see, if X was really on Garrison's side it would be very unlikely
>that a guy at that high level would risk putting his testicles on the line.
>How did he contact Garrison without being detected? He was a plant.

    X is clearly modeled on Fletcher Prouty.  A few of his articles
    have been posted here in recent months (by Dave Ratcliffe - thanks,
    Dave), and references have been made to his book and other writings.
    There is also a fair amount of discussion about him and his analysis
    (or if you prefer hypothesis) concerning the JFK assassination -- in
    many of the standard books.

    I suppose that it is possible that Prouty is actually one of "them"
    and has been spreading disinformation -- but at present I do not
    believe that is the case.  If you think the possibility is
    intriguing, why not read up on it and present a reasoned argument
    rather than "gosh I had a clever idea" speculation?

    Robert Daniels

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: A&E- INVESTIGATIVE REPORT (2nd segment)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 19:12:23 GMT

[e-mail] (Dave Lyons) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) wrote:
>> <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>>>    This has always bothered me.  Before they show him the
>>>    enhanced Muchmoor still, I am silently screaming at the
>>>    TV, "Can you give us a description of the badge man?"
>>
>> I know what you are getting at, but I remember Arnold's description as
>> being a man in a policeman's uniform with no hat, and having dirty
>> hands. I don't think he offered any facial description.
>>
>I don't know about this one guys.  First, Arnold says that he was
>chased off from his position behind the fence.  He describes how he
>walked all the way around until he was on the knoll itself.  Then the
>color-enhanced still is shown to him.  It appears to be a guy in
>uniform (himself) next to badge man who appears to be holding
>something that is giving off a bright flash.  Now Arnold says that if
>badge man is shooting at JFK, he was right there and must have seen
>him.  I would think his memory of a rifle going off a few feet away
>would stick in his mind better than remembering being chased away
>from the scene.  Add to that his statement that he remembers hearing
>bullets whiz past (and overhead after he drops to the ground).  How
>could he be both in front of the shooter (his statement before seeing
>the picture) and next to him (his statement after seeing the picture)
>at the same time.

He was in front of , and to the right of the shooter.

>  The picture looks to me MUCH more like one of those
>ink-blot thingys that psychologists are so fond of.  If you look at
>them long enough you can see just about anything you want to see.  As
>much as I'd like to see some real evidence to back up what I believe
>was a conspiracy to kill the president, I don't think this is it.  I
>think this is more likely an old man, whose memory of that sad day is
>clouded by the last 29 years, reacting to something created by
>well-meaning people who can only see what they want to see to the
>exclusion of anything else.

Arnold was there that day. He was seen diving for cover by
Senator Yarborough.

Arnold's position was to the right and in front of 'badgeman'.

The motorcade came by, shots came from his rear, and he dove for
cover.

'Badgeman' then came up to Arnold, pointed a rifle at him, and stole
the film from Arnold's movie camera.

You can disbelieve his story if you want, but he was there.
Yarborough confirms it.

And if he was there, then he was probably caught on film by Moorman.

And he is not the only one to hear shots come from the same location.
Abraham Zapruder did as well.

This is *not* a story totally devoid of corroborating evidence.

Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15651 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1655
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!lanai.cs.ucla.edu!pierce
From: [e-mail] (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Right Woos Left (1 of 6)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: lanai.cs.ucla.edu
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 19:58:33 GMT
Lines: 657

The following article is reprinted *without* permission.

---------------- Part 1 of 6 -------------------------------------------

Copyright (c) 1991 by Chip Berlet. All rights reserved.

RIGHT WOOS LEFT:

Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To
Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected


by Chip Berlet

Political Research Associates

December 16, 1991


"Fascism and Reaction inevitably attack. They have won against
disunion. They will fail if we unite."

(George Seldes )

<You Can't Do That>, 1938


Political Research Associates
678 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 205
Cambridge, MA 02139
[phone]

------------------- Part 1 begins here ---------------------------------

Introduction

"...fascism is not confined to any specific era, culture or countries.
Far from being a phenomenon limited to the European states which
have experienced fascist regimes, movements of this type are to be
found in practically every western country, and indeed are growing
more strident in the leading democratic societies which have never
experienced fascist rule--Britain and America."

(Paul Wilkinson )

<The New Fascists>, 1981

Fascist political movements are experiencing a resurgence around
the world. In Eastern Europe, racial nationalism, a key component
of fascism, has surfaced in many new political parties. In the
United States, the presidential campaigns of David Duke and Patrick
Buchanan echo two different strains of historical fascism. Duke's
neo-Nazi past resonates, in a consciously sanitized form, in his
current formulations of white supremacist and anti-Jewish political
theories. Buchanan's theories of isolationist nationalism and
xenophobia hearken back to the proto-fascist ideas of the 1930's
"America First" movement and its well-known promoters, Charles
Lindbergh and Father Charles Coughlin. Both Duke and Buchanan blame
our societal problems on handy scapegoats, and both feed on the
politics of resentment, anger and fear. Most progressives vigorously
reject Duke and Buchanan, and are not reluctant to point out fascist
elements in both candidacies.

But there are other strains of domestic fascism active today, and
the siren calls of those movements may mesmerize progressives whose
anti-government fervor blinds them to historical lessons. Since
the early 1980's, persons from far-right and fascist political
groups in the United States have attempted to convince progressive
activists to join forces to oppose certain government policies.
The fascist right has wooed the progressive left primarily around
opposition to such issues as the use of U.S.  troops in foreign
military interventions, the CIA and covert action, and domestic
government repression and civil liberties.

As the far right made overtures to the left, some of the classic
conspiracy theories of the far right began to seep into progressive,
and even mainstream, analyses of foreign policy and domestic
repression. An audience was created for these conspiratorial
assertions through public speaking, radio interviews, sales of
audiotapes and published articles. This audience elevated to
leadership roles those persons who were willing to make the boldest
and most critical (albeit unsubstantiated) pronouncements about
the U.S.  government and U.S. society. As a result, some progressives
now confuse demagoguery with leadership, and undocumented conspiracism
with serious research, and are unable to determine when an analysis
supports or undermines the progressive goals of peace, social
justice and economic fairness. This is primarily a problem within
the white left, but in some Black nationalist constituencies the
same dynamic has also popularized conspiracy theories which in some
cases reflect anti-Jewish themes long circulated by the far right.

While there is inevitable overlap at the edges of political movements,
the far-right sector being discussed in this study is separate and
distinct from traditional conservatism, the right wing of the
Republican Party, libertarianism, anarchism, and other political
movements sometimes characterized as right wing. The John Birch
Society, discussed here, is a far-right reactionary political
movement, but it attempts to distance itself from racialist and
anti-Jewish theories. Other groups analyzed in this paper, such as
the Populist Party, Liberty Lobby, and the LaRouchians, on the
other hand, represent a continuation of the racialist, anti-democratic
theories of fascism.

The phenomenon of the right wooing the left became highly visible
during the Gulf War.  Followers of Lyndon LaRouche attended antiwar
meetings and rallies in some thirty cities, and other right-wing
organizers from groups such as the John Birch Society and the
Populist Party passed out flyers at antiwar demonstrations across
the country. While these right-wing groups undeniably opposed war
with Iraq, they also promoted ideas that peace and social justice
activists have historically found objectionable.  Many people
seeking to forge alliances with the left around anti-government
and anti-interventionist policies also promote Eurocentric, anti-
pluralist, patriarchal, or homophobic views. Some are profoundly
anti-democratic; others support the idea that the U.S. is a Christian
republic. A few openly promote white supremacist, anti- Jewish, or
neo-Nazi theories.

The John Birch Society, for instance, is highly critical of mass
democratic movements for social change, including those that seek
equality for women, gay men and lesbians, Blacks, Hispanics, and
recent immigrants from Asia and Central America. The Birchers
believe most world governments, including the U.S. and the Soviet
Union, are secretly controlled by a handful of conspirators they
dub "The Insiders."

The Populist Party (and groups to which it has historically been
related such as the Liberty Lobby and its <Spotlight> newspaper),
created a national constituency for David Duke and other white
supremacist political candidates. Duke was the 1988 Populist Party
presidential candidate.  These forces believe a conspiracy of rich
and powerful Jews and their allies control banking, foreign policy,
the CIA and the media in the United States. Like Duke, they also
believe in an America controlled by white Christians of exclusively
European heritage.

The LaRouchians have supported foreign dictatorships such as the
Marcos regime in the Philippines and the Noriega regime in Panama.
LaRouche has written that history would not judge harshly those
who beat homosexuals to death with baseball bats to stop the spread
of AIDS. For LaRouchians the conspiracy consists of secret elite
groups engaged in an epic battle between moral forces who want
order, and sinister forces who champion chaos. LaRouche claims he
can trace the key players in these secret conspiracies decade-by-decade
back to Plato and Aristotle--and beyond. A remarkable number of
the sinister conspirators turn out to be Jewish.

This study seeks to sharpen the debate over how to handle the
phenomenon of the right wooing the left, and is not meant to divide
or attack the left, which is being victimized by these approaches.
As anti-fascist author George Seldes pointed out over fifty years
ago, "The enemy is always the Right. Fascism and Reaction inevitably
attack. They have won against disunion. They will fail if we unite."

There is considerable evidence to show that far-right groups are
serious about wooing the political left and that their conspiracist
theories have been taken seriously in some quarters. Consider the
following, all of which will be discussed in greater detail later:

*** Several far-right commentators affiliated with the Liberty
Lobby and its <Spotlight> newspaper sought and obtained lengthy
interviews on radio stations affiliated with the progressive Pacifica
network. KPFK in Los Angeles and KPFA in San Francisco also aired
long programs with radio personality Craig Hulet whose cynical
views echo longstanding Birch Society conspiracy theories.  Hulet
urges progressives to join with rightists in attacking the government,
and audiotapes of his radio interviews quickly became some of the
Pacifica Archives' best-selling tapes. According to the program
manager of KPFA, Hulet was one of the most requested radio
personalities during and after the Gulf War.

*** A catalog from Prevailing Winds Research mixes material from
mainstream, progressive, and far-right sources. One can order
material from the Christic Institute (a public-interest law foundation
based in Washington, D.C.) and dozens of other left and liberal
organizations and writers (including this author). Also available
is material from persons affiliated with the fascist Populist Party
or the Liberty Lobby network, and information on how to order a
tape of a speech by Eustace Mullins, one of the world's most
notorious anti-Jewish conspiracy theorists. Mullins envisions a
world where Jews have been exterminated by Christians.

*** A West Coast affiliate of the Christic Institute sells <The
Guns and Drugs Reader>, edited by Prevailing Winds. Prominently
featured in the publication is material by Bo Gritz, presidential
candidate of the Populist Party, and David Duke's original
vice-presidential running mate in 1988. Gritz, one of the most
decorated veterans of the Vietnam war (his exploits were used in
scripting the popular Rambo movies) has told his constituents to
reach out to recruit from the left. Gritz himself invited Father
Bill Davis of the Christic Institute to speak at a 1990 Las Vegas
conference organized by Gritz's Center for Action.

*** At the April, 1991 conference of the respected Latin American
Studies Association in Washington, a panel on Panama included Carlos
Wesley, the LaRouche organization's Central America operative. The
LaRouchians have been involved in the Panamanian anti-intervention
movement for years.

*** More than 6 percent (49 out of a total 771) of the footnotes
in Barbara Honneger's widely-popularized book <October Surprise>
cite LaRouche publications such as <Executive Intelligence Review>
and <New Solidarity> (now <New Federalist>). Honneger, a former
White House aide, alleges in her book that officials connected to
the Reagan Presidential campaign plotted with Iranian officials to
delay the release of hostages in the Middle East until after the
election. In one chapter on "Project Diplomacy," LaRouche-linked
citations account for over 22 percent of the total number of
footnotes.  While information from the LaRouchians is sometimes
accurate, it is often laced with unsubstantiated assertions and
biased by the peculiar LaRouchian brand of conspiracist bigotry
against Jews and homosexuals.

*** The current issue of <Revisionist Letters>, a periodical
promoting the idea that the historical account of the Holocaust is
a hoax, contains an article urging recruitment from "a powerful
potential source of supporters--the radical Left!  Leftist
disillusionment with Israel and Zionism is growing rapidly."

Further confusing matters is the rebirth in Europe of the national
socialist wing of fascism, with adherents calling themselves
Strasserites or Third Positionists. These groups, which now operate
in the U.S., are critical of Hitler's Nazi brand of fascism; they
support the working class and encourage environmentalism. They
also, however, promote racially segregated nation-states. Third
Position groups claim to have evolved an ideology "beyond communism
and capitalism," and actively seek to recruit from the left. One
such group is the American Front in Portland, Oregon, which runs
a phone hotline that in late November, 1991 featured an attack on
critics of left/right coalitions.

Conspiracism and demagoguery feature simplistic answers to complex
problems. During periods of economic or social crisis, people may
seek to alleviate anxiety by embracing simple solutions, often
including scapegoating. This scapegoating often manifests itself
in virulent attacks on persons of different races and cultures who
are painted as alien conspiratorial forces undermining the coherent
national will.

In part, the fascist right has been able to forge ties to the left
due to a serious lack of knowledge on the left regarding the complex
history, different forms, and multiple tactics of fascism. Among
those tactics are the use of scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic
solutions, demagoguery, and a a conspiracy theory of history.

Theories of racialist nationalism and national socialism are not
widely known in the United States. If they were, it is unlikely
that any serious progressive would be seduced by the right's idea
of an alliance to smash the powerful corrupt center, based on a
shared agenda critical of government policies. This concept has an
unsavory historical track record. The European fascist movements
in the 1930's flourished in a period of economic collapse, political
turmoil, and social crisis. The German Nazi party, during its early
national socialist phase, openly enlisted progressive support to
smash the corrupt and elitist Weimar government. But when the
government began to collapse, powerful industrial and banking
interests recruited Hitler to take control the government in order
to prevent economic chaos, which would have displaced them as power
brokers. In return for state control, Hitler quickly liquidated
the leadership of his national socialist allies in a murderous
spree called the "Night of the Long Knives." Once state power had
been consolidated, the Nazis went on to liquidate the left before
lining up Jews, labor leaders, intellectuals, dissidents, homosexuals,
Poles, Gypsies (the Romani), dark-skinned immigrants, the infirm,
and others deemed undesirable.

While conditions in the United States may only faintly echo the
financial and social turmoil of the Weimar regime, the similarities
cannot be dismissed lightly, nor should the catastrophic power of
state fascism and the repression of an authoritarian government be
confused.

Some people who consider themselves progressive even argue that a
fascist government could not be any worse than the Reagan and Bush
Administrations, with their devastating effects on the poor and
persons of color. Because current policies are nearly genocidal,
they say they will work with any ally to smash the status quo. This
view dangerously underestimates the murderous quality of fascism.
Similarly, other progressives argue in favor of supporting Duke or
Buchanan for President in order to draw votes away from Bush and
thus elect the Democratic candidate. While Duke and Buchanan
currently have little chance of election, any progressive support
for their candidacies minimizes the dangers involved in supporting
a national political movement which uses fascist themes.[f-1]

The largest problem, however, remains the unnerving ability of
fascist and right-wing conspiracists to attract a left audience
through attacks on the government and its policies. There are four
separate but related dilemmas posed by the phenomenon of the fascist
right wooing the left:

*** How to educate progressive forces about the history of fascism,
so the left is not lured into a repetition of past mistakes, and
can more readily identify anti-democratic theories.

*** How to reject unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, demagoguery
and scapegoating (from the right or the left), while at the same
time promoting a vigorous critique of government repression, covert
action, and social injustice.

*** How progressive journalists and researchers should handle
contacts with the political far right, and how rightists should be
identified by journalists when they are used as sources.

*** How progressive political coalitions should handle overtures
by the political right which suggest tactical or strategic alliances
around issues of common concern, and to what extent it is necessary
for groups and individuals to distance themselves publicly from
fascists who imply an alliance when one does not exist.

In some cases progressive groups have begun to address the problems
created by this courtship by the right. Radio station WBAI aired
several hours of programming within a week of discovering that
their broadcasts had included interviews with persons whose right-wing
affiliations were not disclosed to the listeners. The progressive
periodicals <Guardian> and <In These Times> have run articles and
commentaries on the situation.  KPFK and KPFA in California, however,
waited months before their listeners even learned there was a debate
over these issues. The Christic Institute has been especially
reluctant to renounce publicly attempts by the fascist right to
imply an alliance with their organization.

 Conspiratorial Roots

While some information provided by the far right may be factual,
other material is unsubstantiated rumor or lunatic conspiracy
theories. Some material is bigoted. Widely publicized examples of
right-wing conspiracism creeping into popular critiques of government
misconduct can be found to varying degrees in the "October Surprise"
story, the Christic Institute's "Secret Team" theory, and the late
writer Danny Casolaro's "Octopus" theory. While some of these
conspiracy theories are very attractive on the surface, and are
undeniably entertaining, they ultimately serve to distract people
from serious analysis.  All of these theories share elements of
traditional right-wing conspiracy themes in which sinister global
elites secretly manipulate world events. The theories echo themes
promoted by the LaRouchians, the John Birch Society and the Liberty
Lobby and its <Spotlight> newspaper.

Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories usually start with a basis in
fact and relate to a legitimate issue. The current phenomenon traces
back to the rise of counterinsurgency as an arm of U.S.  foreign
policy, and the role it played in the Vietnam War. The public debate
over this issue expanded in 1973 with publication of <The Secret
Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and
the World> by retired Air Force Colonel and intelligence specialist
L.  Fletcher Prouty. In the book, Prouty criticized the CIA's
penchant for counterinsurgency and clandestine operations, which
he argued prolonged the war in Vietnam and resulted in the unnecessary
deaths of many U.S. soldiers.

The Liberty Lobby's <Spotlight> newspaper took Prouty's thesis and
overlaid it with a conspiracy theory regarding Jewish influence in
U.S. foreign policy. Sometime in the 1980's, a number of right-wing
critics of U.S. intelligence operations began to drift towards the
<Spotlight> analysis. The "Secret Team" apparently became the
"Secret Jewish Team" in their eyes. They began to feed information
from their sources inside the government to publications with an
anti-Jewish agenda.

While the Liberty Lobby network was recruiting Fletcher Prouty, Bo
Gritz, longtime CIA critic Victor Marchetti, and assassination
conspiracy researchers Mark Lane and Dick Gregory, the LaRouchians
were probing government misconduct and linking U.S. political elites
to their global conspiracy theory.

The LaRouchians were among the beneficiaries of the information
flow from right-wing anti-CIA circles. LaRouche's periodicals mix
anti-Israel views with anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, but they
also were among the first publications in the U.S. to cover aspects
of the covert Contra aid network, although their coverage included
typical LaRouchian distortions. Many reporters in the mid 1980's
were contacted by LaRouchians who offered assistance and documents
to help research the Iran-Contra story.

Critics of the Christic Institute say undocumented conspiracy
theories, perhaps first circulated by the LaRouchians and the
<Spotlight>, were inadvertently drawn into Christic's lawsuit
against key figures in the Iran-Contra Scandal. The Christic
Institute no longer uses the "Secret Team" slogan, which it employed
for the first few years of its Iran-Contra lawsuit, <Avirgan v.
Hull>. The suit, filed in 1986, is also called the La Penca case,
after the Nicaraguan town where a 1984 bombing killed three
journalists and at least one Contra and wounded dozens, including
television camera operator Avirgan and the intended target, Contra
leader Eden Pastora. The named plaintiffs in the Christic La Penca
case were Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey. According to Avirgan,
"There were, indeed, numerous undocumented allegations in the suit,
particularly in Sheehan's Affidavit of Fact. As plaintiffs in the
suit, Martha Honey and I struggled for years to try to bring the
case down to earth."

Dr. Diana Reynolds, an assistant professor of politics at Bradford
College in Massachusetts, read thousands of pages of depositions
taken during the Christic case and has concluded, "Leaving out the
circumstances of the La Penca bombing and the specific Iran-Contra
material, I think it is fair to say that some right- wing conspiracy
theories were woven into the theory behind the Christic case."

Author Jane Hunter, editor of <Israeli Foreign Affairs>, worries
about the rise of conspiracism on the left, including some of the
allegations made in the Christic lawsuit. "If you keep looking for
all the connections, all you are going to see is something so
powerful that there is no way to fight it. We have to look at the
system that produces these covert and illegal operations, not who
knew so and so three years ago."

Hunter and some two-dozen other progressive researchers (including
the author) have been discussing these issues for several years.
The one point of agreement is that this is a problem long overdue
for debate. As Hunter explains, "In my speaking engagements I have
found in audience questions an alarming increase in conspiracy
theories and anti-Semitism." She also is worried that as conditions
for African-Americans in the U.S. have continued to deteriorate,
there has been an increase in the scapegoating of Jews by
African-Americans. While scapegoating and turning to conspiracy
theories is a common phenomenon in communities experiencing financial
or social stress, it should never be tolerated.

It is important to differentiate between the fascist right and
persons on the left who in a variety of ways have been lured by
the overtures of the fascist right and its conspiracist theories,
or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with
spokespersons for the fascist right, or who have contact with the
fascist right as part of serious and legitimate research into
political issues.

Nonetheless, there is substantial evidence to suggest that the
circulation and tolerance of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories
by groups such as the Christic Institute and Pacifica Radio stations
has created a large audience, especially on the West Coast, that
gullibly accepts undocumented anti-government assertions alongside
scrupulous documented research, with little ability to tell the
two apart. In some cases, people who believe themselves to be
progressive activists see no moral problem with alliances with the
fascist right, so long as the shared enemy is the Bush Administration.
Furthermore, rightists such as Bo Gritz and Craig Hulet continue
to imply that they work closely with Daniel Sheehan and Father Bill
Davis of the Christic Institute, while the response from the Christic
Institute has been tardy and equivocal.  The most troublesome and
widespread aspects of this phenomenon have occurred in California
where some radio hosts have promoted Sheehan and Davis of Christic
along with right-wing persons in Liberty Lobby and the conspiratorial
right as jointly working together to expose the government's corrupt
maneuverings. Radio personality Craig Hulet has encouraged this
belief in interviews by warning of attempts to criticize those who
are "kicking George Bush." Hulet, in fact, specifically named
Sheehan, Davis, Marchetti, Prouty, Gritz, and himself as researchers
who needed to be defended against those who criticized coalitions
between the left and the right.

There is little agreement among progressive researchers and
journalists on how material from far-right sources should be handled.
Some progressive researchers are suspicious that government
intelligence agents and rightist researchers may leak information
to progressive journalists to achieve a right-wing political goal,
perhaps as part of a faction fight over government foreign policy
strategies.

Journalist Russ Bellant is highly critical of those who tolerate
or apologize for people who work with the LaRouchians, the Populist
Party or the Liberty Lobby network. "I think you discredit yourself
when you work with these bigoted forces," says Bellant, "and mere
association tends to lend credence to these rightist groups because
people assume the group can't be that bad if a respected person on
the left is associated with them."

This study begins with a brief overview of several paranoid conspiracy
theories prevalent in contemporary right-wing circles.

It then examines the right wing's anti-government critique and
rightist influences on Christic Institute's theories of Iran-
Contragate.

There is an extensive examination of the LaRouchians' attempts to
penetrate the progressive antiwar movement, as well as a brief look
at the activities of other far-right groups (both pro-war and
anti-interventionist) during the Gulf War. This section includes
a discussion of the surprising involvement of some formerly prominent
civil rights leaders with LaRouchian and other neo-fascist groups.

This is followed by a discussion of how prejudice, racism and
anti-Jewish theories are enmeshed in a variety of political movements
in the U.S., especially the Populist Party. The next section examines
the emergence of anti-Jewish bigotry within Black nationalist
movements.

A discussion of left/right coalition building is followed by a
preliminary attempt to establish some criteria for discussion of
these complex political issues, including sections on logical
fallacies and the pitfalls of unsubstantiated conspiracism.

Finally, there is a brief discussion of the overall dilemma and a
suggestion that further study and open discussion are needed to
sort out the complex and confusing issues raised by but, alas, not
answered by this report.


Right-Wing Critics of U.S. Intelligence Agencies and Foreign Policy

Populist Party/Liberty Lobby Recruitment of Anti-CIA Critics

It was the casualties of the Vietnam war that crystallized a
right-wing critique of U.S.  foreign policy for its reliance on
covert action, counterinsurgency and political deals as tactical
alternatives to military confrontation to achieve geo-political
goals. The right-wing analysis raised questions that many citizens
were asking.  If we didn't want to fight a war to win in the
traditional sense, then why did all those soldiers have to die?
What was the purpose? Where was the benefit to the U.S.? Who gained
from this process? These questions were not asked only by persons
on the right, but the answers and theories the right developed were
far different than those proposed by the left.

Fletcher Prouty's 1973 book <The Secret Team> was among the first
wave of non-left treatises to take a critical view of the U.S.
intelligence establishment's role in designing the failed
counterinsurgency policies in Vietnam.

Liberty Lobby and the <Spotlight> took the Prouty thesis and combined
it with its bigoted conspiracy theory about Jewish control of U.S.
foreign policy. Since writing the book, Prouty has drifted far to
the right, as has another CIA critic, Victor Marchetti, and both
now have allied themselves with the Liberty Lobby network.  Prouty's
<The Secret Team> was recently republished by Noontide Press, the
publishing arm of the historical revisionist Institute for Historical
Review (IHR). IHR promotes the theory that the accepted history of
the Holocaust is a hoax perpetrated by Jews.

In 1974, Marchetti, a former executive assistant to the deputy
director of the CIA, co-authored <The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence>,
a well-received best-seller and the first book the CIA tried to
suppress through court action. By 1989, however, Marchetti had been
recruited into a close alliance with Carto's Liberty Lobby network.
In 1989, Marchetti presented a paper at the Ninth International
Revisionist Conference held by the Institute for Historical Review.
The title of Marchetti's paper, published in IHR's <Journal of
Historical Review>, was "Propaganda and Disinformation: How the
CIA Manufactures History." Marchetti edits the <New American View>
newsletter, which as one promotional flyer explained, was designed
to "document for patriotic Americans like yourself the excess of
pro-Israelism, which warps the news we see and hear from our media,
cows our Congress into submission, and has already cost us hundreds
of innocent, young Americans in Lebanon and elsewhere."

Marchetti describes himself as a person whose "intelligence expertise
and well-placed contacts have provided me with a unique insight
into the subversion of our democratic process and foreign policy
by those who would put the interests of Israel <above> those of
America and Americans." Marchetti is also the publisher of a
Japanese-language book <ADL and Zionism>, written by LaRouche
followers Paul Goldstein and Jeffrey Steinberg.

Marchetti was co-publisher of the <Zionist Watch> newsletter when
it was endorsed in direct mail appeals on Liberty Lobby stationery
by the now deceased Lois Petersen, who for many years was the
influential secretary of the Liberty Lobby board of directors. The
October 5, 1987 <Spotlight> reported that Mark Lane had been named
associate editor of <Zionist Watch>, which is housed in the same
small converted Capitol Hill townhouse as Liberty Lobby/<Spotlight>.

While concern over Reagan Administration participation in joint
intelligence operations with Mossad is legitimate, the use of
anti-Zionism as a cover for conspiracist anti-Jewish bigotry can
be seen in an article in the August 24, 1981 issue of <Spotlight>:

"A brazen attempt by influential "Israel-firsters" in the policy
echelons of the Reagan administration to extend their control to
the day-to-day espionage and covert-action operations of the CIA
was the hidden source of the controversy and scandals that shook
the U.S.  intelligence establishment this summer. "

"The dual loyalists, whose domination over the federal executive's
high planning and strategy-making resources is now just about total,
have long wanted to grab a hand in the on-the-spot "field control"
of the CIA's worldwide clandestine services. They want this control,
not just for themselves, but on behalf of the Mossad, Israel's
terrorist secret police. "


 The LaRouchian Critique

While the Carto empire was recruiting Prouty, Marchetti and other
critics of the CIA, the LaRouchians were probing government misconduct
and linking U.S. political elites to their worldview in which the
oligarchic families of Great Britain are the font of all world
evil.  Over the years LaRouchian literature has maintained that
political leadership in Great Britain is really controlled by Jewish
banking families such as the Rothschilds, a standard anti-Jewish
theory that influenced such bigots as Henry Ford and Adolph Hitler.

In their book [f-2] first published in 1978, the LaRouchians assert
that the oligarchy in Great Britain is in league with Jewish bankers
to control the smuggling of drugs into the United States. Arch-rightist
and former U.S.  intelligence operative, the late Mitchell WerBell
said the book was of "outstanding importance," because it told "the
history of a political strike against the United States in an
undeclared war being waged by Great Britain."

LaRouche's publications were among the first periodicals to run
articles exposing aspects of the covert Contra aid network, well
before a fateful plane crash first tipped off the mainstream press
to the full extent of the story.  Right-wing coverage of government
intelligence abuse is not unique to the LaRouchians. Other far-right
groups such as Liberty Lobby and its <Spotlight> newspaper have
also circulated similar information.

Herb Quinde, an intelligence policy analyst for the LaRouchians,
says that in the 1980's the LaRouchians were contacted by a group
of disaffected former and current intelligence specialists who
Quinde referred to as "the Arabists." Both government and private
sector analysts confirm that there are persons critical of current
U.S. foreign policy reliance on Israel whose ideas are discussed
in policy meetings.  These persons are sometimes referred to as
"Arabists." They represent a minority viewpoint in government
circles that needs to be factored into political equations. Most
of these persons are geo-political pragmatists who think that oil
is the key to the Middle East and so support for Israel is misguided
since Israel doesn't have oil. Others simply support a more
even-handed policy in the Middle East, especially concerning
Palestinian rights. The so-called "Arabists" are more accurately
seen as a diffuse and broad theoretical tendency rather than an
ethnic group, pro-Arab faction, or specific political organization.

Some of these persons, however, have fierce anti-Jewish views and
have sought alliances with overt bigots and persons who circulate
paranoid conspiracy theories in which Jews are believed to control
the world. Their theory at its most paranoid believes Great Britain's
intelligence services have influenced U.S. intelligence agencies
since the inception of the Office of Strategic Services, precursor
to the CIA. Great Britain's intelligence empire is seen as
predominantly Jewish, riddled with communists and homosexuals, and
with an open line to Moscow.  Mossad is believed to manipulate U.S.
foreign policy and direct much of U.S. intelligence activity. The
CIA is believed to be full of moles, probably inserted by a
Anglophile/Jewish/Communist network. True patriots are urged to
try to expose this "dual loyalist" reality and push the U.S. to
ally with its real friends in the Middle East, the Arab monarchies
and familial oligarchies.

These theories have little to do with democracy, social justice or
peace in the Middle East, and they use legitimate criticisms of
Israeli policies and U.S. pro-Israel policies as a screen to cover
prejudice against Jews.

Many reporters were contacted by the LaRouchians offering assistance
and documents to help research the Iran-Contra story. LaRouche's
<Executive Intelligence Review> even gets a passing nod from author
Ben Bradlee, Jr. in his <Guts and Glory: The Rise and Fall of Oliver
North>. Bradlee acknowledges the help of <EIR> in decoding the
shorthand used by North in his notebooks.

Peter Dale Scott, Jonathan Marshall and other authors who researched
the Iran-Contra story say that in the mid to late 1980's, LaRouchians
such as Herb Quinde, who had researched the Oliver North network,
were involved in the traditional game of the Capitol press
corps--circulating documents and trading theories.
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15652 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1656
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!lanai.cs.ucla.edu!pierce
From: [e-mail] (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Right Woos Left (2 of 6)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: lanai.cs.ucla.edu
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 20:04:29 GMT
Lines: 687

The following article is reprinted *without* permission.

---------------- Part 2 of 6 -------------------------------------------

Copyright (c) 1991 by Chip Berlet. All rights reserved.

RIGHT WOOS LEFT:

Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To
Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected


by Chip Berlet

Political Research Associates

December 16, 1991


"Fascism and Reaction inevitably attack. They have won against
disunion. They will fail if we unite."

(George Seldes )

<You Can't Do That>, 1938


Political Research Associates
678 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 205
Cambridge, MA 02139
[phone]

------------------- Part 2 begins here ---------------------------------

 The LaRouchians as Anti-Interventionists

During the late 1980's the LaRouchians covertly sought to expand
their contacts with the left and attempted to link up with progressive
groups over issues such as anti-interventionism, covert action,
government domestic repression, civil liberties and Third World
debt. Many progressive researchers report that during this period
they began to receive telephone calls from LaRouchian operatives
suggesting joint work or offering documents or story ideas.

Progressive activists also were targeted. For instance, LaRouche
organizers involved themselves in an international anti-interventionist
conference held in Panama, and have worked behind the scenes around
the issue of U.S. involvement in Panamanian affairs ever since.
Although conference organizers say they tried to isolate the
LaRouchians at the conference, there is little doubt that the
LaRouchians managed to leave the impression with some activists
that they were a key component in the alliance against U.S.
intervention in Panama.

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has become a vocal
opponent of U.S. intervention and was a major critic of the U.S.
invasion of Panama. Clark has regularly worked in the same
anti-intervention projects as the LaRouchians, where their presence
would have been difficult not to notice. While there is no evidence
(or even a reasonable suspicion) that Clark willingly works with
the LaRouchians or shares any of their bigoted views, it is clear
the LaRouchians delight in implying that just such a relationship
exists between themselves and Clark, especially since Clark agreed
to represent the LaRouchians in filing legal appeals flowing out
of a series of federal criminal convictions of LaRouchian fundraisers
and LaRouche himself.

The ability of the LaRouchians to inject themselves into mainstream
debate around the issue of Panama is astonishing. For instance, at
the April, 1991 conference of the Latin American Studies Association
in Washington, D.C., a panel on Panama included LaRouchian expert
Carlos Wesley. Wesley was not the first choice. Two panelists from
Panama who were originally scheduled to appear did not receive
funding to attend the conference, so panel co-coordinator Donald
Bray from California State University in Los Angeles then called
a person he respected as an expert on Panama for advice on a last
minute replacement. "I called Carlos Russell, a Panamanian who now
teaches in the U.S., and who was a former Ambassador to the OAS
for a former Panamanian government," explains Bray. "He said `you
are not going to believe this, but I am going to recommend a
LaRouchite, Carlos Wesley.'" A slightly bemused Bray says he knew
Wesley from long ago and knew he was a reporter for LaRouche's
<Executive Intelligence Review>.  Still, this was a recommendation
from a credible Panamanian source so with some misgivings Bray
scheduled Wesley as a panelist.

Wesley was identified as a correspondent for <Executive Intelligence
Review> (<EIR>) but, according to author Holly Sklar, who attended
the session, many in the audience were not aware that <EIR> was a
LaRouche publication. "Of course if we had identified him as a
LaRouchian, nobody would have paid any attention to what he said,"
explained Bray.

The ties between LaRouche and Panama go back several years to when
LaRouche intelligence collectors began trading tidbits of information
with Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega. Following Noriega's indictment
for conspiracy in drug deals, journalist William Branigin, writing
in the <Washington Post> of June 18, 1988, noted that among Noriega's
few supporters in the United States was "political extremist Lyndon
H. LaRouche Jr., who has praised the general as a leader in the
war on drugs."

According to a January, 1990 <Associated Press> report, LaRouche
sent Noriega a cable after his indictment, telling the dictator "I
extend to you my apologies for what the government of the United
States is doing to the Republic of Panama." LaRouche told Noriega
"I reiterate to you what I have stated publicly. That the Reagan
administration current policies towards Panama are absolutely an
offense to your nation and all of Latin America." This type of
rhetoric shows how the LaRouchians can adopt a critique of U.S.
foreign policy ostensibly similar to that of the left, while weaving
in an <apologia> converting a drug-running dictator into a
drug-fighting humanitarian. LaRouche also has high praise for other
dictators, including the late Ferdinand Marcos. The LaRouchians
claim Marcos actually won his last election.

Another example of ideological cross-fertilization involves Cecilio
Simon, a Panamanian who is an administrator at the University of
Panama. Simon spoke along with Ramsey Clark and others at the April
6, 1990 "Voices from Panama" forum held at New York City's Town
Hall auditorium. Simon later spoke at the LaRouchian "Fifth
International Martin Luther King Tribunal of the Schiller Institute,"
on June 2, 1990 in Silver Spring, Maryland. These incidents
demonstrate how the LaRouchians continue to insert themselves into
anti-interventionist work and gain credibility on the left.


 Rightist Influences on the Christic Institute Theories

The problem of conflating documentable facts with analysis and
conclusions and then merging them with unsubstantiated conspiracy
theories popular on the far right has plagued progressive foreign
policy critiques for several years. The Christic Institute's "Secret
Team" theory is perhaps the most widespread example of the phenomenon.
While many of the charges raised by Christic regarding the La Penca
bombing and the private pro-Contra network are documented, some of
their assertions regarding the nature and operations of a long-standing
conspiracy of high-level CIA, military, and foreign policy advisors
inside the executive branch remain undocumented, and in a few
instances, are factually inaccurate.

There are two related questions in this matter.  One is whether or
not the case was handled properly with regard to the actual clients,
Martha Honey and Tony Avirgan. The other is how much unsubstantiated
conspiracism was made part of the case and its surrounding publicity.
This paper will focus on the issue of the undocumented conspiracy
theories.

It is arguable that while Christic pursued the broad conspiracy of
the "Secret Team", the bedrock portions of the case involving the
actual La Penca incidents took a back seat. A few weeks before the
case was slated for trial, the Christic Institute still had not
diagramed the elements of proof, a legal procedure where the text
of the complaint is broken down into a list of single elements that
have to be proven with either valid documentation, a sworn affidavit,
or a live witness. This had created problems for researchers and
lawyers who had no master list of what needed to be proven when
devising questions for depositions and witnesses.

When a special meeting was convened shortly before trial, it turned
out that for some of allegations concerning the alleged broad
"Secret Team" conspiracy, the only evidence in possession of the
Christic Institute was newspaper clippings and excerpts from
books--and in a few instances there was no evidence other than
uncorroborated assertions collected by researchers.

Raised at the meeting was the issue of whether or not the case had
unwittingly incorporated unsubstantiated conspiracy theories from
right-wing groups such as the LaRouchians. The staff was warned
that some defendants would likely prevail at trial due to lack of
court-quality evidence and would then likely pursue financial
penalties (called Rule 11 sanctions).[f-3]

These matters are important because Christic press statements have
fueled the idea, and many Christic Institute supporters believe,
that the dismissal of the case was just another example of a massive
government conspiracy and cover-up. It is undeniable that the
presiding judge was hostile to Christic and stretched judicial
discretion to the breaking point in dismissing the case. The
dismissal was unfair. However, according to a statement issued by
Christic client Tony Avirgan, the Institute must share at least
"partial responsibility for the dismissal of the La Penca law suit."

"It's sad that these issues have to be raised by `outsiders' such
as Berlet. But the truth is that criticism-self criticism, an
essential tool in any social movement, has never been tolerated by
the leaders of the Christic Institute. Those who criticized the
legal work of Sheehan were labelled as enemies and ignored. "

"There were, indeed, numerous undocumented allegations in the suit,
particularly in Sheehan's Affidavit of Fact. As plaintiffs in the
suit, Martha Honey and I struggled for years to try to bring the
case down to earth, to bringing it away from Sheehan's wild
allegations. Over the years, numerous staff lawyers quit over their
inability to control Sheehan. We stuck with it--and continued to
struggle--because we felt that the issues being raised were important.
But this was a law suit, not a political rally, and the hostile
judges latched on to the lack of proof and the sloppy legal work.
"

"The case, before it was inflated by Sheehan, was supposed to center
on the La Penca bombing. On this, there is a strong body of evidence
here in Costa Rica. It is enough evidence to get a reluctant Costa
Rican judiciary to indict two CIA operatives, John Hull and Felipe
Vidal, for murder and drug trafficking. Unfortunately, little of
this evidence was successfully transformed into evidence acceptable
to U.S.  courts. It was either never submitted or was poorly
prepared. In large part, this was because Sheehan was concentrating
on his broad, 30-year conspiracy. "

"The exercise Berlet suggested--breaking each allegation down and
compiling evidentiary proof for it--was indeed undertaken by
competent lawyers on the Christic Institute staff. But it was an
exercise begun too late. The case had already been spiked by
Sheehan's Affidavit. "

"We feel that it is important to openly discuss these things so
that similar mistakes are avoided in the future. "

Jane Hunter of <Israeli Foreign Affairs> agrees that some of the
Christic research is problematic. "As a researcher I have over the
years found nothing in the Christic case worth citing," says Hunter.
A number of other researchers and journalists have raised similarly
harsh criticisms of some of the allegations made in the Christic
case. David Corn, for instance, wrote a stinging assessment of the
Secret Team theory for the <Nation>. Other criticisms were aired
in other Jones>.

Dr. Diana Reynolds is one of the many critics of portions of the
Christic thesis. Reynolds thinks undocumented conspiracy theories
hurt the case.  She believes there is much solid evidence concerning
the actual La Penca bombing and aftermath, and some specific
Iran-Contra material, but she thinks "it is fair to say that some
right-wing conspiracy theories were woven into the theory behind
the Christic case." Reynolds read thousands of pages of depositions
taken by the Christic Institute while she was researching a story
on federal emergency planning, later published in <Covert Action
Information Bulletin>. According to Reynolds:

"It is clear to me from the depositions of Ed Wilson and Gene
Wheaton that the notion of a broad conspiracy conducted by the
so-called Enterprise, beyond the La Penca bombing and the specific
Iran-Contra scandal, has many holes. I am thoroughly convinced that
those two depositions contain the nub of the unsubstantiated
conspiracy theory, and I have said this for a very long time. When
we get into the Christic allegations regarding the Middle East and
Asia and the Camp David accords and forty years of conspiracy,
their thesis falls apart. "

Reynolds suggests it is fair to ask whether or not Christic was
manipulated by right-wing persons associated with factions in the
intelligence community. "It is curious that Wilson is a former
intelligence operative, and that Wheaton, at the same time he was
working for Christic, was also alleged by Mr. Owen in his Christic
deposition to be passing information to Neil Livingston at the
National Security Council to protect some of the people who were
implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal," says Reynolds. At least
two former Christic investigators say they warned Sheehan not to
rely on conspiratorial analysis and to be suspicious of material
from right-wing sources. Nevertheless, Sheehan was rebuked by his
own staff and others in Christic leadership for repeatedly lapsing
into an overly conspiratorial analysis in public appearances, and
for making claims that the Christic staff could not document or
otherwise support when responding to follow-up inquiries by reporters.

While the allegation that right-wing conspiracy theories were woven
into the case is hotly denied by Christic, the contacts by the
LaRouchians during the mid and late 1980's are not disputed.
According to a Christic spokesperson:

"In conducting investigations historically we have sometimes had
to get information from persons with whom one would not normally
associate. People like drug dealers, mercenaries and intelligence
agents. During our investigation, there were some meetings with
LaRouche staffers conducted by Lanny Sinkin and David MacMichael.
The information was always viewed very skeptically and none of it
found its way into our casework or courtroom materials. All those
contacts were stopped by 1989. We take seriously the view that the
LaRouche organization is an organization with whom progressives
should be very wary. "

David MacMichael and Lanny Sinkin are no longer affiliated with
the Christic Institute. Sinkin says his contact with the LaRouchians
while at Christic was limited to a few brief conversations.
MacMichael, a former CIA analyst turned agency critic who now writes
and lectures on covert action, has had a more extensive relationship
to the LaRouchians. MacMichael and Sinkin, however, were not the
only Christic investigators who received information from the
LaRouchians. Christic investigator Bill McCoy also received
information from the LaRouchians as did at least one other Christic
researcher, according to former staffers.

Sheehan was warned by his own staff in 1988 that contacts with the
research circles around LaRouche and Liberty Lobby were a problem
on both factual and moral grounds. Later Danny Sheehan appeared on
the <Undercurrents> program broadcast on WBAI-FM and other Pacifica
and progressive radio stations. Christic told the radio audience
that it was untrue that LaRouchians had supplied information to
the Christic Institute, and blasted a passing reference to this
matter in Dennis King's book, <Lyndon LaRouche and the New American
Fascism>. Shortly after Sheehan's statements, an offer to promote
King's book as a premium gift during an annual fundraising drive
for the radio station was withdrawn. King believes Sheehan's
unequivocal denial undercut the credibility of his book and was
responsible for WBAI withdrawing the original offer.

- The Right-Wing Roots of the "Secret Team" Theory -

Christic no longer uses the "Secret Team" slogan, but for the first
several years of the case, the Christic Institute used the term
"Secret Team" to describe the legal conspiracy they alleged in
court (a copy of the Prouty book sat in Sheehan's personal bookshelf
in his Christic office). There is no dispute that the "Secret Team"
theory came from the political right. The "Affidavit of Daniel P.
Sheehan" filed on December 12, 1986 and revised on January 31,
1987, refers frequently to the "Secret Team," and states explicitly
that the term came from right-wing sources.

"...I was contacted by Source #47, a right-wing para-military
specialist, former U.S. Army pilot in Vietnam and military reform
specialist in January of 1986. "

"Source #47, the Specialist, who was unaware of my investigation,
informed me that he had met--at a right-wing function--a former
U.S. military intelligence officer, Source #48...this source began
to discuss with Source #47 the existence of a "Secret Team" of
former high-ranking American CIA officials, former high-ranking
U.S. military officials and Middle Eastern arms merchants--who also
specialized in the performance of covert political assassinations
of communists and "enemies" of this "Secret Team" which carried on
its own independent, American foreign policy--regardless of the
will of Congress, the will of the President, or even the will of
the American Central Intelligence Agency. "

Critics of the Christic thesis say the "Secret Team" was not a
cabal operating against the will of the president or the CIA, but
was an illegal, secret government-sponsored operation established
by CIA director William Casey and coordinated by White House aide
Oliver North, with assistance from a network of ultra-right groups
who were determined to circumvent the will of Congress.  This
"Enterprise" at times worked closely with the Mossad and carried
out clandestine counterinsurgency missions. Some of these
counterinsurgency missions were based on the same model of pacification
used by U.S. Special Forces and clandestine CIA operations in
Vietnam. It is just this emphasis on counterinsurgency and clandestine
operations rather than direct military battles that forms the basis
of criticism in Fletcher Prouty's book <Secret Team>. Prouty
criticized the CIA for promoting covert action techniques which he
traced to the influence of the British intelligence service MI5 on
the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), precursor to the CIA. Prouty
said such meddling and convoluted efforts at fighting communism
resulted in the needless deaths of American servicemen. There is
no evidence of any obvious anti-Jewish conspiracy theories in the
Prouty book.

Some of the undocumented conspiracy theories regarding the CIA and
U.S. foreign policy that were widely circulated in progressive
circles before the Iran-Contragate scandal hit the headlines seem
to have appeared first in the LaRouchian's <Executive Intelligence
Review> or <New Solidarity> (later <New Federalist>), or in the
pages of Liberty Lobby's <Spotlight> newspaper.

The <Spotlight> for instance carried the first exclusive story on
"Rex 84" by writer James Harrer. "Rex 84" was one of a long series
of readiness exercises for government military, security and police
forces. "Rex 84"--Readiness Exercise, 1984--was a drill which
postulated a scenario of massive civil unrest and the need to round
up and detain large numbers of demonstrators and dissidents. While
creating scenarios and carrying out mock exercises is common, the
potential for Constitutional abuses under the contingency plans
drawn up for "Rex 84" was, and is, very real. The legislative
authorization and Executive agency capacity for such a round-up of
dissidents remains operational.

The April 23, 1984 <Spotlight> article ran with a banner headline
"Reagan Orders Concentration Camps." The article, true to form,
took a problematic swipe at the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai
B'rith along with reporting the facts of the story. The Harrer
article was based primarily on two unnamed government sources, and
follow-up confirmations. Mainstream reporters pursued the allegations
through interviews and Freedom of Information Act requests, and
ultimately the Harrer <Spotlight> article proved to be a substantially
accurate account of the readiness exercise, although <Spotlight>
did underplay the fact that this was a scenario and drill, not an
actual order to round up dissidents.

Many people believe that Christic was the first group to reveal
the "Rex 84" story. According to the 1986 Sheehan "Affidavit"
revised in 1987:

"During the second week of April of 1984, I was informed by Source
#4 that President Ronald Reagan had, on April 6, 1984, issued
National Security Decision Directive #52 authorizing the Federal
Emergency Management Agency director Louis O. Giuffrida and his
Deputy Frank Salcedo to undertake a secret nation-wide, `readiness
exercise' code-named `Rex 84....' "

The impression left is that a Christic source exclusively developed
this information and quietly handed it over to Sheehan. In fact,
the second week of April 1984, the "Rex 84" story was bannered on
the front page of the <Spotlight> and available in coin-boxes all
over Capitol Hill.  <Spotlight> had previously reported extensively
on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other government
initiatives that threatened civil liberties.

Sheehan has told reporters that the "Rex 84" story did not come
from <Spotlight>, but would not respond to questions as to whether
or not Source #4 could document where the information came from.
This is important because in at least one other instance, previously
published research was attributed by Sheehan to Source #4. According
to the 1986 Sheehan "Affidavit" revised in 1987:

"In early May of 1984, I was supplied by Source #4 with a number
of documents describing, in some detail, a project supervised by
then Special Assistant California State Attorney General Edwin
Meese code-named "Project Cable Splicer"...part of a larger program,
code-named "Project Garden Plot"--which was a nation-wide war games
scenario...to establish a nation-wide state of martial law if
Richard Nixon's "political enemies" required him to declare a State
of National Emergency. "

While the descriptions of Cable Splicer and Garden Plot are accurate,
the source is deceptively obscured. The original story of Cable
Splicer and Garden Plot broke in the alternative press in 1975 in
an article by Ron Ridenhour with Arthur Lublow published in Arizona's
<New Times>.  Garden Plot was also the cover story for the Winter
1976 issue of <CounterSpy> magazine.  Dozens of pages of the unedited
official documents from Garden Plot and Cable Splicer were reprinted
in the magazine. Copies of the official documents were made available
to trial teams in several cities litigating against illegal government
intelligence abuse.

Several former Christic staffers, who asked to remain nameless,
suggest that, at the very least, a critical reevaluation of some
allegations made in the Christic case would be beneficial in light
of the possibility that material from far-right, conspiracist or
anti-Jewish sources was uncritically woven into the original "Secret
Team" Christic thesis. They say that the Christic theories need to
be reassessed with the ulterior motives and credibility of those
sources in mind.

The Christic Institute was supplied with the text of the criticisms
raised in this section of the report, as well as an extensive list
of written questions. With the exception of the quote regarding
the LaRouchians, they chose not to respond.


Barbara Honneger, The October Surprise & The LaRouchians

In many way the LaRouche organization, with its slickly repackaged
conspiracy theories, serves as a nexus for a number of tendencies
on the political right, ranging from ultra-conservatives to outright
fascists and white supremacists.  LaRouchian material on AIDS, for
instance, is cited by homophobic organizations such as the
fundamentalist Christian group Summit Ministries.  It seems clear
that the LaRouche network reaches out to many constituencies,
including some that seem improbable on the surface, including some
on the left.

Over the past few years the LaRouchians have solicited contacts
with a number of critics of U.S. foreign policy and intelligence
agency practices, sometimes with surprising success. In many cases,
it is the LaRouchian intelligence network that serves as a broker
for information flowing between left-wing and right-wing groups.
LaRouchians appear to have first penetrated the left in recent
years when they began to trade information on covert action and
CIA misconduct.  The LaRouchians were early critics of the Oliver
North network. In the early 1980's, LaRouche intelligence operatives
such as Jeffrey Steinberg maintained close ties to a faction in
the National Security Council which opposed Oliver North's activities.
At the same time the LaRouchians quietly began providing information
to mainstream and progressive reporters and researchers.

The Christic Institute and the Empowerment Project which distributes
the film "CoverUp:  Behind the Iran-Contra Affair" are major
promoters of Barbara Honegger's theories regarding an alleged
"October Surprise." The October Surprise was the term used among
Reagan campaign aides to describe the possibility that the Iranian
government might arrange for the release of U.S. hostages prior to
the election which pitted incumbent Jimmy Carter against challenger
Ronald Reagan. Barbara Honneger alleges in her book <October
Surprise> that Reagan campaign aides did negotiate with representatives
of the Iranian government to delay any hostage release until after
the 1980 election. Substantial circumstantial evidence exists to
suggest such a charge might be true, but there is little incontrovertible
proof.

Honneger's research and analysis are questionable. In the 1989
edition of her book <October Surprise>, Honneger cites frequently
to LaRouche's <Executive Intelligence Review>. While some material
in EIR is factual, other material presented as fact is unsubstantiated
rumor or lunatic conspiracy theories. Some anti-fascist researchers
also assume that information in EIR occasionally represents calculated
leaks by current and former government intelligence agents and
right-wing activists to achieve a desired political goal. This
practice is a common tactic in power struggles and faction fights
over policy.

While Honneger sometimes cites to progressive periodicals such as
<In These Times> and <The Nation>,, more than six percent (49 out
of a total 771) of the footnotes in Honneger's book cite LaRouchian
publications such as <EIR, New Solidarity, >and <New Federalist>.
In one chapter on "Project Diplomacy," Honneger LaRouchian cites
account for over 22 percent of the total number of footnotes.

Honneger also makes assertions that strain credulity. She quotes
without comment the claim of Eugene Wheaton that the CIA is actually
secretly controlled by a group of retired members of the OSS.

In the July/August 1991 issue of <The Humanist>, both David MacMichael
and Barbara Trent of the Empowerment project defend Honneger and
suggest PBS refused to show "Coverup" because it contained serious
charges against the U.S.  government. As Trent put it:

"It was no big surprise that there was a problem getting `Coverup'
on PBS. Programs that address U.S. foreign policy in particular
and are not in agreement with the policies of the sitting president
rarely get much of a chance on TV. "

In fact, PBS has aired on the "Frontline" series programs about
the October Surprise and CIA involvement in drug trafficking. PBS
has also aired two Bill Moyers specials on Iran-Contragate that
concluded that Reagan lied repeatedly and may have committed
impeachable offenses, and that evidence exists to suggest that
Bush's role in the Contra resupply operation was far more direct
than he has admitted. The primary difference between the shows
broadcast by PBS and "Coverup" is the reliance in "Coverup" on
Barbara Honneger and Danny Sheehan and their unsubstantiated and
undocumented charges. It would have been difficult for PBS to
justify running Honneger's assertions given her reliance on material
supplied by neo-Nazis with a history of circulating unreliable
information.

"Coverup" also promotes the Christic theme that Iran-Contragate
was caused by a long-standing conspiracy of individual agents. In
contrast to this individualistic formulation, the Moyers programs
stress a systemic failure: that the lack of congressional oversight
over foreign policy and covert action has created a Constitutional
crisis where the balance of powers between branches of government
has been skewed toward the executive branch.



The Gulf War

The right's attempt to influence and recruit the left became highly
visible during the Gulf War crisis in late 1990 and early 1991. As
the movement against the war in the Middle East began to build, a
handful of far-right and anti-Jewish groups began to seek alliances
with liberal, progressive, and left antiwar coalitions. It is
important to recognize that as a whole the antiwar movement
overwhelmingly rejected these overtures by the political right,
while recognizing that the attempt reflects a larger ongoing problem.


 Sowing Confusion

The rightist efforts caused problems across the country, especially
attempts by followers of neo-fascist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. to
forge ties with liberal and left antiwar coalitions. Other fascist
groups organizing against the war included the Populist Party,
Liberty Lobby, and some elements of the white supremacist movement.
Other far-right and ultra-conservative groups opposing the war
included some factions in the Libertarian movement, the John Birch
Society, and groups purveying general rightist conspiracy theories.

Most persons in the antiwar movement seemed unaware of the backgrounds
and ideology of the several rightist groups that sought alliances
during the Gulf War period, and merely were hoping to build a
broad-based alliance. Still, some activists fear that in the future,
fragile coalitions around peace and social justice issues could be
seriously damaged by the presence of bigoted ultra-right forces,
and argue that on moral grounds alone, coalitions with fascist,
racist, and anti-Jewish groups are not acceptable.

Some of the rightist and anti-Jewish groups that opposed the Gulf
War also have a racialist white supremacist ideology that not only
considers persons of Jewish and Arab heritage to be inferior, but
believes no person of color has a legitimate claim to citizenship
in the United States. Within weeks of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait,
there were reports of physical attacks on and threats against both
Arab and Jewish institutions and persons of Arab and Jewish descent.
Left groups which tolerate or apologize for persons who have allied
themselves with the racialist ultra-right send a message that such
views, which motivate acts of discrimination and assault, are an
acceptable part of political debate in our society.

Most conservatives and rightists supported the U.S. involvement in
the Gulf War. The actual attempts by the sectors of the political
right who opposed the war were varied by both locale and method.

The antiwar rightist groups generally did not seek actual coalitions
with the left, but instead passed out handbills at large antiwar
demonstrations as a recruitment mechanism. For example, the
ultra-conservative and conspiracist John Birch Society distributed
antiwar flyers at Merrimack College in Massachusetts, and at a
downtown Boston antiwar rally.

For many on the left, this was their first experience with a
courtship by the ultra-right.  Author Sara Diamond urges left
activists to be suspicious of the motives of the opportunistic
right which approached the left during the Gulf War. Diamond, whose
book <Spiritual Warfare> chronicled the religious right in America,
warned, "one can only speculate that they wanted to recruit people
into their own organizations and then leave the left discredited."
She added that no matter what the motivation, however, the proposed
alliance was a bad idea.

One danger posed by the right wing's recruitment attempts is that
the widespread conspiracism in some sectors of the far right has
found fertile ground among naive or uncritical forces on the left.
The problem is exacerbated when rightists put forward their paranoid
and sometimes anti-Jewish theories in progressive circles where
conspiracist or prejudiced sentiments have been tolerated rather
than routinely confronted.  Within the U.S. progressive movement,
the issue of an undercurrent of anti-Jewish bigotry among some
pro-Palestinian, Black nationalist, and left groups has been under
discussion for several years.

What the left faces is the task of carefully drawing distinctions
between views that are solely anti-Zionist or critical of the state
of Israel's policies, and views that reflect bigoted conspiracy
theories about persons of Jewish heritage. If peace and social
justice forces do not publicly reject anti-Jewish bigots, this task
becomes impossible, and the charge of anti-Semitism will taint the
entire progressive movement.

The utilization of scapegoating conspiracies is by no means limited
to the fascist right, but during the Gulf War some antiwar activists
became attracted to scurrilous conspiratorial theories of elite
control circulated by right-wing researchers. One conspiracy theorist
who gained high visibility during the Gulf War was Craig Hulet.
Another conspiracy theorist, Antony Sutton, avoids explicit
anti-Jewish rhetoric, but pursues a line promoting arcane banking
conspiracies (often involving Jewish banking families traditionally
scapegoated by bigots).  Sutton also has supported racial separatism
between Blacks and whites in South Africa.  Another theorist,
Eustace Mullins, is a notorious anti-Jewish bigot who focuses on
anti-Jewish conspiracy theories in which the Rothschilds and other
Jews control the world economy. Mullins' work is promoted by U.S.
white supremacist and neo-Nazi circles. Persons supporting the
neo-fascist Populist Party used Hulet's radio appearances on
progressive Pacifica network radio station KPFA in San Francisco
to organize study groups where the theories of Mullins and Sutton
were promoted.


 The LaRouchians and the Gulf War

The most disruptive rightist penetration of antiwar groups was by
the LaRouchians. The LaRouchians generally operate under front
groups such as Food for Peace, Schiller Institute, and <Executive
Intelligence Review>. Some local antiwar groups have worked with
the LaRouchians, while others have not. While often described merely
as conservative or extremist, the LaRouche organization and its
various front groups are a fascist political movement with echoes
of neo-Nazi ideology. The group's ultimate leader, Lyndon H.
LaRouche, Jr., is currently in jail because his fundraisers sold
unsecured securities to the elderly and because LaRouche paid no
taxes while living in a Virginia mansion. LaRouche was sentenced
in January, 1989 to fifteen years in prison after a federal court
found LaRouche and six codefendants guilty of a mail fraud conspiracy
related to fundraising. LaRouche was also convicted of tax evasion.
On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court let the convictions stand without
comment.

LaRouche's lawyers have repeatedly sued activist critics who describe
him as a fascist, racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Jewish bigot,
lunatic cult leader, neo-Nazi racial theorist, crook, and demagogue.
LaRouche has lost every case. One jury in Virginia found that
calling LaRouche a "small-time Hitler" was not defamatory and then
awarded damages to the news organization sued by LaRouche.

During the Gulf War the LaRouchians appeared at antiwar rallies
and meetings in thirty cities, including New York, Boston, Washington,
D.C., Richmond, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, Ann Arbor,
St. Louis, Omaha, Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

At the University of Ottawa in Canada, LaRouche's Schiller Institute
co-sponsored an antiwar event with an organization of Middle Eastern
students.  At an October 20, 1990 antiwar demonstration in New York
City, the Schiller Institute had four people carrying a large banner
and a small group of supporters organized in a contingent. The
LaRouchians have passed out petitions at antiwar rallies, and then
called the persons who signed the petitions to solicit money for
the LaRouche organization. Other fundraising pitches are made at
antiwar rallies.
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15653 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1657
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!lanai.cs.ucla.edu!pierce
From: [e-mail] (Brad Pierce)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Right Woos Left (3 of 6)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Jun 92 20:05:52 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr Usenet)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Lines: 688
Originator: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: lanai.cs.ucla.edu

The following article is reprinted *without* permission.

---------------- Part 3 of 6 -------------------------------------------

Copyright (c) 1991 by Chip Berlet. All rights reserved.

RIGHT WOOS LEFT:

Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To
Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected


by Chip Berlet

Political Research Associates

December 16, 1991


"Fascism and Reaction inevitably attack. They have won against
disunion. They will fail if we unite."

(George Seldes )

<You Can't Do That>, 1938


Political Research Associates
678 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 205
Cambridge, MA 02139
[phone]

------------------- Part 3 begins here ---------------------------------

In a flyer announcing a December 15, 1990 rally, a group called
simply the "LaRouche Organization" was originally listed as a
coalition member. The presence of the LaRouchians, as well as other
anti-Jewish bigots, in the St. Louis antiwar coalition originally
caused consternation, especially among members of New Jewish Agenda,
a group which supports a democratic Israel, Palestinian rights,
and a Palestinian homeland.  When coalition leaders were provided
with documentation of LaRouchian attacks on Jews, Blacks and other
minorities, including LaRouchian support for the apartheid government
of South Africa, the LaRouche supporters were booted out of the
coalition.

In Los Angeles, several LaRouchians were dismayed when the local
antiwar coalition pointed to its principles of unity, which included
a call for a sensible non-nuclear energy policy. The LaRouchians
are vocal supporters of nuclear power. In Richmond, Virginia, local
antiwar organizers simply kept shouting at the LaRouchians to "shut
up" when they began their bizarre spiels and for a time the
LaRouchians stopped coming to meetings. The LaRouchians soon
returned, but attempted to keep a low profile while persistently
circulating their literature.

During December, LaRouche's followers held vigils on a number of
campuses to build support for a touted "National Teach-In to Stop
the War" held December 15-16 in Chicago. The Chicago conference,
titled "Development is the New Name for Peace," turned out to be
the annual LaRouche-sponsored Food for Peace Conference, repackaged
to attract antiwar activists. The conference drew over 350 attendees.
Several persons active with the St. Louis African-American
Anti-War/Peace Coalition who attended the conference were later
asked to leave the Coalition for being disruptive and spreading
anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, according to several St. Louis
activists who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Only three dozen students were sprinkled among the crowd which drew
persons from California, Oregon, North and South Dakota, Maryland,
New Jersey, Virginia, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nebraska, and the
Canadian province of Quebec.  Many in the audience were farmers.
Close to one-third of the conference attendees were African-Americans.

While the number of students was small, the emphasis on the situation
in the Middle East was not neglected. LaRouche regulars Mel Klenetsky
and Nancy Spannaus moderated the program which included a videotaped
message and live phone patch from the cultural attache for the
Iraqi embassy, Dr. Mayser Al Mallah. The LaRouche organization has
maintained ties with the Iraqi Ba'ath Party for many years, according
to several former LaRouchian intelligence gatherers who have left
the group.

Other panelists at the LaRouchian conference included the Rev.
James Bevel, an early civil rights leader now active in several
LaRouchian front groups; a representative from Minister Louis
Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, Dr. Abdul Alim Muhammad, editor of
the <Final Call>; and Gene Wheaton, a private investigator who
works with both left-wing and right-wing critics of U.S.  clandestine
operations.


How The LaRouchians Exploited Antiwar Organizers

A long-time political activist who marched with the Cleveland
contingent in the January 19th antiwar demonstration in Washington,
D.C. was more than a little surprised when he noticed that people
in the contingent next to him were passing out literature from
Lyndon LaRouche's political front groups. "They were beating a drum
and chanting `George Bush, You Can't Hide, the New World Order is
Genocide,'" he reports. "There were about 100 people, many elderly,
some Black," he says, and one flyer they handed out carried a
headline scolding, "U.S. Citizens Must Recognize Their Past Mistakes
and Support LaRouche." There was a large banner and some people
carried signs that said "Free LaRouche, Jail the ADL." At the march
the LaRouchians passed out their <New Federalist> newspaper. "A
lot of people who remember <New Solidarity> don't realize its new
name is <New Federalist>," said the Cleveland activist.

According to Gavrielle Gemma, coordinator of the National Coalition
to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East (the group that
sponsored the January 19th antiwar demonstration in Washington,
D.C.), the official policy of the Coalition is to reject any work
with the LaRouchians. Although the LaRouchians and their supporters
involved themselves in Coalition activities during the Gulf War,
these incidents did not reflect the official policy of the Coalition,
according to several Coalition spokespersons, but were attempts
(sometimes successful) by the LaRouchians and their allies to
portray themselves as part of the Coalition.

Specifically, in interviews with several Coalition spokespersons
the following picture of how the LaRouchians manipulated and
exploited the Coalition emerged:

*** The Rev. James Bevel had not been invited to the January 4th
Coalition press conference featuring former U.S. Attorney General
Ramsey Clark which was aired on the C-SPAN cable channel. Bevel
arrived with an invited speaker, a Black serviceman resisting
assignment to the Gulf. Although Bevel had worked with the LaRouchians
for many months prior to the press conference, it was not until
weeks after the press conference that Coalition leadership became
aware that Bevel had ties to the LaRouche organization.

*** People affiliated with the Coalition, who defended the appearance
of Bevel, were reacting to Bevel's past history as a respected
civil rights leader, and were not aware, or found it impossible to
accept, that Bevel had now aligned himself with far-right groups.

*** A contingent of LaRouchians who marched in the Coalition's
January 19th demonstration in Washington, D.C. did so against the
expressed wishes of Coalition leadership.

*** A security marshal who told demonstrators on January 19th not
to continue a chant critical of the LaRouchians was unaware of who
the LaRouchians were, and was merely trying to enforce the policy
of ensuring peaceful relations among contingents.

*** Although Ramsey Clark has chosen not to say anything critical
of the LaRouchians due to his representation of them in legal
matters, the Coalition does not hesitate to criticize roundly the
LaRouchians as fascists and anti-Semites.

*** The apparent reluctance among some persons affiliated with the
Coalition to discuss charges of LaRouchian involvement with reporters
did not reflect the views of the leadership of the Coalition, and
in some cases appears to reflect a disbelief among these persons
that the LaRouchians had managed successfully to portray themselves
as part of the Coalition.

*** December, 1990 and January, 1991 were chaotic and confusing
months and the official position of the Coalition regarding a
refusal to work with the LaRouchians was perhaps not made clear to
all persons actively organizing Coalition events around the country.

*** While the LaRouchians appear to abuse their legal relationship
to attorney Clark by using his name in their publicity and implying
his political support, it is the firm belief of the Coalition that
Clark's refusal to comment on this circumstance reflects a personal
ethical position, and in no way implies any connection between
Clark and the political work of the LaRouchians.

Leaders of the National Coalition to Stop U.S.  Intervention in
the Middle East are aware that the LaRouchians continue to attempt
to penetrate their organization, and urge persons who find LaRouchians
portraying themselves as official members of the Coalition to
challenge that claim.  Anyone who continues to claim the Coalition
tolerates the presence of the LaRouchians should be referred to
the national office of the Coalition for a short and clear rejection
of that contention.

"We do not work with fascists or anti-Semites," said Coalition
coordinator Gavrielle Gemma, "and that includes the LaRouchites."
Gemma says this is not only the Coalition attitude, but her own as
well, noting that she once personally threw some LaRouchians off
a picket line during the Greyhound strike.

Apparently the position of the Coalition leadership against working
with the LaRouchians, now clearly unequivocal, was slow to reach
all organizers during the chaotic months of December, 1990 and
January, 1991. This lack of clarity among rank-and-file organizers,
some of whom were inexperienced, coupled with the LaRouchians'
manipulative opportunism, the Coalition's uncertainty over Bevel's
tie to the LaRouchians, and Ramsey Clark's silence on the LaRouchians'
use of his name, created enough confusion so that some organizers
for the Coalition at first defended Bevel's appearance at the
January 4th press conference, and defended the participation of
various LaRouchian front groups in Coalition events. It also turns
out that a report issued by the LaRouchian Schiller Institute, and
cited at the January 4th press conference was in fact introduced
by a LaRouchian attending the press conference as a reporter.

Chicago antiwar organizer Alynne Romo reports the local Emergency
Coalition for Peace in the Middle East has "asked the LaRouchians
not to participate when they have appeared at our demonstrations."
According to Romo, "The LaRouche people called us several times.
They told us Margaret Thatcher was behind the situation in Iraq
and that she put George Bush up to it." Romo adds that "they also
said they were working with Ramsey Clark as a way to get us to
cooperate."

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark is the lead legal counsel
for an appeal filed by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. and six followers
convicted of loan fraud. On October 6, 1989, Clark appeared and
gave oral arguments in the case before a three judge panel of the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia to argue for
the reversal of the convictions.

The right of Mr. Clark to represent the LaRouche organization is
not disputed, but when the LaRouchians use his name in a political
rather than legal context, problems arise. Based on several dozen
interviews with antiwar activists in twenty cities, it appears that
sometimes LaRouchians fundraisers and organizers mention they work
with Ramsey Clark, while other times they do not. The use by the
LaRouchians of Clark's name has been very effective at college
student government meetings where many students have never heard
of LaRouche, and tend to be sympathetic to his claims of government
harassment. After gaining an audience, the LaRouchians encourage
the student leaders to join their "coalition" and to authorize
college funding.

Sam Schwartz, a faculty member at Bronx Community College in New
York, received a phone call from a LaRouche attorney threatening
to sue Schwartz penniless unless he stopped telling students that
LaRouche was an anti-Semite and fascist. Several African-Americans
active in St. Louis who objected to the presence of the LaRouchians
in a local antiwar coalition were also threatened with lawsuits
for their critical characterization of the LaRouche movement. Clark
has not been involved in these threats of lawsuits.

Since Clark took on the LaRouche appeal, the LaRouchians have
blazoned Clark's name across a substantial amount of propaganda
used both in fundraising and in coaxing persons into consideration
of the political message of the organization. Sometimes the LaRouchian
references to Clark simply cause confusion. One antiwar activist
who was handed a LaRouchian pamphlet mentioning Clark was at first
convinced the LaRouchians were cleverly trying to smear Clark by
using his name.

The LaRouchians frequently attempt to build coalitions in a sly
manner. For instance activist Lanny Sinkin, a former attorney for
the Christic Institute, appeared at a March, 1991 post-war panel
sponsored by a Washington, D.C. group called The Time is Now. Also
on the panel were two key LaRouche operatives and a leader of The
Time is Now. According to a staff member of the Washington Peace
Center, members of The Time is Now worked closely with the LaRouchians
and thoroughly disrupted the political work of the Washington Area
Coalition to Stop U.S.  Intervention in the Middle East during
January and February, 1991. When members of The Time is Now passed
out LaRouche's <Executive Intelligence Review> at a February meeting,
they were asked to leave the coalition. When criticized by the
Peace Center staffer, Sinkin defended his appearance at the conference
as legitimate outreach, according to the staffer.

Sinkin says he was unaware when invited that LaRouchians would also
be on the panel, and he vigorously denies that he has ever had any
ongoing relationship with the LaRouchians or that his actions were
improper. Sinkin says that his appearance reflected his commitment
to speaking to broad audiences. Organizers at the Washington Peace
Center counter that Sinkin's presence at the meeting lent credibility
to two groups that were disrupting their work.

The issue here is not one of implying any type of ongoing relationship
between Sinkin and the LaRouchians. No such relationship exists.
But for the Washington Peace Center, Sinkin's appearance on the
same platform with the LaRouchians served as an implicit endorsement,
suggesting by example that joint work with the LaRouchians was
acceptable at the same time that the Peace Center was telling
members of the local antiwar coalition that joint work with the
LaRouchians was unacceptable.A number of experienced antiwar
activists warn that working with the LaRouchians and other far-right
and bigoted forces will only discredit serious work towards peace
in the Middle East. Jon Hillson is a seasoned political organizer
and peace activist based in Ohio who already knew the history of
the LaRouchians.  Hillson reported LaRouche organizers at events
sponsored by the Cleveland Committee Against War in the Persian
Gulf. At one meeting, "Two people went through the crowd handing
out LaRouche's <New Federalist>," says Hillson. "I was shocked,
but then I realized most students had never heard of LaRouche,"
says Hillson. "I would urge people to disavow any collaboration
with them because of their past ties to government agencies...and
their homophobic, racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic agenda." Hillson
notes that it will take patience to explain to new activists why
a broad-based coalition should exclude anyone, but that the task
of educating people that coalitions with fascists should be rejected
is not one to be ignored.


 How the LaRouchians Exploit Ramsey Clark

An <Associated Press (AP)> account of Clark's Fourth Circuit oral
arguments noted that "former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, chief
attorney for LaRouche's appeal, argued that U.S. District Judge
Albert V. Bryan Jr. of Alexandria allowed only thirty-four days
from arraignment to trial and failed to adequately question jurors
on how much they knew about the defendant."

The Fourth Circuit ruled against LaRouche, saying LaRouche's original
attorneys had waited eighteen days before asking for a continuance.
An <AP> story about the decision reported that the appeals panel
"also said LaRouche's attorneys made no attempt to press potential
jurors to determine `individually anyone who had ever heard of
LaRouche,' although certain jurors who said they were familiar with
the case or who had worked in law enforcement or had accounting or
tax backgrounds were questioned individually."

On further appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court let the convictions stand
without a hearing or comment.

In fact, more than a few civil libertarians agree there was evidence
of misconduct in the government's investigation of LaRouche, and
the closing of LaRouche's newspaper <New Solidarity> in a federal
bankruptcy proceeding raised serious constitutional issues. Still,
there is no clear evidence that the alleged government misconduct
had a direct bearing on the criminal prosecution of LaRouche and
his aides.

When Clark has spoken at LaRouchian-sponsored press conferences
concerning the case, there has been extensive coverage in the
LaRouchian press.  One such story featuring Clark appeared in
LaRouche's <New Federalist> on October 13, 1989.  Clark was quoted
as saying that even though he had once been a political opponent
of LaRouche, he had now come to his defense because of constitutional
abuses such as a fast jury selection process, massive prejudicial
pretrial publicity, and a jury pool which contained numerous
government employees, including law enforcement agents from agencies
that had allegedly targeted LaRouche.

Ramsey Clark has steadfastly refused to disassociate his legal work
for the LaRouchians from the political work of the LaRouchians,
despite the fact that the LaRouchians imply Clark's support in
numerous newspaper and magazine articles. Most critics of Clark's
silence regarding the LaRouchians say they understand he has a duty
as an attorney to represent the LaRouchians fully and vigorously,
but feel he has not been sensitive to the ways in which the
LaRouchians are using his name in the political arena. These critics
point out that the ethical imperatives for an attorney are different
than the moral obligations of a leader of an antiwar movement. They
say Clark has a political responsibility to distance himself from
the LaRouche organization, which is separate from his role as their
attorney.

Sometimes it appears that Clark's support of the LaRouche cause
has moved beyond mere legal representation. According to the July
6, 1990 <New Federalist>, on June 19, 1990, Clark spoke at a private
meeting coordinated with the Conference on Security and Cooperation
in Europe (CSCE), a multi-governmental association and human rights
forum that solicits input from non-governmental groups. The <New
Federalist> reported that "Clark's trip was sponsored by the Schiller
Institute's Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations, a
non-governmental organization which is urging the CSCE to take up
the case of Lyndon LaRouche, the U.S. economist and statesman who
is now America's most prominent political prisoner." The Schiller
Institute is a LaRouchian front group which once published a book
claiming British Jews helped put Hitler into power.

In his CSCE speech, Clark is reported to have said he had reviewed
a random selection of sixty-five published articles on LaRouche
appearing in the several years prior to LaRouche's prosecution.
Clark reportedly said "here you see that he's called every bad
thing you can imagine--Nazi, anti-Semitic, violence-prone, thief--over
and over again.  Vilification...it was absolutely astounding."

The <New Federalist> article reported that Clark said that LaRouche
was prosecuted on "economic crimes that didn't exist, because this
was a political movement, it was not a for-profit activity and
wasn't intended to be a for-profit activity, it was a political
movement. You make three sentences for five years each to impose
a fifteen-year sentence on a man who's sixty-six years old. To
destroy a political movement.  Obviously....Unless you can wrench
[the political process] free from [the] plutocracy that absolutely
controls with an iron hand that essentially one-party system, you
won't have that change. And that's what the Lyndon LaRouche case
is about: you."

At a February 28, 1991 international conference in Algeria to oppose
U.S. intervention in the Gulf, Clark shared the podium with long-time
LaRouche associate Jacques Cheminade, president of the Schiller
Institute in France.

- Clark Responds -

Clark confirmed in an interview that he had spoken about the LaRouche
case in Europe at the CSCE conference, but said he had not seen
the transcript of his speech that appeared in LaRouche's <New
Federalist>, and said his speech was not written in advance so he
had no copy. If the report of Clark's comments in <New Federalist>
are accurate--and to a large degree they reflect wording in the
appeals brief he signed--then there are serious questions as to
what he thinks of the LaRouchians. Clark seems to discount as
propaganda the charges that the LaRouchians are fascists, anti-Semites,
or neo-Nazis. Other critics question Mr. Clark's decision to appear
at the CSCE-related meeting at all, pointing out that such appearances
go beyond legal representation.

Clark said he had not seen any materials suggesting the LaRouche
people were using his name to organize students and others into
their antiwar work but he would like to see that material or any
other related information. But Clark seemed relatively unconcerned
that the LaRouchians might be using or abusing his name in their
political work. "That's a risk you always have," as a defense
counsel, said Clark.

Clark said that the somewhat glowing description of the LaRouche
political movement in the appeals brief he signed reflected the
right of any defendant to portray itself in a positive light.

According to Clark, the prosecution of LaRouche in Virginia was a
travesty of procedure and a clear violation of the Constitutional
right to a fair trial. Clark said the issue was not whether or not
the LaRouche people were guilty of crimes, but whether or not they
had received a fair trial. On the question of representation of
controversial clients on legal appeals, Clark said:

"It's a question of rights, not a question of facts. I remain
focused on the legal rights and not the nature of the person
involved. I oppose the death penalty on principle, I assume many
of the people who I represent on death penalty appeals are in fact
guilty, but that is not the point. If you have to apologize first
you have a done a disservice to the case. I resist government abuses
of people's rights. The government demonizes people...once you have
conceded the demon you have lost the principle involved in the
defense. By prefacing a defense by first saying `of course, he is
a terrible person' it disables people from considering the matter
fairly. "

Clark said the government had demonized people like Saddam Hussein
and Lyndon LaRouche and that he felt it was not appropriate to give
in to the pejorative labeling of such persons when discussing their
activities. This is the same rationale used by Clark in 1986 when
he was criticized for not distancing himself from his client Karl
Linnas, a Nazi collaborator who was eventually deported because he
had lied about his past to gain entrance to the U.S. after World
War II. Clark represented Linnas in an appeal which objected to
the procedures followed in the deportation. Critics of Clark,
including Daniel Levitas of the Center for Democratic Renewal, said
Clark was insensitive to the fact that anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi
groups were using Clark's appeal to buttress their claims that
Linnas was innocent or that the Holocaust was a hoax.[f-5]


 Rev. James Bevel

The Rev. James Bevel is an African-American minister from Chicago
with a long history of civil rights work but a recent reputation
as an opportunist who has swung far to the right. Rev.  Bevel now
works closely with groups controlled by two neo-fascists, the Rev.
Sun Myung Moon and Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. The Moon network supported
the war effort, while the LaRouchians did not. Bevel focused his
energy in opposing the Gulf War, primarily through an alliance with
the LaRouchians. Bevel's ties to the LaRouchians go back several
years. Bevel not only appeared as a panelist at the LaRouchian
antiwar conference in Chicago, but he also has endorsed LaRouche's
congressional candidacy, and speaks regularly at LaRouchian forums.
Bevel has served on committees created by several LaRouchian front
groups, and writes a column for the LaRouchian newspaper <New
Federalist>. Bevel has been an effective organizer for the LaRouchians,
and took a high profile in their antiwar organizing.

Dr. Manning Marable, in a 1986 column, listed Bevel among a small
group of "prominent civil rights spokesmen [who] have gone so far
as to form alliances with ultra-right groups, which might give
lipservice to blacks' traditional interests." The LaRouchians have
sought coalitions with local African-American community activists
for many years, often working through religious leaders. A recent
example was the LaRouchian support for then Washington, D.C.  Mayor
Marion Barry. During Barry's trial on drug charges, the LaRouchians
and the Nation of Islam helped organize protests on behalf of Barry.
The LaRouchian representative during these protests was Bevel.

When Bevel endorsed Lyndon LaRouche's congressional candidacy (in
Virginia's 10th Congressional District), he signed a statement
which included the claim, "Lyndon LaRouche is known and respected
in every nation of the Third World as the primary opponent of the
genocide policies of the IMF and as the architect and principal
spokesman for a new and more just world economic order that guarantees
the inalienable rights of all people." The statement speaks glowingly
of LaRouche's early theorizing about the AIDS virus and his
recommendations for fighting the spread of the virus. In fact, as
mentioned before, LaRouche has written that history would not judge
harshly those persons who took to the streets and beat homosexuals
to death with baseball bats to stop the spread of AIDS.

Bevel represented the LaRouchian Schiller Institute in Omaha,
Nebraska. The <Omaha World-Herald> reported on January 6, 1991:

""Bevel was one of 10 people who came to Nebraska in October as
members of a group calling itself the Citizens Fact-Finding Commission
to Investigate Human rights Violations of Children in Nebraska.
That group was organized by the Schiller Institute of Washington,
D.C., and Wiesbaden, Germany. The institute was founded in 1984 by
Helga Zepp-LaRouche. She is the wife of Lyndon LaRouche, who is
serving a 15-year sentence for fraud and tax evasion....The Schiller
group's printed statement disputed the findings of two grand juries
in the Franklin case. A check by the <World-Herald> of some of the
`facts' in the statement turned up several apparent errors. "

While Rev. Bevel's historic role as a valued civil rights leader
is unquestioned, he has in recent years lost his constituency and
his political moorings. Dr. Manning Marable noted noted in 1986
that Bevel, had become "a Republican party leader in Chicago's
Black community, and soon earned the reputation as an extremist of
the right."

Some time after the LaRouche conviction in January 1989, Bevel
began to appear as a featured speaker at LaRouchian conferences,
and began to write a column in the LaRouchian <New Federalist>. As
Marable noted in 1986:

"The right-wing sect of Lyndon LaRouche has also initiated a campaign
to recruit black supporters.  As in the case of the Unification
Church, the LaRouchians work primarily through several fronts, the
Schiller Institute and the National Democratic Policy Committee.
Again, the LaRouchians have been linked to a number of racist and
extremist groups, including the Liberty Lobby, the Klan and neo-Nazis.
Currently, the LaRouchians are vigorously opposing sanctions against
South African apartheid. "

While in Chicago, Bevel regularly broke ranks with the African-American-led
coalition behind the late Mayor Harold Washington. At the same
time, Bevel was working with Moon's front group CAUSA. In an
interview with Bevel at an Illinois CAUSA meeting, I asked him why
he would ally himself with a religious/political movement such as
that run by Rev. Moon. Bevel replied that it was a tactical coalition
based on agreement that the main danger in the world was communism.
Bevel argued that communism was a godless philosophy, and that as
a Christian, it was his obligation to fight godlessness.

Bevel's CAUSA ties garnered him some unflattering publicity.
According to the December 12, 1987 <Chicago Sun-Times>, Bevel was
one of four persons belonging to "groups created by the Rev.  Sun
Myung Moon's Unification Church" who erected a creche and nativity
scene at Chicago's Daley Center Plaza. The <Chicago Sun-Times>
reported that "William J. Grutzmacher, who obtained the permit and
paid $2000 for the creche, gave a speech in October to a business
group in Merrillville, Ind., apparently so anti-Semitic that a
local newspaper ran an editorial denouncing him." The head of the
Rotary Club that had co-sponsored Grutzmacher's speech told the
reporter, "He made charges...that the Communist Party is headed by
Jews, and that the Jews were responsible for every negative thing
that has happened since World War II."

Bevel has also worked with other Moon fronts. In the October, 1990
issue of <American Freedom Journal>, Bevel is listed as serving on
the National Policy Board of the American Freedom Coalition, chaired
by the ultra-conservative Hon.  Richard Ichord. The American Freedom
Coalition (AFC) is a joint project of Rev. Moon and the Rev. Robert
G. Grant of the ultra-right Christian fundamentalist group Christian
Voice. AFC fundraised for Oliver North, and Bevel sits on the AFC
National Policy Board with Maj. Gen. John K. Singlaub, implicated
in the Iran-Contragate scandal; Lt. Gen. Daniel Graham of High
Frontier, the pro-Star Wars lobby; and rightist historian Dr. Cleon
Skousen. The late Dr. Ralph David Abernathy was a long-time member
of the AFC Board of Directors along with pro-interventionist
Ambassador Phillip Sanchez. On the AFC National Advisory Board sit
rightist fundraising guru Richard Viguerie, and Slava Stetsko,
president of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN). ABN is
notorious because it is the descendant and spiritual heir of the
Committee of Subjugated Nations, formed in 1943 by Hitler's allies.
According to author Russ Bellant, "The ABN brought together fascist
forces from Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, the Ukraine, the Baltic
States, Slovenia and other nations." Slava Stetsko is the widow of
Yaroslav Stetsko, leader of the Nazi puppet government in the
Ukraine during World War II. She once wrote a glowing introduction
to a book that defined anti-Semitism as a "smear word used by
Communists against those who effectively oppose and expose them."

These are the fascist forces with which Bevel has allied himself,
and is a striking example of the opportunistic flexibility of
fascism as a political ideology, able not only to embrace
Nazi-collaborators but also to entice Black civil rights activists.
Bevel's ties to the fascist Moon circles are through a shared
loathing of communism as a godless ideology, an issue which resonates
with many Black church-based constituencies. Another congruent
theme that fascism can employ to seek alliances with African-Americans
and Hispanic-Americans is the opportunistic manipulation of the
issues of nationalism and self determination.

Other Black leaders such as Roy Innis and the late Ralph David
Abernathy have forged alliances with the fascist right. Innis has
worked in alliance with the LaRouchians. Abernathy worked with
Moon's Unification movement until his death.

Other Right-Wing Groups and the Gulf War

Conservative groups overwhelmingly supported sending U.S. troops
to the Gulf. Right-wing forces aligned with Rev. Sun Myung Moon
and those supportive of the Israeli political right forged a pro-war
coalition that placed ads in newspapers and purchased television
commercials.

Other rightists, primarily those who have politics that are more
accurately termed reactionary than conservative, staked out an
isolationist or "America First" position, and opposed sending U.S.
troops to fight the Gulf War.

The LaRouchian antiwar theories parallel many of the themes promoted
by the Liberty Lobby, the Birch Society, and author Fletcher Prouty.
According to one flyer issued by the LaRouchians, "If war is to
come, it will be the result of deliberate `geopolitical' plotting
by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Lord Carrington, and
other London friends of Henry Kissinger."

Some white supremacists outlined a frank racist agenda in their
Gulf War publications. The Invisible Empire, Knights of the Ku Klux
Klan, in the January/February, 1991 issue of <The Klansman>, ran
a banner headline "War in the Middle East? Another Blood Sacrifice
on the Altar of International Jewry. Integrated Effeminate U.S.
Military Will Not Win!" <On Target>, published by Northpoint Tactical
Teams in North Carolina, released a forty-page special edition,
"Desert Shield and the New World Order," which ascribes the conflict
to a Jewish-Communist conspiracy involving Henry Kissinger, David
Rockefeller, George Bush, and Mikhail Gorbachev.

At the 35th Anniversary Liberty Lobby convention held in September,
1990 there was considerable antiwar sentiment expressed by speakers
who tied the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia to pressure from Israel
and its intelligence agency, Mossad.  No matter what actual political
involvement, if any, forces that support Israel may have had in
shaping the events that led to the Gulf War, the history of Liberty
Lobby is to circulate lurid anti-Jewish propaganda, not principled
factual criticisms.

At the conference Fletcher Prouty released the new Institute for
Historical Review's Noontide Press edition of his book on CIA
intrigue, <The Secret Team>. Prouty moderated a panel where
much-decorated Vietnam veteran Bo Gritz wove a conspiracy theory
which explained the U.S.  confrontation with Iraq as a product of
the same "Secret Team" outlined by Prouty. Both Prouty and Gritz
serve on the advisory board of Liberty Lobby's Populist Action
Committee. <Spotlight's> coverage of Gritz featured a headline
proclaiming "Gritz Warns...Get Ready to Fight or Lose Freedom:
Links Drugs, CIA, Mossad; Slams U.S.  Foreign Policy; Alerts Patriots
to Martial Law Threat."

Other conference speakers and moderators at the September 1990
Liberty Lobby convention included attorney Mark Lane, who has
drifted into alliances with Liberty Lobby that far transcend his
role as the group's lawyer, and comedian and activist Dick Gregory,
whose anti-government rhetoric finds fertile soil on the far right.
Dick Gregory also spoke in 1991 at the January 19th antiwar rally
in Washington, D.C. Organizers of the antiwar event say they were
unaware of Gregory's previous appearance at the Liberty Lobby
meeting.

Mark Lane and Dick Gregory co-authored a 1977 book on the assassination
of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and both have circulated complex
conspiracy theories about other world events which could account
in part for their drift towards the conspiratorial Liberty Lobby
network.

The attempts by some of the rightist groups who opposed the war to
penetrate the progressive antiwar movement came during a period of
significant realignment among U.S. right-wing and conservative
political groups. In some rightist groups, long hidden racialist
theories are being dusted off and recirculated, which has caused
further splits. One of the most significant historical divisions
on the American political right is between those groups that espouse
racialist (race-based) theories--generally anti-Jewish and white
supremacist--and those that do not.

People associated with Liberty Lobby and the historically-related
Populist Party circulated antiwar and pro-isolationist literature,
including Liberty Lobby's weekly newspaper <Spotlight>, at several
antiwar rallies, including demonstrations in Boston, Washington,
D.C., Los Angeles, and West Palm Beach, Florida.  <Spotlight> cheers
the activities of U.S.  neo-Nazis and skinheads but masks its
anti-Jewish stance behind coded phrases such as "dual-loyalist."
According to the Center for Democratic Renewal:

"The Florida Populist Party attended [the Florida] anti-war
rally...handing out a leaflet that read in part: `The most conspicuous
foes of war have been on the left, and we in the Populist Party
support their efforts.' Don Black, a former Klan leader, had a
taped message on the Party's phone line: `Make no mistake, this is
Israel's war, and American sons and daughters are fighting it for
them.' "

In its January 7-14, 1991 edition, <Spotlight> carried an article
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15654 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1658
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!lanai.cs.ucla.edu!pierce
From: [e-mail] (Brad Pierce)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Right Woos Left (4 of 6)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Jun 92 20:07:28 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr Usenet)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Lines: 689
Originator: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: lanai.cs.ucla.edu

The following article is reprinted *without* permission.

---------------- Part 4 of 6 -------------------------------------------

Copyright (c) 1991 by Chip Berlet. All rights reserved.

RIGHT WOOS LEFT:

Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To
Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected


by Chip Berlet

Political Research Associates

December 16, 1991


"Fascism and Reaction inevitably attack. They have won against
disunion. They will fail if we unite."

(George Seldes )

<You Can't Do That>, 1938


Political Research Associates
678 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 205
Cambridge, MA 02139
[phone]

------------------- Part 4 begins here ---------------------------------

titled "Volunteers Flock to Iraq To Help Fight U.S., Israel." This
phenomenon was favorably compared to "the building of the Waffen
SS legions in Europe during World War II, when almost 1 million
men from all over Europe and as far away as India voluntarily
enlisted to fight communism under the leadership of the German high
command. That development was also suppressed and never mentioned
by the Anglo-American press. Allied commanders, however, knew the
Waffen SS as an extremely effective fighting force."

An advertisement in the same issue of <Spotlight> touted a book
"Israel: Our Duty...Our Dilemma" under the headline "How Will You
Respond To The Next Mid-East War?" While <Spotlight> itself usually
avoids the loaded language of this ad, the pages of <Spotlight>
are frequently used by racist, anti-Jewish, and pro-Nazi groups to
call attention to their products, publications, events, and views.
The ad copy is also significant because it encapsulates many of
the themes used by anti-Jewish bigots in criticizing Israel and
Jews:

"If you are like most Americans you will react as the pro-Zionist
media has <BI>programmed< you to react. "

"But if you have read "Israel: Our Duty...Our Dilemma" you will
see the <BI>whole< picture--how Israel's ruling elite are using
terrorism, Holocaust sympathy, twisted Bible verses--toward one
objective: Power. "

"Power in America. Power in the Middle East.  Power in the world.
"

"Distilling 14 years' research in semi-secret Jewish sources,
evangelical writer Theodore Winston Pike demonstrates that through
Kabbalistic occultism, international banking, communism, liberalism,
and media control, Israel is doing exactly what the Bible prophesies:
establishing a power base in the Middle East upon which her false
messiah, AntiChrist, will someday rule. "

- The Buchanan Controversy The issue of anti-Jewish rhetoric over
the Gulf crisis first surfaced in September, 1990 as part of a long
simmering feud within the political right in the United States.
Ultra-conservative columnist Pat Buchanan fired the first salvo to
reach the mainstream media when he declared on the McLaughlin Group
roundtable television program that the two groups most favoring
war in the Middle East were "the Israeli Defense Ministry and its
amen chorus in the United States." <New York Times> columnist A.M.
Rosenthal charged that Buchanan's comments reflected anti-Semitism,
to which Buchanan retorted that Rosenthal had made a "contract hit"
on him in collusion with the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith
(ADL).

To unravel the background of the dispute takes a political scorecard.
Buchanan is allied with reactionary and hard-line rightist forces
in the U.S. who sometimes are called paleo-conservatives or
"Paleocons" due to their ties to the "Old Right" in the United
States. Racism and anti-Jewish bigotry were common themes in some
(although not all) Old Right groups. ADL is a Jewish human rights
group often allied with the "Neocons," the neo-conservative movement
in the Unites States. ADL leaders are also frequently ardent and
uncritical supporters of Israeli government policies, as are many
Neocons. ADL has produced some excellent material on bigotry and
prejudice, but its leaders have labeled as anti-Semitic statements
which are solely political criticisms of Israel or Zionism. Since
there are some high-profile Jews in the intellectual leadership of
the neo-conservative movement, some persons have concluded that
neo-conservatism is a Jewish ideology. This is as prejudiced an
assertion as the claim that communism is a Jewish ideology because
of the role played in it by some Jewish intellectuals.

Buchanan's statement in and of itself was not necessarily anti-Jewish,
but in the context of Buchanan's long record of insensitivity when
writing about Jews, the contention that Buchanan is an anti-Semite
is not without foundation.  Buchanan has not only defended those
who say the Holocaust was a hoax, but implied their views have some
merit. Buchanan endorsed the work of the Rockford Institute after
other conservatives criticized it for its tolerance of apparently
anti-Jewish sentiments. In his January 25, 1990 newsletter, Buchanan
penned what was in essence an ode to fascism which celebrated the
efficiency of autocracy, and concluded with the line, "If the people
are corrupt, the more democracy, the worse the government." The
column also echoed historically racialist themes.

Actually, the Neocons for ten years quietly have tolerated more
than a little anti-democratic authoritarianism, anti-Jewish bigotry,
and racism from their tactical allies on the Paleocon right.  Their
alliance was based on shared support for militant anti-communism,
celebration of unfettered free enterprise, calls for high levels
of U.S. spending on the U.S. military, and support for a militarily
strong Israel dominated by hard-line ultra-conservative political
parties that would stand as a bulwark against communism in the
Middle East.

Author Sara Diamond (who covered the Buchanan/Rosenthal feud in <Z
Magazine>) notes "the Buchanan forces explicitly rejected coalition
with the left on the issue of opposing intervention in the Gulf."



The Courtship Continues

"Reactionary concepts plus revolutionary emotion result in Fascist
mentality. "

(Wilhelm Reich)


Craig Hulet's Reductionist Gulf War Critiques

One critic of government policies who draws from both left and
right sources and perspectives is Seattle-based analyst Craig B.
Hulet. During the past year, progressive radio stations including
KPFA in San Francisco and KPFK in Los Angeles aired compelling
condemnations of the Gulf War produced by Hulet, also known as K.C.
DePass. A number of study groups were formed in California following
Hulet's radio and personal appearances.  Hulet claimed in an
interview that his theories have no relation to conspiracist theories
such as those circulated by the John Birch Society, and he is quick
to distance himself from the racialist and anti-Jewish theories of
far-right groups such as Liberty Lobby. Still, Hulet's analysis,
which exaggerates the role of the Al Sabah family in world affairs,
has many of the hallmarks of other oversimplified conspiracist
theories which reduce complex issues to simple equations; and it
seems to scapegoat one family of Arabs, albeit one with powerful
financial holdings, in a way that would be equally unacceptable if
their name was Rothschild rather than Al Sabah. No matter what his
actual affiliations, Hulet essentially employs a variation on the
elite financial insider conspiracy of the John Birch Society.

Hulet has a smooth style and self-confident tone, but in essence,
Hulet's analysis reflects a cynical right-wing libertarian perspective
laced with conspiratorial theories. The basic theme of his Gulf
War analysis boils down to an assertion that Kuwait's ruling Al
Sabah family dictated U.S. policy in the Gulf War in concert with
ruling financial elites in the United States.  According to Hulet,
the Al Sabah family could do this because they controlled vast
financial holdings in the U.S. and they threatened to withdraw
those holdings and collapse the U.S.  economy unless the U.S. pushed
Iraq out of Kuwait. Hulet also maintains that the investments of
George Bush and his father Prescott make George Bush vulnerable to
manipulation by the Al Sabah family.

A Hulet promotional brochure reveals a pattern of similar reductionist
statements and unsubstantiated conspiratorial claims. According to
the brochure:

"Hulet outlines the actual political objectives of the Bush
administration regarding the Middle East...why we gave Hussein the
green light to invade Kuwait and why Bush will disallow any
legitimate cease fire overture by Hussein....volatile...material
concerning George Bush's connections as well as those of his father,
Prescott Bush...Middle East and the New World Order discussed in
detail... "

The brochure claims that the Hulet report <Overview of Government
Corruption and Manipulation> provides "an excellent understanding
identifying the elite and how and why they control society". In a
similar vein, the brochure claims the Hulet report <The Gnomes of
Zurich> provides, "...an overview identifying the elites who manage
this country and how and why they control it's aim...."

The text of <The Gnomes of Zurich> shows a more detailed yet
consistent reliance on conspiratorial assertions:

"Keeping the left wing grass roots at the throat of the right wing
grass roots, serves the purpose, the means, and ultimately..., the
END, of these quite powerful elitists. As each side at the basic
root level; the grass roots level if you will, are both being used,
duped, and manipulated by the Elite...They are quite simply, these
sincere yet almost silly at times local people, unwittingly part
of an ingenious plan to create a <synthesis...ingenious because of
its simplicity...For you see the Elite in the Kremlin>, and the
<Elite in Washington> quite agree on the end at which they both
aim (the synthesis). <A Global Regime>. "

These are just a few examples of Hulet's conspiracist style. Most
of Hulet's work concerns conspiracies of the "elites." Actually,
much of Hulet's thesis is an echo of the book "Call it Conspiracy"
by Larry Abraham, which is itself a rewrite and expansion of the
book "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham.
Allen's writings were widely popularized by the John Birch Society.
Hulet's intellectual tradition can clearly be shown to be congruent
with that of the John Birch Society.

In at least one case, Hulet moves beyond conspiracism into elevating
a satire to documentary status. Hulet labels as fact material from
the book <Report from Iron Mountain>. Hulet refers to the work as
if it were a secret government document. Actually, <Report from
Iron Mountain> is an allegorical critique of the pro-militarist
lobby and a well-known example of political satire. [f-6] While an
excellent philosophical discussion of the errors of the Cold War,
it should be noted that it was produced by Leonard C. Lewin,
described on the book jacket as a "critic and satirist" who was
editor of <A Treasury of American Political Humor>.  Apparently
Hulet didn't get the joke.

Hulet also plows the ground of left/right coalition. Hulet says
that he works closely with former Christic Institute attorney Lanny
Sinkin to buttress his credibility on the left.

On one radio interview, Hulet responded to a question regarding
third parties in the U.S. by saying:

"The problem with those third parties is that they are such a tiny,
tiny minority of the intelligentsia. Many of them like the Libertarian
Party is splintered between factions. They are fighting amongst
themselves. They still see it as a left-wing right-wing dialectic
that they must oppose. And all I'm trying to make very clear to
the American people, including the ones that read all the right
books, is that the enemy is our government. The enemy is not part
of our society.  It has always historically been them versus us.
The government versus the people. And the American people have to
stop fighting amongst themselves. "

Hulet recommends the research on Trilateralism of Antony C. Sutton,
a far-right theorist who publishes the <Phoenix Letter: A Report
on the Abuse of Power>, and <Future Technology Intelligence Report>.
The latter carried Sutton's sentiment that "without political
intervention cancer would have been cured decades ago." Citing
Sutton in any context is problematic given Sutton's exotic views.
Sutton, for instance, asserts that various government and political
operatives, controlled by international bankers, have suppressed
the technology to control the weather, produce free energy, and
achieve "Acoustical Levitation." Sutton also reports on "possible
advanced alien technology" including anti-gravity devices recovered
from UFOs by the U.S. government. When Hulet was asked why he would
put forward Sutton as someone to prove his thesis, he replied that
it was a choice between Sutton and Holly Sklar, and he considered
Sklar a Marxist. This says much about the political milieu from
which Hulet is emerging.

Sklar, who has written progressive critiques of the Trilateralists,
warns antiwar activists that "there is a big difference between
understanding the influence of the Trilateral Commission on world
affairs and the paranoid right-wing fantasy that the Trilateralists
and their allies are an omnipotent cabal controlling the world.
It's important for people to base their political decisions on
facts, not lazy catch-all conspiracy theories."

Journalist David Barsamian interviewed Hulet for a Boulder, Colorado
radio station and his Alternative Radio tape series which is aired
on numerous local radio stations nationwide. The <Open Magazine>
pamphlet series reproduced a transcript of Barsamian's interview
with Hulet, and sold them alongside interviews with researchers
who have a more substantial and serious track record, including
Noam Chomsky, Helen Caldicott, and John Stockwell. After selling
one thousand copies of the pamphlet--far less than the others,
<Open Magazine> did not reprint the pamphlet and it went out of
print, according to co-owner Stuart Sahulka. According to Sahulka,
the Hulet pamphlet was published because there was "such an
overpressing need for information about the war," and that except
for exaggerating the amount of Kuwaiti investment in the U.S., it
seemed accurate.

Barsamian is troubled by some of Hulet's assertions regarding the
genesis of the Gulf War, and Hulet's apparent claim that the Kuwaiti
royal families control of $300 billion in U.S.  investments was
the key issue in prompting the war. (Most newspapers and financial
reporting services place the Kuwaiti/U.S. investment figure in the
range of 30-50 billion dollars, with a low of 15 and a high of 80
in current documented mainstream and alternative press accounts.)
Barsamian and other progressive researchers and journalists have
been unable to document some of Hulet's claims, which may represent
legitimate suppositions, but were presented by Hulet in numerous
radio interviews as facts. Hulet argues that the integrity of his
research should not be judged on the basis of radio interviews
where discussions are often hectic and condensed. On the other
hand, Hulet gained his influence as a Gulf War critic and his
largest audience through radio talk shows.

Barsamian warns progressives of falling for the type of "left
guruism" where sensational anti-government theories are accepted
without any independent critical analysis. He notes that during
the Gulf crisis Craig Hulet was elevated to expert status by
progressives who accepted his pronouncements as fact without
seriously examining his credentials, which he sometimes inflates.

For instance, one Hulet brochure describes him as a "Published
columnist and political cartoonist.  Articles frequently appear in
national publications: <Financial Security Digest, International
Combat Arms, Seattle Times, LA Weekly, SF Examiner, Oakland Tribune>
and more." In fact, while the phrasing strongly suggests Hulet has
written for the latter four publications, Hulet admits those cites
actually refer to instances when he was quoted or his research used
in preparing the article. Most journalists and academics would
consider that a misrepresentation. In the long run, whether or not
Hulet's analysis stands up to intellectual criticism will be
determined by his ability to defend his thesis--a defense that can
only take place if his views are vigorously debated, not uncritically
accepted as gospel. That is the same critical standard to which
all researchers should be held.

An especially useful book in understanding how Hulet's conspiracy
theories of oligarchic manipulation, anti-government demagoguery,
and appeal to individualism fits into the fascist tradition is "The
Fascist Ego" by William R.  Tucker.[f-7] The book is a study of
the French intellectual fascist, Robert Brasillach, whose egocentric
flirtation with fascism ended with his execution as a collaborator
at the end of WWII.

Author Tucker, as the jacket blurb explains:

"...sees in Brasillach's involvement in fascism a form of anarchic
individualism or `right-wing anarchism.' He suggests that, far from
being a form of social or moral conservatism, Brasillach's fascism
was inspired by an anti-modernism that placed the creative individuals
sensibilities and his ego at the center of things. Brasillach's
fear that the individualist prerogatives of the creative elite
would be submerged in the industrialized and rationalized society
that loomed on the horizon was important as a basis for his thoughts
and actions. "

To understand Brasillach and his soul-mates is to understand Craig
Hulet, and his followers.


How the Populist Party Uses Hulet

While Craig Hulet, featured on the California Pacifica radio
stations, is careful to distance himself from views that are racist
or anti-Jewish, not everyone who champions Hulet as an commentator
on the Gulf War or Bush's New World Order makes those distinctions.
Some persons, wittingly or not, use Hulet's theories to introduce
others to the more bigoted theorists. Hulet helped spark a political
movement in California following the Gulf War that, according to
persons attending the meetings, fed scores, perhaps hundreds, of
political activists into a far-right, racist, and anti-Jewish
political organizing drive supporting the Presidential candidacy
of Col. James Bo Gritz of the Populist Party.

The story of one person living in the Bay Area, called here Dana
Pierce, illustrates the study group phenomenon sparked by Hulet's
presentations. The story shows an organizing dynamic in action,
and is not meant to imply that Hulet is a party to the dynamic,
merely that others opportunistically use Hulet as bait.

Dana Pierce had become critical of domestic U.S.  financial policies,
and attended a meeting of others who shared that view. Pierce was
invited by the leader of the group, an older man with "a pro-democracy
demeanor," to a meeting in the San Rafael area to meet someone who
might assist with a particular financial problem.

At that second meeting, the facilitator announced the group was
trying to understand George Bush and the New World Order. They were
studying history and political science, and were reading material
by Noam Chomsky. It was explained that the group had formed after
several core persons, who opposed sending U.S. troops to the Gulf,
had heard Craig Hulet's speeches in the Bay Area, primarily on
radio station KPFA, both in live interviews and on tape. Some people
had seen Hulet on videotape. They had responded to Hulet's call
for people to educate themselves by forming the group.

The group consisted of at least thirty people and had met about
four times when Pierce attended the meeting. For the main program
of the meeting, the group watched a videotape of Eustace Mullins
talking about the sinister aspects of the Federal Reserve system.
As the tape progressed, Pierce became increasingly uneasy.

"Mullins was jumping back and forth, claiming bankers supported
both the Bolshevik revolution and the Nazis, he praised the right-wing
Hunt brothers, and then began to mention the Rothschild family. He
said the CIA was part of the plot, and William F. Buckley is CIA
which was why some conservative groups dismissed his theories. All
the while I watched people smiling and nodding their heads and I
began to wonder if I was the only one to catch the reference to
the Rothschilds and wondered if I was being over-sensitive because
I was Jewish. "

After the tape, according to Pierce, "the host stood up and praised
Mullins and said he was a close associate of Ezra Pound. The host
also said that the banking system is communistic because both are
monopolistic."

Pierce went to the local library and looked up a biography of Ezra
Pound and discovered that Mullins had been associated with Pound,
and that Pound was a virulent anti-Semite. Pierce then read Hannah
Arendt's treatise on the origins of anti-Semitism, and pieces of
the puzzle began to fall into place.

Pierce had not heard Hulet before and so went to hear a July 1991
speech at the First Unitarian Church in San Francisco. Admission
was ten dollars and the audience numbered at least 100.

"He was a glib speaker, and he presents concerns all of us
have--concerns many people on the left certainly have about the
Bush administration and how there is no effective congressional
oversight. I can listen to him and agree he is focused on some real
problems in this country.  What he does is bring into the open a
lot of concerns and he discusses issues succinctly and in ways that
people can follow. If I had just gone to hear him I probably would
have been quite taken with him, but in the context of the first
meeting, I listened with skepticism, and am worried. People want
so much to believe in him they don't want to hear any criticism.
I saw how people can hear Hulet and then be led to Mullins.  If
you look at the origins of anti- Semitism described by Arendt, you
can see how a self-confident person who provides simple explanations
can offer comfort to people who sense that something is wrong with
our society and that they are being lied to, which is true.  But
it was scary to see how easily people were then led into accepting
the scapegoating of Jews and the other conspiracy theories discussed
by Eustace Mullins on the videotape. At first I thought there was
something wrong with me, but now I think there is a serious problem
that people on the left need to talk about. "

Hulet was listed in a 1986 <Spotlight> advertisement as a speaker
at a day-long seminar with ultra-rightist Australian Eric D. Butler
and pro-apartheid writer Ivor Benson, a notorious anti-Semite. Both
men are leading theorists affiliated with Liberty Lobby. Also on
the 1986 panel was rightist newsletter editor Lawrence Patterson,
recently named to the Liberty Lobby PAC, and David Irving, an author
who claims the Holocaust was a Jewish hoax. Repeated attempts to
interview Hulet regarding this meeting and the California study
groups, including a visit to his base in a town north of Seattle,
were brushed off by his wife, Kathleen DePass Hulet, who handles
his publicity from a frame shop in downtown Everett, Washington.
Hulet has told one newspaper that he did not attend the event. The
matter is unimportant in an overall assessment of Hulet's
ideological--as opposed to organizational--allegiances.


Left/Right Critiques and Coalitions

It would be grossly unfair to suggest that all information from
the political right is inaccurate conspiracism. Right-wing groups
are quite capable of producing factual investigative material and
persuasive journalistic stories. For instance, every year "Project
Censored" runs a contest to pick the ten top stories not adequately
covered by the mainstream press. On a 1991 PBS television program
reviewing the 1990 Project Censored stories, commentator Bill Moyers
held up a copy of the <Spotlight> as an example of two such
stories--one on aspects of U.S.  foreign policy in the early days
of the Gulf crisis, another highlighting repressive features of an
anti-crime bill. Not all stories surfaced by the far right are
accurate, however, and many feature convoluted and undocumented
conspiracy theories featuring a paranoid analysis.

At the same time the right has been wooing the left, right-wing
groups have been promoting a number of left resources such as books
and videos that criticize certain aspects of government policy or
ruling elites. For instance, Noam Chomsky's critiques of U.S.
foreign policy, Holly Sklar's studies of the Trilateral Commission,
and Brian Glick's manual on domestic repression are praised and
distributed by right-wing book peddlers.

These cross-ideological pollinations do not imply any ideological
connection between the left researchers and the right--any group
can distribute a book--but demonstrates that the political right
sees points of alliance with the left, especially around issues
relating to government abuses of power.

Government repression and intelligence abuse are not the only areas
of research on the left where convoluted theories are circulated.
Unsubstantiated conspiracist theories, claiming secret circles of
corporate influence in the United States, also flow between left
and right pro-environmentalists. One Massachusetts environmental
activist researches alternative energy sources, circulates materials
on elite control of energy policy, and refers interested
environmentalists to the work of Eustace Mullins who writes about
the so-called Jewish international banking conspiracy. In his
worldview, Mullins' research unraveling powerful industrial and
banking conspiracies can help explain government antagonism toward
environmental reform[f-8]

On one forum for activists on a national electronic computer based
network, excerpts from LaRouchian and Liberty Lobby publications
have been uncritically posted by persons who primarily circulate
information from left and progressive sources. This builds the
credibility of the LaRouchians and Liberty Lobby circles and implies
that they are natural allies.

An example of one left/right information alliance involves Dan
Brandt, creator of the Namebase software program, an immensely
useful computer tool which searches a huge index of CIA-related
publications and documents. Brandt has created a non-profit group
with a board of advisors composed of both left and right critics
of U.S.  intelligence agencies, including LaRouche-defender Fletcher
Prouty who joined the advisory board of Liberty Lobby's Populist
Action Committee. On the other hand, Brandt is highly critical of
the LaRouchians.


True Gritz

In 1991, ultra-right political groups began organizing a nationwide
campaign to build support for Populist Party candidate Bo Gritz.
Gritz was named in 1991 to the advisory board of the Populist Action
Committee created by the quasi-Nazi Liberty Lobby, publisher of
the weekly newspaper <Spotlight>. The Populist Party organizing
drive is of interest to progressives because Gritz told a July,
1991 meeting in Palo Alto, California that they should reach out
and attempt to recruit persons from the left.

Also named to the Liberty Lobby Populist Action Committee was
retired Air Force Colonel and intelligence specialist Fletcher
Prouty, author of the 1973 book <The Secret Team>, now published
by IHR. Prouty has been appearing at conferences and on radio
programs sponsored by the Liberty Lobby.

Others named to the Liberty Lobby Populist Action Committee were
Abe Austin, described as an Illinois businessman and expert on
money; Mike Blair, <Spotlight> writer whose articles on government
repression were highlighted by Project Censored; Ken Bohnsack, an
Illinois resident called the founder of the Sovereignty movement;
Howard Carson, a <Spotlight> distributor; William Gill, president
of the protectionist American Coalition for Competitive Trade; Boyd
Godlove Jr., chairman of the Populist Party of Maryland; Martin
Larson, a contributor to <The Journal of Historical Review> which
maintains the Holocaust was a Jewish hoax; Roger Lourie, president
of Devin-Adair Publishing; Pauline Mackey, national treasurer for
the 1988 David Duke Populist Party Presidential campaign; Tom
McIntyre, national chairman of the Populist Party from 1987-1990;
John Nugent, who ran for Congress from Tennessee as a Republican
in 1990; Lawrence Patterson, publisher of the far-right
ultra-conspiratorial <Criminal Politics> newsletter; Jerry Pope,
chair of the Kentucky Populist Party; John Rakus, president of the
National Justice Foundation; Hon. John R. Rarick, former Democratic
House member now in Louisiana; Sherman Skolnick, a Chicagoan who
has peddled bizarre conspiracy theories for over a decade; Major
James H.  Townsend, editor of the <National Educator> from California;
Jim Tucker, <Spotlight> contributor who specializes on covering
the Bilderberger banking group; Tom Valentine, Midwest bureau chief
for <Spotlight>; Raymond Walk, an Illinois critic of free trade;
and Robert H. Weems, founding national chairman of the Populist
Party.

The Populist Party has long been a meeting ground for segregationists,
anti-Jewish conspiracy mongers, white supremacists and former
members of the Ku Klux Klan. The formation of the Liberty Lobby
Populist Action Committee comes at a time when some right wing
groups are attempting to build bridges to the left around shared
critiques of government misconduct, a process that was accelerated
during the Gulf War.

In the June, 1991 issue of <The Populist Observer>, Gritz wrote,
"I call upon you as Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent,
right, left, conservative, liberal, et.al., to UNITE AS POPULISTS
[emphasis in original] until we have our nation firmly back on her
feet." Gritz made a similar plea at a July meeting in Palo Alto,
California.

Gritz's call for the left/right coalition apparently first surfaced
publicly at his Freedom Call '90 conference held in July, 1990 in
Las Vegas. Speakers at that conference included Gritz and anti-Semite
Eustace Mullins, as well as Father Bill Davis of the Christic
Institute, ex-CIA official (now critic) John Stockwell, and author
Barbara Honneger. This fact of attendance is not meant to imply
that all these persons share the same views. It is meant to
demonstrate that Gritz is attempting to draw a broad range of
government critics into a coalition. Stockwell, Honneger, and Davis
have all said their appearance at the conference should not be
interpreted as an endorsement of Gritz's research or political
views. Gritz's Center for Action still sells a set of tapes from
the conference, including speeches by Gritz and Mullins, along with
Father Davis, Barbara Honneger, and John Stockwell. This set of
tapes is advertised in the Prevailing Winds catalog.

John Stockwell has expressed concern over the the way Prevailing
Winds has lumped his research together with research he finds
problematic. In the past, Stockwell has been highly critical of
Honneger as a reliable source of information, and has had criticisms
of some aspects of Christic research as well. Stockwell says he
"met Gritz there on stage" at the 1990 conference and "came away
greatly unimpressed," and he was quick to distance himself from
the Populist Party.

After the controversy broke in the left press, a spokesperson at
Prevailing Winds (who asked to be identified simply as Patrick)
said they were now considering at least including a warning in
their catalog about Bo Gritz's ties to the Populist Party and other
rightist and anti-Jewish groups and individuals. Patrick said their
catalog came out before Gritz accepted the Populist Party presidential
nomination, but defended the inclusion of the Gritz material, saying
that "middle America needs this kind of information" because "Bush
is basically a dope-peddling Nazi."

Patrick said the appropriateness of carrying Gritz's material,
given his ties to the anti-Jewish far right, has been discussed by
the Prevailing Winds staff, and also discussed with Bo Gritz and
with Father Davis of Christic.

According to the Prevailing Winds representative:

"Its an argument we've gone back and forth on, it's a tough question,
whether or not to make it available and to preserve it for research.
We are interested in getting the information to the people. The
good thing about it is no one else is trying to build these bridges
between groups. We need to reach a rainbow of people." "

Christic's Father Bill Davis walked out of the 1990 Gritz conference
when Mullins gave his speech. Yet over a year after the event,
Christic still had made no public statement distancing itself from
Gritz or Mullins. In the meantime, Gritz was touring the country
promoting Christic's Iran-Contra research and implying a friendly
working relationship between himself and key Christic figures,
especially Danny Sheehan.  Sheehan is featured in a privately-distributed
videotape program focusing on Gritz's research which takes a critical
look at the Reagan and Bush Administrations' intelligence and drug
policies. That videotape, circulated by Gritz and his allies, also
uncritically shows a headline from the LaRouchian newspaper <New
Federalist> to illustrate a point.

Christic's national director, Sara Nelson, told <In These Times>
that Christic apologizes for the appearance of Davis at the conference
with Mullins, and no one is suggesting that Christic harbors any
racist, anti-Jewish or fascist views.  But Christic has not issued
a clear and widely disseminated public statement alerting people
who may have seen the Prevailing Winds catalog or the Gritz material
and who now seem confused over who supports whom. This is not meant
to be interpreted as a blanket criticism of the Christic Institute.
Many Christic projects have been valuable. They circulated a
tremendous amount of useful information about the issue of covert
action and the Iran-Contra scandal.  Especially notable in other
areas are the work of Lewis Pitts at Christic South and the project
by Andy Lang to illustrate problems with forging democracy in
eastern Europe. Yet Christic's Sheehan, Davis, and Nelson have not
taken seriously the problem of right-wing groups and individuals
linking themselves to the Christic case and recruiting Christic
supporters in a way that implies a shared agenda. While this is
not just a problem with Christic, the role that Christic could,
and should, be playing in providing leadership on this question
would be extremely useful.

In <Front Man for Fascism: Bo Gritz and the Racist Populist Party>,
a report issued by the California anti-fascist group People Against
Racist Terror, the extent to which Gritz has promoted himself on
the left is thoroughly detailed. The report urges Christic to be
more vocal:

"Christic should join the campaign to expose Bo's campaign for the
fascist vehicle it is. Christic should take the lead in condemning
the Gritz campaign, rather than demanding retractions from those
who have raised criticisms and concerns. It should share frankly
and self-critically with its followers the process of deception
and rationalization by which it was hoodwinked, so that others can
escape the same fate.

It is the failure of alternative and left critics of government
policy to take responsibility for clarifying the confusion being
intentionally sown by the far right that is the key issue. If the
problem is turned on its head, it is easier to understand why the
issue of public statements by groups such as Christic is so important.
In the course of preparing this study scores of persons were
interviewed in a dozen cities. Here is a summary of some of the
questions raised by persons who reject the criticism.

On the LaRouchians:

"Were they not victims of government repression and FBI harassment
just like CISPES? Wasn't that what James Ridgeway said in the
<Village Voice>? Didn't their views get reported by David MacMichael
in the newsletter of the former intelligence officers turned critics?
Isn't Ramsey Clark their attorney? Isn't it true that they were
reporting on the Iran-Contra affair before the mainstream media
and Congress publicized the matter? Don't several former Christic
investigators recommend their work? "

"Are they not our natural allies? "
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15655 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1659
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!lanai.cs.ucla.edu!pierce
From: [e-mail] (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Right Woos Left (5 of 6)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: lanai.cs.ucla.edu
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 20:15:55 GMT
Lines: 688

The following article is reprinted *without* permission.

---------------- Part 5 of 6 -------------------------------------------

Copyright (c) 1991 by Chip Berlet. All rights reserved.

RIGHT WOOS LEFT:

Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To
Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected


by Chip Berlet

Political Research Associates

December 16, 1991


"Fascism and Reaction inevitably attack. They have won against
disunion. They will fail if we unite."

(George Seldes )

<You Can't Do That>, 1938


Political Research Associates
678 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 205
Cambridge, MA 02139
[phone]

------------------- Part 5 begins here ---------------------------------

On the Liberty Lobby/Populist network:

"Didn't <Spotlight> get mentioned by Bill Moyers on the PBS program
on the Most Censored Stories awards as an excellent source of
information? Doesn't Bill Davis appear with Bo Gritz at conferences?
Doesn't Danny Sheehan appear on the Bo Gritz videotape? Can't we
buy Gritz' writings by sending a check to the Christic Institute's
West Coast office? Wasn't that Danny Sheehan on the cover of the
Prevailing Winds catalog with Christic material along with material
from Gritz and Prouty? "

"Are they not our natural allies? "

On Craig Hulet:

"Isn't he on KPFA and KPFK? Can't we order Hulet tapes from the
Pacifica Archive? Doesn't he say he works with Lanny Sinkin who
was an attorney at Christic? Doesn't he say he isn't a right-winger?
Didn't the San Francisco Mime Troupe thank Hulet for his research?
"

"Is he not our natural ally? "

This raises a question for every progressive political leader,
journalist and attorney whose name has been used by the fascist
right to build their movement. If hundreds (perhaps thousands) of
people have come to believe there is a coalition or alliance that
involves the left and fascist right, is there not an an obligation
to speak out publicly and deny what the right is suggesting publicly?

In fact, some of the above questions clearly represent misunderstandings
and erroneous assumptions. But when the right is making the assertion,
silence implies consent, or as the button says: "Silence is the
voice of complicity."


 The Fascist Response

Telephone call to 503-796-2124

November 20, 1991 10:00 PM

[Man's voice:]

"Greetings, you have reached the American Front Ministry of
Information hot line. COINTELPRO, the counter-intelligence agency
of the Jew S. of A., or ZOG [Zionist Occupational Government], is
a group of well financed government agents who have not only
infiltrated but absolutely control a great portion of the so-called
left wing in America. Their purpose is to make sure that these
self-styled progressive organizations don't actually take any action
against the true enemy of the people, the U.S. government. "

"They have been doing a very good job at keeping radical elements
of the supposed left and right fighting each other, thereby nullifying
a great deal of revolutionary activity, and keeping the fat-cat
warmonger capitalists who run this government safe from the bloody
tide of reprisal they so richly deserve. "

"No matter where you stand on the political spectrum this abhorrent
undertaking affects you.  ZOG is bound and determined to make sure
the trend of increasing anti-government unity of radical factions
in Europe doesn't take effect here. "

"For local evidence of this lefty alliance with Big Brother, you
need go no further than Jonathan Mozzochi of the Coalition for
Human Dignity. He's an avid follower of renowned COINTELPRO guru
Chip Berlet. Mozzochi has even been known to plagiarize the writings
of Mr. Berlet, and as is very evident by the CHD's activity, Mozzochi
has completely dedicated himself to the government program of
keeping the radicals fighting each other instead of Big Brother.
Just because he serves you cappuccino at La Patisserie and pretends
to be a so-called progressive, the fact remains that he is nothing
but the CIA in alternative geek clothing. This further illustrates
the fact that the anti-racist movement as a whole is nothing but
a tool of the capitalist regime, designed to destroy the
self-determination of all races and keep ZOG as the ruler of all.
"

"For more information, contact American Front at P.O. Box 68333,
Portland, Oregon, 97268. White Victory. "

[Woman's voice:]

"You may start your message now. "


Anti-Jewish Scapegoating & Black Nationalism

Unraveling the overlapping tendencies of reactionary politics,
conspiracism, scapegoating, opportunism, demagoguery, nationalism,
racism, anti-Jewish theories, and fascism is a difficult but
necessary task. This section will discuss several situations and
trends where these issues are involved, focusing on the rise of
right-wing anti-Jewish theories in some nationalist sectors of the
African-American community.

Any serious discussion of these issues needs first to be grounded
on at least a working knowledge of the theories of racialism and
nationalism, as well as familiarity with the characteristics of
mass fascist political movements prior to their ascendancy to state
power. Especially useful is a study of the nationalist movements
of Europe at the beginning of this century. The nationalism of
pre-World War II Europe included movements based on racialist
theories. This racial nationalism took several forms, including
the heroic mythical racial nationalism of Italy and Spain which
glorified the organic leadership of autocratic father-figures, the
ego-centric anti-modernist intellectual fascism of France, the
religious/racial clerical fascist movements of Croatia and Rumania,
and the scapegoating demagogic movement of German Nazism with its
anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.

Nazism was a fascist movement, but not all mid-century European
fascist movements employed a master race theory. Nevertheless,
fascism as a political form is premised on racial or cultural
nationalism.

As scholar Barry Mehler, a leading researcher on the history of
racial eugenics, points out:

"Classical eugenic theories of the nineteen-twenties and thirties
emphasized that nations were biological entities and that political
ideologies emerge from racial characteristics which in turn have
developed out of evolutionary changes in racial groups. The classic
expression of these theories can be found in Madison Grant's <The
Passing of the Great Race>. This was, of course, the foundation of
both Nazi racism and American white supremacism.  It is not
surprising, therefore, that white supremacist organizations continue
to reprint and sell these expressions of American racism. "

In fact, the white supremacist movement is the largest and most
significant purveyor of theories of racial nationalism in the U.S.,
and its threat to democracy and pluralism far outweighs that posed
by the misguided participants in the tragic and counterproductive
current dispute between Blacks and Jews. Further, the single greatest
impediment to racial justice in the U.S. is not the policies and
practices of any one political group or individual, but the
institutional racism in the government and business sectors that
is still so widespread yet so invisible in our society, and which
has deeply undermined the ability of African-Americans, Hispanics,
North-American Indians, and other racial groups in this country to
share in the bounty and freedoms described in school textbooks as
a birthright in our country. It is within that framework that the
following discussion must be set.


Black Nationalism and Anti-Jewish Conspiracy Theories

Some members of Black nationalist groups in the U.S. circulate
conspiracist theories about Black oppression where discredited
ultra-right theories of exaggerated Jewish power and manipulation
have found new life and a new audience. While in the past some
pro-Palestinian and even anti-Israel sentiments made by African-Americans
have been mislabeled as anti-Semitism by groups promoting pro-Israel
policies, there is still plenty of evidence that anti-Jewish
conspiracy theories are discussed openly in some segments of the
Black community

For example, in Chicago, during the late 1980's, Black activist
Steve Cokely taught classes at a Nation of Islam center where he
alleged that Jewish doctors were injecting Black children with the
AIDS virus. When Cokely was exposed, NOI leader Louis Farrakhan,
rather than rejecting Cokely's assertions as bigoted lunacy, issued
a statement saying that if Cokely could document his charges, the
Nation of Islam would provide a public forum for the discussion.

At a February 28, 1991 anti-abortion lecture by Barbara Bell,
founder of Massachusetts Blacks for Life, Bell asserted that "it
is the Jewish doctors that are the ones that are the ones trying
to wipe out the black society." The statement came in the context
of an assertion that Planned Parenthood wanted to wipe out all
minority populations.

The Detroit magazine <Alkebulanian> is dedicated to providing the
reader with "the power of African pride and dignity" and seeks to
"speak the truth and expose the falsehoods that have weakened a
precious people through the course of history." But according to
anti-eugenics scholar Barry Mehler, the magazine carries articles
that assert "the Jewish Talmud was written by `racist dogs,' that
Jews have manipulated the world into grieving over the Holocaust
as a way to make `black people forget that the it was same handful
who participated in the African Holocaust.' "

At a July, 1990 meeting in Cairo, Illinois, several Black nationalist
groups under the leadership of the All African Peoples Revolutionary
Party (AAPRP) proposed the formation of an "Afrikan Anti-Zionist
Front." Kwame Ture (formerly Stokely Carmichael) of AAPRP was
elected chairperson of the front. At the time, several spokespersons
made careful distinctions concerning their criticisms of Israel
and Zionism. For instance, a statement issued by the Front at a
planning meeting held in Tripoli, Libya included the disclaimer
that, "The founders of the Front state that the struggle against
zionism is not a struggle against Jews or Judaism but rather a
struggle against zionism as a racist and imperialist ideology and
movement."

Although extreme, and implying objection to the state of Israel
itself, the statement by the Front is not fairly characterized as
anti-Jewish.  However, the careful distinctions in the Front's
statement are missing in a current educational brochure by the All
African Peoples Revolutionary Party.

The brochure starts out criticizing Zionism and Israeli politics
but soon descends into rampant anti-Jewish conspiracism. "ZIONISM
is a well organized and financed, international conspiracy which
controls the economic and political life of the United States and
Europe," says the brochure.  Although accurately noting, "All Jews
are not Zionists," the brochure goes on to claim, "The international
Zionist movement exerts an almost total strangle-hold over the
economic, political, social and cultural life of the African
community." It also claims that Zionism, "controls...all of the
banks, businesses and financial institutions in our community," as
well as the mass media and the entertainment industry.  According
to the brochure, the international Zionist movement controls:

"The political, social, cultural, educational and legal institutions,
agencies and organizations in the African community. Almost all of
the civil rights and political groups in our community are controlled
by zionists and Jews. They use their money, their power, the FBI,
CIA, IRS, the courts and prisons; and many other ways to control
and destroy our movements, leaders and people. "

Many of these sentiments regarding Jews are virtually identical to
charges in white supremacist publications which claim that Jews
play a similar role in oppressing white christians. One mail order
videotape lecture by a leading Christian Identity pastor is a
lengthy exposition of his theory that slavery was the result of
the usury employed by Jewish bankers in Britain when financing
colonial enterprises.


 Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam

Although the Rev. Louis Farrakhan denies he is a bigot, and some
of his critics have themselves used racist appeals, Farrakhan has
in fact made a number of statements concerning Jews over the past
few years that reflect disdain and prejudice.

Yet the most troubling aspect of Farrakhan is not his demagogic
bigotry. Writing in the January 28, 1991 issue of <The Nation>,
professor Adolph Reed, Jr. cautions that "demonizing" Farrakhan,
or focusing merely on his prejudice, misses the main point, which
is the troubling nature of Farrakhan's reactionary political views
and anti-democratic "racial organicism." As Reed explains, Farrakhan's
use of racial organicism is found in the belief that Black leaders
"emerge organically from the population and that the objectives
and interests of those organic leaders are identical with those of
the general racial constituency." Reed notes that this theory has
been used by white majoritarian leadership to justify and manage
racial subordination by "allowing white elites to pick and choose
among pretenders to race leadership."

Equally dangerous, however, are the themes of authoritarianism and
racial nationalism which underlie racial organicism. Reed warns
that "because of his organization and ideology, however, Farrakhan
more than his predecessors throws into relief the dangerous,
fascistic presumptions inscribed at the foundation of that model."

In July, 1990 Farrakhan granted an extensive exclusive interview
to <Spotlight> where his views of separate development for the
Black and white communities was stressed. The interview was presented
in an overwhelmingly sympathetic and supportive fashion, with an
introduction by the editors where Farrakhan's movement was described
as "based on the cultivation of spiritual, education, and family
values, as well as racial separation."

The idea of racial or national organicism, that leaders emerged
from homogeneous national groupings and metaphysically expressed
the collective will of the people, was a basic tenet of fascism,
especially the form of fascism called national socialism. In the
1988 report of the small American Nazi Party in Chicago, the term
national socialism was defined as "the organized will of the race,
in its quest for racial survival, and physical, mental, and spiritual
self betterment." One modern offshoot of national socialism, called
the "Third Position," has adherents in both Europe and the United
States, and is known for its attempts to build bridges to the left,
especially around the issues of protecting the environment and
support for the working class.

Racialist nationalism, anti-Jewish bigotry, and fascist principles
have provided a basis in the past for white supremacists and
anti-Jewish bigots such as Tom Metzger to voice support for Farrakhan.
The October 12, 1985 <New York Times> reported on a Michigan meeting
of white supremacists where Metzger told his audience of neo-Nazis
and Klan members, "America is like a rotting carcass. The Jews are
living off the carcass like the parasites they are. Farrakhan
understands this." That meeting was attended by Political Research
Associates author and freelance journalist Russ Bellant who reported
the Metzger quote and incidently disclosed the attendance of another
white supremacist, Roy Frankhouser, a former Ku Klux Klan leader
from Pennsylvania who was for many years a top security consultant
to Lyndon LaRouche.

The beginning of the 1990's saw increasing joint political work
between various LaRouchian front groups and Rev. Farrakhan's Black
nationalist Nation of Islam (NOI). For instance, the NOI's newspaper
<Final Call> ran an article by Carlos Wesley on Panama in its issue
of May 31, 1990, which was credited as a reprint from the LaRouchian
magazine <Executive Intelligence Review>. The LaRouchian <New
Federalist> has run several articles praising the political work
of Dr. Abdul Alim Muhammad, editor of NOI's <Final Call>.

Another group allied with Farrakhan that promotes the idea of racial
or national organicism is the political organization run by Dr.
Fred Newman, a former protege of LaRouche. Persons who extol Newman's
idiosyncratic form of "social therapy" control a variety of political
organizations under Newman's influence, including the New Alliance
Party (NAP), Rainbow Lobby, New York's Castillo Cultural Center,
and various Centers for Short-Term Therapy. NAP promotes the
political theories of Farrakhan, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and Dr.
Lenora Fulani, presidential candidate of the New Alliance Party.
The Rainbow Lobby has forged a working coalition with the Libertarian
Party and the racialist Populist Party to challenge state laws
limiting ballot access. At the same time NAP's Lenora Fulani stood
side-by-side with Al Sharpton and other Black nationalists in the
summer of 1991 as they inflamed an already tense and tragic situation
in the Crown Heights neighborhood in Brooklyn, which has seen a
long-simmering dispute between Blacks and a sect of Orthodox Jews.



Sorting out the Dilemma

We are all aware that there are shifting factions in political
groups, government bureaucracies, and intelligence agencies. Even
though there is an historic overlap of government repression and
reactionary politics, at the same time, factions of the right have
from time to time made a tactical decision to expose government
wrongdoing to smash an opposing faction on the right or derail a
bothersome government project.

Around the world the right has adopted a strategy of tension to
smash the center, and one part of that strategy is to seek temporary
tactical alliances with left groups in attacking government policies.
The left/right alliance seeks to displace the center, but historically
the right always triumphs and then smashes the left. This is
certainly one lesson of Italian fascism and German national socialism.
Do we really think a corrupt wealthy anti-labor repressive centrist
power is worse than fascist power? As the health of the American
economy declines, it will generate a move towards alternative
political viewpoints and either new political parties or realignment
of current parties. A left/right alliance under such circumstances
would be precarious and dangerous.

Serious anti-repression researchers frequently find themselves in
contact with elements of the ruling center, opposition centrist
parties, and far right in the normal course of their research.
The mere contact between left and right is not the issue, but when
left researchers become <de facto> conduits for the right's
information, and do so uncritically and without revealing their
sources at least by general description, serious ethical and
pragmatic problems arise.


 The Problem of Fascists as Research Sources

Herb Quinde is one of the main LaRouchian intelligence contacts
for reporters in the Washington, D.C. area. Quinde boasts that the
LaRouchians maintain ties with a network of current and former
intelligence agents and military specialists who oppose current
U.S.  foreign policy and its reliance on covert action over direct
military engagement.

Quinde confirms that he and his fellow LaRouchian investigators
are in constant touch with journalists and researchers across the
political spectrum. In several interviews in 1990 and 1991 Quinde
refused to go on the record with the names of any of his regular
contacts among left political groups and critics of government
repression, although he bragged that such contacts are a regular
part of his work.

While Christic now says they no longer have any contact with the
LaRouchians, some former Christic staff seem willing to keep some
doors open. Investigators formerly connected to Christic have
maintained information ties to the LaRouchians, and advised
progressive researchers to rely on the LaRouchians as experts in
the area of government intelligence abuse. These referrals have
over a period of several years helped forge an information exchange
network that has drawn some left researchers, journalists and radio
talk show hosts further into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories
and into ongoing relationships with fascist and anti-Jewish groups
and individuals.

David MacMichael still maintains close ties to Herb Quinde, meets
with him personally, and advises researchers probing government
intelligence abuse to contact Quinde for help.  MacMichael defends
his association with Quinde as legitimate, albeit sometimes
embarrassing.

Russ Bellant is the author of <Old Nazis, The New Right and the
Republican Party> and has extensively studied Nazi-linked emigre
intelligence and political networks. In the course of his research,
he has found several authors in this field who have developed a
working relationship with LaRouchians. Bellant says he raised the
ethical problems of working with the LaRouchians with these authors,
generally to no avail. To be sure, there is no consensus among
reporters, mainstream or progressive, on what is an ethical way to
deal with information from groups such as the LaRouchians.

According to Peter Dale Scott, "My own ground rules are that until
something happens where I feel someone is manipulating me or they
have <personally> done something horrible that I feel is objectionable,
I feel it is a matter of intellectual freedom to keep the lines of
communication open. As long as they deal with me as a human being
I will treat them as such." Scott, however, balked at signing a
petition about LaRouche being a victim of human rights abuse because
he felt there was "enough evidence to show the LaRouche people were
probably guilty of some criminal conduct."

Author Jonathan Marshall, now with the <San Francisco Chronicle>,
says the LaRouchians "have given me information, but given their
history, I never take it at face value." Marshall says "sometimes
they are a source of good leads, their work on Panama has been of
particular use." Marshall does not accept the LaRouchian premise
that Noriega was a humanitarian, but neither does he accept the
idea that opposition to Noriega was pure. "Here you have a case of
evil versus evil, and the enemies of someone are often a good place
to go for information." According to Marshall, he will sometimes
pursue LaRouchian leads, "and then do my own independent research."
If something turns up, he considers it his own effort, and does
not credit the LaRouchians, in part, he admits, because it would
lessen his credibility as a journalist.

"If you look across the board at cultish groups that do `research'
you find sometimes that they have found amazing documents that do
in fact check out," says Marshall. But he hastens to add that
"documents are one thing, but accepting their analysis is simply
not responsible."

In the late 1980's author Carl Ogelsby considered working with
LaRouchian Herb Quinde to unravel the story of the recruitment of
the Gehlen Nazi spy apparatus into U.S. intelligence. Ogelsby
comments:

"If Quinde had been able to provide even a single scrap of useful
information I would have turned a cartwheel in excitement, but he
never did.  Everything he sent me was bullshit. He was trying to
convince me to depend on the LaRouche information network. He was
always boasting about the documents he could send me, but he never
gave me a useful thing about Gehlen or anything else about the
Nazification of U.S. intelligence. "

During the Gulf War, Quinde asked Ogelsby to speak at a LaRouchian
antiwar conference, but Ogelsby declined, "because whatever Herb's
essential charm and persuasion, I would never publicly associate
myself with them, primarily because my friends warn me it would
damage my credibility. In fact, I've never initiated a contact with
them." Putting up with an occasional phone call from Quinde is one
thing, said Ogelsby, but appearing at a conference is another.
Still, Ogelsby isn't convinced that they are really a neo-Nazi
outfit. "My advice is not to make such a big deal about this guy.
I think that he is basically comic relief." Ogelsby, however, is
suspicious of the actual purpose of the LaRouchians:

"I think it's an intelligence operation, and the only question is
what's animating it. I don't think it is, strictly speaking, an
organization representing one individual--LaRouche. I believe it
has access to sources of information that reflect official circuits,
most likely European, but I don't think he's officially CIA or FBI.
I think U.S. intelligence is a little baffled by them too, although
in the first few years of the Reagan Administration they clearly
allowed them privileged access. "

Journalists James Ridgeway and David MacMichael have defended their
contacts with the LaRouchian network as part of the standard
journalistic practice of cultivating a wide range of sources of
information. They and other journalists argue that taking information
from someone in no way implies any agreement whatsoever with the
information provider. In fact, reporters at a number of mainstream
daily newspapers admit off-the-record that they frequently receive
material from the LaRouchians, and in some cases develop stories
from the documents supplied by the LaRouchians. Ridgeway, however,
acknowledges that the LaRouchians are a "neo-Nazi or fascist
movement." and warns that journalists need to exercise extreme
caution when contacting them for information.

This is a real issue since a score of progressive researchers and
journalists report that in the past two years, operatives from the
LaRouchians and the far-right have stepped up their attempts to
forge working relationships with them over the basis of shared
criticism of the government.

A West Coast journalist, Ed Connolly, recalls an incident in the
fall of 1990:

"I was tracking a story on Air Force Intelligence and I called
everyone I could think of. Two weeks later Gene Wheaton called me,
which was odd because I hadn't called him. Wheaton tells me, "You
know the people who have very good intelligence on these things
are the LaRouche people, you should call the people that put out
<Executive Intelligence Review>, call Herb Quinde." So I did, but
they wanted more information than they were willing to give out
and I was immediately skeptical. I never talked to them again. "

Eugene Wheaton, an early adviser to the Christic Institute, accepted
an invitation to speak at the December, 1990 LaRouche antiwar
conference in Chicago.

Journalist Jim Naurekas of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
bemoans the fact that LaRouchian Herb Quinde has followed him
through three jobs trying to pester him with tidbits of information.
One academic who wrote a 1990 article on government civil liberties
infringements in a left journal says she was quickly contacted by
several persons who recommended she share her material with
<Spotlight> and other far-right anti-Jewish publications.

Russ Bellant, who is critical of persons who accept material from
the LaRouchians, also warns that some of the LaRouchian documents
may be forged. "They did create a passable bogus copy of a section
of the <New York Times> blasting their enemies," he points out.
Bellant thinks the LaRouchians "don't give you anything that you
can rely on," and that by talking with them about research issues,
"you allow them to track what you are up to which lets them go back
to their Nazi friends and report on you to them."

Bellant and others say they are not troubled by intellectual
curiosity and open-mindedness that bridge ideological lines, but
they do have concerns when left and right groups and individuals
forge covert relationships. There is a big difference between
reading books by or interviewing members of far-right and racialist
groups, and working in what amounts to an ad-hoc investigative
coalition with members of these groups. There is a serious difference
of opinion among progressive researchers as to the propriety of
working with the LaRouchians or other ultra- right groups, especially
those that preach bigotry. Some say they cannot, in good conscience,
even accept unsolicited information from such groups, while others
argue they need to interview members of these groups for their
research.

Journalist Jane Hunter says she has consistently rejected overtures
from the anti-Jewish far right. Hunter is highly critical of anyone
who would covertly or overtly work with racists, anti-Jewish bigots,
or neo-Nazis. She notes that even on a pragmatic level, "Any
information that these people have is bound to show up someplace,
free for the taking, for what it's worth. Our energies need to be
spent in reaching out to people who are victims of the system--the
people with whom we share a common interest in changing it."

Not all the rightist groups seeking an alliance or information
exchange with the left are bigoted or fascist. Some are principled
conservatives or libertarians seeking an open debate. However, some
of the groups seeking to link up with the left have openly neo-fascist
or neo-Nazi agendas, including some that call themselves conservative
or libertarian. The ethical parameters on these questions for
journalists and researchers need further debate.

It is important to recognize that the moral issues for persons
building coalitions in the movement for peace and social justice
are different than those for lawyers, academics, and reporters.
For organizers the principles of unity seldom (if ever) are such
that working with fascist, racist and anti-Jewish groups is
appropriate.

Most people agree that uncritical reliance on either right-wing or
left-wing material can lead to the recirculation of misinformation
or disinformation. When working with the political right, there is
the additional possibility that the left could unintentionally end
up letting the right set its agenda. Some progressive researchers
also argue that it is unethical for progressive groups to take
information covertly from the political right and repackage and
recirculate it without disclosing the source.  That issue, however,
remains unsettled, and needs to be debated openly.

A good illustration of the problem came up in an October 15, 1991
<Village Voice> article on the mysterious death of writer Danny
Casolaro by authors James Ridgeway and Doug Vaughan. Casolaro at
the time of his death was researching the legal case filed by the
Inslaw corporation alleging theft and illegal sale of its software
program, Promis. Promis is a program used to track complex litigation,
but it can also be used to track dissidents and criminal conspiracies.
Persons involved in several federal agencies are alleged to have
participated in the illegal use and distribution of Promis. Casolaro
had nicknamed the government and private conspiracies he perceived
to be surrounding the Inslaw case "The Octopus," and had circulated
a book proposal.

Ridgeway and Vaughan do report that Casolaro, in the course of his
research, would "head into Washington for a congressional hearing
or a meeting with, for example, Danny Sheehan of the Christic
Institute--whose `Secret Team' could just as easily have been called
the Octopus." They also mention that Casolaro was working with the
LaRouchians in gathering information.

Not mentioned in the article is that the LaRouchians funneled
information to the Christic Institute, Barbara Honneger, and the
<Spotlight>/Liberty Lobby crowd; or that another named source,
investigator Bill McCoy, also worked with Christic and supplied
information from the LaRouchians; or that co-author Vaughan works
at the Christic Institute.

Ridgeway and Vaughan do mention LaRouche's criminal conviction and
the LaRouchian obsession with conspiracy theories and report, "The
LaRouchies had ties to the Reagan White House and have long run a
surprisingly elaborate intelligence-gathering operation of their
own." They do not, however, characterize the LaRouchians as fascists
or anti-Semites.

In the course of the article a LaRouchian intelligence operative
is cited along with other sources. Should LaRouchian sources be
treated differently than any other journalistic source? Again,
there is no agreement even among alternative journalists. "I have
great respect for Jim Ridgeway, but to put any credence in anything
a LaRouchite has to say is a leap into faith that I can't make,"
says <Voice> columnist Nat Hentoff. Another <Voice> writer, Robert
I. Friedman says, "The LaRouchians are an anti-Semitic conspiracy
organization. It's a mistake for a journalist to use LaRouchians
as a source without describing the kind of organization it is."
Ridgeway responds that he has characterized the LaRouchians as
conspiracists, fascists, and neo-Nazis in other settings, and he
thinks most people who read his column already know who the
LaRouchians are.


 LaRouche as Victim of Government Repression

Lyndon LaRouche has picked up support for his campaign to get
released from prison from a number of right-wing extremists,
including retired Air Force Colonel and intelligence specialist
Fletcher Prouty, a leading light among ultra-right researchers,
who also works with the quasi-Nazi Liberty Lobby. Prouty has issued
a statement declaring that "instrumentalities of the government
have hounded" LaRouche and "created wrongs where none existed
before." The LaRouchians, however, have picked up support for their
theory of a government conspiracy against LaRouche from a broader
spectrum than the political right.

Both James Ridgeway and David MacMichael have reported the allegations
of the LaRouchians that they are not guilty of financial crimes,
but the victims of a massive government conspiracy aimed at crushing
them politically.

Ridgeway, in the preface to his book on the U.S.  white supremacist
movement, <Blood in the Face>, omits LaRouche from a discussion of
the "racist far right." Instead, Ridgeway refers to LaRouche in
the context of discussing how the collapsed rural economy in the
1980's distorted the politics of the farm belt and "the whacko
candidates of Lyndon LaRouche's party were serious contenders."
This passing reference to LaRouche (there is one other bland
paragraph in the book) places LaRouche in a discussion mentioning
serious politicians such as Jesse Jackson, George McGovern, and
James Hightower.  This seems to characterize LaRouche as merely a
strange and comical player in the electoral arena. Ridgeway says
that this was not meant to imply LaRouche was not a force in farm
belt fascism, but that his publisher felt that adding the LaRouchians
into the book would have confused the issues.

Critics of Ridgeway's view of the LaRouchians, including this
author, argue that LaRouche is in fact a neo-Nazi ideologue who
should be discussed along with the Ku Klux Klan and the other white
racist groups with whom the LaRouchians have associated for years.
No one is suggesting that Ridgeway, who has a prodigious track
record of sound investigative reporting, shares any of the LaRouchian
viewpoints. But it is legitimate to ask whether or not Ridgeway's
analysis and treatment of the LaRouchians has perhaps unconsciously
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15656 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1660
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!lanai.cs.ucla.edu!pierce
From: [e-mail] (Brad Pierce)
Subject: Right Woos Left (6 of 6)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (Mr Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: lanai.cs.ucla.edu
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 20:18:25 GMT
Lines: 688

The following article is reprinted *without* permission.

---------------- Part 6 of 6 -------------------------------------------

Copyright (c) 1991 by Chip Berlet. All rights reserved.

RIGHT WOOS LEFT:

Populist Party, LaRouchian, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To
Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected


by Chip Berlet

Political Research Associates

December 16, 1991


"Fascism and Reaction inevitably attack. They have won against
disunion. They will fail if we unite."

(George Seldes )

<You Can't Do That>, 1938


Political Research Associates
678 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 205
Cambridge, MA 02139
[phone]

------------------- Part 6 begins here ---------------------------------

been influenced by their value to him as a journalistic source of
information on government misconduct and other issues. Ridegway,
like other reporters who cover government repression, received
packets of information from the LaRouchians for many years and
sometimes relied on the material to develop a story. [f-9] This in
itself is hardly unique and not necessarily questionable--other
reporters do likewise.

In one case, however, Ridgeway appears to have relied on LaRouche
material without independently verifying the accuracy of the
material.

On May 17, 1988 James Ridgeway penned a lengthy article in the
<Village Voice> titled "Dueling Spymasters: How the Government
Bungled the Case Against Lyndon LaRouche."

Even a careful reading of the Ridgeway article leaves the impression
that when a federal judge declared a mistrial in the Boston fraud
case against LaRouche and several colleagues, it was caused by
government misconduct. This is what the LaRouchians contend--but
not what the judge said.  Lyndon LaRouche and his associates were
on trial in Boston for an alleged credit card scam. The mistrial
declared by U.S. Federal District Court Judge Robert E. Keeton came
after complaints of hardship were voiced by more than one third of
the jurors who had been told the trial would end in early summer,
and then learned it could stretch through the end of the year. The
judge declared the mistrial because he feared a continuation of
the trial would be a waste of time and money due to the real
possibility that the number of jurors would fall below the legal
limit before the trial ended.

While there was substantial evidence that the Justice Department
may have improperly withheld documents relating to LaRouche in
pre-trial discovery, a lengthy hearing resulted in a ruling that
the documents had no bearing on the criminal charges. According to
Ridgeway, "the proceedings had revealed...FBI agents planting
obstruction of justice evidence on LaRouche." This is what the
LaRouche attorneys sought to prove--and given the history of the
FBI, Justice Department and other government bureaucracies, such
an allegation was not far-fetched--but no hard evidence to prove
that claim had been introduced in court at the time of the mistrial.
In fact, the prosecution was still presenting its case. Further,
the delay of the trial which caused the juror hardship was caused
not only by lengthy side hearings into the document and informant
questions, but by numerous challenges and extended cross examinations
by the phalanx of defense attorneys representing LaRouche, his
associates and their organizations.

Legal actions by both federal and local agencies against LaRouche
for questionable fundraising and financial practices commenced
years before the flap over Iran-Contragate and the well-publicized
airport assault involving LaRouche partisans and Henry Kissinger,
who was traveling with his wife.  Furthermore, there is a virtual
army of persons who claim to have been swindled and victimized by
LaRouche-related organizations. Ridgeway offers no evidence the
Boston criminal case was a result of the government being out to
get LaRouche any more than it is out to get any person accused of
being a common crook.

The "seeds of the government's investigation" were not planted by
a petulant Henry Kissinger, as Ridgeway asserts, but by hundreds
of persons who claimed to have found unauthorized credit card
charges on their monthly statements at a time in 1984 when LaRouche
was buying half-hour presidential campaign spots on network
television. The grand jury which indicted LaRouche heard evidence
from angry credit card holders, not Henry Kissinger.

Yet Ridgeway is correct is asserting that there was government
misconduct against the LaRouchians which surfaced as part of the
case. That the government shut down the LaRouchian publications as
part of its probe into loan fraud and tax evasion was a civil
liberties outrage, and the action was later rightfully declared
unconstitutional. This abuse of government power, however, had no
bearing on the evidence which convicted LaRouche and his followers
of the charges in the Virginia indictments.

There is no debate that LaRouche was a little fish in the cloudy
waters trolled by U.S.  intelligence agencies. But when LaRouche
hired informants and self-styled intelligence operatives such as
Ryan Quade Emerson, Mitchell WerBell, and Roy Frankhouser, he was
aware he was opening a Pandora's box filled with smoke and mirrors,
double-dealing, and betrayal. WerBell, for instance, was a former
OSS officer and international arms merchant. Frankhouser was a
well-known government informant and Ku Klux Klan organizer. While
LaRouche may have been belatedly frozen out of an active role in
Reagan Administration intelligence functions, to conclude that his
former allies turned up as government witnesses through a conspiracy
to isolate LaRouche the "Spymaster" was a fanciful but unsubstantiated
charge. A more likely explanation is that they turned up as witnesses
against LaRouche in an attempt to keep themselves out of jail.

Ridgeway also describes LaRouche without mentioning LaRouche's
notorious anti-Jewish sentiments. LaRouche, for instance, has
claimed there is no such thing as Jewish culture, and that "only"
a million and a half Jews perished at the hands of the Nazis, and
then primarily due to illness and overwork.

A letter criticizing Ridgeway for publishing LaRouchian assertions
as fact was published in the May 31, 1988 issue of the <Voice> over
the signatures of this author and journalists Russ Bellant, Joel
Bellman, Bryan Chitwood, Dennis King, Ed Kayatt, and Kalev Pehme.

David MacMichael is the editor of <Unclassified>, the newsletter
of the Association of National Security Alumni (ANSA). In the
Feb.-March, 1991 edition of <Unclassified>, MacMichael casually
cites unnamed LaRouche sources in an article about a dismissed case
involving Iran-Contragate figures Oliver North and Joseph Fernandez,
"LaRouche sources point out that Prosecutor William Burch was not
particularly diligent in arguing his case. They note that Burch
has been active in the LaRouche prosecutions."

In the October-November 1990 issue of <Unclassified>, MacMichael
presents the same story of intrigue previously reported by Ridgeway.
MacMichael also mentions the LaRouchian competition with the
"North-Secord enterprise for donations from wealthy individuals,"
implying it was connected to the LaRouche criminal prosecutions.

It is true that the Oliver North network targeted the LaRouchians
for investigation, when LaRouche fundraising, especially to rich
older conservatives, was found to be hampering private fundraising
efforts for the Contras. There is, however, no conclusive evidence
that the North/Secord political investigation of LaRouche influenced
the Boston or Virginia criminal investigations or indictments.

Numerous criminal and civil actions against illegal LaRouche
financial activities were launched as early as the late 1970's.
One such probe was initiated by the Illinois State Attorney General
on the basis of an article by this author charging irregularities
in LaRouchian financial activities. The article was based on several
boxes of original office and bank records. [f-10] In 1979 and 1980,
Dennis King published documented charges of widespread LaRouchian
financial misconduct in a series of articles in New York's <Our
Town>, a neighborhood newspaper. Several articles were based on
secret internal LaRouche memos and financial records obtained by
King from sources close to the LaRouche operation.

On December 16, 1981, Dennis King, Russ Bellant, and this author
held a press conference in Washington, D.C. charging the LaRouchians
with "a wide variety of potentially illegal activities," including:
carrying out intelligence tasks for several foreign governments,
including Iraq and South Africa; conducting a pattern of "illegal,
deceitful and fraudulent activities by non-profit corporations,
foundations and fundraising front groups controlled by Lyndon
LaRouche."

The Boston grand jury was already investigating illegal LaRouchian
fundraising practices well before conservatives and neo-conservatives
forced the Reagan Administration to stop access by LaRouchians to
the staff at the National Security Council and CIA. It is not likely
that LaRouche was the victim of a conspiracy to indict him falsely
for crimes. What is more likely is that after LaRouche was forced
out as a marginal player in Reagan intelligence circles, his immense
criminal fundraising schemes could no longer be ignored, and some
of the numerous probes into his many frauds finally were allowed
to proceed to court.Certainly both MacMichael and Ridgeway have a
right to report what they wish, and draw any conclusions they feel
are warranted by the facts. But to report the LaRouche side of the
story of the government's criminal indictments without historical
context is to give an imprimatur to the unsubstantiated--and widely
disputed--LaRouchian allegations claiming that LaRouche's conviction
was the result of a government conspiracy to deny him his political
rights. This in turn is used by the LaRouchians to gain sympathy
and worm their way into left political circles, especially among
students, where the LaRouchians' long history of fascist attacks
on left groups is unknown.


 Some Criteria for Discussion

Circulating information from (and in essence for) the right without
an accompanying principled criticism and analysis of intent
accomplishes several things. It:

*** Builds the left group's reputation as an independent and
resourceful information gatherer;

*** Gives information credibility as being from the left rather
than the right by laundering original sources;

*** Advances often unstated implicit rightist agendas;

*** Protects the rightist group from punitive attack by the right
or the government since information is perceived as coming from
left;

*** Results in a conscious or unconscious reluctance by the left
group to criticize the right group for fear of having information
flow cut off.

It is important both journalistically and politically to know the
source of information in order to consider the ulterior motives
and possible implications of the information being circulated.

We certainly shouldn't let the right set our research agenda through
leaks but contact with the right seems inevitable and often proper
and useful. Since persons on the left have contacts with the right
for varied and complex reasons, one blanket criticism is neither
sufficient, nor helpful. We do need to think through policies.
What then are the principled conditions for contact with the right?
Keep in mind that we all need to work in coalitions while maintaining
independent political analysis and ability to criticize freely.

Some suggested points of principle might include:

*** Do not trade potentially harmful information on left groups
with the right. Only trade information on government abuses and on
other right groups;

*** Double check and double source all stories;

*** Name the group or sector supplying the information and provide
an honest thumbnail political sketch;

*** Consider why information is being passed by the group and make
that part of the analysis or story;

*** Condemn flaws in all groups concerned;

*** Do not refer people to rightist networks without warning them
of the nature of the source, and allowing them to make a principled
moral decision whether or not to seek the information through that
group.


Flaws of Logic, Fallacies of Debate

With so much political confusion, it becomes vital to keep in mind
that there are some useful ways to evaluate the validity of political
arguments regardless of their political viewpoint.

Useful standards by which to judge the rational merits of any
statement or theory are easily found in textbooks on debate,
rhetoric, argument, and logic. These books discuss which techniques
of argumentation are not valid because they fail to follow the
rules of logic. Among the more common fallacious techniques or
inadequate proofs:

*** Raising the volume, increasing the stridency, or stressing the
emotionalism of an argument does not improve its validity. This is
called argument by exhortation.

*** Sequence does not imply causation. If Joan is elected to the
board of directors of a bank on May 1, and Raul gets a loan on July
26, further evidence is needed to prove a direct or causal connection.

*** Anecdotes alone are not conclusive evidence.  Anecdotes are
used to illustrate a thesis, not to prove it.

*** Association does not imply agreement, hence the term guilt by
association has a pejorative meaning. Association proves association;
it suggests further questions are appropriate, and demonstrates
the parameters of networks, coalitions, and personal moral
distinctions, nothing more.

*** Participation in an activity, or presence at an event, does
not imply control.

*** Congruence in one or more elements does not establish congruence
in all elements. Gloria Steinem and Jeane Kirkpatrick are both
intelligent, assertive women accomplished in political rhetoric.
To assume they therefore also agree politically would be ludicrous.
If milk is white and powdered chalk is white, would you drink a
glass of powdered chalk?

*** Similarity in activity does not imply joint activity and joint
activity does not imply congruent motivation.

When a person serves in an official advisory role or acts in a
position of responsibility within a group, however, the burden of
proof shifts to favor a presumption that such a person is not a
mere member or associate, but probably embraces a considerable
portion of the sentiments expressed by the group. Still, even
members of boards of directors will distance themselves from a
particular stance adopted by a group they oversee, and therefore
it is not legitimate to assume automatically that they personally
hold a view expressed by the group or other board members. It is
legitimate to assert that they need to distance themselves publicly
from a particular organizational position if they wish to disassociate
themselves from it.


 Techniques of the Propagandist

In 1923 Edward L. Bernays wrote the book <Crystalizing Public
Opinion> and later, in 1928, the text <Propaganda>, considered
seminal works in the field. "There is propaganda and what I call
impropaganda," says the 98-year-old Bernays impishly. Propaganda
originally meant promoting any idea or item, but took on its current
pejorative sense following the extensive use of sinister propaganda
for malicious goals during World War I and World War II. While all
persuasion uses the techniques of traditional propaganda, what
Bernays calls "impropaganda" is "using propaganda techniques not
in accordance with good sense, good faith, or good morals...methods
not consistent with the American pattern of behavior based on
Judeo-Christian ethics." Bernays, who is called the "father of
public relations," is worried about the increased use of "impropaganda"
in political campaigns and has spoken out against it. "Politicians
who use techniques like these lose the faith of the people," says
Bernays.

In 1936 Boston merchant Edward Filene helped establish the short-
lived Institute for Propaganda Analysis which sought to educate
Americans to recognize propaganda techniques.  Alfred McClung Lee,
Institute director from 1940-42, and his wife Elizabeth Briant Lee,
co-authors of <The Fine Art of Propaganda, Social Problems in
America>, recently wrote an article in the periodical <Propaganda
Review> in which they suggested educating the public about propaganda
techniques was an urgent priority. The Lees also discussed the
Institute's symbols for the seven hallmark tricks of the manipulative
propagandist:

Name Calling: hanging a bad label on an idea, symbolized by a hand
turning thumbs down;

Card Stacking: selective use of facts or outright falsehoods,
symbolized by an ace of spades, a card signifying treachery;

Band Wagon: a claim that everyone like <us> thinks this way,
symbolized by a marching bandleader's hat and baton;

Testimonial: the association of a respected or hated person with
an idea, symbolized by a seal and ribbon stamp of approval;

Plain Folks: a technique whereby the idea and its proponents are
linked to "people just like you and me," symbolized by an old shoe;

Transfer: an assertion of a connection between something valued or
hated and the idea or commodity being discussed, symbolized by a
smiling Greek theatre mask; and

Glittering Generality: an association of something with a "virtue
word" to gain approval without examining the evidence; symbolized
by a sparkling gem.

The Institute's last newsletter reflected that "in modern society
an element of propaganda is present in a large portion of human
affairs...people need to be able to recognize this element even
when it is serving `good' ends."


 Some Examples

Here are two examples of how the fallacies of debate and errors of
logic are employed regarding General John Singlaub, a man whose
roles in Iran-Contragate and world fascist movements are already
well documented, and need no discussion here.

General John Singlaub was involved in promoting the yellow ribbon
campaign during the Gulf War.  He was one of dozens of influential
people who formed the Coalition for America at Risk. That Coalition
was one of at least ten other major national groups promoting the
yellow ribbon campaign, including veterans groups with tens of
thousands of members nationwide. Families of service personnel have
been tying yellow ribbons on trees in anticipation of the safe
return of their active duty relatives ever since this military
tradition which dates to the Civil War was revived during the
Vietnam War, in part due to a popular song. To suggest, as some
do, that Singlaub created the yellow ribbon campaign as a continuation
of his nefarious role in Contra fundraising is to stretch credulity
beyond the breaking point.

Another case involving Singlaub shows how a series of individual
facts from underlying footnotes can be strung together so that the
conclusions are not accurate because they fail the tests of deductive
logic. <The Iran Contra Connection: Secret Teams and Covert Operations
in the Reagan Era>, combines into one book chapters written by
Jonathan Marshall, Peter Dale Scott and Jane Hunter. On page 67 in
a chapter written by Peter Dale Scott it is asserted that the
LaRouche organization "previously posed as left-wing but in fact
harassed anti-nuclear and other left-wing demonstrations with the
help of the right-wing domestic intelligence group known since 1979
as Western Goals." It is documented that the LaRouchians spied on
and harassed the left, and it is documented that Western Goals
spied on and harassed the left, but it does not automatically follow
that they worked together to spy on and harass the left.

The evidence linking the two groups is this:  General Singlaub, at
the time on the board of Western Goals, once lectured to a group
that included some LaRouchians at a training center run by Mitch
WerBell. Singlaub met LaRouchians from time to time when he visited
WerBell, who served as an intelligence adviser to LaRouche.  The
LaRouchians in 1977 gave the New Hampshire State Police background
material on anti-nuclear activists including several pages from a
private Rees newsletter. At the time, Rees was not connected to
Western Goals. In fact, Western Goals had not as yet been founded.

That both the LaRouchians and Rees have spied on the left is both
documented and a matter of some bragging by both parties. That the
LaRouchians spied on and harassed the left with help from Western
Goals is unsubstantiated, and faces conflicting evidence. In fact,
Rees and the LaRouchians have despised each other for years, and
denounce each other regularly in print, gleefully sending nasty
information about each other to reporters, including this author.

It is common for Singlaub and other figures criticized by the left
to point to the inaccurate and unsubstantiated charges leveled
against them by their critics as a means to deflect the charges
that are well documented. The use of fallacious arguments and the
circulation of unsubstantiated conclusionary charges in an area of
research such as government repression or intelligence abuse
undermines the credibility of the whole area of research. It makes
the job all the harder for cautious progressive researchers, whose
work becomes suspect in the eyes of mainstream reporters and broad
audiences.


 Harry Martin and Propaganda Techniques

Harry V. Martin is the editor of the <Napa Sentinel>. His articles
on government corruption have gained popularity on the left. An
analysis of the content and style of the Martin articles raises
questions about his credibility as a reporter. Martin uses classic
leaps of logic and propaganda techniques in his reporting. This
section will look at several articles which Martin has written
concerning the pending Inslaw court case.

Inslaw, a small computer company, developed a very sensitive computer
program, Promis, which Inslaw alleges was appropriated without
authorization by the U.S. Justice Department and other government
agencies. Promis software was an early contender in case management
software, but by no means unique. Several vendors at the time Promis
was being offered also offered similar case tracking software. It
can be argued that at the time Promis was indeed ahead of its
competitors in many key features, but today Lotus Agenda with its
case tracking overlay is just as powerful. [f-11]

Martin's Inslaw stories use the classical propaganda technique of
stringing together chronological events and implying that one causes
the other. One story, for example, which looks at the role governmental
retribution may have played in the failure to re-appoint to the
bench one judge, George Bason, whose rulings has supported Inslaw's
position. Martin's article assumes allegations it needs to establish.
He says:

"As a result of the Inslaw cases, many heads in the Justice Department
were lopped off. When Judge George Bason, a bankruptcy court judge,
refused to liquidate Inslaw, ruling instead that the Department of
Justice used deceit, trickery and fraud, he was only one of four
who were not re-appointed to their jobs. A total of 132 were
re-appointed. But to show the collusion of the Justice Department,
when it removed Judge Bason from the bench after his ruling against
them and for Inslaw, they had S. Martin Teel appointed to the bench
to replace Bason. Who was Teel? He was a Department of Justice
attorney who unsuccessfully argued the Inslaw case before Judge
Bason. "

Certainly the failure of Judge Bason to be re-appointed after ruling
in favor of Inslaw is curious. A good reporter would seek evidence
to show that there was a connection between the Inslaw case and
the failure to re-appoint Judge Bason. That one event followed the
other is not this proof. The same situation applies to Teel.  The
sequence is curious but the cause and effect relationship remains
unproven.

Martin also makes extensive use of arguments by exhortation, which
are arguments based more on emotion that on reason. For example,
he claims:

"An official of the Israeli government claims [a person] sold the
Promis program to Iraqi military intelligence at a meeting in
Santiago, Chile. The software could have been used in the recent
Persian Gulf War to track U.S. and allied troop movements. Ari
Ben-Menashe, a 12 year veteran of Israeli intelligence, made the
statement in a sworn affidavit to the court. "

When Martin claims the software could have been used against the
U.S. during the Gulf War, he is using jingoistic appeals to emotion
rather than reason to garner support for his position. He is
deliberately painting a picture of the possible deaths of U.S.
soldiers as a direct result of the purported theft of the Promis
software program by U.S. government agencies. That software also
could have been used to track hamburger shipments by McDonalds, or
alternatively, troop movements could have been tracked by Lotus
AGENDA rather than Promis. It is hype, and misleading, to single
out the one possibility that suits his political ends.

There are other misleading statement in the paragraph quoted above.
For example, Ari Ben-Menashe was hardly "an official of the Israeli
government." He was at best an Israeli intelligence staffer who
became a player in the international arms trade, and even that has
been contested. Martin's inflation of Ben-Menashe's status serves
to condemn the entire Israeli government in a way that a discussion
based on Ben-Menashe's actual status would not have done.  Another
example is Martin's emphasis on the fact that Ari Ben-Menashe "made
the statement in a sworn affidavit to the court." As anyone who
has worked on legal cases can attest, sworn statements carry no
guarantee that they are truthful or factual. Absent documentation
or corroborating testimony, they stand as allegations, not facts.

In the same article, Martin goes on to claim that Promis is now
being used by the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Defense
Intelligence Agency, and the U.S. Department of Justice. In fact,
these are unproven allegations that are being presented as though
they were facts. They may indeed be proven at some point, but have
not yet been proven. The technique of first presenting allegations,
then later referring to them as facts, is a classic propaganda
technique. A closer examination of Martin's presentation reveals
that the claimed use of the software by these U.S. government
agencies is actually an allegation from Ben-Menashe's affidavit,
in which Ben-Menashe claims he was told by a third party that this
was true. Legally, this is hearsay, which is typically inadmissible
in court as evidence. Nevertheless, Martin converts this hearsay
allegation into a statement of fact. But Martin is not through with
his daisy chain of proof.

Still utilizing unproven assertions, Martin goes on to expand the
cast of villains from a few corrupt officials of the Justice
Department to the entire U.S. government. He writes:

"[The] Judiciary Committee is conducting its own investigation in
what has been described as the U.S. Department of Justice's "trickery,
deceit and theft" of the software. The U.S. Government has been
connected with the illegal sale of the sensitive software to South
Korea, Libya, Iraq, Israel and Canada, as well as being pirated by
a number of U.S. agencies, including the CIA, National Security
Agency and other military units. The software is also in use by
the FBI.  Only the U.S. Justice Department was licensed to use the
software... "

>From a proposition of criminal or unethical conduct by individuals
within the Justice Department, a proposition itself unproven, Martin
moves on to argue the existence of an international conspiracy,
led by the U.S.  government to steal and distribute Promis software.
While such a claim could later be proven, Martin here merely presents
the allegation as though it were true, a technique known as a
"conclusionary" or "Kierkegaardian" leap.

One final example of Martin's tendency to confuse unproven allegations
with established matters of fact can be found in Martin's treatment
of Riconoscuito, a computer software technician who has submitted
a sworn affidavit in the Inslaw case. Riconoscuito has claimed that
he was threatened by a former staff member of the Justice Department
with criminal prosecution on an unrelated charge and with an
unfavorable result in a pending child custody dispute if he testified
on the Inslaw case. Riconoscuito has also claimed that he made a
tape recording of the telephoned threat, two copies of which were
confiscated when he was arrested. Although he has not produced it,
he claims a third copy exists, which is being held in a safe
location. When Martin discusses Riconoscuito, he begins with what
appears to be a statement of uncontested fact, "In February,
Riconoscuito was called by a former Justice Department official
and warned against cooperating with an investigation into the case
by the House Judiciary Committee." In fact, while some of what
Riconoscuito has alleged can be verified, much cannot. Despite the
plethora of details Martin presents, the entire content of Martin's
story on Riconoscuito is composed of Riconoscuito's own unverified
assertions or other unproven allegations made in the early stages
of a lawsuit.

Riconoscuito has also been championed as a source by the LaRouchians
who say they introduced Riconoscuito to Danny Casolaro, according
to the <Village Voice> article by Ridgeway and Vaughan.  Anyone
reading that article carefully will get the idea that authors
Ridgeway and Vaughan think that some of the Riconoscuito/Casolaro
allegations are unsubstantiated and reflect undocumented conspiracy
theories.

These few examples buttress the assertion that Martin is not a
reliable source of information. A careful reading of all the Martin
Inslaw articles reveals many other instances of fallacious argument
and propaganda technique. Questions regarding Harry Martin's
judgement and political orientation are also raised by the fact
that he has allowed his articles to appear regularly in the
<Spotlight>[f-12]


 Conclusions

"When we destroy international Fascism we must at the same time
destroy national Fascism, we must replace the reactionary forces
at home with truly democratic forces which will represent all of
us. "

(George Seldes )

(<Facts and Fascism>, 1943 )

We suffer in the U.S. from an unfortunate reluctance to recognize
and name the resurgence of fascist ideology around the world. In
part this is because we are not taught in our schools what fascism
was or is. We hold ourselves up as a model of democracy while half
the eligible citizens rarely feel motivated to vote, and we are
bombarded with advertising that tells us that freedom is the ability
to purchase four different varieties of Coca-Cola at 7-11.

Some have argued that the main potential threat of fascism comes
from a bipartisan government increasingly willing to employ repressive
and authoritarian solutions to societal problems during a time of
economic decline. Political analyst William Pfaff is one of the
few mainstream analysts who warns that an unconscious strain of
American fascism is influencing national affairs. Writing in the
<Chicago Tribune> with a Paris dateline of March, 1987, Pfaff
concluded that the actions of the Reagan Administration during the
Iran-Contra scandal revealed "a pattern of conduct and a state of
mind among important people in this administration which must be
described as an American style of fascism. I would prefer to avoid
that term, but it is the only one in the modern political vocabulary
that adequately describes" the situation.

Given the upsurge of nationalism, jingoistic patriotism, militarism,
scapegoating, and race-baiting practiced by both the Reagan and
Bush Administrations, a discussion of the proto-fascist elements
in U.S. domestic and foreign policy is not unwarranted. At the same
time, it is hyperbole to describe the current political climate in
the U.S. as fascist. Yet it clearly is an error to assume that
anyone who opposes repressive aspects of U.S. policy is an
anti-fascist, or upholds democratic principles.


 A Painful Task

The dilemma for left activists is to sort out the various strains
of fascist ideology circulating in the world and in the United
States. To ignore the threat posed by critics of our government
who represent overt fascism is a dangerous folly.

While revealing our government's policies as corrupt, we must not
concede the debate over foreign policy and domestic social justice
to the demagogues on either the left or the right. If these people
monopolize the debate, then political discourse in the U.S. will
soon echo the themes of the fascist era in Europe where hysteria
and holocaust, blood and bounty, blind patriotism and deaf obedience
became synonymous with the national spirit.

Author George Seldes reached his 100th birthday in 1990 as the
early editions of this report were first being researched and
written. More than half a century earlier, in 1938, Seldes wrote
<You Can't Do That>, a book with a prophetic warning about how
fascism comes to power as the result of a pincer movement between
authoritarian state repression supported by corporate elites and
mass movements sparked by ultra-rightist demagogues. Seldes wrote:

"We must guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism,
especially that patriotism which is the last refuge of scoundrels
and which is so prevalent, so professional and so well paid nowadays.
Eternal vigilance must become more than the slogan for small
associations desperately fighting almost overwhelming cases of
infringements on individual liberties. "

"We must realize that those who use red-baiting to attack every
liberal and democratic movement today, are the armed cutthroats of
reactionary Fascism tomorrow. "

"Two facts emerge from any study of European turmoil and the new
class alignment in our own land. The enemy is always the Right.
Fascism and Reaction inevitably attack. They have won against
disunion. They will fail if we unite. "

While the concept of broad-based peace and social justice coalitions
remains desirable, activists and their coalitions should be very
careful to examine the backgrounds and ideologies of those groups
with which we seek to build coalitions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!raven.alaska.edu!acad3.alaska.edu!fsgah
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Assasinatian synapses
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Jun 92 20:18:17 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Lines: 7
Nntp-Posting-Host: acad3.alaska.edu



  Kennedy was abducted by space aliens because they felt our great leader was
too good for us and that other more advanced societys could benefit more from
his impecable leadership capabilities.
  Noone informed Jackie because she is a ditsy broad that wouldn't understand
what was going on.
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15658 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1662
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!reed!kuch
From: [e-mail] (Jerry Kuch)
Subject: Re: X
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bob's Barf Bucket
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 20:43:31 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 32

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
>The guy named `X' in Oliver Stone's jfk, could be a decoy.
>
>If the conspiracy theory is true, X could have been a conspirator.
>
>My logic is this: The conspirators didn't want Garrison to give up
>his investigations. So to prevent him loosing heart, they sent in
>X to tell him he was on the right track and encourage him.
>
>The reason why it was to their advantage to have Garrison continue
>his investigations, is that they wanted him to get a "critical mass" of
>sensation rolling, so they they could then plant a mass of other
>conspiracy theories and trashy books on the market so as to create a smoke
>screen of confusion.
>
>We are dealing with brilliant tacticians here.
>
>You see, if X was really on Garrison's side it would be very unlikely
>that a guy at that high level would risk putting his testicles on the line.
>How did he contact Garrison without being detected? He was a plant.

One little problem:  X did not exist.  There never was an X.

The speeches that X gives are an amalgamation of things said by at least
two other people.  Neatly gift-wrapped by Oliver Stone into an all-knowing
inside man, ostensibly for dramatic compression and better storytelling.

--
Jerry Kuch ([e-mail]) | "Sic Gorgianus Allos Subjectatus Nunc."
  "I was wrong to play God.  Life is precious, not a thing to be toyed with.
   Now take out that brain and flush it down the toilet." - Montgomery Burns

Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15659 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1663 sci.skeptic:25770
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!nih-csl!alw.nih.gov!sullivan
From: [e-mail] (Jim Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Taking of America 1 2 3
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (AMDS Postmaster)
Organization: National Inst. of Health, DCRT, CSL
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 21:25:50 GMT
Lines: 44

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Duane P Mantick) writes:
|> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
|>
|> >The "Taking of America 1 2 3" is a very entertaining book. Howver,
|> >where it lacks substance is there is no explaination of where this
|> >"power control group" gets its cohesion from.
|> >For people in various high offices to all collude with organized
|> >cohesion you need them to all belong to some properly organized
|> >group. This "power control group" is too airy fairy as it is just a
|> >lable and not a real entity.
|>
|>     I disagree wholeheartedly.  It is said that absolute power
|> corrupts absolutely.  Thus, any group of people such as Sprague
|> is describing once being used to having the sort of power they
|> wielded, will wish to keep such power.  In order to do that, they
|> need the support of other people of power.

I think Mr. Abbott is talking about how difficult it would be for
powerful people to organize in one cohesive block.  Small groups
of a few powerful people effecting control on something like a
local government is not hard to imagine.
|>
|>     By banding together, they use their various types of "power"
|> to cover each other's butts and fend off attempts to remove them
|> from power.

I've rarely seen powerful people who are not related or friends
cover each other.  They only cover those whose demise would affect
themselves.  Witness Ross Perot and the Republicans go at it!  I have
seen the powerful rejoice at another powerful person's demise though.
|>
|>     We can see smaller examples of this just by examining the
|> little cliques' of the wealthy and well connected in any American
|> town or city of even modest size.  They have the ultimate power of
|> the US, the DOLLAR.  Using their dollars, they buy and sell people's
|> loyalty and services, primarily for one purpose - to STAY wealthy
|> and powerful.

Yes, small groups who are friends or need each other to remain in
whatever power they have.  Not a plot of the powerful, for the
powerful and by the powerful.

--
Jim Sullivan         [ The future ain't what it used to be... ]
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!notes
From: [e-mail] (Philip Galanter)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: my theory - small mob hit conspiracy / multiple cover-ups by non-killers
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Jun 92 21:33:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: cmcl2.1992Jun15.213317.20030
Sender: [e-mail] (Notes Person)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Philip Galanter)
Organization: New York University
Lines: 64
Nntp-Posting-Host: polar.acf.nyu.edu

I've been following the various conspiracy theories for many years (since
the late 60's) and here is my personal theory...although others may agree
and in fact if there is a more formal version of this theory somewhere I
would be interested in reading it.

Without going into details, which can ultimately mire _any_ current JFK
theory, here is my best guess as to what happened...

Oswald, a marginal personality, was involved in a small conspiracy to
kill JFK.  This plot was mostly mob inspired, with perhaps a few fourth
rate CIA hanger's on and cuban freedom fighters left over from the
anti-Castro plots, and perhaps a Dallas cop or two.  Oswald didn't realize
he was the patsy until around the time JFK was shot, and was later also
killed by a mob hit.

The conspiracy had little to do directly with intelligence agencies, but
multiple cover-ups, many independent of each other, were executed to:

1. Minimize speculation that JFK was killed by communists, which could
have lead to a nuclear war at worst, and a right-wing landslide at best.

2. Hide the fact that Oswald was known to the FBI and CIA, and perhaps
worked for them in a trivial capacity.

3. Hide the fact that the CIA made deals with the mob.

4. Hide the fact that the CIA was trying to kill Castro.

5. Hide the fact that the Dallas police were corrupt, knew Jack Ruby, and
didn't prevent Oswald from being gunned down.

6. Perhaps hide the fact that the autopsy was simply a botched job.

In addition there were/was:

7. Many unrelated actions by individuals done in good faith to protect the
feelings of the public/Jackie/the family which resulted in less or altered
evidence.

8. Stupid turf battles between agencies resulting in lost, destroyed, or
distorted evidence.

9. Bad police work by nearly all involved.

10. Poor reporting by the media.


The "power control group" theory is simply to big to be true...it would
simply collapse of its own weight...besides, if the bad guys were really
that smart, resourceful, powerful, etc. etc. they could have done much
better...e.g. rig Air Force One to crash, use an undetectable poison,
release pictures of Kennedy in bed with Marilyn Monroe, etc. etc.

It is the wake of the multiple cover-ups and goof-ups by the non-killers
that creates the illusion of a large scale conspiracy.

Phil

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Philip Galanter         New York University    phone:    [phone]
Research Associate      251 Mercer             fax:      [phone]
Academic Computing      New York, NY 10012     internet: [e-mail]

   O f f i c e   o f   A r t s   &   M e d i a   T e c h n o l o g i e s
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15667 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1665
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbfsb!cbnewsb.cb.att.com!osan
From: [e-mail] (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: X
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Twilight Zone
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 22:58:12 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
>The guy named `X' in Oliver Stone's jfk, could be a decoy.
>
>If the conspiracy theory is true, X could have been a conspirator.
                   ^
    Not me, no way.
>
>My logic is this: The conspirators didn't want Garrison to give up
>his investigations. So to prevent him loosing heart, they sent in
>X to tell him he was on the right track and encourage him.
 ^
    I'm telling you, you have the wrong guy.
>
>We are dealing with brilliant tacticians here.
>
>You see, if X was really on Garrison's side it would be very unlikely
>that a guy at that high level would risk putting his testicles on the line.
>How did he contact Garrison without being detected? He was a plant.

    I am a person, not a plant.  Can I sue Oliver Stone?
    Thank you very much.

    -X


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!jmk
From: [e-mail] (joseph.m.knapp)
Subject: Re: Assasinatian synapses
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1992 23:16:51 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 17

[e-mail] writes:
>  Kennedy was abducted by space aliens because they felt our great leader was
>too good for us and that other more advanced societys could benefit more from
>his impecable leadership capabilities.

Well, that would help explain CE399. Magic Bullet technology isn't due
to be developed on Earth for another 100 years or so. It's those damn
nano-thrusters that are so tricky!

>  Noone informed Jackie because she is a ditsy broad that wouldn't understand
>what was going on.

Neurotic jokes like this are common on a.c.jfk. Are you done now? Perhaps
you have a ditty concerning Elvis? That should be original.

----
Joe Knapp   [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!dxc4
From: [e-mail] (David Condon)
Subject: Comments by Gene Magnier on Luis Alvarez
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns5.ins.cwru.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 92 23:57:18 GMT
Lines:       73


Posted with the author's permission:

From [e-mail] Sun Jun 14 22:06:40 1992

Date: Sun, 14 Jun 92 22:06:36 EDT
From: gene magnier <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] (David Condon)
Subject: Re: practicing paleontology without a licence

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>
> I work in a natural history museum, so I asked our paleontologist about
> Alvarez' theory about the Cretaceous extinction being caused by a
> meteor strike. He basically said it's not generally accepted by any
> means, but not entirely dismissed either. At any rate, it's not
> considered totally wacko. He and our other paleontologist come down
> against it though.
> --
>
> "The new designer CLUB colors are the perfect complement to today's lifestyle."
>
>                                         -- television advertisement


At this point I really have to protest and clear Luis Alvarez's name.
I appologize for the upcoming flame, but Luis Alverez deserves the
support.

1) Luis Alvarez was a HIGHLY respected physicist.
2) He has made major contributions in many fields of physics, for example
    a) The invention of the bubble chamber, one of the basic devices
        used to measure the tracks of sub-atomic particles at
        CERN, Fermi Lab, and other accelerator labs.
    b) The discovery of muon-catalyzed fusion.  This is a process in which
        muons subsititute for electrons in hydrogen, allowing a
        great reduction in the coulomb barrier, and allowing low
        temperature fusion.  This is the forerunner concept to
        cold fusion, but unlike cold-fusion has been conclusively
        shown to work, although it is not an efficient way to
        do fusion
3) Luis and his son Walter Alvarez came up with the theory that the
    mass extinctions approx 63 million years ago (including the
    dinosaurs) (also known as the KT extinctions) was caused by
    the collision of a moderate sized asteroid with the earth.
    The poster's comments aside this is HIGHLY possible explanation.
    In the US, most paleontologists tend to accept this theory,
    though outside the US it is less well accepted.  A recently
    discovered site in the Yucatan is very likely the impact site
    of the asteroid.  Just pick up any issue of Scientific American
    and the chances are you will see an article about the KT asteroid.
    At the moment the ONLY competing explanation is a long term
    increase in volcanism, as evidenced by features such as the Deccan
    Flats in India.  Debate goes back and forth, but a general concensus
    is that the KT asteroid did strike, but _perhaps_ the extinctions
    were additionally caused by the vulcanism (which may or may not be
    due to the asteroid itself!).  The upshot is: this is not a
    crackpot theory, but the one of the two most widely accepted
    explanations.
4) Whatever work Luis Alvarez did with the jet flow does not distract from
    the fact that he was an excellent scientist.  Alvarez is hardly a
    spokesperson for the WC, but rather went out to demonstrate that the
    motion of JFK's head _could_ be explained by a bullet from the rear,
    which in fact he did.

gene magnier
(MIT Dept of Physics)
--

"The new designer CLUB colors are the perfect complement to today's lifestyle."

                                        -- television advertisement
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!po.CWRU.Edu!dxc4
From: [e-mail] (David Condon)
Subject: Re: A&E- INVESTIGATIVE REPORT (2nd segment)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: cwns5.ins.cwru.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Condon)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 00:15:08 GMT
Lines:       37


In a previous article, [e-mail] (Dave Lyons) says:
>>
>I don't know about this one guys.  First, Arnold says that he was
>chased off from his position behind the fence.  He describes how he
>walked all the way around until he was on the knoll itself.  Then the
>color-enhanced still is shown to him.  It appears to be a guy in
>uniform (himself) next to badge man who appears to be holding
>something that is giving off a bright flash.  Now Arnold says that if
>badge man is shooting at JFK, he was right there and must have seen
>him.  I would think his memory of a rifle going off a few feet away
>would stick in his mind better than remembering being chased away
>from the scene.  Add to that his statement that he remembers hearing
>bullets whiz past (and overhead after he drops to the ground).  How
>could he be both in front of the shooter (his statement before seeing
>the picture) and next to him (his statement after seeing the picture)
>at the same time.  The picture looks to me MUCH more like one of those
>ink-blot thingys that psychologists are so fond of.  If you look at
>them long enough you can see just about anything you want to see.

[...]

The problem with the colorised photo is that it _seems_ to show
Arnold standing "next to" the shooter and almost all background
information that would establish perspective is indistinguishable.
Arnold and the shooter seem to have the same apparent height. However,
the photo can be squared with Arnold's account if you recall that
there is a little slope there -- so if Arnold is standing some 10,
15, 20 feet closer to the camera than the man behind the fence,
but the unknown man is a foot or two higher, their heads would come
out at about the same height.
--

"The new designer CLUB colors are the perfect complement to today's lifestyle."

                                        -- television advertisement
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15673 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1669 sci.skeptic:25781
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Taking of America 1 2 3
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 00:31:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 32

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Leo James) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
>>
>>The "Taking of America 1 2 3" is a very entertaining book. Howver,
>>where it lacks substance is there is no explaination of where this
>>"power control group" gets its cohesion from.
>>
>>For people in various high offices to all collude with organized
>>cohesion you need them to all belong to some properly organized
>>group. This "power control group" is too airy fairy as it is just a
>>lable and not a real entity.
>>
>>Now if we were to postulate that the jfk conpsirators  all belonged
>>to some secret brotherhood......now that would be interesting.
>>
>>Do people in high levels of American society belong to groups such as the
>>Freemasons, as readily as they do in Europe???
>
>Let's cut to the chase. You are suggesting that the "Power Control Group"
>are the freemasons.  Correct?  If so, do you have any evidence to support
>this position?  If not, exactly what are you saying?

Leo,

I'm saying that the "power control group" needs some kind of organization
to act in a cohesive way.

So I am trying to explore possibilities. I am ignorant as to the level
of penetration of the Freemasons into the upper echelons of US society,
hence my genuine request for info.

D.
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15674 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1670 sci.skeptic:25782
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic
Subject: Power Control Group (was: Masons, JFK, "The Taking of America 1 2 3")
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 00:42:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 21

>>Do people in high levels of American society belong to groups such as
>>the Freemasons, as readily as they do in Europe???
>
>      I have no idea how readily influential people join the Masons in
>Europe (and btw, Europe is a big and diverse place, and it's pretty
>silly to lump it all together).
>
>      In America, men in all walks of life join the Masons.
>
>                                       Peter Trei
>                                       Senior Warden
>                                       Wilder Lodge
>                                       Ancient Free and Accepted Masons
>                                       Leominster, MA
>                                       Editor: Masonic Digest
>                                       [e-mail]
>

I guess to make my question more to the point: how likely is it that
a number of the members of the Warren Commision (say) belonged to some kinda
brotherhood (eg. masons)?
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!taco!rock!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!sasdwf
From: [e-mail] (Dan Fowler)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: GIF's available of the Assasination??
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Jun 92 22:06:14 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 18
Originator: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: copano.unx.sas.com


>
>Pan #6 of the Altgens photo.
>
>end
>--
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Sjoerd C. de Vries                           | If all else fails |
>| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute                | we can whip the   |
>| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics   | horses' eyes      |


Thanks for posting the six gif files!
--
Dan Fowler          |
Austin QA Dept      |   "Facts are useless in emergencies."
SAS Institute       |    David Byrne
[e-mail]  |
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Comments by Gene Magnier on Luis Alvarez
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 00:30:33 GMT
Lines: 19

[e-mail] (David Condon) writes:

>4) Whatever work Luis Alvarez did with the jet flow does not distract from
>    the fact that he was an excellent scientist.  Alvarez is hardly a
>    spokesperson for the WC, but rather went out to demonstrate that the
>    motion of JFK's head _could_ be explained by a bullet from the rear,
>    which in fact he did.

All Alvarez proved was that using soft-nosed bullets, fired at high
velocity from close range, you can make melons wrapped in tape and
unattached to anything , move backwards [sometimes].

[Oswald supposedly used copper jacketed bullets, fired at medium
velocity from 265 feet, and JFK's head did not move towards Oswald's
supposed location]

If his other theories are backed up by experiments so far removed from
what he is trying to prove.....then maybe they should be questioned as well.

Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!comp.vuw.ac.nz!cc-server4.massey.ac.nz!A.S.Chamove
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Double Head Shot Tactics
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (A.S. Chamove)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 01:55:10 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
X-Reader: NETNEWS/PC Version 2c
Lines: 27

Someone shooting from the grassy k. would be confident that everyone
would be watching the president as he came by; afterall that was why
they were there in the first place; the spectators only had a few
seconds to see the president.

We are speculating about what professionals know and plan when we are
not professionals. Maybe they know more about confusion and attention
and conflicting testimony then we do. Recall in The Godfather when Al
Puchino was given advice to walk calmly out of the restaurant after
he was to kill the police officer?--not the definitive account
admittedly, but suggests that common sense might not be accurate in
these circumstances.

Thirdly, one is taught to squeeze when shooting a rifle. If you do
squeese, you cannot coordinate your shots with another shooter.  And
coordination requires another person nearby (on on a walketalke) to
give an auditory signal while you shoot. Did Oswald have such an
auditory cue?



--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Chamove
Massey University Psychology
Palmerston North, New Zealand

Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy.jfk:1674 alt.conspiracy:15682 sci.skeptic:25804
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
Subject: Zapruder
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 04:14:28 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 10


I've noticed in the Warren Report that there are 4 or 5 frames of
the Zapruder film missing.

Do they exist today or have they been destroyed or does no one know??


What is the official reason for the missing frames?

What is the pet conspiracy theory reason for the missing frames?
Xref: news.uiowa.edu sci.physics:22281 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1675
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU!dabbott
From: [e-mail] (Derek Abbott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: The Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 04:23:21 GMT
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Lines: 12

I've read reports that say the Zapruder film conclusively shows
(by the direction of movement of jfk's body) that jfk received a shot
from the front.

I've read reports that say that is baloney, and the movements were
consistent with rear shots.


Unfortunately my physics of ballistics, recoil and backlash is not too
good.

Does anyone know for sure what the Zapruder film really shows??
Xref: news.uiowa.edu sci.physics:22282 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1676
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!stanford.edu!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!CSD-NewsHost!jmc
From: [e-mail] (John McCarthy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: The Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 04:31:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 31
In-Reply-To: [e-mail]'s message of 16 Jun 92 04:23:21 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:

   I've read reports that say the Zapruder film conclusively shows
   (by the direction of movement of jfk's body) that jfk received a shot
   from the front.

   I've read reports that say that is baloney, and the movements were
   consistent with rear shots.


   Unfortunately my physics of ballistics, recoil and backlash is not too
   good.

   Does anyone know for sure what the Zapruder film really shows??

See an article by UC Berkeley Nobel Prize winning physicist Luis
Alvarez

American Journal of Physics, September 1976.

Alvarez shot bullets at melons, suitable wrapped to simulate a human
head.  The melons recoiled towards the bullets, because the bullet
caused a jet of melon to shoot out the back whose reaction caused
the melon as a whole to move towards the bullet.



--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!csus.edu!netcomsv!mork!bprofane
From: [e-mail] (Gert Niewahr)
Subject: Re: Double Head Shot Tactics
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 92 07:18:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 126

I don't plan to defend my theoretical scenario ad infinitum, but I
will back up points I'd already thought through and challenge
misinformation:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A.S. Chamove) writes:
>Someone shooting from the grassy k. would be confident that everyone
>would be watching the president as he came by; afterall that was why
>they were there in the first place; the spectators only had a few
>seconds to see the president.

No, if you'd considered the reasonable assumptions pro shooters make
about crowds, you'd realize this would be a major consideration.
The crowd was going to turn towards the first shooter.  The
conspiracy couldn't plan for a knoll shooter to be the first and only
shooter because it would have left that shooter vulnerable to capture--
the knoll site wasn't hidden.  The crowd-looking-at-target-not-at-
shooter misdirection works if you're in a hidden site with a good
avenue of escape; if you're standing out in the open, everyone
turns around to look at where the shots came from and you're meat.

As it was, lots of onlookers charged the knoll after the shooting.
One of the problems I have with the "badgeman" scenario is that it
requires so much action by a pro shooter as to break my sanity
rule.  The shooter supposedly:

  Cleared his site himself, kicking the ex-soldier from behind the
  stockade.  Maybe his site was supposed to be already clear when
  he arrived (the first car that the railroad yard dispatcher saw in
  the lot behind the stockade was, he claimed, casing the back of
  the fence), but he still let his face be seen by a witness.

  Did the shooting, although it was shooting he probably didn't
  expect to do.

  Seized film from the ex-soldier himself, again letting himself be
  seen.

It's possible the "badgeman" shooter did these things out of
necessity, not pre-planned design, but each step violates the rule.
A pro, once positively ID'd by a witness, probably wouldn't shoot.
He almost certainly wouldn't approach that same witness after
having shot.  The only way to explain it would be as a series of ad
lib's by someone who was at greater risk if the conspiracy didn't
succeed than if he was captured.  That is, he *had* to make the
finishing shots once the first shots hit JFK, and having exposed
himself to a witness he *had* to get any photographic evidence that
witness had.

>We are speculating about what professionals know and plan when we are
>not professionals. Maybe they know more about confusion and attention
>and conflicting testimony then we do. Recall in The Godfather when Al
>Puchino was given advice to walk calmly out of the restaurant after
>he was to kill the police officer?--not the definitive account
>admittedly, but suggests that common sense might not be accurate in
>these circumstances.

Well, the general rules of spook work and assassinations are widely
disseminated.  The assumpions I've used can be derived from any
number of Mossad or KGB hits, and they've done the most
professional hits in the past thirty or so years.  Besides, the
whole premise of what I was outlining was a setup in which the
participants *could*, ideally, just walk away calmly.  If this
scenario is correct and the hit had gone cleanly (JFK taken out
with a "shot" from the back consisting of two bullets easily
linked to Oswald and "his" M-C, and then
Oswald "killed resisting arrest" before he could talk), we would
have had *no* hint of a conspiracy.  The bogus Secret Service
agents wouldn't have had to secure the knoll, no one's cameras
would have had to be seized, etc.

>Thirdly, one is taught to squeeze when shooting a rifle.

A sniper rifle has a light pull trigger and professional snipers
take up most of the pull when they are on target, then fire on the
mark with just the lightest squeeze.  Once they have signaled they
are on target, they can fire within a split-second of receiving the
"shoot" order.

>If you do
>squeese, you cannot coordinate your shots with another shooter.

This is regularly done by US sniper squads.  Plenty of professional
assassinations have used multiple coordinated shooters.

I had another thought about the coordination of the first "shot"
between the two posited rear shooters: I said before that the
coordinator, having gotten "on target" confirmations from the
shooters just after the limo turned, might have automatically given
the "shoot" order as the limo entered the target area...which only
then they realized was obscured by trees from the depository site.
The problem is that any well-planned conspiracy would had
contingency plans for the possibility of one shooter not shooting
on command (misfire, etc.).  In the case of that first synchronized
"shot", the shooters would have been told that if they couldn't
shoot on the mark, then they should wait a definite interval to
make their shot, that interval being the minimum time it would take
to cycle, aim, and fire an M-C.  You have to move the initial shot
well back from the point it is usually placed (hitting JFK just
before he comes from behind the sign in the Z-film), though.  But
this *isn't* a problem when you realize that the shooters had no
way to know that leaving this interval would blow the evidence of a
depository shooter instead of bulwarking it.  From their point of
view, one of their shooters couldn't go on the mark unexpectedly
(because of the tree), but he waited long enough to make it
plausible that when he did fire (missing JFK and hitting Connally when
he seems to react on the Z-film) his bullet came late enough to be
fired from the same gun as the first "shot".  They couldn't have
realized in those few short seconds that any shots fired while the
depository site was obscured would blow the conspiracy.

>And
>coordination requires another person nearby (on on a walketalke) to
>give an auditory signal while you shoot.

Well, yeah.  The "badgeman" supposedly had the "hard hat man" as
his spotter.  There is a photo (Altgens?) of *two* people in the
book depository window shortly before the shooting, one of which
could have been a spotter.  In any sniper team, there is usually
one spotter with a radio and one shooter.

>Did Oswald have such an
>auditory cue?

You don't need Oswald to be an actual shooter to make this scenario
work and actually it fits the evidence better if he is a patsy
decoyed into the lunchroom, waiting to be nailed as the killer.
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15693 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1678
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Subject: Re: X
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 08:24:37 GMT
Lines: 30

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:

>The guy named `X' in Oliver Stone's jfk, could be a decoy.

>If the conspiracy theory is true, X could have been a conspirator.

>My logic is this: The conspirators didn't want Garrison to give up
>his investigations. So to prevent him loosing heart, they sent in
>X to tell him he was on the right track and encourage him.

>The reason why it was to their advantage to have Garrison continue
>his investigations, is that they wanted him to get a "critical mass" of
>sensation rolling, so they they could then plant a mass of other
>conspiracy theories and trashy books on the market so as to create a smoke
>screen of confusion.

>We are dealing with brilliant tacticians here.

>You see, if X was really on Garrison's side it would be very unlikely
>that a guy at that high level would risk putting his testicles on the line.
>How did he contact Garrison without being detected? He was a plant.

In JG's book you won't find this mr. X. It is an artistic construction
of Stone to introduce a lot of publicated stuff. X very much resembles
Fletcher 'The Secret Team' Prouty.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute        | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Subject: Re: A&E- INVESTIGATIVE REPORT (2nd segment)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 08:39:14 GMT
Lines: 52

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Condon) writes:


>In a previous article, [e-mail] (Dave Lyons) says:
>>>
>>I don't know about this one guys.  First, Arnold says that he was
>>chased off from his position behind the fence.  He describes how he
>>walked all the way around until he was on the knoll itself.  Then the
>>color-enhanced still is shown to him.  It appears to be a guy in
>>uniform (himself) next to badge man who appears to be holding
>>something that is giving off a bright flash.  Now Arnold says that if
>>badge man is shooting at JFK, he was right there and must have seen
>>him.  I would think his memory of a rifle going off a few feet away
>>would stick in his mind better than remembering being chased away
>>from the scene.  Add to that his statement that he remembers hearing
>>bullets whiz past (and overhead after he drops to the ground).  How
>>could he be both in front of the shooter (his statement before seeing
>>the picture) and next to him (his statement after seeing the picture)
>>at the same time.  The picture looks to me MUCH more like one of those
>>ink-blot thingys that psychologists are so fond of.  If you look at
>>them long enough you can see just about anything you want to see.

>[...]

>The problem with the colorised photo is that it _seems_ to show
>Arnold standing "next to" the shooter and almost all background
>information that would establish perspective is indistinguishable.
>Arnold and the shooter seem to have the same apparent height. However,
>the photo can be squared with Arnold's account if you recall that
>there is a little slope there -- so if Arnold is standing some 10,
>15, 20 feet closer to the camera than the man behind the fence,
>but the unknown man is a foot or two higher, their heads would come
>out at about the same height.
>--

You're right, perspective is important in these photos. Another thing
to take into account here, is that a lot of the picture were made from
a rather large distance with large focal length lense settings. This
makes people who are seperated by tens of meters in a line with the
camera appear to be very close to each other. Take for instance the
Altgens photo. The patrolman to the right of Kennedy appears to be at
about 1 meter to his right. In fact he is several meters behind him,
riding to the right of the car with the SS men, as becomes clear from
photos taken from a different angle. Lifton's 'best evidence' has at
least one taken very close in time to the Altgens photo in which you
can see this.

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                            | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute         | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!apple!netcomsv!mork!bprofane
From: [e-mail] (Gert Niewahr)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: nasty anti-conspiracy poster  ;^)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 09:54:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 290

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel Grant) writes:
>
>re: 1621  (Gert Niewahr)
>
>(discussion of Moorman photo)
>
>
>Another problem with the Moorman photo is that photo analysts
>have determined that the "muzzle flash" is simply light coming
>through a tree.

And such a possibility I mentioned in my original posting.
Regardless of the source of that "flash", there is no question that
if you blowup the Moorman photo two figures are shown behind the
stockade.  They may not be in a police uniform and hard hat, but
there are definitely two people where the WC said no one was.  Two
people where the railroad yard dispatcher said thought he saw
people.  Two people where the ex-soldier said he had been shooed
away from.  Two people where many, many people heard shots come
from.  At the time of the WC report, one of the reasons the knoll
shots testimony of so many people was discounted was that no one
had seen people on the knoll.  We now have definite evidence two
suspicious people were on the knoll.

Now, the following is one of the biggest mangles of sophistry I've
ever read.

>But I wonder just how many grassy knoll gunmen you think there
>were?  The "badge man" is not at the same location where the
>cigarette butts were found.  So that's two.

No, it's not.  The cigarette butts and footprints on bumpers were
found just down the stockade from where the supposed shooters are
in the Moorman photo.  There's no reason their location places the
shooters *at that location* at the time of the shooting.  In fact,
a smart shooter would be shifting positions within a reasonable
locus of where he wanted to be at the crucial time so that potential
witnesses seeing him in the time preceding the shooting couldn't all
lock him into one definite spot.

>Zapruder believed
>the shots came from behind him, but neither the "badge man"
>nor the stockade fence location were behind Zapruder, and
>both were quite near to where he and his secretary Marilyn
>Sitzman were located.  In fact, "badge man" would have been
>within 20-25 feet of Zapruder and Sitzman, in plain view,
>but neither of them happened to notice a man all but
>right next to them firing a high-powered rifle at the
>President of the United States.

They were turned to look at JFK as he came from their left, putting
their backs firmly towards the stockade location.  Their position
on the pedestal was further forward than the "badge man" site so
that even when JFK was hit with the head shot opposite Zapruder,
that stockade site was still behind him, albeit behind and to his
right.

What really gets to me is that you don't mention the obvious
goddamn fact:  Zapruder was looking through his camera!  Of course
he couldn't look at the knoll.  By the time the Z-film stops, by
the time it was physically possible for Zapruder to look at the
knoll, any knoll shooter would have had his gun hidden below the
fence--would have departed the site, for that matter.  Sitzman could
have, but she was holding onto Zapruder, and
I believe she has said that she was watching JFK the whole time and
that the two of them jumped off to the left of the pedestal after
Zapruder stopped filming, putting the pedastal between them and the
knoll site.

Besides, the length of stockade running back along the knoll
obscured that knoll site from the pedestal position, as did
branches from the tree hanging down.  One of the things you can
also see pretty clearly in the Moorman photo is the tree branches
hanging down to the shooter's left, between him and the pedestal.
*And* the shooter was in shadows.

Yet despite the fact that Zapruder heard shots coming from what
probably was the knoll site, you assert that there was no knoll
shooter just because he didn't say he saw one even though he never
said he looked at the knoll during the shooting, even though he
couldn't have looked at the knoll, and even though he probably
couldn't have seen a shooter if he had looked.  My god, what a lie.

I don't believe Sitzman has ever said she looked at the knoll
during or right after the shooting, either.  In the A&E special she
gave the impression she was looking where Zapruder was looking the
whole time.

>We've now got the "badge man", the guy behind the stockade
>fence, and the shooter behind Zapruder and Sitzman.

Easily all the same person.

>Let's
>add a fourth shooter, the one alleged to be seen towards
>the end of the Z-film.

I don't think I've seen this one.  Unless he's clearly shown too
far from the knoll site to have been the shooter, we've still got
one gunman.

>I think we've got a couple of others
>as well.  And - oh yes! - an extra shooter at the TSBD
>as well as one in the Dal-Tex building.  Am I leaving any
>of them out?

Oooh, clever tactics: Obfuscate the knoll shooter issue by
injecting theorized shooters at *other* sites.  A lie by any other
name...

The rest of this is just you trotting out the same old arguments
based on flawed evidence.  None of this *directly* invalidates the
existence of a knoll shooter.  None of your arguments above does, either.
Again, I have yet to see an anti-conspiracist yield to cogent,
corroborated evidence.  Like I've said before, I discard a vast
majority of pro-conspiracy evidence and testimony because it came
after the fact and/or can't be independently corroborated.  I now
limit my arguments to hard physical evidence and testimony given in
or at the time of the WC report.  Yet anti-conspiracists can't
bring themselve to acknowledge even the possibilities arising from
even this limited body of hard evidence, evidence that the WC
and/or the HCSA considered valid.  Here is a case of an
anti-conspiracist going to great lengths to muddy a clear
conclusion made from corroborated testimony and uncontested
photographic evidence.  Why?  This kind of response goes beyond a
dogged desire to debunk lunatic conspiracy theories.

>And yet the only gun that was found was Oswald's and the only
>bullets and bullet fragments found were fired from Oswald's
>gun.

One Dallas police officer clearly stated he found a Mauser; he said
he saw "Mauser" stamped on the barrel.  Said this at the time of
the shooting.  No, you can't confuse a Mauser with an M-C.

The only bullets and fragments that were "found" were those that
survived the immediate clean-up of the limo, survived the suspicious
autopsy, that magically appeared so pristine it looked like it'd
been fired into a tank of water (CE 399).

There's independently corroborated testimony that an "agent" dug a
whole bullet out of the grass and took it away, never to be seen again.

>JFK's and Connally's wounds, which wounds are thoroughly
>established and authenticated, lead backwards to only one
>location, the area of the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Connally's wounds require that he be hit somewhere from behind at
some point as he turns back from looking to his right.  Only a lone
shooter theory requires that Connally be perfectly lined up with
JFK.  *You've* got the harder sell with lining up and timing the wounds.
I can place just two shooters in rearward spots that people
identified shooters in at the time and easily match up the wound
alignments and timing to match the Z-film.

>The only
>wounds to JFK's head came from above and behind.  There
>is no evidence of a shot hitting JFK from anywhere else.

We can argue the head movement theories endlessly, but the fact is
that none of the films and none of the eyewitness testimony
conclusively prove that the only wounds came from above and behind.
I would argue that the preponderance of evidence (the direction in
which people said they saw brains splatter, the head movement,
where people heard shots, etc.) points to front and rear shooters.
You can NOT say that there is definite evidence for just a rear
shooter.

>There
>were no other bullets recovered consistent with a shot from
>anywhere else.

Covered that already.  Doesn't it ever bother you that no
anti-conspiracy theory can account for the Tague bullet?  You've
got to have the magic bullet to account for the Tague bullet, and
the magic bullet is hogwash.

>And the Z-film really does not show any evidence
>of any wounds to JFK's head other than the exit wound described
>in the autopsy and by subsequent pathologists and radiologists
>examining the materials.  I have no idea what was done to
>blow-up the frame you refer to from the Z-film, but having
>viewed the Groden-enhanced Z-film itself in that sequence
>more times than I can count, in action and in stop frame,
>I can tell you that no wounds to the left occipital region
>appear, no wounds other than the exit wound described in
>the autopsy appear.  The Nix and Muchmore films also show
>no evidence of such a wound.

Well, I didn't assert that blown-up frame real strongly because I
can't remember which book its in and therefore I can't weigh its
authenticity.  It's a post-head shot frame as the limo drives off
with a pretty sizeable red splotch on the lower right occipital
area of JFK's head.  No, it doesn't look like splashed matter from
the other wound; it looks like an evulsed wound.  It's in the spot
where the Parkland doctors say there was an exit wound.  I also
clearly see a large lateral temporal wound in the Z-film, so I
don't dispute that part of the autopsy finding, and given the way
the Parkland doctors move their hand from the occiput to the
temporal area in describing JFK's head wound, I can believe that
it's all one large gaping head wound.  The problem is that the
autopsy didn't find any damage to the occiput and there is no way a
rear shot could have caused such damage.

>>Either way, it fits
>>a double shot perfectly:  A rear shot impacts high on the skull,
>>causing the internal beveling of the bone and evulsing the right
>>lateral area of the skull, then a knoll shot impacts in this already
>>disrupted area, leaving no beveling since it doesn't impact
>>pristine, solid skull, and continue out through the occiput,
>>contributing as well to the right lateral evulsion and also driving
>>the skull back.
>
>    And just where did this bullet wind up?

Somewhere to JFK's left rear, I imagine.

>       And why did it
>    leave no evidence in JFK's body?

The damage it did to the brain would have been indistinguishable
from damage from another rear bullet, and like I said, if it had
struck an already disrupted part of the skull it would have left no
entry wound.  That leaves only an exit wound.

>       The autopsy X-rays
>    and photos were examined and authenticated by the HSCA
>    to the nth degree.

The examination of the autopsy materials was clearly the weakest
part of the HCSA investigation, probably because an autopsy
cover-up would have implicated a very high level conspiracy,
whereas everything else could be passed off as a low level
conspiracy.  The Mafia couldn't have fixed the autopsy.
You could have had a small-time conspiracy committing the
assassination and then a high level but unrelated conspiracy covering
it up, but that's pretty weak, too.  Anyway....

First off, the X-ray and autopsy technicians say there was a hole
in the occiput.  Secondly, the X-rays don't show enough of the
occiput to prove or disprove a hole.  That leaves the photos.  I
don't assert that they are faked; I just assert that their
authentication is dubious and that they are not enough evidence
to disprove an occipital exit wound.

As to whether I *think* they are faked, I relate the following:
Before the movie "JFK" even came out, before I had read any
conspiracy book, I picked up one of them ("High Treason", I think)
in the library and flipped to the pictures.  I hadn't even read any
of the captions before I saw a black and white copy of the autopsy
photo of the back of JFK's head.  Right away I thought there was
something odd about the picture: The hair on the very rear of the
head was wet and the surrounding hair was dry.  It was also darker
(darker than could be accounted for by being wet) and it was
longer.  In other words, before my perceptions of the evidence had
been tainted by word one of theories about faked photos, I thought
the photo had been faked.

I admit the color photos don't show any obvious faking to me,
although I can still see the difference in hair length.  Black and
white photos show contrast better, of course.

>       No wounds such as you postulate appear
>    in any of this material.  Wounds consistent with a rifle
>    fired from LHO's sniper's nest are utterly clear in the
>    material.

Whether or not the Parkland doctors place the wound far enough
forward to square with the supposed autopsy evidence, there is one
thing they, the nurses, the technicians, etc. are all in agreement
on: The lower rear of the cerebellum was hanging out of the back
of JFK's skull.  There is NO doubt about this.  The skull wound
described in the autopsy is too high and too far to the right
in the skull for his lower rear cerebellum to protrude.  Further,
in the autopsy sketches of the destroyed brain the lower rear is
intact and the right upper part of the brain extending forward is
destroyed.  For any of JFK's brain to protrude from the rear of his
skull, especially to plop out onto the gurney, some part of his
lower occiput had to be missing.  If JFK's head wound extended into
his lower occiput, it CANNOT have been caused by a bullet from the
rear, especially one fired from a high position.

Once again, this is corroborated evidence gathered at the time.
The Parkland doctors may waffle as to where they place their hand
to describe the wound, although they always seem to get it to the
occiput eventually, they agree that the brain was hanging out the
back.  The neurosurgeon who pronounced JFK dead had to lift his head
up to see in the wound.  He wouldn't have had to do that if the head
wound was as described in the autopsy; he would only have had to
lift the head to expose the lower occiput.
Xref: news.uiowa.edu sci.physics:22290 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1681
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!lims01.lerc.nasa.gov!scdorcy
From: [e-mail] (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: The Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 1992 09:09 EST
Lines: 17

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...

>See an article by UC Berkeley Nobel Prize winning physicist Luis
>Alvarez
>
>American Journal of Physics, September 1976.
>
>Alvarez shot bullets at melons, suitable wrapped to simulate a human
>head.  The melons recoiled towards the bullets, because the bullet
>caused a jet of melon to shoot out the back whose reaction caused
>the melon as a whole to move towards the bullet.

Which would indicate that the bullet came from the _left_ rear of the limo,
based on the direction of JFK's movement.  This is not consistent with the
direction of the TSBD.

JD
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!masscomp!hubbub.westford.ccur.com!tmoore
From: [e-mail] (Tim Moore)
Subject:  Altgens .gifs --QUESTION
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (UNIX news)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 13:25:40 GMT

Thanks to the guy who posted the pan of one of the Altgens photos.  Does
anybody else see LHO standing in the doorway of the TSBD ?   My viewer
can crop and blow up pieces of the picture and it sure looks like LHO
to me.   Anybody else?
_______________________________________________________________________________
who:   Tim Moore                                             ___________
email: [e-mail]                               /  ________/__
snail: Concurrent Computer Corp.                           /__/_______/  /
       106 Apple St. Tinton Falls, NJ.            Concurrent /__________/
phone: [phone] fax: [phone]       Computer Corporation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!decwrl!csus.edu!csusac!citylit!boyd.naron
From: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: JFK - ARCHIVE SITE??
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Jun 92 21:59:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The City Lights PCBoard - Sacramento, CA - [phone]
Reply-To: citylit![e-mail] (Boyd Naron)

Chris Wood Asks:

-> What i would like to know is if there is a FTP site that contains
-> material about the JFK conspiracy.

Chris,

What I have available is certainly not considered an archive site, but
you are welcome to peruse what I have.  I also have the entire
alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup going back a couple of months if that will
help.

The telephone number is [phone] - Its a BBS so if you have a
terminal program its best to use it, so you can download whatever you
like.  The code set is 8-N-1/2400 or 9600HST.

Since my system is a subscription system, you will need to make contact,
establish your account and then leave me a comment, letting me know
that I volunteered to provide you access.

Cheers and Salutations,

        Boyd Naron
        (citylit![e-mail])

Xref: news.uiowa.edu sci.physics:22292 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1684
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!gatech!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!sun13!ds8.scri.fsu.edu!jac
From: [e-mail] (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: The Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 14:01:26 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Carr)
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University
Lines: 37

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>Does anyone know for sure what the Zapruder film really shows??

You should, of course, look at it yourself -- preferably in a series of
still photos.  You will then observe that the film shows that Kennedy
was struck in the head by a bullet that caused (1) a spray of blood and
debris in the forward direction that included some very high velocity
skull fragements, well before his head moved back and (2) the protrusion
of a large part of the brain exposed on the side/front of his head where
the scalp had been torn/blown away.  All else is analysis.

Item (1) is familiar to anyone who has shot a rifle at any object -- the
skull fragments are indicating the direction of travel of the bullet,
since only low velocity material, if any, tends to come back towards the
shooter.  Certainly not all of it.  I think someone did a conservation of
momentum study of the photos that was consistent with a bullet depositing
its momentum in the head, coming from behind.

Item (2) is consistent with the autopsy drawings in the Warren Commission
report.  Together I think they suggest that the head was thrown back in
reaction to the jet of material ejected when his head exploded.  Watching
the movie in real time, which was possible for the first time with the
various specials on the 25th anniversary, reinforced this conclusion -- for
me at least.  All of which suggests that Oswald or a Secret Service man
fired the fatal shot from behind, but does not exclude a conspiracy.

My own, seemingly unique, view is that it is entirely possible that Oswald
got lucky.  Perhaps he would have failed 9 times out of 10 as various
firing tests suggest, but chance plays an odd role sometimes, such as when
Roosevelt was missed or Churchill survived being hit by a car.

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
[e-mail]                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!lims01.lerc.nasa.gov!scdorcy
From: [e-mail] (JAMES DORCEY)
Subject: Re: Altgens .gifs --QUESTION
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 1992 10:28 EST
Lines: 13

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
writes...
>Thanks to the guy who posted the pan of one of the Altgens photos.  Does
>anybody else see LHO standing in the doorway of the TSBD ?   My viewer
>can crop and blow up pieces of the picture and it sure looks like LHO
>to me.   Anybody else?

Couldn't be - that would be too obvious ;-)  Although there is a striking
similarity...

Then again, we've talked about doctored photos in this newsgroup before ;-)

JD
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.activism:27740 alt.conspiracy:15701 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1686
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!olivea!sgigate!odin!ratmandu.esd.sgi.com!dave
From: [e-mail] (dave "who can do? ratmandu!" ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk
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
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 14:43:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: odin.1992Jun16.144323.11093
Sender: [e-mail] (Net News)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Lines: 1166
Nntp-Posting-Host: ratmandu.esd.sgi.com


                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *




                                 Chapter 15
                   The Select Committee on Assassinations,
                The Intelligence Community and the News Media


                                   Part I

                   The Top Down vs. The Bottom Up Approach
                       To Assassination Investigations


         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.


                           The Power Control Group

         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.


                         Hard Evidence of Conspiracy

         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".


                           The Bottom Up Approach

         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.


                         The Events of 1976 and 1977

         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:


         1.  To block and eliminate the Select Committee on
             Assassinations in the House of Representatives.

         2.  To firmly implant the idea that the JFK assassination
             was a Castro plot.

         3.  To block any Congressional attempts to investigate the
             four assassination cases.

         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.

         The 1977 activities of the PCG lent themselves to a new
      approach, the "top down" approach to exposing the truth.


                              Exposing the PCG

         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.


                     The Justice Department King Report

         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.


           Leaking the Justice Department Report on the King Case

         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.


                            Releasing the Report

         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.


                        Michael Shaheen -- PCG Member

         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.


           Ignoring or Suppressing Conspiracy and Framing Evidence

         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.


                 The PCG's Tactics With the Select Committee

         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.


                     PCG Control of Prior Investigations

         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:


          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.

         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.

                                 PCG Strategy

         Faced with the new committee and Sprague's staff, the PCG had
      devise a strategy that included:


          1.  Attacking Dick Sprague to discredit him with dirt and
              print it in the media.

          2.  Using the media to spread PCG propaganda and control
              the sources of all stories concerning the Select
              Committee.

          3.  Using PCG Congressmen to provide biased, distorted
              quotes to the media for its use.

          4.  Trying to discredit the entire committee by making it
              appear to be disorganized and unmanageable.

          5.  Controlling the voting and lobbying against the
              continuation of the committee in January and February.

          6.  Influencing members of the House to vote against the
              Committee through a massive letter and telegram
              campaign.

          7.  Exaggerating the emphasis placed on the size of the
              budget requested by Sprague without considering the
              need for such a budget.

          8.  Demanding that the committee justify its existence by
              producing new evidence.

          9.  Splitting the committee and attempting to create
              dissension;  creating a battle between Henry Gonzalez
              and Richard Sprague and between Gonzalez and Downing.

         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.

         11.  Trying to insert their own man at the head of the
              staff.

         12.  Brainwashing Henry Gonzalez into believing that Sprague
              and others were agents.

         13.  Sacrificing Henry Gonzalez when it became obvious the
              PCG could not control him as their chairman.

         14.  Leaking stories that seemed to make the committee's
              efforts unnecessary.


                                Media Control

         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.


                                Media Tactics

         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.


                            The Vote to Continue

         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.


                               The New Tactic

         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.


                              Tactic Backfires

         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.


                     Next Tactic -- Death By Acclamation

         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.


                              Exposing the PCG

         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.


                           Who Are The PCG Members

         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.



                                  Part II

                    "Hard" and "Soft" Propaganda in 1977


         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."


                    Evidence of Media Control by the CIA

         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:

              "Louisville Courier Journal"--Barry Bingham, Sr.
              NBC--Richard Wald
              ABC--Sam Jaffe
              Time, Inc.--Henry Luce
              Copley News Service--James Copley
              Hearst--Seymour Freiden

         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.


                Proof of CIA Efforts to Discredit Researchers

         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).


                       The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald

         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.


                               Other TV Shows

         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.


                        Priscilla McMillan--CIA Agent

         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.


                             Fensterwald's Book

         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.


                         The de Mohrenschildt Murder

         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.


                      Donald Donaldson's Disappearance

         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.


                       Attacks on the Select Committee

         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.



____________________

 [1] Power Control Group (PCG) defined in prior articles and one book
     by the author, as follows:

       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:

        John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, George
        Wallace and Mary Jo Kopechne.

       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.

 [2] The author's contentions about media control by the PCG have
     appeared in one self-published book and several articles:

       (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.

 [3] The two official investigations of the Kennedy assassination
     referred to here are:

       (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.

       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.

 [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.

 [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."

 [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."

 [7] "The Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report," Lawrence
     Schiller, Dell Publishing Co., New York, 1967.

 [8] "The Big If," "London Sunday Times," September 18, 1977.

 [9] "Marina and Lee," Patricia McMillan, Harper & Row, 1977.

[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.

[11] "Coincidence or Conspiracy," Bernard Fensterwald, Jr., Zebra
     Books, New York, 1977.

[12] (a) "The Taking of America, 1-2-3," Richard E. Sprague,
         self-published, 1976.

     (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.

[13] "Appointment in Dallas," Hugh C. McDonald, Zebra Books, New York,
     1975.

[14] "George de Mohrenschildt," Willem Oltmans, Published in The
     Netherlands, Unpublished in the United States.

[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)







                             *  *  *  *  *  *  *

--
                                              daveus rattus

                                    yer friendly neighborhood ratman

                                KOYAANISQATSI

    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.
Xref: news.uiowa.edu sci.physics:22296 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1687
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!gatech!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!sun13!ds8.scri.fsu.edu!jac
From: [e-mail] (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: The Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 14:55:45 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Carr)
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University
Lines: 24

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (JAMES DORCEY) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes...
>
>>Alvarez shot bullets at melons, suitable wrapped to simulate a human
>>head.  The melons recoiled towards the bullets, because the bullet
>>caused a jet of melon to shoot out the back whose reaction caused
>>the melon as a whole to move towards the bullet.
>
>Which would indicate that the bullet came from the _left_ rear of the limo,
>based on the direction of JFK's movement.  This is not consistent with the
>direction of the TSBD.

This is possible, and is part of the "Secret Service man" hypothesis of
rather recent vintage.  However, the Warren commission analysis of the
autopsy photos includes a drawing that shows the bullet hitting off center
and basically blasting off a quadrant of the head -- which would lead to
a recoil at an angle other than 180 degrees.  Unfortunately, the
Zapruder film does not admit a 3-D analysis of the ejectile momenta.

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I
[e-mail]                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy.jfk:1688 alt.conspiracy:15705 sci.skeptic:25841 talk.bizarre:61390
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!taurus!rpwhite
From: [e-mail] ( rpwhite )
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Zapruder
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 16:09:32 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] ( rpwhite )
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,talk.bizarre,misc.test
Distribution: usa
Organization: Monterey Bay Yacht Club, Monterey CA
Lines: 10

n article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>I've noticed in the Warren Report that there are 4 or 5 frames of
>the Zapruder film missing.

>Do they exist today or have they been destroyed or does no one know??

The missing frames of the Zapruder film exist, but are currently misplaced
among all the other interesting artifacts in that amazing 'government
wharehouse'.
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!mips!decwrl!bu.edu!transfer!necis!dlyons
From: [e-mail] (Dave Lyons)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: A&E- INVESTIGATIVE REPORT (2nd segment)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 15:18:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: NEC Information Systems, Acton, MA
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) wrote:
> [e-mail] (Dave Lyons) writes:
>
>>bullets whiz past (and overhead after he drops to the ground).  How
>>could he be both in front of the shooter (his statement before seeing
>>the picture) and next to him (his statement after seeing the picture)
>>at the same time.
>
> He was in front of , and to the right of the shooter.

The photo blowup shown on A&E shows him to the right and next to (i.e.
behind the fence) badge man.  Look at the perspective.  Badge man's
head and shoulders are at least as large as Arnold's (if not larger)
putting them at approx. the same distance from the camera.  Also, the
figure in the photo that is supposed to be Arnold is only shown from
the waist/chest up indicating that the fence was in front of him, not
behind him.

>>much as I'd like to see some real evidence to back up what I believe
>>was a conspiracy to kill the president, I don't think this is it.  I
>
> Arnold was there that day. He was seen diving for cover by
> Senator Yarborough.
> The motorcade came by, shots came from his rear, and he dove for
> cover.
> 'Badgeman' then came up to Arnold, pointed a rifle at him, and stole
> the film from Arnold's movie camera.
> You can disbelieve his story if you want, but he was there.
> Yarborough confirms it.
> And if he was there, then he was probably caught on film by Moorman.
> And he is not the only one to hear shots come from the same location.
> Abraham Zapruder did as well.
> This is *not* a story totally devoid of corroborating evidence.

I didn't say it was.  Look at what I wrote.  I do believe Arnold was
there.  I believe that he heard shots from behind him.  I believe that
someone took his movie film (I don't recall him saying that it was
badge man or that he saw a rifle anywhere) at gunpoint.  What I said
was that I don't think this 1/4 inch square piece of B&W film, blown
up into an 8x10 print and artificially colored to bring out highlights
that may or may not be there is hard evidence of ANYTHING.  We don't
know for certain that badge man exists (outside of the photo).  Arnold
certainly doesn't mention him.  He talked about one guy who flashed
CIA credentials and a railroad worker with dirty hands.  He said that
the supposed CIA guy first told him that he couldn't go out on the RR
bridge and then that he couldn't stay behind the fence.  Then he
points to the fence and tells the interviewer that he walked "all the
way around" the fence.  The direction he's pointing would put him on
the shooter's left, btw.  I haven't seen the photo personally, just on
TV and perhaps the normal distortions of televising the photo made it
look fuzzier than it really is but I'd be willing to bet that I could
find an elephant behind that fence just as easily as 2 assasins and a
witness.
                                     -- Dave --
--
***************************************************************************
DaveJ Lyons       DoD #0633         [e-mail]  [phone] BBS
Opinions expressed are mine. My company doesn't even know I'm here (Shhhh!)
***************************************************************************
Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy:15706 alt.conspiracy.jfk:1690 sci.skeptic:25842
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!agate!linus!linus.mitre.org!jeckle!ptrei
From: [e-mail] (Peter Trei)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.jfk,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Power Control Group (was: Masons, JFK, "The Taking of America 1 2 3")
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 15:13:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992Jun16.151358.21803
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Service)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Lines: 33
Nntp-Posting-Host: jeckle.mitre.org

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:

>I guess to make my question more to the point: how likely is it that
>a number of the members of the Warren Commision (say) belonged to some kinda
>brotherhood (eg. masons)?

     Gerald Ford is a Freemason, but lost interest after he took the
first degree (Masons generally take 3 degrees). As for other
commission members, I don't know who they were, let alone their
Masonic standing.

In <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:

>So I am trying to explore possibilities. I am ignorant as to the level
>of penetration of the Freemasons into the upper echelons of US society,
>hence my genuine request for info.

      Derek:

     "Penetration" is not the right word. You might as well ask if the
power structure of England has been penetrated by Anglo-Saxons. 15 US
presidents (including Washington) and about 8 signers of the
Declaration of Independence are known to have been Masons. We've been
here since the start, and are proud of it.

     This is hardly a secret - why not go to the library (I see you're
posting from Adelaide university). Try "Freemasonry and American
culture, 1880-1930" by Lynn Dumenil. It's BIB # 356103 and BSL Main
Collection (Normal Loan) 366.10973 D888f in Barr Smith. The 366.1 area
has a number of books related to Masonry.

                            Peter Trei
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!rutgers!cmcl2!notes
From: [e-mail] (Philip Galanter)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: The Zapruder Film
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 16:11:41 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Notes Person)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Philip Galanter)
Organization: New York University
Lines: 26
Nntp-Posting-Host: polar.acf.nyu.edu

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Derek Abbott) writes:
|I've read reports that say the Zapruder film conclusively shows
|(by the direction of movement of jfk's body) that jfk received a shot
|from the front.
|
|I've read reports that say that is baloney, and the movements were
|consistent with rear shots.
|
|
|Unfortunately my physics of ballistics, recoil and backlash is not too
|good.
|
|Does anyone know for sure what the Zapruder film really shows??

There are many people who know for sure what the Zapruder film really
shows, but unfortunately they do not all agree...

Phil

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Philip Galanter         New York University    phone:    [phone]
Research Associate      251 Mercer             fax:      [phone]
Academic Computing      New York, NY 10012     internet: [e-mail]

   O f f i c e   o f   A r t s   &   M e d i a   T e c h n o l o g i e s
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Altgens .gifs --QUESTION
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 16:29:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: fys.1992Jun16.162905.16526
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
Lines: 16

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Moore) writes:

>Thanks to the guy who posted the pan of one of the Altgens photos.  Does
>anybody else see LHO standing in the doorway of the TSBD ?   My viewer
>can crop and blow up pieces of the picture and it sure looks like LHO
>to me.   Anybody else?

According to the WC it is another TSBD employee, a certain Billy Nolan
Lovelady, but this is often disputed. The shirt that the man wears
resembles one I've seen LHO wearing. Is there someone out there who has
WR references on this matter?
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                            | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute         | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!pa.dec.com!ripple.enet.dec.com!grant_jo
From: [e-mail] (Joel Grant)
Subject: forensics vs. photos
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 16 JUN 92 09:28:03 PDT
Lines: 480



re: 1641  (Boyd Roberts)

>> And yet the only gun that was found was Oswald's [...]

>You just haven't researched this have you?  It is well documented that
>they also found a Mauser (Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman).  And I even
>think there's photographic or film evidence of the find.

    The "mauser" and LHO's carcano are one and the same,
    the carcano having been mistakenly identified as
    a mauser.

re: 1646  (Bruce Schuck)

>1) JFK was leaning over to his left much more [ no pun] than I
>thought. I also realize he was looking a lot *less* to left than just
>having his head at an angle. This means that his head , while cocked
>at an angle was still looking almost straight forward. That means that
>Joel's repeated assertion of JFK looking 25 degrees to his left is a
>lot of bullshit [ I always thought so, it's just nice to have it
>confirmed]. Since Oswald was to JFK's right, this reconfirms what I
>have always thought -- there is no way a bullet fired from the 6th
>floor snipers nest could exit out the right side of JFK's head without
>making a 'magic' right turn.

    I have already told you that my "assertion" of the
    25 degree angle is straight from the HSCA.  Your
    "confirmation" of your belief the 25 degree figure is
    wrong is based upon your eyeballing some film.  Not
    persuasive.

re: 1697  (Gert Niewahr)

>>Another problem with the Moorman photo is that photo analysts
>>have determined that the "muzzle flash" is simply light coming
>>through a tree.

>And such a possibility I mentioned in my original posting.
>Regardless of the source of that "flash", there is no question that
>if you blowup the Moorman photo two figures are shown behind the
>stockade.  They may not be in a police uniform and hard hat, but
>there are definitely two people where the WC said no one was.  Two
>people where the railroad yard dispatcher said thought he saw
>people.  Two people where the ex-soldier said he had been shooed
>away from.  Two people where many, many people heard shots come
>from.  At the time of the WC report, one of the reasons the knoll
>shots testimony of so many people was discounted was that no one
>had seen people on the knoll.  We now have definite evidence two
>suspicious people were on the knoll.

    Spectographic analysis reveals that at least one
    person was likely in that area.  If you say two,
    I won't argue the point since it matters very little.
    You seem to feel that someone standing on the knoll
    is automatically "suspicious".  I do not.  Given the
    absolute lack of any physical evidence for a second
    gunman, outside of a controversial and very grainy
    Polaroid, people standing on a knoll watching a
    Presidential motorcade does not leap out as being
    evidence of a power group conspiracy.

>Now, the following is one of the biggest mangles of sophistry I've
>ever read.

>>But I wonder just how many grassy knoll gunmen you think there
>>were?  The "badge man" is not at the same location where the
>>cigarette butts were found.  So that's two.

>No, it's not.  The cigarette butts and footprints on bumpers were
>found just down the stockade from where the supposed shooters are
>in the Moorman photo.  There's no reason their location places the
>shooters *at that location* at the time of the shooting.  In fact,
>a smart shooter would be shifting positions within a reasonable
>locus of where he wanted to be at the crucial time so that potential
>witnesses seeing him in the time preceding the shooting couldn't all
>lock him into one definite spot.

    But we've got Jean Hill saying the stockade fence is
    where the alleged shooter fired from and we've got
    the "badgeman" location in the Moorman photo that
    you seem to believe shows a guy shooting a rifle.

    My point about all the alleged shooters is that so
    many shooters/locations have been proposed by various
    2nd gunman theorists.

>>Zapruder believed
>>the shots came from behind him, but neither the "badge man"
>>nor the stockade fence location were behind Zapruder, and
>>both were quite near to where he and his secretary Marilyn
>>Sitzman were located.  In fact, "badge man" would have been
>>within 20-25 feet of Zapruder and Sitzman, in plain view,
>>but neither of them happened to notice a man all but
>>right next to them firing a high-powered rifle at the
>>President of the United States.

>They were turned to look at JFK as he came from their left, putting
>their backs firmly towards the stockade location.  Their position
>on the pedestal was further forward than the "badge man" site so
>that even when JFK was hit with the head shot opposite Zapruder,
>that stockade site was still behind him, albeit behind and to his
>right.

    I assure you the stockade site is not behind the
    Zapruder location.  Neither of the locations actually
    moved as the limo moved.  ;^)

    The "badgeman" location is too close to where Zapruder
    and Sitzman were for them to not have been all but
    knocked off their feet by the explosion of a rifle
    no more than 20-25 feet away from them.  Note that the
    TSBD is in fact behind them and east of them.

>What really gets to me is that you don't mention the obvious
>goddamn fact:  Zapruder was looking through his camera!  Of course
>he couldn't look at the knoll.  By the time the Z-film stops, by
>the time it was physically possible for Zapruder to look at the
>knoll, any knoll shooter would have had his gun hidden below the
>fence--would have departed the site, for that matter.  Sitzman could
>have, but she was holding onto Zapruder, and
>I believe she has said that she was watching JFK the whole time and
>that the two of them jumped off to the left of the pedestal after
>Zapruder stopped filming, putting the pedastal between them and the
>knoll site.

    As I say, neither of them reported an explosion to
    their immediate right front during the assassination.

>Besides, the length of stockade running back along the knoll
>obscured that knoll site from the pedestal position, as did
>branches from the tree hanging down.  One of the things you can
>also see pretty clearly in the Moorman photo is the tree branches
>hanging down to the shooter's left, between him and the pedestal.
>*And* the shooter was in shadows.

    The fence is about five feet tall.  Zapruder and
    Sitzman were standing very near there on a pedestal
    three feet above the ground.  I have stood on that
    pedestal and looked at that location and it is very,
    very clearly in sight.  The little tree is not nearly
    thick enough to obscure anyone's vision.

>Yet despite the fact that Zapruder heard shots coming from what
>probably was the knoll site, you assert that there was no knoll
>shooter just because he didn't say he saw one even though he never
>said he looked at the knoll during the shooting, even though he
>couldn't have looked at the knoll, and even though he probably
>couldn't have seen a shooter if he had looked.  My god, what a lie.

    The main reason I "assert" there was no knoll shooter
    is because JFK, as judged by the repeatedly verified
    forensic evidence, was struck only from above and
    from behind.  This type of evidence is in fact decisive,
    as even Lifton realizes, hence the title of his book.

    I also point out that the topography of the knoll
    does not support the second gunman theories.  I point
    out that the few witnesses who might have seen something
    that might support a shooter somewhere in the area must
    be balanced by the far greater number of eyewitnesses with
    perfect views of that area who saw nothing.  Speculating
    on what some CIA assassin "would" do is fun but hardly
    to the point.

>I don't believe Sitzman has ever said she looked at the knoll
>during or right after the shooting, either.  In the A&E special she
>gave the impression she was looking where Zapruder was looking the
>whole time.

    Sitzman and Zapruder didn't have to "look" at the
    knoll.  They were on the monument on the knoll.

    Again, I find it tough to believe that people
    located within birdie range of an alleged assassin
    didn't happen to notice the explosion of his rifle.

>>We've now got the "badge man", the guy behind the stockade
>>fence, and the shooter behind Zapruder and Sitzman.

>Easily all the same person.

    Depends on whose version you are looking at.

>>Let's
>>add a fourth shooter, the one alleged to be seen towards
>>the end of the Z-film.

>I don't think I've seen this one.  Unless he's clearly shown too
>far from the knoll site to have been the shooter, we've still got
>one gunman.

    See Z-frame (if I recall) 413.  Not very close, unless
    this alleged assassin was hyperkinetic.

>>I think we've got a couple of others
>>as well.  And - oh yes! - an extra shooter at the TSBD
>>as well as one in the Dal-Tex building.  Am I leaving any
>>of them out?

O>ooh, clever tactics: Obfuscate the knoll shooter issue by
>injecting theorized shooters at *other* sites.  A lie by any other
>name...

    Tell that to the people in this forum who have postulated
    such shooters.

>The rest of this is just you trotting out the same old arguments
>based on flawed evidence.  None of this *directly* invalidates the
>existence of a knoll shooter.  None of your arguments above does, either.
>Again, I have yet to see an anti-conspiracist yield to cogent,
>corroborated evidence.  Like I've said before, I discard a vast
>majority of pro-conspiracy evidence and testimony because it came
>after the fact and/or can't be independently corroborated.  I now
>limit my arguments to hard physical evidence and testimony given in
>or at the time of the WC report.  Yet anti-conspiracists can't
>bring themselve to acknowledge even the possibilities arising from
>even this limited body of hard evidence, evidence that the WC
>and/or the HCSA considered valid.  Here is a case of an
>anti-conspiracist going to great lengths to muddy a clear
>conclusion made from corroborated testimony and uncontested
>photographic evidence.  Why?  This kind of response goes beyond a
>dogged desire to debunk lunatic conspiracy theories.

    Sorry if I find your "hard" evidence to be of the
    sno-cone variety.  Please explain what happened
    to the second gunman's bullet; why was no evidence
    of such a shot found in JFK's body.

>>And yet the only gun that was found was Oswald's and the only
>>bullets and bullet fragments found were fired from Oswald's
>>gun.

>One Dallas police officer clearly stated he found a Mauser; he said
>he saw "Mauser" stamped on the barrel.  Said this at the time of
>the shooting.  No, you can't confuse a Mauser with an M-C.

    The Mauser was in fact confused with an MC.  I am
    amazed that this simple observational error is still
    being touted almost 29 years after the fact.  The rifle
    was photographed as it sat on the floor, as yet untouched
    by any Dallas PD personnel.  The rifle in those photos is
    LHO's MC.

>The only bullets and fragments that were "found" were those that
>survived the immediate clean-up of the limo, survived the suspicious
>autopsy, that magically appeared so pristine it looked like it'd
>been fired into a tank of water (CE 399).

    Here we have your addiction to "hard" physical evidence,
    eh?  Innuendo, dismissal of real evidence as "suspicious",
    not even a mention of the hard physical evidence showing
    why CE399 was deormed the way it was.

>There's independently corroborated testimony that an "agent" dug a
>whole bullet out of the grass and took it away, never to be seen again.

    More "hard" evidence?

>>JFK's and Connally's wounds, which wounds are thoroughly
>>established and authenticated, lead backwards to only one
>>location, the area of the 6th floor of the TSBD.

>Connally's wounds require that he be hit somewhere from behind at
>some point as he turns back from looking to his right.  Only a lone
>shooter theory requires that Connally be perfectly lined up with
>JFK.  *You've* got the harder sell with lining up and timing the wounds.
>I can place just two shooters in rearward spots that people
>identified shooters in at the time and easily match up the wound
>alignments and timing to match the Z-film.

    Connally was in fact hit as he was turned to his right.
    Is this in dispute?

    JFK received a through-and-through wound from a FMJ
    bullet.  Connally was 28 inches in front of JFK, two
    inches lower and six inches to JFK's left.  Now if the
    bullet that went through JFK didn't hit Connally, where
    did it go?  Had the bullet struck at a different moment
    with JFK and/or Connally in somewhat different positions
    JFK/s and/or Connally's wounds would have been other
    than they were.  It's not that tough.  But since we
    do know what JFK's and Connally's wounds were, and we
    know them with extreme precision, and we know approximately
    what position they were in when they were wounded, it isn't
    that tough for the trajectory analysts to figure out where
    that shot came from.  And it sure wasn't from behind a
    stockade fence at the grassy knoll.

>>The only
>>wounds to JFK's head came from above and behind.  There
>>is no evidence of a shot hitting JFK from anywhere else.

>We can argue the head movement theories endlessly, but the fact is
>that none of the films and none of the eyewitness testimony
>conclusively prove that the only wounds came from above and behind.
>I would argue that the preponderance of evidence (the direction in
>which people said they saw brains splatter, the head movement,
>where people heard shots, etc.) points to front and rear shooters.
>You can NOT say that there is definite evidence for just a rear
>shooter.

    Yes, I can say it, because that is in fact what the
    situation is.  Should I re-post the quote from Humes
    in the JAMA article?  Without a doubt, if there was anyone
    else shooting a rifle that day, that person missed completely.

>>There
>>were no other bullets recovered consistent with a shot from
>>anywhere else.

>Covered that already.  Doesn't it ever bother you that no
>anti-conspiracy theory can account for the Tague bullet?  You've
>got to have the magic bullet to account for the Tague bullet, and
>the magic bullet is hogwash.

    I have already accounted for the Tague fragment as having
    been one of the frags from the head wound, deflected
    upward.

>>And the Z-film really does not show any evidence
>>of any wounds to JFK's head other than the exit wound described
>>in the autopsy and by subsequent pathologists and radiologists
>>examining the materials.  I have no idea what was done to
>>blow-up the frame you refer to from the Z-film, but having
>>viewed the Groden-enhanced Z-film itself in that sequence
>>more times than I can count, in action and in stop frame,
>>I can tell you that no wounds to the left occipital region
>>appear, no wounds other than the exit wound described in
>>the autopsy appear.  The Nix and Muchmore films also show
>>no evidence of such a wound.

>Well, I didn't assert that blown-up frame real strongly because I
>can't remember which book its in and therefore I can't weigh its
>authenticity.  It's a post-head shot frame as the limo drives off
>with a pretty sizeable red splotch on the lower right occipital
>area of JFK's head.  No, it doesn't look like splashed matter from
>the other wound; it looks like an evulsed wound.  It's in the spot
>where the Parkland doctors say there was an exit wound.  I also
>clearly see a large lateral temporal wound in the Z-film, so I
>don't dispute that part of the autopsy finding, and given the way
>the Parkland doctors move their hand from the occiput to the
>temporal area in describing JFK's head wound, I can believe that
>it's all one large gaping head wound.  The problem is that the
>autopsy didn't find any damage to the occiput and there is no way a
>rear shot could have caused such damage.

    Here is how the pathologists described the head wound:

    "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull
    on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but
    extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions.
    In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and
    bone producing a defect which measures approximately
    13 cm. in its greatest diameter."

    I submit this is pretty much the wound seen on the Z-film.

>>Either way, it fits
>>a double shot perfectly:  A rear shot impacts high on the skull,
>>causing the internal beveling of the bone and evulsing the right
>>lateral area of the skull, then a knoll shot impacts in this already
>>disrupted area, leaving no beveling since it doesn't impact
>>pristine, solid skull, and continue out through the occiput,
>>contributing as well to the right lateral evulsion and also driving
>>the skull back.
>
>    And just where did this bullet wind up?

>Somewhere to JFK's left rear, I imagine.

    And, apparently, left no trace?

>>       And why did it
>>    leave no evidence in JFK's body?

>The damage it did to the brain would have been indistinguishable
>from damage from another rear bullet, and like I said, if it had
>struck an already disrupted part of the skull it would have left no
>entry wound.  That leaves only an exit wound.

    It is not clear to me that two bullets make damage
    "indistinguishable" from one bullet, as viewed
    by trained pathologists.

    But we still have the problem of no rear exit wound,
    no metal in the brain/skull consistent with anything
    other than one shot, fired from above and behind.

>>       The autopsy X-rays
>>    and photos were examined and authenticated by the HSCA
>>    to the nth degree.

>First off, the X-ray and autopsy technicians say there was a hole
>in the occiput.  Secondly, the X-rays don't show enough of the
>occiput to prove or disprove a hole.  That leaves the photos.  I
>don't assert that they are faked; I just assert that their
>authentication is dubious and that they are not enough evidence
>to disprove an occipital exit wound.

    Neither of us has seen all the autopsy material.
    With the possible exception of Dr. Wecht, all who
    have seen the complete material are in agreement that
    the Dr. Humes's central finding is correct.

>As to whether I *think* they are faked, I relate the following:
>Before the movie "JFK" even came out, before I had read any
>conspiracy book, I picked up one of them ("High Treason", I think)
>in the library and flipped to the pictures.  I hadn't even read any
>of the captions before I saw a black and white copy of the autopsy
>photo of the back of JFK's head.  Right away I thought there was
>something odd about the picture: The hair on the very rear of the
>head was wet and the surrounding hair was dry.  It was also darker
>(darker than could be accounted for by being wet) and it was
>longer.  In other words, before my perceptions of the evidence had
>been tainted by word one of theories about faked photos, I thought
>the photo had been faked.

>I admit the color photos don't show any obvious faking to me,
>although I can still see the difference in hair length.  Black and
>white photos show contrast better, of course.

    I cannot account for your perceptions based upon viewing
    wet vs. dry look in the Groden/Livingstone book.  I can
    only repeat that Drs. Humes and Boswell have authenticated
    the photos and the X-rays, and that the HSCA photo and
    forensic experts find that none of the material has been
    tampered with, and that the person in the X-rays and photos
    is without a doubt JFK.

>>       No wounds such as you postulate appear
>>    in any of this material.  Wounds consistent with a rifle
>>    fired from LHO's sniper's nest are utterly clear in the
>>    material.

>Whether or not the Parkland doctors place the wound far enough
>forward to square with the supposed autopsy evidence, there is one
>thing they, the nurses, the technicians, etc. are all in agreement
>on: The lower rear of the cerebellum was hanging out of the back
>of JFK's skull.  There is NO doubt about this.  The skull wound
>described in the autopsy is too high and too far to the right
>in the skull for his lower rear cerebellum to protrude.  Further,
>in the autopsy sketches of the destroyed brain the lower rear is
>intact and the right upper part of the brain extending forward is
>destroyed.  For any of JFK's brain to protrude from the rear of his
>skull, especially to plop out onto the gurney, some part of his
>lower occiput had to be missing.  If JFK's head wound extended into
>his lower occiput, it CANNOT have been caused by a bullet from the
>rear, especially one fired from a high position.

    The right side of the brain was virtually shredded,
    resembling to the Parkland doctors the stalk-like
    appearance of the cerebellum.  Since the Parkland doctors
    who were actually treating JFK (Carrico, Baxter, Jenkins,
    Perry) have repeatedly stated that the wounds they observe
    in the autopsy materials are the same wounds they saw at
    Parkland, I do wonder why their initial and mistaken
    observations are still taken as evidence.  (?)

>Once again, this is corroborated evidence gathered at the time.
>The Parkland doctors may waffle as to where they place their hand
>to describe the wound, although they always seem to get it to the
>occiput eventually, they agree that the brain was hanging out the
>back.  The neurosurgeon who pronounced JFK dead had to lift his head
>up to see in the wound.  He wouldn't have had to do that if the head
>wound was as described in the autopsy; he would only have had to
>lift the head to expose the lower occiput.

    If you read the medical reports made at that time by the
    doctors involved the only notable difference between their
    *clinical* descriptions of the head wound and the wound
    as described by the pathologists is the extruding cerebellum.
    They were mistaken on this point and have admitted it,
    pointing out that they were not at that table for the
    purpose of making forensice determinations.  They were trying
    to save a life.

Joel Grant  (speaking on his own behalf)

Xref: news.uiowa.edu alt.conspiracy.jfk:1694 alt.conspiracy:15708 sci.skeptic:25845 talk.bizarre:61399
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!spool.mu.edu!uunet!news.larc.nasa.gov!grissom.larc.nasa.gov!kludge
From: [e-mail] ( Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Zapruder
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 16:59:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Jun16.165932.12826
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET Network News)
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
Lines: 14

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ( rpwhite ) writes:
>
>The missing frames of the Zapruder film exist, but are currently misplaced
>among all the other interesting artifacts in that amazing 'government
>wharehouse'.

I've got them around here someplace, but we just moved around and a lot of
things are misplaced.  I might have left them in one of the alien spacecraft.
Or maybe that was that eighteen minute Nixon tape.  There's so much junk
around here that we hardly even have space for the supressed inventions;
we've had to throw out the last few perpetual motion machines, and the 200 mpg
carb is currently piled up on top of the geodetic survey of Atlantis.  Sheesh.
Give me a few weeks to get this straightened out.
--scott
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!hsdndev!taco!rock!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!sasdwf
From: [e-mail] (Dan Fowler)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Altgens .gifs --QUESTION
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 16 Jun 92 15:14:37 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 23
Originator: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: copano.unx.sas.com


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tim Moore) writes:
>Thanks to the guy who posted the pan of one of the Altgens photos.  Does
>anybody else see LHO standing in the doorway of the TSBD ?   My viewer
>can crop and blow up pieces of the picture and it sure looks like LHO
>to me.   Anybody else?

The person certainly resembles LHO in appearance.  The clothing also
matches the clothing Oswald was wearing when picked up by the
police.  The Warren Commission investigated this and concluded that
the person in the doorway was Bill Lovelady.  However, Lovelady was
wearing a plaid shirt buttoned at the collar.  This guy is wearing
a solid dark shirt unbuttoned to the stomach with a white tshirt
underneath.  Lovelady was also sitting down on the steps.  I cannot
conclusively identify the person as Oswald, however.  (I think his
mother did, though).


--
Dan Fowler          |
Austin QA Dept      |   "Facts are useless in emergencies."
SAS Institute       |    David Byrne
[e-mail]  |
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!ruunfs!sdevries
From: [e-mail] (Sjoerd de Vries)
Subject: Re: Double Head Shot Tactics
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht,  The Netherlands
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 17:07:50 GMT
Lines: 49

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gert Niewahr) writes:

>I don't plan to defend my theoretical scenario ad infinitum, but I
>will back up points I'd already thought through and challenge
>misinformation:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A.S. Chamove) writes:
>>Someone shooting from the grassy k. would be confident that everyone
>>would be watching the president as he came by; afterall that was why
>>they were there in the first place; the spectators only had a few
>>seconds to see the president.

>No, if you'd considered the reasonable assumptions pro shooters make
>about crowds, you'd realize this would be a major consideration.
>The crowd was going to turn towards the first shooter.  The
>conspiracy couldn't plan for a knoll shooter to be the first and only
>shooter because it would have left that shooter vulnerable to capture--
>the knoll site wasn't hidden.  The crowd-looking-at-target-not-at-
>shooter misdirection works if you're in a hidden site with a good
>avenue of escape; if you're standing out in the open, everyone
>turns around to look at where the shots came from and you're meat.

>As it was, lots of onlookers charged the knoll after the shooting.
>One of the problems I have with the "badgeman" scenario is that it
>requires so much action by a pro shooter as to break my sanity
>rule.  The shooter supposedly:

>  Cleared his site himself, kicking the ex-soldier from behind the
>  stockade.  Maybe his site was supposed to be already clear when
>  he arrived (the first car that the railroad yard dispatcher saw in
>  the lot behind the stockade was, he claimed, casing the back of
>  the fence), but he still let his face be seen by a witness.

    As I recall it -from 'the men who killed Kennedy' video-
        Arnold was not removed from the stockade by badgeman, but
        by one of those fake SS men.

        There is another witness who saw badgeman; he was in the
        same video. A deaf-mute fellow, Ed Hoffman (??) saw him
        fire his rifle, break it up in parts, which then were
        given to a guy who looked like a construction worker.
        After this, badgeman returned calmly (!) to the stockade.
        Does anybody have a follow up on that?

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Sjoerd C. de Vries                            | If all else fails |
| Utrecht Biophysics Research Institute         | we can whip the   |
| Dept. of Medical and Physiological Physics    | horses' eyes      |
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!medusa.cis.ohio-state.edu!krouse-p
From: [e-mail] (Pierce Krouse)
Subject: VCR conspiracy: A&E show botched
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (NETnews        )
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 19:03:29 GMT
Lines: 11

My VCR messed up last friday while I was out of town.  Would someone
be kind enough to dupe their copy of segment 2 of _The Men who Killed
Kennedy_ if I sent them a blank tape and money for postage?

Note that I *do* have cable and *have* recorded part 1.  I'm not
trying to mooch the show off of anyone -- I legally paid for cable,
and I am trying to just get the damn show I paid good money for.

And no, I don't work for the FBI.  If I did, I'd have the answers and
wouldn't have to watch the show ;-)

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Path: news.uiowa.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!ubc-cs!newsserver.sfu.ca!sfu.ca!schuck
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: A&E- INVESTIGATIVE REPORT (2nd segment)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 18:12:15 GMT

[e-mail] (Dave Lyons) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) wrote:

>> He was in front of , and to the right of the shooter.

>The photo blowup shown on A&E shows him to the right and next to (i.e.
>behind the fence) badge man.  Look at the perspective.  Badge man's
>head and shoulders are at least as large as Arnold's (if not larger)
>putting them at approx. the same distance from the camera.  Also, the
>figure in the photo that is supposed to be Arnold is only shown from
>the waist/chest up indicating that the fence was in front of him, not
>behind him.

Not the fence! Remember, Arnold was behind the waist high whitewashed
concrete wall sitting on the grassy knoll. Zapruder was standing on
another part of this concrete structure [I can't remember what it was
called]

Arnold was in front of the fence and behind the concrete wall.

>I didn't say it was.  Look at what I wrote.  I do believe Arnold was
>there.  I believe that he heard shots from behind him.  I believe that
>someone took his movie film (I don't recall him saying that it was
>badge man or that he saw a rifle anywhere) at gunpoint.

He clearly descibed a rifle barrel that looked huge as it was pointed
at him, and he did make it clear that it was 'badgeman' who pointed
the rifle at him.

>  What I said
>was that I don't think this 1/4 inch square piece of B&W film, blown
>up into an 8x10 print and artificially colored to bring out highlights
>that may or may not be there is hard evidence of ANYTHING.  We don't
>know for certain that badge man exists (outside of the photo).  Arnold
>certainly doesn't mention him.

Arnold *did* mention him. There are also other witnesses who described
a man in a police uniform in that area.

There is also the testimony of the people [including Policemen] who
encountered *someone* flashing a Secret Serviceman's ID when all the
Secret Servicmen were accounted for somewhere else.

>  He talked about one guy who flashed
>CIA credentials and a railroad worker with dirty hands.  He said that
>the supposed CIA guy first told him that he couldn't go out on the RR
>bridge and then t