JFK

Fairy Tales Are Dangerous

Posted on Updated on

In a real world in which you and I must live

fairy tales are dangerous

dangerous because they are untrue

anything which is untrue is dangerous

and it is all the more dangerous when the fairy tale is accepted as reality

simply because it has an official seal of approval

or because ‘honorable’ men announce you must believe it

or because powerful elements of the press tell you the fairy tale is true
                                                                      Jim Garrison

Garrison’s words from 1967 are just as true today as they were then. They were a warning that went unheeded by most and getting by with the JFK assassination coup, the same criminal cabal, emboldened in their success, went on to continuously deceive the world with ever more deadly fairy tales.

Did Garrison get everything right in his investigation of the JFK assassination? Probably not. Were some things like the possible Israel/Mossad connection left out, not because of him covering up some aspects but perhaps because he just didn’t have the information? Most likely. Was he at least on the right track? Definitely.

The below video is amazing in the fact that after NBC had done a hit piece on Garrison, he petitioned the FCC who agreed that the program was biased and granted Garrison a 30-minute rebuttal. That would never happen today.

While watching Garrison’s response I couldn’t help but mentally substitute elements of  9/11 for JFK in his narrative. The two events are similar in so many ways. Both were a massive psyop, false flag coverups with devastating aftermaths including millions of deaths for the profit of a few.

History is littered with dangerous fairy tales and collectively we still are yet to learn how to keep them from repeating.

The video was found at 50 Years Since JFK Assassination Retrospective.

Advertisements

What If?

Posted on Updated on

Just the other day I heard a woman say “You know what is the worst thing about growing old? It’s looking back at all of the what ifs.”

We’ve all had those moments. It does little good to dwell on them except in the faint hope that maybe we can learn something from them and apply them to the present.

That was then, this is now.

But we’ll play along with this theme on this 48th anniversary of the assassination of John Kennedy. The ‘what ifs’ are monumental.

What if it had just poured down rain that Nov. 22th and the ‘coup d’état‘ had been delayed? What if Kennedy had rallied his protectors around him, thwarted his enemies and had lived?

What if the Vietnam War had been stopped in its tracks, the cold war had warmed, the Federal Reserve abolished, big bankers and secret societies banished to the dustbin of history,  the CIA broken up and Israel was denied its nuclear weapons, lobbying and blackmail powers? What if rule by sociopaths and psychopaths was no more?

What if not only JFK had lived but also RFK and John Jr.? What if ‘Camelot’ had grown and matured? Could a handful of men and their allies, perhaps those allies being not only the American people but all citizens of the world, have changed the course of history? We know that where we have ended up today is the result of a relatively handful of people so yes, it is possible that a few could have led us in a totally different direction. 

It wasn’t to be. Collectively we failed. That doesn’t mean history must be forgotten and that ‘what ifs’ as an exercise in thought should be discarded.

We are here now. We cannot count on a few entrenched in the system to lead us to anything that might resemble humanity . It has to be what we as the majority do from this moment on. Otherwise we will all die with too many ‘what ifs’ left on the table.

John F. Kennedy. We hardly knew you.

A Forensic Pathologist: From JFK to Caylee

Posted on Updated on

The Cayce Anthony trial.

Yes, it’s a modern day version of a circus. The OJ trial of the 21st century. Millions follow it and media whores such as Nancy Grace exploit it.

It’s a diversion from all number of other crimes happening right under our noses.

My wife served on a murder trial jury one time so it’s an interest to her and gets tube time and internet live feeds here at the house.  I haven’t been following the trial that much until today when the defense called up high profile big money forensic pathologist Dr. Werner Spitz, an Israeli Henry Kissinger lookalike and similar in speech to that war criminal.

Spitz has quite a history.

He has served on committees investigating the deaths of President John F. Kennedy, Jr., Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mary Jo Kopechne, who drowned after the car driven by Senator Edward Kennedy plunged off the Chappaquiddick Bridge. He has also served as an expert witness in numerous high-profile cases including the California Night Stalker, the Preppy Murder Trial in New York, and the wrongful death suit against O.J. Simpson.  

He was also involved in the Jon Benet Ramsey case and as a witness in the Phil Spector murder trial where he allegedly ‘flipped out’ when asked how much money he was being paid by Spector.

Spitz was adamant on the stand today that the original Caylee autopsy was ‘shoddy’ in not examining the inside of the skull. The second autopsy he performed did so.

To me his statements today were not exactly in line with what he said as an appointee by Nelson Rockefeller to the Warren Commission.

Spitz: “I do not believe that an examination of the President’s brain would contribute significantly to a clarification of the circumstances [of the murder];” and, “Microscopic examination of skin slides from the bullet wounds would not, in my opinion, have added pertinent data.

Werner Spitz, MD, devoted considerable attention to explaining why Connally’s dramatic reaction to the first shot, though occurring later in the Zapruder film than JFK’s, posed no obstacle to the Single Bullet Theory.

The HSCA endorsed Rockefeller consultant Werner Spitz’s finding that the wound in JFK’s back was lower than its purported exit in the anterior neck. This presented a problem — how could a bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository travel upward through Kennedy’s neck? The theorized solution to this “upward bullet” problem was that Kennedy was leaning forward when struck, as the HSCA diagrams above illustrate (see HSCA vol. 7, p. 100).
The cropped portion of Zapruder film frame 228 reproduced below, however, shows that Kennedy was upright immediately after being struck. Neither the Zapruder film nor still images of JFK in Dealey Plaza disclose him leaning forward at any moment in the relevant time period.  {more}   {also more on this}
It’s obvious to me that Spitz was paid to help cover up the JFK assassination and despite his experience and expertise in forensics, it’s apparent he loves the limelight and the money of his ‘have autopsy will travel” show. I have no comment on Cayce Anthony’s guilt or innocence but regarding Spitz my opinion is that he is a criminal that aided in hiding the truth of the murder of JFK. The repercussions of this cover up continue to this very day and will for long into the future, well past after the memory of little Caylee has vanished.


Only in America …  

Israel Killed JFK?

Posted on Updated on

As we come upon another anniversary of the JFK assassination there will be talk and continued speculation as to who did it.

One theory will not make the main stream media’s ruminations.

In 2004, nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu alleged that Israel was behind the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy.

As per the interview published in newspaper’s Arabic supplement Al-Wassat, Vanunu said according to “near-certain indications”, Kennedy was assassinated due to “pressure he exerted on then head of government, David Ben-Gurion, to shed light on Dimona’s nuclear reactor”.

10 years earlier, in 1994, Michael Collins Piper published Final Judgment” which demonstrates the strong likelihood Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad, collaborated alongside the CIA and the Meyer Lansky Crime Syndicate in the JFK assassination because President Kennedy was working to prevent Israel from acquiring nuclear weapons of mass destruction, a fact that remained a dark secret for decades.

Final Judgment is available for free in pdf format. It’s a must read for all serious researchers.

As with 9/11, Israel’s grand deception in the assassination of JFK is verboten. The controlled media tells us so by their silence.

JFK Dimona Letter to Israel

For this JFK ‘anniversary’ we’ve had “Jesse Ventura Exposes the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Nationally.”
Without having seen it, I’ll just have to guess that Israel is not mentioned as a possible part of the conspiracy.

A google ‘news’ search for “JFK assassination” brings up the top story “Leonardo DiCaprio, producing and starring in a film about JFK’s assassination.” It will be based on the book “Legacy of Secrecy.” I haven’t read it but I’m guessing that Israel doesn’t play a prominent role.

The Mystery of Oswald’s Contacts with the CIA in Mexico

Posted on

4-21-08

https://i1.wp.com/www.school-for-champions.com/biographies/images/lee_harvey_oswald_3.jpg Oswald silenced quickly on November 24th, 1963, two days after the JFK assassination.

By Jefferson Morley

Mr. Morley is the author of Our Man in Mexico City: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA, published by the University Press of Kansas. The October 10, 1963 cable and other documents reported in the book can be viewed at http://ourmaninmexico.com/documents.html.

A small group of senior CIA officers may have been running an authorized counterintelligence operation involving Lee Harvey Oswald six weeks before the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

That’s the controversial but conditional conclusion I reached while writing the biography of CIA spymaster Winston Scott, the agency’s top man in Mexico for more than a decade. Our Man in Mexico, argues that if there was an Oswald operation, Scott, a brash and brilliant spy, was not a participant. The CIA has never acknowledged the existence of such an operation, if there was one. Many historians will deny it. But the new JFK paper trail is clear: some of Scott’s CIA associates knew much more than they ever disclosed about the man who apparently went on to kill President Kennedy in Dallas.

Newly declassified records and interviews with retired CIA officials illuminate the JFK story as it has never been seen before: through the eyes of Win Scott, long a shadowy figure in the history of the agency who was renowned for the brilliance and diligence of his espionage. In 1963, Scott was serving as the chief of the CIA’s station in Mexico City. It was here his path intersected with Oswald’s.

In the summer of 1963, Oswald, a 23-year old ex-Marine with a Russian wife, leftist political views and a penchant for scheming, was living in New Orleans. In the course of the next 100 days of his life, he would come in contact with four CIA intelligence gathering programs. Two of the programs that Oswald encountered were run by Scott, who operated out of an office on the top floor of the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City. The other two were run by his colleague David Atlee Phillips, a highly regarded counterintelligence officer also stationed in Mexico City. Scott had a front row seat on the events that would culminate in the Dallas tragedy.

Such high-level CIA interest in Oswald does not necessarily mean that there was an operation involving Oswald, much less a CIA conspiracy. The evidence allows different readings. Win Scott himself did his own private investigation of Oswald a few years later and concluded the Soviets were likely behind the gunfire that killed Kennedy. David Phillips, who would go on to found the Association of Foreign Intelligence officers, a pro-CIA lobbying group, said late in life that he believed that JFK was killed by rogue U.S. intelligence officers. Win Scott’s son, Michael who spent more than 20 years sifting his father’s life story, thought Phillips was more likely right.

***

Winston Mackinley Scott was not one of those CIA men from the Ivy League. He came from rural Alabama, specialized in mathematics, joined the FBI, then the Office of Strategic Services then the CIA, where he became friends with all of the leading figures of the Agency’s halcyon early days: Allen Dulles, CIA director from 1953 to 1961, was a good friend. So was James Jesus Angleton, the legendary counterintelligence chief whose alcoholic brilliance and bitter decline have inspired a half dozen books and a couple of major motion pictures including Robert DeNiro’s CIA epic, The Good Shepherd.

When Oswald visited the Cuban and Soviet diplomatic offices In Mexico City between September 27 and October 1, 1963, Scott’s vast and efficient surveillance networks picked up on his presence almost immediately. Within a few days, the station had learned his name and Scott queried Washington asking for more information. The result was perhaps the single most important JFK assassination document to emerge in recent years. It is the fully declassified version of headquarter’s response to Scott’s inquiry. The cable, dated October 10, 1963–six weeks before Kennedy was killed–is not any sort of “smoking gun” proof of conspiracy so often sought by cable news producers and publishing houses.

But it does reveal some troubling facts:

  • A group of senior CIA officers were not only monitoring Lee Harvey Oswald’s political activities while President Kennedy was still alive. They were manipulating information about him.

    Among those most deeply involved in the selective handling of information about Oswald were Angleton, the chief of the counterintelligence staff who died in 1986; Phillips, the chief of anti-Castro operations in the Western Hemisphere, who died in 1988; his boss Tom Karamessines, the deputy director of the clandestine service who died in 1976; and, possibly, Phillips’s subordinate, George Joannides, an up-and-coming undercover officer who was running psychological warfare operations out of Miami in 1963. Joannides died in 1991. (The exact nature of Joannides’s involvement is hard to discern because the CIA is fighting in federal court to block disclosure of virtually all records related to his secret operations in 1963.)

    There is no evidence that any of these men were involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. There is lots of evidence, however, that they were very discreet about what they knew of Oswald’s political activities, travels and intentions before Kennedy was killed. They certainly never cooperated with assassination investigators in any meaningful way.

  • In October 1963, senior officials at CIA headquarters deliberately cut Scott, the CIA’s top man in Mexico, “out of the loop” of the latest FBI reports on Oswald.
  • Scott rejected a key finding of the Warren Commission report on JFK’s murder. The Agency told the Commission that its personnel did not learn of Oswald’s contacts with Cuban embassy officials on September 27 1963 until after Kennedy was killed. Win Scott said that was not true–and the CIA’s own records confirm his point. In fact, Win Scott and David Phillips knew about Oswald’s contacts with Cuban consular officials within a few days of when the occurred and well before Kennedy was killed.

Does this curious paper trail signal the existence of intelligence activity that deliberately involved Oswald?

Between 1995 and 2007, three retired CIA officials involved in pre-assasination intelligence gathering on the accused assassin spoke to me. All three acknowledged an often under-appreciated fact: information about Lee Harvy Oswald circulated among a small group of senior counterintelligence operatives just a few weeks before Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy.

Jane Roman, William J. Hood, and Anne Goodpasture agreed in separate interviews that the October 10, 1963 cable reflected an unusual level of interest in Oswald.

“To me it’s indicative of a keen interest in Oswald held on a ‘need to know’ basis,” said Roman, a longtime aide to CIA counterintelligence chief Jim Angleton, in an interview at her home in Washington in November 1994. I first published an account of Roman’s remarks in the Washington Post a few months later. Roman, who later regretted her remarks to me but did not recant them, said she did not know who was responsible for the final version of the misleading cable.

Hood, a longtime aide to Helms, discussed the Oswald cable at his home on Long Island last year. Still hale in his 80s, Hood reviewed a copy of the Oswald cable on which his own initials appear. He took care to express surprise that no fewer than six CIA component offices helped prepare the report on the itinerant ex-Marine.

“Jesus, it goes all over the place,” he whistled. “That’s a lot coordination.”

Hood denied the cable was evidence of a CIA operation involving Oswald. But his denial came with what I regarded as a significant loophole.

Was it possible, I asked Hood, that Tom Karamessines had not shared with Win Scott the latest information on Oswald because somebody at headquarters was running an operation involving Oswald and wanted to restrict the circulation of information about him so as to preserve confidentiality of an operation? Was information about Oswald being held on what Jane Roman called a “need to know basis”?

“Absolutely not,” Hood said. “There’s no reason to. If [the operation] was something at Helms’s level there would be a reason not to tell somebody in the field. But not at this level.”

I pointed out that the October 10 1963 cable on Oswald had almost reached Helms’s level: It was reviewed and approved by Helms’s top deputy, Tom Karamessines, who was known for his discretion and loyalty. The decision not to share Oswald information while JFK was still alive had been taken at the highest level, I said.

Hood blamed incompetence, not operational interest. “The information that is left out [of the cable to Win Scott] is pretty significant,” he conceded. “It really should have been sent in the cable. But I don’t find anything smelly in it.”

Anne Goodpasture, Win Scott’s longtime assistant, was more circumspect about the anomalies of the October 10 1963 cable. She did not agree that the involvement of many CIA hands in a misleading communication reflected an operational interest in Oswald. She did not deny it. “I really couldn’t say,” she said.

In my mind, all three former CIA hands had basically defaulted to the proverbial “non-denial denial,” a factually accurate statement, seemingly dispositive, that was actually paved with escape routes for those who preferred not to be pinned down about the agency’s sources and methods.

After the assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963, the story of the CIA’s machinations around Oswald instantaneously became one of the Agency’s most closely guarded secrets.

In Mexico City, Win Scott searched his files for reports, tapes, and possibly photos of Oswald. In Washington, the White House and the FBI sought to tamp down widespread fears of a conspiracy. In Cuba, Fidel Castro went on national television to insinuate there was a sinister plot from reactionary forces to blame the crime on his communist government.

In the weeks that followed, CIA officials privately denied any special pre-assassination knowledge of, or interest in, Oswald, a claim accepted by the Warren Commission investigating Kennedy’s murder. In September 1964, the commission concluded that Oswald had acted alone and unaided.

But Win Scott knew better than anyone there were problems with the Mexico City station’s handling of Oswald’s visit. He continued to collect reports from credible sources about Oswald’s contacts with Mexican communists that CIA surveillance seemed to have missed. He could never reconcile himself to the official finding about Oswald. In an unpublished memoir seized by the CIA after his death, Scott rejected the Warren Commission’s claim that the Mexico City station did not learn of Oswald’s contacts with Cuban officials until after Kennedy was killed. To the contrary, he wrote, Oswald, “was a person of great interest to us … reports were made on all his contacts with both the Cuban Consulate and with the Soviets.”

Scott didn’t say anything about an operation involving Oswald but he was a CIA loyalist who steadfastedly refused to reveal the agency’s sources and methods. Scott, however, did have a piece of evidence about Oswald that was relevant to the question of Oswald and U.S. intelligence: an audio surveillance tape containing his voice. The existence of an Oswald tape had long been promoted by JFK conspiracy theorists and denied by the agency. But Anne Goodpasture said under oath in a 1997 deposition that she gave a copy of an audio surveillance tape of the accused assassin to her boss in the panicky hours after Kennedy’s murder. Goodpasture repeated the story to me in a May 2005 interview. She said she assumed Scott stashed the tape in his home office safe.

The tape would have shed light on the nature of the CIA’s interest in Oswald. It might have settled the question of whether there was an Oswald operation or not. But the tape vanished. It was probably in the material seized by the CIA from Scott’s home after his death in 1971. The CIA never shared the tape with JFK assassination investigators. A CIA record destruction order found in the late 1990s disclosed that the material found in Win Scott’s safe was destroyed in January 1986.

In other words, the Agency concealed material evidence in the murder of a sitting president for 22 years and then destroyed it. Whether the Oswald tape was destroyed to hide incompetence or malfeasance is unknowable. The possibility that it was destroyed to hide evidence of the CIA’s operational interest in Oswald cannot excluded.

http://hnn.us/articles/49179.html

Post by way of: