PDA

View Full Version : JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn't



James H. Fetzer
06-28-2010, 07:23 AM
http://www.voltairenet.org/article165721.html

JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn’t
by James Fetzer*

Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated 42 years ago in the midst of his campaign for the U.S. presidency. Largely overshadowed by the death of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, the official account of RFK’s tragic end, allegedly shot down by a lone gunman, like his brother, has received vastly less attention. In both instances, we are looking at staged events that fit into a recurrent pattern in U.S. and world history where innocent individuals (or “patsies”) are baited and framed for cover-up purposes. Professor James H. Fetzer, an expert in the scientific study of assassinations, provides a sketch of how we know what happened to them and why, where RFK’s assassination was in part intended to prevent a reinvestigation into his brother’s death.

13 June 2010

Countries
United States

Themes
Covert Action
USA: domestic politics


JPEG - 33.2 kb
Victory in California: RFK greets supporters in the Embassy Ballroom, Ambassador Hotel, in Los Angeles, on June 5, 1968.
(Photo: Bill Eppridge)

Introduction

A persistent myth of American history is that lone assassins were responsible for the deaths of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Francis Kennedy. But four of the Lincoln conspirators were hanged from the same gallows at the same time [1]. On June 5, 1968, after RFK won the Democratic primary in California, he was shot down as he passed through the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel. The official account maintains that he was taken out by a lone, demented gunman, Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian who had written, “RFK must die!”, over and over in a notebook. Like the lone, demented gunman accused of assassinating his brother, John, both murders were products of conspiracies, where Sirhan Sirhan, like Lee Harvey Oswald, was designated as the patsy.

In spite of their history, most Americans continue to believe that their nation is “an exception” and that, while conspiracies occur elsewhere, including Europe and the Middle East, especially, they do not occur at home. The truth, of course, is that conspiracies are as American as apple pie. All that they require is collaboration between two or more individuals to bring about an illegal end. Most American conspiracies are economic, but many are political, too. Franklin Delano Roosevelt observed long ago that, if something important happened in politics, you could bet it was not by accident. And that is certainly the case regarding the brothers.

The assassinations of RFK and JFK were both conspiracies. Both involved the destruction of evidence. Both involved the fabrication of evidence. Both involved framing their patsies. Both involved complicity by local officials. Both involved planning by the CIA. Both were used to deny the American people of the right to be governed by leaders of their own choosing. My purpose here is to outline how these things are done, because the agencies responsible for these events continue to employ the same techniques, not only of killing their targets but of covering them up. The more we understand how these things are done, the less likely we are to be deceived again.

Some basic facts

RFK:

JPEG - 12.9 kb
Robert F. Kennedy shot in Los Angeles on June 5, 1968.

- More bullets were fired in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel than could have come from Sirhan Sirhan’s gun.
- RFK was shot behind the right ear from about 1.5 inches, but Sirhan was never that close and always in front of him.
- The coroner’s report did not support the Los Angeles’ Police Department’s assassination scenario.
- The Los Angeles Police Department engaged in massive destruction of evidence from the pantry of the hotel because "it would not fit into a card file".

JFK:

JPEG - 13.9 kb
JFK at Bethesda Hospital. The throat wound had changed from Parkland Hospital, where it was a small, clean puncture wound of entry with a straight-line incision. November 22, 1963.

- The weapon Oswald is alleged to have used cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK.
- The “magic bullet” theory is provably untrue and was not even anatomically possible.
- JFK was hit four times - in the throat from in front, in the back from behind and in the head from in front and behind
- X—rays were altered, a brain was substituted, and photos and films were faked to conceal the true causes of his death.

The assassination of RFK completed the decapitation of the left wing in the United States, which had begun with the termination of JFK’s presidency but continued with the gunning down of Malcolm X, who was the most progressive voice on the far left. With the deaths of Martin Luther King (April 4, 1968) and Robert F. Kennedy, the country shifted strongly to the right, in part from the despair induced by the loss of inspiring leaders.

The conditions required for movements capable of historic changes include intelligent, charismatic, and inspirational leaders, of whom there are very few like these. While the execution of Czar Nicholas II and his family in Russia and of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette in France meant there was “no turning back”, removing liberal leaders cements the status quo with its distribution of wealth and power.

RFK: The Ambassador Hotel

JPEG - 20.8 kb
Sirhan Bishara Sirhan was convicted and sentenced to the gas chamber on May 21, 1969. In 1972, his sentence was commuted to life in prison. Years later, a forensic investigation concluded that Sirhan Sirhan was not the lone shooter.

The weapon removed from Sirhan Sirhan was a .22 caliber, eight-round revolver, with serial number H-53725 [2]. Sirhan emptied his weapon from a location in front of Bobby Kennedy. The autopsy performed by Dr. Thomas Noguchi, however, showed RFK was hit by four bullets, all of which were fired from behind at upward angles. And five others were wounded by separate shots [3].

Bullets were removed from holes in the walls and ceiling of the pantry. Since there were as many as thirteen shots—some of which even hit the ceiling behind his location—Sirhan could not have fired them all. And with more than one shooter, a conspiracy had to have been involved [4]. Autopsy reports are usually “the best evidence” about a crime of this kind. Dr. Noguchi’s medical report, however, did not agree with the Los Angeles Police report. The evidence did not point to Sirhan as the killer [5]. In particular, the fatal shot entered behind his right ear from about an inch and a half away, but Sirhan had not been closer than several feet in front of RFK.

Although Sirhan cannot have fired the bullets that killed Kennedy, his defense attorney, Grant Cooper, did not defend him on the ground that he wasn’t guilty but argued instead for “diminished capacity” [6]. Another witness, DeWayne Wofler, even testified that the bullets fired at RFK had come from an entirely different gun [7].

JPEG - 29.6 kb
Thane Eugene Cesar, security guard, a prime suspect in the shooting of Robert F. Kennedy.

As it happened, a security guard named Thane Eugene Cesar had a weapon with the same caliber and was right behind RFK when the shooting began. Remarkably, even though he admitted having drawn his gun and many witnesses reporting hearing shots from more than one weapon, no one ever asked to examine his gun [8].

Acoustics expert Van Praag tested an H&R 922 of the kind Cesar had and determined that an H&R 922 had been fired at the same time as Sirhan’s [9]. Further indications of conspiracy extended to a couple, including a woman in a polka dot dress, who rushed away from the scene shouting, “We shot him! We shot him! We shot Kennedy!” [10].

RFK: Evidence of Conspiracy

William Turner and Jonn Christian [11] have produced a powerful case indicting Cesar for the crime. They concluded that Sirhan may have been firing blanks, which they support on the basis of witness testimony that his shots created long, visible flames, which are commonly produced by blanks, to insure that those in his field of fire — who actually killed Kennedy — would not be hit by a stray bullet.

That would mean that none of the bullet holes were made by shots from Sirhan’s gun and, indeed, at least one witness reported seeing yet a third shooter in the pantry, perhaps as a back-up if Cesar failed. And the LAPD was very accommodating in destroying evidence that might have exposed those who shot him.

In fact, there are multiple indications that the CIA was involved. A hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan, was on the radio suggesting the assassin was probably “mind controlled” before Sirhan had been identified as a suspect. Bryan later boasted to several hookers that he worked for the CIA and had hypnotized Sirhan [12].

Sirhan’s defense attorney, moreover, had just finished representing the CIA’s contact with organized crime, Johnny Roselli, which may have been why he was so accommodating with respect to his client’s guilt [13]. One way to insure a patsy will be convicted is to have your own man represent him.

Cesar himself had worked at Lockheed and Hughes Aircraft, both of which have extensive connections with the agency [14]. And even more strikingly, three prominent CIA officials—George Joannides, David Sanchez Morales, and Gordon Campbell—have been identified as present at the Ambassador.

Bradley Ayers, an Army captain assigned to the CIA at JM/Wave in Miami from May 1962 to December 1964, had met all three and identified them in film footage from the Ambassador [15]. Gordon Campbell had even been Ayer’s case officer while he was working for the agency.

JPEG - 13.5 kb
CIA operative David Sánchez Morales, who is suspected of having participated in the murder of both brothers.

Wayne Smith, who served as an ambassador with the Department of of State from 1957-1982 with JFK’s Latin American Task Force, also knew Morales [16]. When he viewed the same footage as Ayers, he immediately recognized Morales. As he later told Shane O’Sullivan, “Bobby Kennedy is assassinated [and] David Morales is there? The two things have to be related” [17].

RFK: The Cover-Up

Ayers and Smith both confirmed the person in the film as Morales [18]. They were both emphatic. Ayers noticed his body language (his way of moving). James Richards, an expert on the CIA, provided me with a photo of Morales, who looks exactly like the Morales-look-alike at the Ambassador. I don’t even think it’s a difficult call [19] [20].

The George Joannides figure seems to be wearing a wig. Richards also sent me a photo of Joannides, which makes it obvious why he would have been wearing one: the man was virtually bald! While it has been claimed that Cambell died on September 19, 1962, he was Ayers’ case officer from 1963-1964. Faking a death certificate would be far easier for the CIA than having an impostor working with Ayers.

The LAPD was not subtle in the destruction of evidence related to the crime. It destroyed the ceiling panels and door frames from the pantry on the ground they were “too large to fit into a card file” and burned some 2,400 photographs, including those taken by 15-year old Scott Enyart, who was standing on a table and took three roles of film [21].

When the department created a Special Unit Senator (SUS) to look into the case, it chose two officers who had ties to the CIA. They badgered witnesses who did not support the official line. One, Manuel Pena, had worked in Special Ops for the CIA. He was responsible for approving SUS interviews [22].

The Shadow of Dallas

David Sanchez Morales also appears to have been involved in the assassination of his brother, John, on November 22, 1963. He said to friends while drinking heavily that he had been in Dallas (“We took care of that son-of-a-bitch!”) and in Los Angeles (where “We got the little bastard!”) [23].

His involvement was confirmed by E. Howard Hunt, who told his son, St. John, that those who were responsible for the assassination of the 35th president included LBJ and CIA officials Cord Meyer, David Atlee Philips, William Harvey, and Morales [24]. Others who knew Lyndon well have also implicated him [25] [26]. And high-level involvement by the government has been confirmed by multiple lines of investigation.

There are more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting JFK up for the hit [27]. Two agents assigned to the limousine were left behind at Love Field. The flat-bed truck for reporters to that should have preceded the limo was cancelled. The motorcycle escort was cut down to four and was instructed not to ride ahead of the rear wheels. Open windows were not covered, the manhole covers not welded, and the crowd was allowed to spill into the street.

JPEG - 33 kb
Dubbed as the “Moorman Polaroid”, the picture captures the moment when President Kennedy was shot.

Most strikingly, the vehicles were in the wrong order, with the Lincoln first, when it should have been in the middle. This was such a blatant violation of protocol that any security expert could have detected it, which is undoubtedly why, when the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) asked for the Presidential Protection Records for other JFK motor-cades, the agency, instead of providing them, destroyed them [28].

The route was changed just days before the event and included a turn of more than 90°, in violation of Secret Service protocol. After bullets began to be fired, the driver, William Greer, pulled the limo to the left and to a halt [29]. At Parkland Hospital, agents got a bucket of water and a sponge and washed brains and blood from the crime scene [30].

The limousine was taken back to Ford and on Monday, November 25, the day of the formal state funeral, it was stripped to bare metal and rebuilt, including replacing the windshield, which had a through-and-through bullet hole, which spectators had noticed at Parkland and the Ford official responsible for its replacement confirmed, where the Secret Service would later produce yet a third windshield which had only interior cracks [31].

JFK: The “Magic Bullet”

Two wounds were widely reported on radio and television that day, a wound to the throat and a massive wound at the back of the cranium, which was caused by a shot that entered his right temple [32]. Both wounds were observed by many experienced physicians at Parkland Hospital. Charles Crenshaw, M.D., who closed JFK’s eyes before he was placed into the bronze ceremonial casket, sent me drawings of the wound to the throat and of the exit wound to the head [33].

Malcolm Perry, M.D., who had made the incision, described the throat wound as a “wound of entry” three times during the Parkland press conference, which began at 2:16 PM [34]. The Warren Commission would cope with these problems by simply reversing the trajectories, turning the throat wound into a wound of exit, where the damage to the cranium was altered to make it look more like the effect of a bullet fired from above and behind [35].

The greatest problem arose from the discovery that, of the three shots it claimed to have been fired, one had missed and injured a bystander named James Tague. The FBI and Secret Service had concluded that each of the alleged shots had hit: that JFK had been hit in the back, that Texas Governor John Connally had been hit in the back, and that JFK had been hit in the head, which killed him.

Since one shot had missed, the commission now had to create an alternative explanation, claiming the bullet that hit JFK in the back had passed through his neck and exited from his throat, then entered the back of Connally, shattering a rib, existing his chest, damaging his right wrist and finally embedding itself in his left thigh, a most unlikely scenario that is known as the “magic bullet” theory [36].

To make the “magic bullet” theory remotely plausible, Gerald Ford (R-MI), a member of the commission, had the description of the wound to the back changed from “his uppermost back”, which was already an exaggeration, to “the back of his neck”, which would not become known to the public until the first releases from the ARRB [37].

Even The Warren Report (1964) located the hole in the jacket 5 3/8” below the collar and 1 1/8” to the right of its center seam and the hole in the shirt was 5 ¾” below the collar and 1 1/8” right of its center seam [38] — a location that corresponds to an autopsy sketch, an FBI sketch, the death certificate by the president’s personal physician and even reenactment photographs by the commission’s own staff.

JFK: The Cover-Up

A downward bullet at this location means that the throat wound and Connally’s had been caused by other shots and other shooters [39]. Michael Baden, M.D., who chaired the medical panel for the the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), when it reinvestigated the crime in 1977-78, said, on the 40th observance of the assassination, that if the “magic bullet” theory were false, then there had to have been at least six shots from three directions [40].

It is not only false and provably false but turns out to be anatomically impossible, since cervical vertebrae intervene [41]. David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has shown JFK was hit four times—in the throat from in front, in the back from behind, and twice in the head both from in front and behind [42]. Connally was hit at least once from the side — as he was turning to the left — and at least one shot had missed. So Baden was right for the wrong reasons.

Mantik, moreover, studied the autopsy X-rays using the method of optical densitometry to determine the relative density of the objects whose exposure to X-rays had created the images [43]. He found an area at the back of the head that had been “patched” using material that was too dense to be human bone and that a 6.5mm metallic slice had been added to other X-rays in an apparent effort to connect the shooting with an obscure Italian weapon Lee Oswald was alleged to have used.

JPEG - 20 kb
Lee Harvey Oswald framed for the assassination of JFK, where this photo was part of the operation. See Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs, "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco" (google).

Ironically, while the death certificates and the autopsy report state that JFK was killed by high-velocity bullets, the Mannlicher-Carcano only has a muzzle velocity of 2,000 fps [44]. Since high velocities are above 2,600 fps, the Mannlicher-Carcano does not qualify [45]. So the weapon that Oswald is alleged to have used cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK.

JFK: The Controversy Endures

Even if the weapon had been far better, such as the M-1 on which he had been trained, the shots themselves were highly improbable. The interactive internet game, “JFK: Reloaded”, which used a superior weapon with a properly aligned sight, a smooth trigger action, and no recoil and allowed endless practice sessions before attempting to hit the target, was won by a shooter who scored only a .782 out of 1.000, so he only scored a "C+" in attempting to replicate the shots [46].

That the simple expedient of locating where the bullet hit JFK’s back is enough to establish the existence of a conspiracy has not inhibited those who want to obfuscate the facts. A controversy over neutron activation analysis persisted for years, as if discovering that bullet fragments found in the car had come from the same lot as those used by the alleged “assassination weapon” would show either the location from which they were fired or the identity of who had fired them [47].

One pseudo-documentary after another continues to be broadcast over the major networks based upon a film whose revision makes it impossible to reconstruct what actually happened in a determined effort to persuade the public that JFK was killed by a lone, demented gunman, even though the authentic evidence, once separated from the fabricated, refutes it [48], [49], [50] and [51]. The demise of the “magic bullet” alone establishes conspiracy.

What it means

Creating a false photographic record of the assassination was crucial to the cover-up. Had JFK been killed in a non-public setting, no one would have believed he had not been taken out by a conspiracy. As much thought was given to concealing the truth from the public as was given to executing the assassination itself. By removing some events and adding others, the home movie known as the Zapruder film became the backbone of the cover-up [52]. As long as it was taken to be authentic, it would be impossible to reconstruct the crime.

Among the most important reasons for recreating the film—which was done using original footage and sophisticated techniques of optical printing and of special effects—was removing the limo stop, which was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity. There were conflicts with the film from the beginning [53]. Today, evidence of fabrication is simply overwhelming [54], [55] and [56].

These discoveries have considerable impact on alternative theories of the assassination. The Mafia, which no doubt put up some of the shooters, could not have extended its reach into the Bethesda Naval Hospital to alter X-rays under the control of medical officers of the US Navy, Secret Service agents, and the president’s personal physician.

Neither pro- nor anti-Castro Cubans could have substituted the brain of someone else for that of JFK. And even if the KGB had an ability to alter films equal to that of the CIA and Hollywood, it had no way to gain access to the Zapruder film. Nor could these things have been done by Lee Harvey Oswald, who was incarcerated or already dead.

Political implications

As Martin Shotz has observed, the purpose of the disinformation operation in the death of JFK is not really to convince the public of the official account but to create enough uncertainty that everything is believable and nothing is knowable [57]. The reasons are not difficult to discern for those who understand why he was taken out. He had evolved in office from a traditional cold warrior into a statesman for peace, which threatened the status quo.

JFK was threatening to cut the oil depletion allowance, which the Texas men regarded as their divine right. He had not invaded Cuba against the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Chiefs. He had signed an above ground test ban treaty with the Soviets against their unanimous opposition. And he was initiating the removal of American forces from Vietnam, where the chiefs believed that a stand had to be taken against the expansion of communism.

Bobby, JFK’s Attorney General, was aggressively cracking down on organized crime. Jack was going to reform or abolish the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) and, perhaps most of all, he was going to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces. Lyndon wanted to be president of all the people and J. Edgar Hoover wanted to stay on as Director of the FBI. No one could have explained all of this as well as has James Douglass [58].

The policies he represented would have brought about significant change in the distribution of wealth and power, which they were unwilling to accept [59]. Once committed to the crime, they were intent that no one should ever pay for it, lest the public learn the truth about the institutions of their own government. When Bobby allowed that he was going to use the powers of the presidency to uncover the truth about his brother [60], it sealed his fate. And the lies continue.

Share this


James Fetzer

McKnight Professor Emeritus in the philosophy of science at the University of Minnesota Duluth; he taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years; founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

This author's articles
To send a message



In addition to other activities, James H. Fetzer is also the editor of assassinationscience.com and the co-editor of assassinationresearch.com. He has a blog at jamesfetzer.blogspot.com and his academic web site is found at http://www.d.umn.edu/ jfetzer/.

[1] Jesse Ventura (with Dick Russell), American Conspiracies, Skyhorse Publishing, 2010.

[2] Shane O’Sullivan, Who Killed Bobby?, Sterling Publishing, 2008.

[3] Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, eds., The Assassinations, Feral House, 2003.

[4] Jesse Ventura (with Dick Russell), Op. cit.

[5] Robert Geringer, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.

[6] Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, eds., Op.cit.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Jesse Ventura (with Dick Russell), Op. cit.

[10] Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, eds., Op. cit.

[11] Jonn Christian and William Turner, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1978.

[12] Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, eds. Op. cit.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Robert F. Kennedy, Spartacus Educational.

[15] Bradley Earl Ayers, The Zenith Secret, Vox Pop, 2006.

[16] Shane O’Sullivan, Op. cit.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Shane O’Sullivan, RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy, DVD (2007).

[19] David Sánchez Morales, Spartacus Educational.

[20] Bradley Ayers, Spartacus Educational.

[21] Jesse Ventura (with Dick Russell), Op. cit.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason, Laurel Publishing, 1997.

[24] Erik Hedegaard, The Last Confessions of E. Howard Hunt, rollingstone.com, April 5, 2007.

[25] Madeleine Duncan Brown, Texas in the Morning, Conservatory Press, 1997.

[26] Billie Sol Estes, A Texas Legend, BSE Productions, 2005.

[27] James H. Fetzer, ed., Murder in Dealey Plaza, Open Court, 2000, “Prologue”.

[28] Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board, 1998.

[29] Vince Palamara et al. in Murder in Dealey Plaza, A Book Review, 2000.

[30] Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain, Yeoman Press,1994.

[31] Douglas Weldon et al. in Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000; and James H. Fetzer, ed., Assassination Science, Open Court, 1998.

[32] "NOVEMBER 22, 1963: The Kennedy Assassination", NBC News DVD, Parts 1 and 2.

[33] Charles Crenshaw, M.D., in Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000, Appendix A.

[34] Malcolm Perry, M.D., Ibid, Appendix C.

[35] The Warren Report, Government Printing Office, 1964; and Douglas Horne, Inside the ARRB, 2009.

[36] The “magic bullet” is lampooned in Oliver Stone’s film, “JFK”.

[37] Ford Made Key Change in Kennedy Death Report, The New York Times (3 July 1997), p. A8.

[38] The Warren Report, Op. cit., page 92.

[39] James H. Fetzer, Reasoning about Assassinations, International Journal of the Humanities 3, (2005/2006).

[40] Beyond Conspiracy, ABC documentary, 2003 (YouTube).

[41] David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., in Stewart Galanor, Cover-Up, Kestrel Book, 1998.

[42] David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., et al. in Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000.

[43] David W. Matiik, M.D., Ph.D., in Assassination Science, 2000.

[44] As even Gerald Posner, Case Closed, Random House, 1993, Appendix A, has acknowledged.

[45] See, for example, Bullet Trajectory: Fact and Myth, by Mike Nelson.

[46] JFK: Reloaded, Wikipedia.

[47] Single Bullet Story, Wikipedia.

[48] James H. Fetzer, Distorting the Photographic Record: Death in Dealey Plaza, in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003).

[49] David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., and James H. Fetzer, Another Attempted Reenactment of the Death of JFK, November 21, 2008.

[50] David S. Lifton, in Moorman in the Street Revisited, Appendix, January 2009.

[51] James H. Fetzer, Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?

[52] James H. Fetzer, ed., The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, Op. cit., “Prologue”.

[53] See, for example, Jim Marrs, Surveyor: More than 1 man shot Kennedy, Fort Worth Star-Telegram (14 April 1978).

[54] John P. Costella, The JFK Assassination Film Hoax: A Tutorial.

[55] James H. Fetzer, Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid, March 28, 2009.

[56] James H. Fetzer, US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication, April 7, 2010.

[57] E. Martin Schotz, History will Not Absolve Us, Kurtz, Ulmer, and DeLuca Book Publishers, 1996.

[58] James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he Died and Why it Matters, Abis Books, 2008.

[59] Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, University of California Press, 1996.

[60] David Talbot, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, The Free Press, 2007.

James H. Fetzer
10-18-2010, 08:04 PM
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6464.shtml (with active links)

SPECIAL REPORTS
RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador*
By Jim Fetzer
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Oct 18, 2010, 00:19

In a recent article (�JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn�t�), I cited the identifications of three officials of the CIA at the Ambassador Hotel when Bobby was shot, by Bradley Ayers, who knew all three, and by Wayne Smith, who knew one of them very well. Objections have been raised to these identifications by Jefferson Morely and David Talbot, who claim that they have disproven them. Their argument is based upon a fallacy known as �special pleading� by only citing part of the evidence, which does not satisfy the requirement of total evidence, which insists that reasoning be based upon all of the available relevant evidence. Moreover, since they fail to identify the parties in question, they did not actually disprove Ayers and Smith but, at best, have only raised doubts about them.

As more and more of the witnesses� testimony is taken into account and subjected to a systematic assessment, the strength of support for the identifications by Ayers and Smith becomes increasingly stronger and the evidence against weaker. Ironically, Shane O�Sulllivan, who was largely responsible for uncovering the evidence that the three officials of the CIA were at the Ambassador, eventually concluded that at least two of them were Bulova Watch Company employees. That inference is substantially overridden by the weight of the evidence, however, where the only mistake that he appears to have made was drawing the conclusion that he had initially been wrong.

Background

In my article on Voltaire.net, I reported that three prominent CIA officials -- George Joannides, David Sanchez Morales, and Gordon Campbell -- had been identified as present at the Ambassador. Bradley Ayers, an Army captain assigned to the CIA at JM/Wave in Miami from May 1963 to December 1964, had met all three and IDed two of them -- Morales and Campbell -- in video from the Ambassador [1]. Gordon Campbell had even been Ayers� case officer while he was working for the agency.

Wayne Smith, who served as an ambassador with the Department of State from 1957-1982 with JFK�s Latin American Task Force, also knew Morales [2]. When he viewed the same footage as Ayers, he immediately recognized Morales. As he later told Shane O�Sullivan, �Bobby Kennedy is assassinated [and] David Morales is there? The two things have to be related� [3]. So they both confirmed the person in the video as Morales and they were both emphatic, as can be seen in Shane�s DVD [4].

Ayers and Smith both remarked upon his body language, his stance and his way of moving, where videos provide enormously more information for identifications than do single photographs, whether candid or staged [5] [6]. Brad explains in �RFK Must Die!� that the Joannides figure seemed familiar to him, but he could not ID him at the time. He subsequently told me over several conversations that he had seen him intermittently at JM/WAVE in professional matters and only later learned his name.

He was quite certain about his identification of Campbell, whom he knew extremely well. When I wrote in �JFK and RFK� that �Bradley Ayers, an Army captain assigned to the CIA at JM/Wave in Miami from May 1963 to December 1964, had met all three and identified them in film footage from the Ambassador,� I was basing my remark in part on knowledge I had acquired directly from him in relation to Joannides. One reason I wanted to publish this sequel, therefore, is to clarify this point but also to explain how much more evidence we have supporting his and Smith�s identifications.

Gordon Campbell

In their two-page article, �The BBC�s Flawed RFK Story,� David Talbot, the author of BROTHERS (2007), who is also the founder of Salon.com, and Jefferson Morley, who is a Washington journalist of some acclaim [7], however, insist that that Campbell died on September 19, 1962, which is very peculiar, since he served as Brad Ayers� case officer from 1963-1964. They even post an alleged �death certificate� and also quote one Rudy Enders, a retired CIA official, who claims that he was present when Campbell died. They have published a photograph of the �alleged� Gordon Campbell from the Ambassador Hotel side-by-side with a copy of Campbell�s death certificate.

According to Talbot and Morley, he was �not the deputy station chief in the CIA�s Miami operation, as O�Sullivan reported. He was a yachtsman and Army colonel who served as a contract agent helping the agency ferry anti-Castro guerillas across the straits of Florida, according to Rudy Enders, a retired CIA officer, and two other people who knew him.� He could not have been at Bobby�s assassination because he was, according to them, already dead. They provide no photo of �Gordon Campbell� and offer no response to O�Sullivan�s suggestion that the CIA might have used his name for another agent, since the use of aliases is common practice by the agency.

The likelihood of Ayers being wrong about the identity of his own case officer at JM/WAVE is extremely low, while forging documents is among the CIA�s principal pastimes. Faking a death certificate for some �Gordon Campbell� would probably have been simpler than any other technique for coping with Ayers� identification. Brad has one of the best memories for detail of anyone I have ever known and my guess is that it�s a fake. But, even if we were to take it at face value, the question would become, Who was the man with whom Brad Ayers worked from May 1963 to December 1964 whom he identified in the video footage from the Ambassador? We know the man in the photo cannot be someone who died in 1962. So who was he?

Other �disproofs�

Although Talbot and Morley claim, on the basis of six weeks of research, that they have disproven the identifications made by Brad Ayers and by Wayne Smith, their �disproof� of Brad�s identification of Campbell does not inspire confidence. In a day and age of identify theft, their failure to pursue Shane�s suggestion raises serious questions about the integrity and intent of their �investigation.� Unlike Ayres and Smith, moreover, neither Talbot nor Morley knew Morales, Campbell or Joannides personally. They were therefore dependent on the information they were given by various sources, whose credibility they do not seem to have seriously assessed.

Indeed, one of the most glaring inadequacies of Morley and Talbot�s article is that they also minimize the number of persons who identified Morales, Joannides, and Campbell. They mention exactly four sources for these identifications, each of whom they acknowledge as having identified exactly one of the three men in the footage from the Ambassador. In their piece, they acknowledge the following identifications:

* Wayne Smith identified one of them as David Morales

* David Rabern identified the same person as Morales

* Brad Ayers identified one of them as Gordon Campbell

* Ed Lopez identified one of them as George Joannides

But Brad had also identified Morales, and David Rabern, a professional investigator, who was present at the Ambassador, had personally observed Campbell interacting with Morales, even though he did not know either man by name. Footage shows Campbell interacting with Joannides, as �RFK Must Die!� records [9]. Shane noticed three others -- presumably, subordinates -- who were interacting with them. Thus, a list of identifications, at the very least, should obviously also include these additions:

* Brad Ayers identified another man as David Morales

* Rabern observed Morales interacting with Campbell

* Footage shows Campbell interacting with Joannides

Remarkably, Rabern told Shane that he had also observed the man others identified as Campbell in and around the LA Police Department �probably half a dozen times� prior to the assassination of RFK, usually in the company of two other men and a woman, as Shane reports in WHO KILLED BOBBY? [10] (page 441), which raises obvious questions about collusion between the CIA and the LAPD in Bobby�s death.

Who killed Bobby?

Talbot and Morley not only suppress Ayers� identification of Morales, but they also ignore two other witnesses, Dan Hardway (page 458) and Tom Polgar (page 459), who also identified Joannides, lending further support to Ed Lopez� identification:

* Dan Hardway identified one of them as George Joannides

* Tom Polgar identified the same man as George Joannides

Hardway and Lopez were congressional investigators for the House Select Committee on Assassinations and Polgar had been Joannides CIA station chief in Saigon. After initially confirming his identity, according to Talbot, Polgar later decided he had been wrong. Given how well Polgar knew Joannides, however, it is difficult to imagine why he would have withdrawn his identification -- unless he had been pressured to do so.

Talbot discounts Polgar in a note to O�Sullivan, but his identification seems more credible than his denial. Moreover, when Joannides� daughters were asked if their father was in the videos, they responded with, �No comment!� (page 447), which suggests that they, too, recognized their father. If it wasn�t him, after all, surely they would have simply asserted, �No!� That they did not deny the ID should also have been reported:

* Joannides� daughters did not deny the identification

And Robert Walton (page 436), who had been Morales� lawyer in the 1970s, and Ruben Carbajal (pages 426-427), who had been his best friend since childhood, reported that David Morales himself had implied he was involved, which counts as further, albeit indirect, evidence that at least he, among the three, had been there:

* Robert Walton reported Morales had said he was there

* Rube Carbajal partially supported what Walton reported

Carbajal confirmed Walton�s statement that Morales had told them, �Well, we took care of that son of bitch, didn�t we?,� while speaking of JFK, and told Shane that the �we� referred to the CIA (page 427). But while Walton reported that Morales added, �I was in Los Angeles when we got Bobby,� to whom Morales also refers as �the little bastard� (page 438) -- a claim which previously appeared in Noel Twyman, BLOODY TRESON [11] (page 471) -- Carbajal, as O�Sullivan phrases it, �had gotten used to Morale�s involvement in Dallas, but he wasn�t ready to finger [his friend] for another Kennedy assassination� (page 427). Bradley Ayers, who got to know Carbajal well in the course of his investigations, also believed he knew far more than he was telling.

And there is more. In his video, �RFK Must Die!,� Shane also interviews �Chilo� Borja who confirmed the identity of George Joannides. We must therefore add his name:

* �Chilo� Borja identified another as George Joannides

Instead of the original list from Talbot and Morley, which included four witnesses making one identification apiece (two of whom, Smith and Rabern, identified the same person, Morales), there turn out to be seven witnesses who directly identify them, where Smith, Rabern, and Ayers identify Morales (which Walton and Carbajal indirectly confirm); Lopez, Hardway, Polgar, and Borja identify Joannides (which is an identification his own daughters did not deny); while Ayers identified Campbell, Rabern personally observed Campbell and Morales interacting, and Rabern, rather cryptically, tells Shane that he believes Campbell is still alive -- without elaborating.

DiEugenio�s defense

If the evidence that supports the IDs of Morales, Joannides, and Campbell at the Ambassador is actually much stronger than Talbot and Morely acknowledged, the evidence to the contrary appears to be much weaker than others have claimed. On �The Education Forum,� for example, Jim DiEugenio, who with Lisa Pease co-edited THE ASSASSINATIONS (2003), [David Talbot : Gordon Campbell, 19 August 2010] advances various arguments intended to support Talbot and Morley, where I shall comment on (1) the reliability of photographic identifications; (2) the significance of his family�s rejection of the identity of Morales and of a second family�s affirmation of an alternative identification in place of Campbell�s; and (3) the plausibility of the presence of CIA officials at the hotel, even though it was possible -- even probable -- that they would be photographed there.

(1) On photographic Identifications

First, DiEugenio reports what Anthony Summers, author CONSPIRACY, said, when this story first broke, which is that photographic identifications are very �iffy.� Unless you have a very good close up shot, and preferably also full shots for height and weight comparisons, they (Summers and DiEugenio) would rather stay away from them. And he mentions several examples involving E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Charles Harrelson, Lucien Conein, and Joseph Milteer that he assumes demonstrate false identifications based upon photographs. But at least three of the five IDs (Harrelson, Conein, and Milteer) appear to have been correct, when the evidence is pursued far enough. These conflicts are often resolvable, as I have found myself.

On The Deep Politics Forum, for example, I pursued the identification of Lucien Conein in comparison with an alternative, Robert Adams, whose credentials were bolstered by means of a faux plaque given to him for appearing in a photograph in Dealey Plaza. Not only did a comparison by Jack White establish a closer degree of resemblance to Conein than to Richards, but the plaque includes a news clipping congratulating him for appearing in this image taken on �Thursday, 23 November 1963�! The weight of the evidence shifts perceptibly when you discover that the arguments for one candidate are shoddy, while those for the other are not. CIA documents proving that Conein was not in town at the time to provide an alibi are easy to produce. And the same is true for other ops working for the government.

Even in cases like those DiEugenio cites, it may be possible to sort things out. We are not dealing with staged photographs here but with videotape, which shows the parties in question moving, talking, and interacting, where their images were only discovered after extended study. When you have experts like Ayers and Smith who knew them personally over extended periods of time, the situation is not comparable to the situation Summers described, where you might even want to have front and side photos for comparison. Nothing about the identifications by Ayers and Smith, who remain confident of them to this very day, seems �iffy.� Quite the opposite.

(2) The role of the families

DiEugenio claims that eight persons said it was not David Morales in the video from the Ambassador without bothering to take into account whether they might have had motives for denying the identity. They even include his daughters! I can�t imagine anyone who would have a stronger motive for denying that the man in the footage was their father! He cites Luis Fernandez and Manuel Chavez, who worked with Morales, but are also not credible. Fernandez, for example, says �definitely that is not Dave Morales� when many others who knew him well have said the opposite.

O�Sullivan reports that Fernandez said there were differences between them: �This person seems taller, more slender and lighter color. David was fat, round faced and darker complexion, like a true Mexican Indian, whereas those of the man in the DVD are of an African-American� (page 456). The disadvantage of those like DiEugenio and O�Sullivan is that they did not know Morales and were not in position to know. I didn�t know him, either, but the testimony of serious men like Bradley Ayers, Wayne Smith, and David Rabern surely overrides it, not to mention that he had told others he was there when they got �the little bastard�! Sullivan claims that he was 5�10� tall (on page 426), but Brad has written that Morales was at least 6� tall, which is consistent with images at the Ambassador and nickname of �El Indio� (�Big Indian�).

When Tom Clines, one of Morales� closest associates at the agency, says both �It looks like him but it�s not him� (page 450), then a definitive rejection, like that of Fernandez, is not a reasonable response. Shane observes about Clines, who tries to minimize Ayers� competence on the ground that he wasn�t at JM/WAVE �very long,� when he was there for more than a year and a half, and Ed Wilson, who also did not identify him in a 1959 photo, both appeared to have motives to protect Morales that Ayers and Smith did not. (Brad has also told me that Clines once remarked to him that Campbell had returned to Canada after the breakup of JM/WAVE.)

DiEugenio also buys O�Sullivan�s report that the person Brad identified as Campbell was actually �Michael Roman� and that Joannides was �Frank Owens,� two Bulova Watch executives who are supposed to have been mistaken for CIA officials. When shown images from the Ambassador, however, the Roman family was actually quite equivocal. On page 473 of WHO KILLED BOBBY?, for example, we learn that Roman�s son himself initially wasn�t at all sure it was his father and that one of his daughters also questioned his appearance. The one photo of Roman that appears toward the end of �RFK Must Die,� moreover, does not look like to me like the Ambassador man: too much hair and the shape of his face is different. Their interest in hanging around after the assassination is not behavior that we would expect from Bulova executives.

(3) The plausibility of their presence

DiEugenio also suggests that, in an operation like this, �you would not have CIA higher ups in plain view of still cameras and motion picture cameras. It makes no sense, and this is what I told Talbot at the beginning. Further, Joannides was not an action officer. He is a desk guy who was in Athens at the time.� But this is one of those cases where his gullibility is showing. How could he possibly know? The CIA, after all, specializes in plausible deniability, which can be implemented effortlessly by the creation of fake documents and phony records. It is extremely painful to read that Jim DiEugenio would so naively accept an easily fabricated CIA alibi like this.

Similar sentiments were expressed by his co-editor, Lisa Pease, who even wrote in her blog that she could not believe the CIA would send those who were involved in his brother�s murder to assassinate Bobby. But since Bobby had said he intended to reopen the JFK investigation, their self-interest would have been great. In response to Brad�s Ambassador identifications, she suggests that he has been seeing things that he wants to see in his desire to solve the case. She says she has met Brad and that she thinks he has to have been �gullible to join up with the CIA and think they were the good guys, right?� But, as someone who has known Brad for 15 years, I cannot think of anyone I have ever known I regard as less gullible than Brad Ayers.

Lisa might want to consider that, from their point of view as agents of assassination who harbored a visceral hatred for Bobby, they would have wanted to be there. Like the �familiar faces� at the corner of Houston and Main on 22 November 1963, these men find events like these self-affirming -- not unlike the adrenaline rush that they may have experienced as their targets were taken out. Amoral killers such as David Morales took pride in their work at a brute, animalistic level. He was present when Che Guevara was killed and reputedly severed his head from his body and kicked it away to insure there would be no stories of Che�s �survival.� They were there to guarantee nothing went wrong with their plan to kill a man who threatened them.

Weighing the evidence

The kind of a priori thought about evidence by DiEugenio, especially, has shaken my confidence in his ability to think things through. No one would think those who were responsible for framing Lee Oswald would plant a weapon that could not have fired the bullets that killed JFK, either. But it happened. We have to follow the evidence where it leads and not confine ourselves to our own subjective expectations. When Shane O�Sullivan concludes the men identified as �Gordon Campbell� and as �George Joannides� were salesmen for Bulova Watch Company, moreover, he appears to be deceiving himself based upon flimsy evidence. Since Campbell was interacting with Morales, was Morales a Bulova Watch man, too? He visited the family of one of those men but simply takes their word for the identification of the other. He was taken in.

When I asked Brad whether it might have been possible for the CIA to fabricate a family to identifying Michael Roman as the man he had identified at the Ambassador to discount the possibility that it was Gordon Campbell, it was a question for which the answer was obvious: �Of course!� That would be child�s play for the agency, yet it appears to be a possibility lying beyond the realm of DiEugenio�s imagination. The son and daughter weren�t sure the man at the Ambassador was their father. That should have signaled to Shane that, if there was this much uncertainty from his son and one of his daughters, the probability that this really was their father was low.

Conclusions in a case of this kind are going to be probable rather than definitive, but the weight of the evidence favors Ayers and Smith�s identifications. As in the case of Lucien Conien, the evidence supporting them is strong, while that for Robert Adams is weak. Most importantly, what is the probability of the presence of Bulova Watch Company executives who strongly resemble these CIA officials who are present at the location of the assassination of RFK, just as he has claimed victory in a primary that was expected to catapult him to the nomination of his party for president? The probability has to be extremely low, especially when you consider that Morales was interacting with Campbell and that Campbell in turn was interacting with Joannides.

James Richards, who is an expert on the CIA, observed during a conversation that those three were the ones most likely to be present if an assassination had been in the works. It is not only unsurprising that they would be there, but the arrogance of the agency is such that it doesn�t seem to care who knows, as long as the general public does not catch on. Thus, a group of CIA officials was captured in photographs as the intersection of Main and Houston during the assassination of JFK in Dealey Plaza, as most students of his death are aware. If you exercise nearly absolute control over law enforcement authorities, including the police and the sheriff�s departments, the Secret Service, and even the FBI, the fear of exposure is nil.

Assessing the players

If we weigh the evidence using likelihood measures, where the likelihood of an hypothesis h is equal to the probability of the evidence e, if hypothesis h were true, then the likelihood that those who were present at the Ambassador were Morales, Campbell, and Joannides appears to be very high. The evidence cited to weaken that hypothesis, including the rejections by close friends and family, is more readily explained by the desire to cover up than to establishing the truth. The likelihood they were actually Bulova executives who happened to resemble them is extremely low. Those with the least axes to grind support the identifications, while those with the most at stake deny them. There is a pattern here that none of us should ignore.

My take on the participants varies from case to case. Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease have done good work, especially in authoring many of the articles they brought together in THE ASSASSINATIONS. But it seems to me that they lost their way in dealing with this case. They were far too willing to engage in a priori reasoning, where their intuitions (or appeals to �common sense�) are unreliable and unworthy of belief. DiEugeio and Pease would do better to track the evidence more closely and follow it where it leads. I am sorry to say that this is not either of their best work.

Shane O�Sullivan, I think, was simply overwhelmed by the criticism he received for his efforts to expose the truth. He confronted the kind of retaliation that many of us have encountered, where powerful mechanisms are in place to suppress the truth, especially in a situation with the potential of this one -- within our visually-oriented culture -- to expose CIA complicity. It had to be thwarted, at all costs. What Shane takes to be the most persuasive indication that his counterpart at the Ambassador was not Morales was the description of alleged differences between Morales and the Ambassador man from Luis Fernandez. But he was not justified in assuming that Luis was not dissembling. Luis appears to have been doing his best to protect his friend.

Like Jefferson Morley and David Talbot, Shane O�Sullivan did not know any of them. The weight of the evidence from those who weren�t shading their testimony strongly suggests he was being misled. That he fumbled the ball over �Roman� and �Owens,� moreover, is difficult to deny. Recall that Rabern told Shane he had also observed the man others identified as Campbell in and around the LAPD �probably half a dozen times� as Shane reports in WHO KILLED BOBBY? [10] (page 441). But, on page 454, he also observes (in relation to his DVD, �RFK Must Die�) that, �At 12:47, �Morales� emerged from the pantry [where Bobby had been shot at 12:15] and walked into the ballroom among a group of police officers.� At 1:03, �Morales� is observed comparing notes with someone who looks like a plainclothes detective, though, according to the LAPD, no police were present at the time RFK was shot. If Joannides, Campbell and Morales were Bulova executives, they did not act as if they were Bulova executives.

Concluding reflections

The strength of the case for the identifications of Morales, Campbell, and Joannides can be seen in the presentations on the BBC program that Talbot and Morley dispute. In �CIA Agents killed Robert Kennedy -- Part 1� on YouTube [11], for example, Brad Ayers identifies both Morales and Campbell and Wayne Smith identifies Morales. In �Part 2� [12], David Rabern identifies Morales and Ed Lopez identifies Joannides. These IDs, as I have explained, are supported by those of many others, including even (indirectly) by Morales himself, where the evidence against them is weak. The CIA had the motive, the means, and the opportunity to remove a threat it feared -- and it took it. What is there not to understand? The rest is just smoke and mirrors.

Rabern asks why CIA involvement was never pursued but, as I observed in [13] my earlier article, the LAPD officials assigned to handle the investigation had ties to the CIA! So it was a nice �closed loop� where the agency was in control. O�Sullivan has written to me that he remains convinced that �Gordon Campbell� was in fact Michael D. Roman, in spite of the points I made about the family�s equivocal identifications. But, if Shane is right, then logic requires that we conclude that Campbell and Roman are one and the same, where his life as a Bulova Watch Company executive was his cover, where even he (page 470) acknowledges that that may have been the case.

The conduct of David Talbot and Jefferson Morley, by comparison, appears to be far more serious. They have repeatedly minimized both the strength and variety of the evidence supporting these identifications. They have exaggerated the weight of the evidence against them, even including the claim to have disproven them, when they did no such thing. They did not even attempt to identify those whom they claimed had been mistaken for them. Such doubts as they have raised, in my opinion, are overcome by the weight of the evidence, where their cavalier treatment of Brad�s identification of Campbell was especially egregious and irresponsible. They adopt a highly self-congratulatory attitude about �bad JFK stories driving out good ones.� But there is nothing about their performance that warrants any pats upon their backs.

As most students of JFK are aware, Joannides was even brought out of retirement to coordinate interaction between the CIA and the HSCA when it took up the case in 1977-78. The agency has refused to grant access to his files even when the ARRB was entitled to have them. In my view, the conduct of Talbot and Morley has been inexcusable to the extent that one could reasonably infer that they were suppressing evidence. The most appropriate response they could make to offset that impression would be to acknowledge that, given the evidence presented here, they were clearly wrong, and thus remove the cloud of uncertainty that obfuscates the clarity of truth.

As I previously explained (�JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn�t�), the LAPD officers assigned to handle the investigation of Bobby�s death had ties to the CIA. They badgered witnesses who did not conform to the �official account.� The most probable killer, Thane Eugene Cesar, had worked with companies that also had links to the agency. The hypnotist, William Joseph Bryan, was on the radio suggesting that the assassin was probably �mind controlled� even before Sirhan had been identified as a suspect. Bryan later boasted to several hookers that he worked for the CIA and had hypnotized him. Given the weight of the evidence, there is scant room for doubt that Sirhan was a �patsy� set up by the CIA.

* Special thanks to Brad Ayers, Shane O�Sullivan, and Kenneth Watson for feedback.

References

[1] Bradley Ayers, The Zenith Secret, Vox Pop, 2006.

[2] Shane O�Sullivan, Who Killed Bobby?, Sterling Publishing, 2008

[3] Ibid.

[4] Shane O�Sullivan, RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy, DVD (2007).

[5] David S�nchez Morales, Spartacus Educational.

[6] Bradley Ayers, Spartacus Educational.

[7] Jefferson Morley and David Talbot, �The BBC�s Flawed RFK Story,� The Mary Ferrell Archives (July 2007).

[8] Jefferson Morley, Spartacus Educational.

[9] O�Sullivan, RFK Must Die.

[10] O�Sullivan, Who Killed Bobby?

[11] �CIA Agents killed Robert Kennedy -- Part 1�

[12] �CIA Agents killed Robert Kennedy -- Part 2�

[13] �JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed them, The Patsies that Didn�t�

Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota Duluth, has chaired or co-chaired four national conferences on the death of JFK and has published three books about it. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John P. Costella.

Copyright � 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

Albert Doyle
10-19-2010, 06:50 PM
The suggestion that Joannides, Morales, and Campbell were the same people as the Bulova Watch executives gave me a "wow" moment - thanks. I bought and watched "RFK Must Die" because it was recommended, but was disappointed by the fact O'Sullivan had spent so much time building his theory only to admit it was wrong at the end. I want to kick myself because it never dawned on me that those gentlemen could all be the same people!

What comes to mind is you couldn't get away with leading a double life like that because somewhere along the line it would become too obvious and time would be missing that would conflict with the known doings of those men and expose them. I doubt the executives were actually the trio themselves because their backgrounds and lives could be traced. It could easily be shown they were other people - which is why O'Sullivan is so forthright in admitting it. However I wouldn't put it past CIA to groom look-a-likes in order to switch the Morales-Joannides-Campbell trio in when needed. This is bizarre James Bond level stuff, but I wouldn't put it past them. The more bizarre it gets the easier it is to deny. It wasn't until you mentioned that they might be the same people that it dawned on me that this is what they might have done. I feel stupid for not realizing it before. It would only take some small cosmetic tweaking to place that trio in there without notice. Well within intel's cutting-edge ability.

Campbell's alleged death in 1962 would make it more feasible he was switched-in as a Bulova executive. So what is proposed as destroying the theory actually potentially reinforces it. Being "dead," Campbell would be able to work with the least conflict, which is why he was the one seen so often at the Los Angeles Police station.

O'Sullivan is no dummy. He left his failed theory in the DVD for a reason.

Dawn Meredith
10-22-2010, 07:19 PM
It's been long obvious that the kill shot was fired by Cesar. I was amazed when he was found in the 80's and admitted that he had a gun drawn.
He denied firing it of course, but he may not even know if he, like Sirhan Sirhan, is a Manchurian Candidate.
Amazing they are even both still alive.

Dawn

With apologies to Jim, I have not read the articles above yet...just stopping by here briefly after work enroute to an early birthday celebration.

Magda Hassan
10-22-2010, 08:41 PM
Happy Birthday Dawn! :star::birthday::flowers::party::thrasher:

Phil Dragoo
10-22-2010, 08:44 PM
I am currently in Jim Fetzer's Murder in Dealey Plaza chapter on David Mantik's dramatic proof the Harper Fragment was occipital, simultaneously confirming forty eyewitness accounts and providing the lead trace at its border showing the lower entry was correct. A puzzle piece proving crossfire, conspiracy, coverup: coup d'etat.


Regarding Bobby, I was first deeply moved by the Turner-Christian, then the Klaber-Melanson, finally the Shane O'Sullivan—and now we have the acoustic proof to the number of shots exceeding the eight in Sirhan's Iver-Johnson.


We know the two LAPD detectives controlling the investigation—Hernandez and Pena—have ties to the CIA, and that Cesar was the likely second shooter—and we're grateful for the courageous work of Thomas Noguchi in proving the trajectory of the fatal four shots: back-to-front, right-to-left, down-to-up, point-blank—clearing Sirhan of the murder.


Always suspicious from the first time in an Albuquerque bookstore picking up—and putting down—Moldea's “clearing” Cesar through “polygraph”--it is to laugh: Aldrich Ames the most destructive CIA mole (we know of) passed his “flutter” with a simple assurance from his KGB handler.


Someone was in that position, at Bobby's elbow, either Cesar, or another Sirhan lookalike behind the partition, making the hit up close and personal while the patsy drew the attention of seventy-five people in the crowded pantry.


And it was coordinated, we may be sure, even as the radio command post (in the two large trucks on Elm above Houston?) and Umbrella Man and Walkie-Talkie Man insured the synchronization of the teams.


Michael Calder (CIA v JFK) would like someone to come forward and identify the man in the circle below, as the author believes it was he who insured Bobby would be led, not off the stage, but back through the pantry:


http://oi56.tinypic.com/4scuag.jpg

Oh, and as for all that “Bulova” disclaimer to refute O'Sullivan's identification of CIA players, let us not forget the convenient production of nitwit Witt as the Umbrella Man—not convincing of anything but CIA limited hangout.

Albert Doyle
10-23-2010, 05:17 AM
It's statistically impossible for the three Bulova executives to look like Morales, Campbell, and Joannides without there being a purposeful reason. The real executives had to be other people because I would imagine Morales, Campbell, and Joannides had other things to do that kept them from being Bulova executives.

It would make sense that M,C,&J could be switched-in when they needed the Bulova cover to remove suspicion from them. However you would imagine the real executives would also have to be CIA or sworn to CIA secrecy because they would or could find out they were at certain places they knew they weren't.

What you might be seeing here is O'Sullivan blowing their cover and exposing an operation. They might have gotten sloppy because they needed Bobby dead and fast. The identification of Morales, Campbell, and Joannides as Bulova executives might be an actual CIA damage control operation as part of the failsafe plan unfolding right in front of you. The fact even close friends and co-workers aren't sure which they are sort of speaks for itself and shows the effectiveness of this possible look-a-like ruse.

James H. Fetzer
10-23-2010, 12:23 PM
While O'Sullivan is convinced that Campbell is "Roman", he only took the word of the Roman family that Joannides was "Owens". And the only case for Morales being a Bulova executive is that he was observed (by Rabern) interacting with Campbell and Cambell was observed (in footage) also interacting with Joannides. Since members of the Roman family (on the assumption that it was real) were equivocal about the identification, I think Shane has gone beyond the evidence in the strength of his belief.

But the important measure of the strength of the evidence is comparing the hypotheses that they were the CIA officials we are discussing or that they were instead Bulova Watch executives. What is the probability that, if they were Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, then they would look like Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, be interacting together and with police, be observing witnesses speaking with reporters, and be observed (by Rabern) having extensive contact with members of the Los Angeles Police Department over an extended period of time prior to the assassination at the Ambassador?

Presumably, the answer to that is obvious: the probability that, if they were Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, those effects of that cause would be very high, which in turn means that the likelihood of that cause (hypothesis), given those effects (as evidence) is very high. If, instead, we are talking about Bulova Watch executives, what is the probability that they would look like Morales, Joannieds, and Campbell, be interacting together and with police, be observing witnesses speaking with reporters, and be observed (by Rabern) having extensive contact with members of the Los Angeles Police Department over an extended period of time prior to the assassination at the Ambassador? That probability has to be very low.

The likelihood of an hypothesis h, given evidence e, is equal to the probability of e on the assumption that h is true. So if h1 is that they are these CIA officials and h2 is that they are Bulova Watch executives as the alternative -- which is the only alternative explanation that has surfaced -- then, since one hypothesis is preferable to another when it has a higher likelihood, clearly h1 is preferable to h2, which means that it provides a better explanation for the available evidence. When the evidence has, as it were, "settled down" and points in the same direction, the preferable hypothesis is also acceptable (in the tentative and fallible fashion of science), which appears to be the case here, since the more we examine the evidence, the stronger support for h1 becomes and the weaker for h2. h1, absent new evidence or alternative hypotheses, is thus acceptable.

Because O'Sullivan insists that Campbell is "Roman", even though, in my opinion, he does not look that much like "Roman", if we accept that Brad is most unlikely to be wrong in identifying the man who served as his case officer at JM/WAVE from May 1963 to December 1964 -- and for whom we have independent testimony (from Clines and from Rabern) that he did not die in 1962 -- then logic dictates that Campbell and Roman are one and the same. Thus, since we have already established, by the weight of the available evidence, that we are dealing with Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, the additional conclusion follows (if we assume O'Sullivan is right) that at least one of the was also a Bulova Watch executive, which, all things considered, would not be entirely surprising. That thus appears to be the situation we are in from the point of view of logic and evidence.


It's statistically impossible for the three Bulova executives to look like Morales, Campbell, and Joannides without there being a purposeful reason. The real executives had to be other people because I would imagine Morales, Campbell, and Joannides had other things to do that kept them from being Bulova executives.

It would make sense that M,C,&J could be switched-in when they needed the Bulova cover to remove suspicion from them. However you would imagine the real executives would also have to be CIA or sworn to CIA secrecy because they would or could find out they were at certain places they knew they weren't.

What you might be seeing here is O'Sullivan blowing their cover and exposing an operation. They might have gotten sloppy because they needed Bobby dead and fast. The identification of Morales, Campbell, and Joannides as Bulova executives might be an actual CIA damage control operation as part of the failsafe plan unfolding right in front of you. The fact even close friends and co-workers aren't sure which they are sort of speaks for itself and shows the effectiveness of this possible look-a-like ruse.

Albert Doyle
10-23-2010, 04:17 PM
Another sign that O'Sullivan is hot on the trail of a real operation is he has explosive evidence that merits further investigation but isn't being investigated. If you input this into your probabilities chart it would say either CIA is caught here and the theory is correct as it stands or O'Sullivan is incorrect and knows it and isn't pursuing this because he knows the more he pursues it the worse he'll look. Of course, there's another factor that could be preventing any further pursuit - that is, O'Sullivan not wanting to be killed by CIA.

It's interesting that being "dead" Campbell could actually become a Bulova executive. CIA could swing him in with a double identity and swerve any background checks away from him (like CIA did with Oswald). So the fact no one has come forward from Bulova to corroborate this theory in either direction says a lot. They could have been discouraged and don't want to stick their necks out. If Campbell were taken as deceased he could pop-up as a new person with a new identity and anchor CIA's position in Bulova as an insider controlling their use of the company as cover. Using corporate executives as agents was a well-known CIA ruse.

It seems crazy that no one has come forward to do an in-depth examination of the Bulova executives. This is the space age and there are technologies available to put an identification one way or the other on those gentlemen.

What would real Bulova executives be more likely to do? Well, I'd expect they would mingle within their business circles and political contacts, which was their purpose for being there in the first place, and then get-out when the scene became dangerous. Corporate men would not interact with police they would huddle to figure-out what was best for the company and defend the company and its reputation as their first move. Of the two behavior patterns the trio definitely behaves in a way more conforming with undercover spooks. This is the post-Warren Commission age. CIA is now less worried about surface operations because they know they'll never directly have to answer for them.


It's also interesting (and highly condemning) that Morales has no determined Bulova equal.


Some take offense to my saying I have contempt for Americans, however, if we actually practiced the free press we claim this kind of story would be put at the front of the media and explored using America's "freedom" resources. Instead a CIA-corrupted media does just the opposite and works on a fascist basis with the government in concealing these Nazi-type murders.

Albert Doyle
10-24-2010, 03:32 PM
I just realized that Roman might be a real and traceable person who actually held an executive position at Bulova. In order for Campbell to be his double there would have to be some kind of arrangement the permutations of which are numerous - but possible. Perhaps O'Sullivan found out there was a real Mr Roman and backed-down right there? But that doesn't preclude there being some kind of arrangement where Campbell shifted in as Roman when needed. The rest follows suit as written above. Once you get some kind of knowing cooperation by Roman in all this the rest becomes easy.

The shame of this is not having done this in 1969 or so and get a microphone under Roman's mouth.

James H. Fetzer
10-26-2010, 04:08 AM
JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn’t
http://www.voltairenet.org/article165721.html

by James Fetzer*

Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated 42 years ago in the midst of his campaign for the U.S. presidency. Largely overshadowed by the death of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, the official account of RFK’s tragic end, allegedly shot down by a lone gunman, like his brother, has received vastly less attention. In both instances, we are looking at staged events that fit into a recurrent pattern in U.S. and world history where innocent individuals (or “patsies”) are baited and framed for cover-up purposes. Professor James H. Fetzer, an expert in the scientific study of assassinations, provides a sketch of how we know what happened to them and why, where RFK’s assassination was in part intended to prevent a reinvestigation into his brother’s death.

Introduction

A persistent myth of American history is that lone assassins were responsible for the deaths of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Francis Kennedy. But four of the Lincoln conspirators were hanged from the same gallows at the same time [1]. On June 5, 1968, after RFK won the Democratic primary in California, he was shot down as he passed through the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel. The official account maintains that he was taken out by a lone, demented gunman, Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian who had written, “RFK must die!”, over and over in a notebook. Like the lone, demented gunman accused of assassinating his brother, John, both murders were products of conspiracies, where Sirhan Sirhan, like Lee Harvey Oswald, was designated as the patsy.

In spite of their history, most Americans continue to believe that their nation is “an exception” and that, while conspiracies occur elsewhere, including Europe and the Middle East, especially, they do not occur at home. The truth, of course, is that conspiracies are as American as apple pie. All that they require is collaboration between two or more individuals to bring about an illegal end. Most American conspiracies are economic, but many are political, too. Franklin Delano Roosevelt observed long ago that, if something important happened in politics, you could bet it was not by accident. And that is certainly the case regarding the brothers.

The assassinations of RFK and JFK were both conspiracies. Both involved the destruction of evidence. Both involved the fabrication of evidence. Both involved framing their patsies. Both involved complicity by local officials. Both involved planning by the CIA. Both were used to deny the American people of the right to be governed by leaders of their own choosing. My purpose here is to outline how these things are done, because the agencies responsible for these events continue to employ the same techniques, not only of killing their targets but of covering them up. The more we understand how these things are done, the less likely we are to be deceived again.

Some basic facts

RFK:

* More bullets were fired in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel than could have come from Sirhan Sirhan’s gun.

* RFK was shot behind the right ear from about 1.5 inches, but Sirhan was never that close and always in front of him.

* The coroner’s report did not support the Los Angeles’ Police Department’s assassination scenario.

* The Los Angeles Police Department engaged in massive destruction of evidence from the pantry of the hotel because "it would not fit into a card file".

JFK:

* The weapon Oswald is alleged to have used cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK.

* The “magic bullet” theory is provably untrue and was not even anatomically possible.

* JFK was hit four times - in the throat from in front, in the back from behind and in the head from in front and behind

* X—rays were altered, a brain was substituted, and photos and films were faked to conceal the true causes of his death.

The assassination of RFK completed the decapitation of the left wing in the United States, which had begun with the termination of JFK’s presidency but continued with the gunning down of Malcolm X, who was the most progressive voice on the far left. With the deaths of Martin Luther King (April 4, 1968) and Robert F. Kennedy, the country shifted strongly to the right, in part from the despair induced by the loss of inspiring leaders.

The conditions required for movements capable of historic changes include intelligent, charismatic, and inspirational leaders, of whom there are very few like these. While the execution of Czar Nicholas II and his family in Russia and of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette in France meant there was “no turning back”, removing liberal leaders cements the status quo with its distribution of wealth and power.

RFK: The Ambassador Hotel

The weapon removed from Sirhan Sirhan was a .22 caliber, eight-round revolver, with serial number H-53725 [2]. Sirhan emptied his weapon from a location in front of Bobby Kennedy. The autopsy performed by Dr. Thomas Noguchi, however, showed RFK was hit by four bullets, all of which were fired from behind at upward angles. And five others were wounded by separate shots [3].

Bullets were removed from holes in the walls and ceiling of the pantry. Since there were as many as thirteen shots—some of which even hit the ceiling behind his location—Sirhan could not have fired them all. And with more than one shooter, a conspiracy had to have been involved [4]. Autopsy reports are usually “the best evidence” about a crime of this kind.

Dr. Noguchi’s medical report, however, did not agree with the Los Angeles Police report. The evidence did not point to Sirhan as the killer [5]. In particular, the fatal shot entered behind his right ear from about an inch and a half away, but Sirhan had not been closer than several feet in front of RFK.

Although Sirhan cannot have fired the bullets that killed Kennedy, his defense attorney, Grant Cooper, did not defend him on the ground that he wasn’t guilty but argued instead for “diminished capacity” [6]. Another witness, DeWayne Wofler, even testified that the bullets fired at RFK had come from an entirely different gun [7].

As it happened, a security guard named Thane Eugene Cesar had a weapon with the same caliber and was right behind RFK when the shooting began. Remarkably, even though he admitted having drawn his gun and many witnesses reporting hearing shots from more than one weapon, no one ever asked to examine his gun [8].

Acoustics expert Van Praag tested an H&R 922 of the kind Cesar had and determined that an H&R 922 had been fired at the same time as Sirhan’s [9]. Further indications of conspiracy extended to a couple, including a woman in a polka dot dress, who rushed away from the scene shouting, “We shot him! We shot him! We shot Kennedy!” [10].

RFK: Evidence of Conspiracy

William Turner and Jonn Christian [11] have produced a powerful case indicting Cesar for the crime. They concluded that Sirhan may have been firing blanks, which they support on the basis of witness testimony that his shots created long, visible flames, which are commonly produced by blanks, to insure that those in his field of fire — who actually killed Kennedy — would not be hit by a stray bullet.

That would mean that none of the bullet holes were made by shots from Sirhan’s gun and, indeed, at least one witness reported seeing yet a third shooter in the pantry, perhaps as a back-up if Cesar failed. And the LAPD was very accommodating in destroying evidence that might have exposed those who shot him.

In fact, there are multiple indications that the CIA was involved. A hypnotist named William Joseph Bryan, was on the radio suggesting the assassin was probably “mind controlled” before Sirhan had been identified as a suspect. Bryan later boasted to several hookers that he worked for the CIA and had hypnotized Sirhan [12].

Sirhan’s defense attorney, moreover, had just finished representing the CIA’s contact with organized crime, Johnny Roselli, which may have been why he was so accommodating with
respect to his client’s guilt [13]. One way to insure a patsy will be convicted is to have your own man represent him.

Cesar himself had worked at Lockheed and Hughes Aircraft, both of which have extensive connections with the agency [14]. And even more strikingly, three prominent CIA officials—George Joannides, David Sanchez Morales, and Gordon Campbell—have been identified as present at the Ambassador.

Bradley Ayers, an Army captain assigned to the CIA at JM/Wave in Miami from May 1962 to December 1964, had met all three and identified them in film footage from the Ambassador [15]. Gordon Campbell had even been Ayer’s case officer while he was working for the agency.

Wayne Smith, who served as an ambassador with the Department of of State from 1957-1982 with JFK’s Latin American Task Force, also knew Morales [16]. When he viewed the same footage as Ayers, he immediately recognized Morales. As he later told Shane O’Sullivan, “Bobby Kennedy is assassinated [and] David Morales is there? The two things have to be related” [17].

RFK: The Cover-Up

Ayers and Smith both confirmed the person in the film as Morales [18]. They were both emphatic. Ayers noticed his body language (his way of moving). James Richards, an expert on the CIA, provided me with a photo of Morales, who looks exactly like the Morales-look-alike at the Ambassador. I don’t even think it’s a difficult call [19] [20].

The George Joannides figure seems to be wearing a wig. Richards also sent me a photo of Joannides, which makes it obvious why he would have been wearing one: the man was virtually bald! While it has been claimed that Cambell died on September 19, 1962, he was Ayers’ case officer from 1963-1964. Faking a death certificate would be far easier for the CIA than having an impostor working with Ayers.

The LAPD was not subtle in the destruction of evidence related to the crime. It destroyed the ceiling panels and door frames from the pantry on the ground they were “too large to fit into a card file” and burned some 2,400 photographs, including those taken by 15-year old Scott Enyart, who was standing on a table and took three roles of film [21].

When the department created a Special Unit Senator (SUS) to look into the case, it chose two officers who had ties to the CIA. They badgered witnesses who did not support the official line. One, Manuel Pena, had worked in Special Ops for the CIA. He was responsible for approving SUS interviews [22].

The Shadow of Dallas

David Sanchez Morales also appears to have been involved in the assassination of his brother, John, on November 22, 1963. He said to friends while drinking heavily that he had been in Dallas (“We took care of that son-of-a-bitch!”) and in Los Angeles (where “We got the little bastard!”) [23].

His involvement was confirmed by E. Howard Hunt, who told his son, St. John, that those who were responsible for the assassination of the 35th president included LBJ and CIA officials Cord Meyer, David Atlee Philips, William Harvey, and Morales [24]. Others who knew Lyndon well have also implicated him [25] [26]. And high-level involvement by the government has been confirmed by multiple lines of investigation.

There are more than 15 indications of Secret Service complicity in setting JFK up for the hit [27]. Two agents assigned to the limousine were left behind at Love Field. The flat-bed truck for reporters to that should have preceded the limo was cancelled. The motorcycle escort was cut down to four and was instructed not to ride ahead of the rear wheels. Open windows were not covered, the manhole covers not welded, and the crowd was allowed to spill into the street.

Most strikingly, the vehicles were in the wrong order, with the Lincoln first, when it should have been in the middle. This was such a blatant violation of protocol that any security expert could have detected it, which is undoubtedly why, when the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) asked for the Presidential Protection Records for other JFK motorcades, the agency, instead of providing them, destroyed them [28].

The route was changed just days before the event and included a turn of more than 90°, in violation of Secret Service protocol. After bullets began to be fired, the driver, William Greer, pulled the limo to the left and to a halt [29]. At Parkland Hospital, agents got a bucket of water and a sponge and washed brains and blood from the crime scene [30].

The limousine was taken back to Ford and on Monday, November 25, the day of the formal state funeral, it was stripped to bare metal and rebuilt, including replacing the windshield, which had a through-and-through bullet hole, which spectators had noticed at Parkland and the Ford official responsible for its replacement confirmed, where the Secret Service would later produce yet a third windshield which had only interior cracks [31].

JFK: The “Magic Bullet”

Two wounds were widely reported on radio and television that day, a wound to the throat and a massive wound at the back of the cranium, which was caused by a shot that entered his right temple [32]. Both wounds were observed by many experienced physicians at Parkland Hospital. Charles Crenshaw, M.D., who closed JFK’s eyes before he was placed into the bronze ceremonial casket, sent me drawings of the wound to the throat and of the exit wound to the head [33].

Malcolm Perry, M.D., who had made the incision, described the throat wound as a “wound of entry” three times during the Parkland press conference, which began at 2:16 PM [34]. The Warren Commission would cope with these problems by simply reversing the trajectories, turning the throat wound into a wound of exit, where the damage to the cranium was altered to make it look more like the effect of a bullet fired from above and behind [35].

The greatest problem arose from the discovery that, of the three shots it claimed to have been fired, one had missed and injured a bystander named James Tague. The FBI and Secret Service had concluded that each of the alleged shots had hit: that JFK had been hit in the back, that Texas Governor John Connally had been hit in the back, and that JFK had been hit in the head, which killed him.

Since one shot had missed, the commission now had to create an alternative explanation, claiming the bullet that hit JFK in the back had passed through his neck and exited from his throat, then entered the back of Connally, shattering a rib, existing his chest, damaging his right wrist and finally embedding itself in his left thigh, a most unlikely scenario that is known as the “magic bullet” theory [36].

To make the “magic bullet” theory remotely plausible, Gerald Ford (R-MI), a member of the commission, had the description of the wound to the back changed from “his uppermost back”, which was already an exaggeration, to “the back of his neck”, which would not become known to the public until the first releases from the ARRB [37].

Even The Warren Report (1964) located the hole in the jacket 5 3/8” below the collar and 1 1/8” to the right of its center seam and the hole in the shirt was 5 ¾” below the collar and 1 1/8” right of its center seam [38] — a location that corresponds to an autopsy sketch, an FBI sketch, the death certificate by the president’s personal physician and even reenactment photographs by the commission’s own staff.

JFK: The Cover-Up

A downward bullet at this location means that the throat wound and Connally’s had been caused by other shots and other shooters [39]. Michael Baden, M.D., who chaired the medical panel for the the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), when it reinvestigated the crime in 1977-78, said, on the 40th observance of the assassination, that if the “magic bullet” theory were false, then there had to have been at least six shots from three directions [40].

It is not only false and provably false but turns out to be anatomically impossible, since cervical vertebrae intervene [41]. David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has shown JFK was hit four times—in the throat from in front, in the back from behind, and twice in the head both from in front and behind [42]. Connally was hit at least once from the side — as he was turning to the left — and at least one shot had missed. So Baden was right for the wrong reasons.

Mantik, moreover, studied the autopsy X-rays using the method of optical densitometry to determine the relative density of the objects whose exposure to X-rays had created the images [43]. He found an area at the back of the head that had been “patched” using material that was too dense to be human bone and that a 6.5mm metallic slice had been added to other X-rays in an apparent effort to connect the shooting with an obscure Italian weapon Lee Oswald was alleged to have used.

Ironically, while the death certificates and the autopsy report state that JFK was killed by high-velocity bullets, the Mannlicher-Carcano only has a muzzle velocity of 2,000 fps [44]. Since high velocities are above 2,600 fps, the Mannlicher-Carcano does not qualify [45]. So the weapon that Oswald is alleged to have used cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK.

JFK: The Controversy Endures

Even if the weapon had been far better, such as the M-1 on which he had been trained, the shots themselves were highly improbable. The interactive internet game, “JFK: Reloaded”, which used a superior weapon with a properly aligned sight, a smooth trigger action, and no recoil and allowed endless practice sessions before attempting to hit the target, was won by a shooter who scored only a .782 out of 1.000, so he only scored a "C+" in attempting to replicate the shots [46].

That the simple expedient of locating where the bullet hit JFK’s back is enough to establish the existence of a conspiracy has not inhibited those who want to obfuscate the facts. A controversy over neutron activation analysis persisted for years, as if discovering that bullet fragments found in the car had come from the same lot as those used by the alleged “assassination weapon” would show either the location from which they were fired or the identity of who had fired them [47].

One pseudo-documentary after another continues to be broadcast over the major networks based upon a film whose revision makes it impossible to reconstruct what actually happened in a determined effort to persuade the public that JFK was killed by a lone, demented gunman, even though the authentic evidence, once separated from the fabricated, refutes it [48], [49], [50] and [51]. The demise of the “magic bullet” alone establishes conspiracy.

What it means

Creating a false photographic record of the assassination was crucial to the cover-up. Had JFK been killed in a non-public setting, no one would have believed he had not been taken out by a conspiracy. As much thought was given to concealing the truth from the public as was given to executing the assassination itself. By removing some events and adding others, the home movie known as the Zapruder film became the backbone of the cover-up [52]. As long as it was taken to be authentic, it would be impossible to reconstruct the crime.

Among the most important reasons for recreating the film—which was done using original footage and sophisticated techniques of optical printing and of special effects—was removing the limo stop, which was such an obvious indication of Secret Service complicity. There were conflicts with the film from the beginning [53]. Today, evidence of fabrication is simply overwhelming [54], [55] and [56].

These discoveries have considerable impact on alternative theories of the assassination. The Mafia, which no doubt put up some of the shooters, could not have extended its reach into the Bethesda Naval Hospital to alter X-rays under the control of medical officers of the US Navy, Secret Service agents, and the president’s personal physician.

Neither pro- nor anti-Castro Cubans could have substituted the brain of someone else for that of JFK. And even if the KGB had an ability to alter films equal to that of the CIA and Hollywood, it had no way to gain access to the Zapruder film. Nor could these things have been done by Lee Harvey Oswald, who was incarcerated or already dead.

Political implications

As Martin Shotz has observed, the purpose of the disinformation operation in the death of JFK is not really to convince the public of the official account but to create enough uncertainty that everything is believable and nothing is knowable [57]. The reasons are not difficult to discern for those who understand why he was taken out. He had evolved in office from a traditional cold warrior into a statesman for peace, which threatened the status quo.

JFK was threatening to cut the oil depletion allowance, which the Texas men regarded as their divine right. He had not invaded Cuba against the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Chiefs. He had signed an above ground test ban treaty with the Soviets against their unanimous opposition. And he was initiating the removal of American forces from Vietnam, where the chiefs believed that a stand had to be taken against the expansion of communism.

Bobby, JFK’s Attorney General, was aggressively cracking down on organized crime. Jack was going to reform or abolish the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) and, perhaps most of all, he was going to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces. Lyndon wanted to be president of all the people and J. Edgar Hoover wanted to stay on as Director of the FBI. No one could have explained all of this as well as has James Douglass [58].

The policies he represented would have brought about significant change in the distribution of wealth and power, which they were unwilling to accept [59]. Once committed to the crime, they were intent that no one should ever pay for it, lest the public learn the truth about the institutions of their own government. When Bobby allowed that he was going to use the powers of the presidency to uncover the truth about his brother [60], it sealed his fate. And the lies continue.

James Fetzer

McKnight Professor Emeritus in the philosophy of science at the University of Minnesota Duluth; he taught logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning for 35 years; founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

References

[1] Jesse Ventura (with Dick Russell), American Conspiracies, Skyhorse Publishing, 2010.
[2] Shane O’Sullivan, Who Killed Bobby?, Sterling Publishing, 2008.
[3] Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, eds., The Assassinations, Feral House, 2003.
[4] Jesse Ventura (with Dick Russell), Op. cit.
[5] Robert Geringer, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.
[6] Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, eds., Op.cit.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Jesse Ventura (with Dick Russell), Op. cit.
[10] Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, eds., Op. cit.
[11] Jonn Christian and William Turner, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Thunder’s Mouth Press, 1978.
[12] Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, eds. Op. cit.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Robert F. Kennedy, Spartacus Educational.
[15] Bradley Earl Ayers, The Zenith Secret, Vox Pop, 2006.
[16] Shane O’Sullivan, Op. cit.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Shane O’Sullivan, RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy, DVD (2007).
[19] David Sánchez Morales, Spartacus Educational.
[20] Bradley Ayers, Spartacus Educational.
[21] Jesse Ventura (with Dick Russell), Op. cit.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason, Laurel Publishing, 1997.
[24] Erik Hedegaard, The Last Confessions of E. Howard Hunt, rollingstone.com, April 5, 2007.
[25] Madeleine Duncan Brown, Texas in the Morning, Conservatory Press, 1997.
[26] Billie Sol Estes, A Texas Legend, BSE Productions, 2005.
[27] James H. Fetzer, ed., Murder in Dealey Plaza, Open Court, 2000, “Prologue”.
[28] Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board, 1998.
[29] Vince Palamara et al. in Murder in Dealey Plaza, A Book Review, 2000.
[30] Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain, Yeoman Press,1994.
[31] Douglas Weldon et al. in Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000; and James H. Fetzer, ed., Assassination Science, Open Court, 1998.
[32] "NOVEMBER 22, 1963: The Kennedy Assassination", NBC News DVD, Parts 1 and 2.
[33] Charles Crenshaw, M.D., in Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000, Appendix A.
[34] Malcolm Perry, M.D., Ibid, Appendix C.
[35] The Warren Report, Government Printing Office, 1964; and Douglas Horne, Inside the ARRB, 2009.
[36] The “magic bullet” is lampooned in Oliver Stone’s film, “JFK”.
[37] Ford Made Key Change in Kennedy Death Report, The New York Times (3 July 1997), p. A8.
[38] The Warren Report, Op. cit., page 92.
[39] James H. Fetzer, Reasoning about Assassinations, International Journal of the Humanities 3, (2005/2006).
[40] Beyond Conspiracy, ABC documentary, 2003 (YouTube).
[41] David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., in Stewart Galanor, Cover-Up, Kestrel Book, 1998.
[42] David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., et al. in Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000.
[43] David W. Matiik, M.D., Ph.D., in Assassination Science, 2000.
[44] As even Gerald Posner, Case Closed, Random House, 1993, Appendix A, has acknowledged.
[45] See, for example, Bullet Trajectory: Fact and Myth, by Mike Nelson.
[46] JFK: Reloaded, Wikipedia.
[47] Single Bullet Story, Wikipedia.
[48] James H. Fetzer, Distorting the Photographic Record: Death in Dealey Plaza, in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003).
[49] David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., and James H. Fetzer, Another Attempted Reenactment of the Death of JFK, November 21, 2008.
[50] David S. Lifton, in Moorman in the Street Revisited, Appendix, January 2009.
[51] James H. Fetzer, Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?
[52] James H. Fetzer, ed., The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, Op. cit., “Prologue”.
[53] See, for example, Jim Marrs, Surveyor: More than 1 man shot Kennedy, Fort Worth Star-Telegram (14 April 1978).
[54] John P. Costella, The JFK Assassination Film Hoax: A Tutorial.
[55] James H. Fetzer, Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid, March 28, 2009.
[56] James H. Fetzer, US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication, April 7, 2010.
[57] E. Martin Schotz, History will Not Absolve Us, Kurtz, Ulmer, and DeLuca Book Publishers, 1996.
[58] James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he Died and Why it Matters, Abis Books, 2008.
[59] Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, University of California Press, 1996.
[60] David Talbot, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, The Free Press, 2007.

James H. Fetzer
10-26-2010, 04:11 AM
This post has disappeared, not only from The Deep Politics Forum, but from The Education Forum as well, together with the comments that were posted about them. I find this rather stunning. If anyone knows what's going on, I would like to know. This cannot be a coincidence.

Phil Dragoo
10-26-2010, 04:25 AM
http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4163

If Stephen Hawking has not been deleted, please advise explanation in layman's terms.

James H. Fetzer
10-26-2010, 04:29 AM
RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador*

Jim Fetzer


In a recent article (voltaire.net, “JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn’t”), I cited the identifications of three officials of the CIA at the Ambassador Hotel when Bobby was shot, by Bradley Ayers, who knew all three, and by Wayne Smith, who knew one of them very well. Objections have been raised to these identifications by Jefferson Morely and David Talbot, who claim that they have disproven them. Their argument is based upon a fallacy known as “special pleading” by only citing part of the evidence, which does not satisfy the requirement of total evidence, which insists that reasoning be based upon all of the available relevant evidence. Moreover, since they fail to identify the parties in question, they did not actually disprove Ayers and Smith but, at best, have only raised doubts about them.

As more and more of the witnesses’ testimony is taken into account and subjected to a systematic assessment, the strength of support for the identifications by Ayers and Smith becomes increasingly stronger and the evidence against weaker. Ironically, Shane O’Sullivan, who was largely responsible for uncovering the evidence that the three officials of the CIA were at the Ambassador, eventually concluded that at least two of them were Bulova Watch Company employees. That inference is substantially overridden by the weight of the evidence, however, where the only mistake that he appears to have made was drawing the conclusion that he had initially been wrong.

Background

In my article on Voltaire.net, I reported that three prominent CIA officials—George Joannides, David Sanchez Morales, and Gordon Campbell—had been identified as present at the Ambassador. Bradley Ayers, an Army captain assigned to the CIA at JM/Wave in Miami from May 1963 to December 1964, had met all three and IDed two of them—Morales and Campbell—in video from the Ambassador [1]. Gordon Campbell had even been Ayers’ case officer while he was working for the agency.

Wayne Smith, who served as an ambassador with the Department of State from 1957-1982 with JFK’s Latin American Task Force, also knew Morales [2]. When he viewed the same footage as Ayers, he immediately recognized Morales. As he later told Shane O’Sullivan, “Bobby Kennedy is assassinated [and] David Morales is there? The two things have to be related” [3]. So they both confirmed the person in the video as Morales and they were both emphatic, as can be seen in Shane’s DVD [4].

Ayers and Smith both remarked upon his body language, his stance and his way of moving, where videos provide enormously more information for identifications than do single photographs, whether candid or staged [5] [6]. Brad explains in “RFK Must Die!” that the Joannides figure seemed familiar to him, but he could not ID him at the time. He subsequently told me over several conversations that he had seen him intermittently at JM/WAVE in professional matters and only later learned his name.

He was quite certain about his identification of Campbell, whom he knew extremely well. When I wrote in “JFK and RFK” that “Bradley Ayers, an Army captain assigned to the CIA at JM/Wave in Miami from May 1963 to December 1964, had met all three and identified them in film footage from the Ambassador”, I was basing my remark in part on knowledge I had acquired directly from him in relation to Joannides. One reason I wanted to publish this sequel, therefore, is to clarify this point but also to explain how much more evidence we have supporting his and Smith’s identifications.

Gordon Campbell

In their two-page article, “The BBC’s Flawed RFK Story”, David Talbot, the author of BROTHERS (2007), who is also the founder of Salon.com, and Jefferson Morley, who is a Washington journalist of some acclaim [7], however, insist that that Campbell died on September 19, 1962, which is very peculiar, since he served as Brad Ayers’ case officer from 1963-1964. They even post an alleged “death certificate” and also quote one Rudy Enders, a retired CIA official, who claims that he was present when Campbell died. They have published a photograph of the “alleged” Gordon Campbell from the Ambassador Hotel side-by-side with a copy of Campbell’s death certificate.

According to Talbot and Morley, he was “not the deputy station chief in the CIA’s Miami operation, as O’Sullivan reported. He was a yachtsman and Army colonel who served as a contract agent helping the agency ferry anti-Castro guerillas across the straits of Florida, according to Rudy Enders, a retired CIA officer, and two other people who knew him.” He could not have been at Bobby’s assassination because he was, according to them, already dead. They provide no photo of “Gordon Campbell” and offer no response to O’Sullivan’s suggestion that the CIA might have used his name for another agent, since the use of aliases is common practice by the agency.

The likelihood of Ayers being wrong about the identity of his own case officer at JM/WAVE is extremely low, while forging documents is among the CIA’s principal pastimes. Faking a death certificate for some “Gordon Campbell” would probably have been simpler than any other technique for coping with Ayers’ identification. Brad has one of the best memories for detail of anyone I have ever known and my guess is that it’s a fake. But, even if we were to take it at face value, the question would become, Who was the man with whom Brad Ayers worked from May 1963 to December 1964 whom he identified in the video footage from the Ambassador? We know the man in the photo cannot be someone who died in 1962. So who was he?

Other “Disproofs”

Although Talbot and Morley claim, on the basis of six weeks of research, that they have disproven the identifications made by Brad Ayers and by Wayne Smith, their “disproof” of Brad’s identification of Campbell does not inspire confidence. In a day and age of identify theft, their failure to pursue Shane’s suggestion raises serious questions about the integrity and intent of their “investigation”. Unlike Ayres and Smith, moreover, neither Talbot nor Morley knew Morales, Campbell or Joannides personally. They were therefore dependent on the information they were given by various sources, whose credibility they do not seem to have seriously assessed.

Indeed, one of the most glaring inadequacies of Morley and Talbot’s article is that they also minimize the number of persons who identified Morales, Joannides, and Campbell. They mention exactly four sources for these identifications, each of whom they acknowledge as having identified exactly one of the three men in the footage from the Ambassador. In their piece, they acknowledge the following identifications:

* Wayne Smith identified one of them as David Morales

* David Rabern identified the same person as Morales

* Brad Ayers identified one of them as Gordon Campbell

* Ed Lopez identified one of them as George Joannides

But Brad had also identified Morales, and David Rabern, a professional investigator, who was present at the Ambassador, had personally observed Campbell interacting with Morales, even though he did not know either man by name. Footage shows Campbell interacting with Joannides, as “RFK Must Die!” records [9]. Shane noticed three others—presumably, subordinates—who were interacting with them. Thus, a list of identifications, at the very least, should obviously also include these additions:

* Brad Ayers identified another man as David Morales

* Rabern observed Morales interacting with Campbell

* Footage shows Campbell interacting with Joannides

Remarkably, Rabern told Shane that he had also observed the man others identified as Campbell in and around the LA Police Department “probably half a dozen times” prior to the assassination of RFK, usually in the company of two other men and a woman, as Shane reports in WHO KILLED BOBBY? [10] (page 441), which raises obvious questions about collusion between the CIA and the LAPD in Bobby’s death.

WHO KILLED BOBBY?

Talbot and Morley not only suppress Ayers’ identification of Morales, but they also ignore two other witnesses, Dan Hardway (page 458) and Tom Polgar (page 459), who also identified Joannides, lending further support to Ed Lopez’ identification:

* Dan Hardway identified one of them as George Joannides

* Tom Polgar identified the same man as George Joannides

Hardway and Lopez were congressional investigators for the House Select Committee on Assassinations and Polgar had been Joannides CIA station chief in Saigon. After initially confirming his identity, according to Talbot, Polgar later decided he had been wrong. Given how well Polgar knew Joannides, however, it is difficult to imagine why he would have withdrawn his identification—unless he had been pressured to do so.

Talbot discounts Polgar in a note to O’Sullivan, but his identification seems more credible than his denial. Moreover, when Joannides' daughters were asked if their father was in the videos, they responded with, "No comment!" (page 447), which suggests that they, too, recognized their father. If it wasn’t him, after all, surely they would have simply asserted, "No!" That they did not deny the ID should also have been reported:

* Joannides’ daughters did not deny the identification

And Robert Walton (page 436), who had been Morales’ lawyer in the 1970s, and Ruben Carbajal (pages 426-427), who had been his best friend since childhood, reported that David Morales himself had implied he was involved, which counts as further, albeit indirect, evidence that at least he, among the three, had been there:

* Robert Walton reported Morales had said he was there

* Rube Carbajal partially supported what Walton reported

Carbajal confirmed Walton’s statement that Morales had told them, “Well, we took care of that son of bitch, didn’t we?”, while speaking of JFK, and told Shane that the “we” referred to the CIA (page 427). But while Walton reported that Morales added, “I was in Los Angeles when we got Bobby”, to whom Morales also refers as “the little bastard” (page 438)—a claim which previously appeared in Noel Twyman, BLOODY TRESON [11] (page 471)—Carbajal, as O’Sullivan phrases it, “had gotten used to Morale’s involvement in Dallas, but he wasn’t ready to finger [his friend] for another Kennedy assassination” (page 427). Bradley Ayers, who got to know Carbajal well in the course of his investigations, also believed he knew far more than he was telling.

And there is more. In his video, "RFK Must Die!", Shane also interviews “Chilo” Borja who confirmed the identity of George Joannides. We must therefore add his name:

* “Chilo” Borja identified another as George Joannides

Instead of the original list from Talbot and Morley, which included four witnesses making one identification apiece (two of whom, Smith and Rabern, identified the same person, Morales), there turn out to be seven witnesses who directly identify them, where Smith, Rabern, and Ayers identify Morales (which Walton and Carbajal indirectly confirm); Lopez, Hardway, Polgar, and Borja identify Joannides (which is an identification his own daughters did not deny); while Ayers identified Campbell, Rabern personally observed Campbell and Morales interacting, and Rabern, rather cryptically, tells Shane that he believes Campbell is still alive—without elaborating.

DiEugenio’s Defense

If the evidence that supports the IDs of Morales, Joannides, and Campbell at the Ambassador is actually much stronger than Talbot and Morely acknowledged, the evidence to the contrary appears to be much weaker than others have claimed. On “The Education Forum”, for example, Jim DiEugenio, who with Lisa Pease co-edited THE ASSASSINATIONS (2003), [David Talbot : Gordon Campbell, 19 August 2010] advances various arguments intended to support Talbot and Morley, where I shall comment on (1) the reliability of photographic identifications; (2) the significance of his family’s rejection of the identity of Morales and of a second family’s affirmation of an alternative identification in place of Campbell’s; and (3) the plausibility of the presence of CIA officials at the hotel, even though it was possible—even probable—that they would be photographed there.

(1) On photographic Identifications

First, DiEugenio reports what Anthony Summers, author CONSPIRACY, said, when this story first broke, which is that photographic identifications are very “iffy”. Unless you have a very good close up shot, and preferably also full shots for height and weight comparisons, they (Summers and DiEugenio) would rather stay away from them. And he mentions several examples involving E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, Charles Harrelson, Lucien Conein, and Joseph Milteer that he assumes demonstrate false identifications based upon photographs. But at least three of the five IDs (Harrelson, Conein, and Milteer) appear to have been correct, when the evidence is pursued far enough. These conflicts are often resolvable, as I have found myself.

On The Deep Politics Forum, for example, I pursued the identification of Lucien Conein in comparison with an alternative, Robert Adams, whose credentials were bolstered by means of a faux plaque given to him for appearing in a photograph in Dealey Plaza. Not only did a comparison by Jack White establish a closer degree of resemblance to Conein than to Richards, but the plaque includes a news clipping congratulating him for appearing in this image taken on “Thursday, 23 November 1963”! The weight of the evidence shifts perceptibly when you discover that the arguments for one candidate are shoddy, while those for the other are not. CIA documents proving that Conein was not in town at the time to provide an alibi are easy to produce. And the same is true for other ops working for the government.

Even in cases like those DiEugenio cites, it may be possible to sort things out. We are not dealing with staged photographs here but with videotape, which shows the parties in question moving, talking, and interacting, where their images were only discovered after extended study. When you have experts like Ayers and Smith who knew them personally over extended periods of time, the situation is not comparable to the situation Summers described, where you might even want to have front-and- side photos for comparison. Nothing about the identifications by Ayers and Smith, who remain confident of them to this very day, seems “iffy”. Quite the opposite.

(2) The role of the families

DiEugenio claims that eight persons said it was not David Morales in the video from the Ambassador without bothering to take into account whether they might have had motives for denying the identity. They even include his daughters! I can't imagine anyone who would have a stronger motive for denying that the man in the footage was their father! He cites Luis Fernandez and Manuel Chavez, who worked with Morales, but are also not credible. Fernandez, for example, says "definitely that is not Dave Morales" when many others who knew him well have said the opposite.

O’Sullivan reports that Fernandez said there were differences between them: “This person seems taller, more slender and lighter color. David was fat, round faced and darker complexion, like a true Mexican Indian, whereas those of the man in the DVD are of an African-American” (page 456). The disadvantage of those like DiEugenio and O’Sullivan is that they did not know Morales and were not in position to know. I didn’t know him, either, but the testimony of serious men like Bradley Ayers, Wayne Smith, and David Rabern surely overrides it, not to mention that he had told others he was there when they got “the little bastard”! Sullivan claims that he was 5’10” tall (on page 426), but Brad has written that Morales was at least 6’ tall, which is consistent with images at the Ambassador and nickname of “El Indio” (“Big Indian”).

When Tom Clines, one of Morales’ closest associates at the agency, says both "It looks like him but it's not him" (page 450), then a definitive rejection, like that of Fernandez, is not a reasonable response. Shane observes about Clines, who tries to minimize Ayers’ competence on the ground that he wasn’t at JM/WAVE “very long”, when he was there for more than a year and a half, and Ed Wilson, who also did not identify him in a 1959 photo, both appeared to have motives to protect Morales that Ayers and Smith did not. (Brad has also told me that Clines once remarked to him that Campbell had returned to Canada after the breakup of JM/WAVE.)

DiEugenio also buys O’Sullivan’s report that the person Brad identified as Campbell was actually “Michael Roman” and that Joannides was “Frank Owens”, two Bulova Watch executives who are supposed to have been mistaken for CIA officials. When shown images from the Ambassador, however, the Roman family was actually quite equivocal. On page 473 of WHO KILLED BOBBY?, for example, we learn that Roman’s son himself initially wasn't at all sure it was his father and that one of his daughters also questioned his appearance. The one photo of Roman that appears toward the end of "RFK Must Die", moreover, does not look like to me like the Ambassador man: too much hair and the shape of his face is different. Their interest in hanging around after the assassination is not behavior that we would expect from Bulova executives.

(3) The plausibility of their presence

DiEugenio also suggests that, in an operation like this, “you would not have CIA higher ups in plain view of still cameras and motion picture cameras. It makes no sense, and this is what I told Talbot at the beginning. Further, Joannides was not an action officer. He is a desk guy who was in Athens at the time.” But this is one of those cases where his gullibility is showing. How could he possibly know? The CIA, after all, specializes in plausible deniability, which can be implemented effortlessly by the creation of fake documents and phony records. It is extremely painful to read that Jim DiEugenio would so naively accept an easily fabricated CIA alibi like this.

Similar sentiments were expressed by his co-editor, Lisa Pease, who even wrote in her blog that she could not believe the CIA would send those who were involved in his brother’s murder to assassinate Bobby. But since Bobby had said he intended to reopen the JFK investigation, their self-interest would have been great. In response to Brad’s Ambassador identifications, she suggests that he has been seeing things that he wants to see in his desire to solve the case. She says she has met Brad and that she thinks he has to have been “gullible to join up with the CIA and think they were the good guys, right?” But, as someone who has known Brad for 15 years, I cannot think of anyone I have ever known I regard as less gullible than Brad Ayers.

Lisa might want to consider that, from their point of view as agents of assassination who harbored a visceral hatred for Bobby, they would have wanted to be there. Like the “familiar faces” at the corner of Houston and Main on 22 November 1963, these men find events like these self-affirming—not unlike the adrenaline rush that they may have experienced as their targets were taken out. Amoral killers such as David Morales took pride in their work at a brute, animalistic level. He was present when Che Guevara was killed and reputedly severed his head from his body and kicked it away to insure there would be no stories of Che’s “survival”. They were there to guarantee nothing went wrong with their plan to kill a man who threatened them.

Weighing the Evidence

The kind of a priori thought about evidence by DiEugenio, especially, has shaken my confidence in his ability to think things through. No one would think those who were responsible for framing Lee Oswald would plant a weapon that could not have fired the bullets that killed JFK, either. But it happened. We have to follow the evidence where it leads and not confine ourselves to our own subjective expectations. When Shane O’Sullivan concludes the men identified as “Gordon Campbell” and as “George Joannides” were salesmen for Bulova Watch Company, moreover, he appears to be deceiving himself based upon flimsy evidence. Since Campbell was interacting with Morales, was Morales a Bulova Watch man, too? He visited the family of one of those men but simply takes their word for the identification of the other. He was taken in.

When I asked Brad whether it might have been possible for the CIA to fabricate a family to identifying Michael Roman as the man he had identified at the Ambassador to discount the possibility that it was Gordon Campbell, it was a question for which the answer was obvious: “Of course!” That would be child's play for the agency, yet it appears to be a possibility lying beyond the realm of DiEugenio’s imagination. The son and daughter weren’t sure the man at the Ambassador was their father. That should have signaled to Shane that, if there was this much uncertainty from his son and one of his daughters, the probability that this really was their father was low.

Conclusions in a case of this kind are going to be probable rather than definitive, but the weight of the evidence favors Ayers and Smith’s identifications. As in the case of Lucien Conien, the evidence supporting them is strong, while that for Robert Adams is weak. Most importantly, what is the probability of the presence of Bulova Watch Company executives who strongly resemble these CIA officials who are present at the location of the assassination of RFK, just as he has claimed victory in a primary that was expected to catapult him to the nomination of his party for President? The probability has to be extremely low, especially when you consider that Morales was interacting with Campbell and that Campbell in turn was interacting with Joannides.

James Richards, who is an expert on the CIA, observed during a conversation that those three were the ones most likely to be present if an assassination had been in the works. It is not only unsurprising that they would be there, but the arrogance of the agency is such that it doesn’t seem to care who knows, as long as the general public does not catch on. Thus, a group of CIA officials was captured in photographs as the intersection of Main and Houston during the assassination of JFK in Dealey Plaza, as most students of his death are aware. If you exercise nearly absolute control over law enforcement authorities, including the police and the sheriff’s departments, the Secret Service, and even the FBI, the fear of exposure is nil.

Assessing the Players

If we weigh the evidence using likelihood measures, where the likelihood of an hypothesis h is equal to the probability of the evidence e, if hypothesis h were true, then the likelihood that those who were present at the Ambassador were Morales, Campbell, and Joannides appears to be very high. The evidence cited to weaken that hypothesis, including the rejections by close friends and family, is more readily explained by the desire to cover up than to establishing the truth. The likelihood they were actually Bulova executives who happened to resemble them is extremely low. Those with the least axes to grind support the identifications, while those with the most at stake deny them. There is a pattern here that none of us should ignore.

My take on the participants varies from case to case. Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease have done good work, especially in authoring many of the articles they brought together in THE ASSASSINATIONS. But it seems to me that they lost their way in dealing with this case. They were far too willing to engage in a priori reasoning, where their intuitions (or appeals to “common sense”) are unreliable and unworthy of belief. DiEugeio and Pease would do better to track the evidence more closely and follow it where it leads. I am sorry to say that this is not either of their best work.

Shane O’Sullivan, I think, was simply overwhelmed by the criticism he received for his efforts to expose the truth. He confronted the kind of retaliation that many of us have encountered, where powerful mechanisms are in place to suppress the truth, especially in a situation with the potential of this one—within our visually-oriented culture—to expose CIA complicity. It had to be thwarted, at all costs. What Shane takes to be the most persuasive indication that his counterpart at the Ambassador was not Morales was the description of alleged differences between Morales and the Ambassador man from Luis Fernandez. But he was not justified in assuming that Luis was not dissembling. Luis appears to have been doing his best to protect his friend.

Like Jefferson Morley and David Talbot, Shane O’Sullivan did not know any of them. The weight of the evidence from those who weren’t shading their testimony strongly suggests he was being misled. That he fumbled the ball over “Roman” and “Owens”, moreover, is difficult to deny. Recall that Rabern told Shane he had also observed the man others identified as Campbell in and around the LAPD “probably half a dozen times” as Shane reports in WHO KILLED BOBBY? [10] (page 441). But, on page 454, he also observes (in relation to his DVD, “RFK Must Die”) that, “At 12:47, ‘Morales’ emerged from the pantry [where Bobby had been shot at 12:15] and walked into the ballroom among a group of police officers.” At 1:03, ‘Morales’ is observed comparing notes with someone who looks like a plainclothes detective, though, according to the LAPD, no police were present at the time RFK was shot. If Joannides, Campbell and Morales were Bulova executives, they did not act as if they were Bulova executives.

Concluding Reflections

The strength of the case for the identifications of Morales, Campbell, and Joannides can be seen in the presentations on the BBC program that Talbot and Morley dispute. In “CIA Agents killed Robert Kennedy—Part 1” on YouTube [11], for example, Brad Ayers identifies both Morales and Campbell and Wayne Smith identifies Morales. In “Part 2” [12], David Rabern identifies Morales and Ed Lopez identifies Joannides. These IDs, as I have explained, are supported by those of many others, including even (indirectly) by Morales himself, where the evidence against them is weak. The CIA had the motive, the means, and the opportunity to remove a threat it feared—and it took it. What is there not to understand? The rest is just smoke and mirrors.

Rabern asks why CIA involvement was never pursued but, as I observed in [13], my earlier article, the LAPD officials assigned to handle the investigation had ties to the CIA! So it was a nice "closed loop" where the agency was in control. O’Sullivan has written to me that he remains convinced that “Gordon Campbell” was in fact Michael D. Roman, in spite of the points I made about the family’s equivocal identifications. But, if Shane is right, then logic requires that we conclude that Campbell and Roman are one and the same, where his life as a Bulova Watch Company executive was his cover, where even he (page 470) acknowledges that that may have been the case.

The conduct of David Talbot and Jefferson Morley, by comparison, appears to be far more serious. They have repeatedly minimized both the strength and variety of the evidence supporting these identifications. They have exaggerated the weight of the evidence against them, even including the claim to have disproven them, when they did no such thing. They did not even attempt to identify those whom they claimed had been mistaken for them. Such doubts as they have raised, in my opinion, are overcome by the weight of the evidence, where their cavalier treatment of Brad’s identification of Campbell was especially egregious and irresponsible. They adopt a highly self-congratulatory attitude about “bad JFK stories driving out good ones”. But there is nothing about their performance that warrants any pats upon their backs.

As most students of JFK are aware, Joannides was even brought out of retirement to coordinate interaction between the CIA and the HSCA when it took up the case in 1977-78. The agency has refused to grant access to his files even when the ARRB was entitled to have them. In my view, the conduct of Talbot and Morley has been inexcusable to the extent that one could reasonably infer that they were suppressing evidence. The most appropriate response they could make to offset that impression would be to acknowledge that, given the evidence presented here, they were clearly wrong, and thus remove the cloud of uncertainty that obfuscates the clarity of truth.

As I previously explained (voltaire.net, “JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn’t”), the LAPD officers assigned to handle the investigation of Bobby’s death had ties to the CIA. They badgered witnesses who did not conform to the “official account”. The most probable killer, Thane Eugene Cesar, had worked with companies that also had links to the agency. The hypnotist, William Joseph Bryan, was on the radio suggesting that the assassin was probably “mind controlled” even before Sirhan had been identified as a suspect. Bryan later boasted to several hookers that he worked for the CIA and had hypnotized him. Given the weight of the evidence, there is scant room for doubt that Sirhan was a “patsy” set up by the CIA.

14 October 2010

* Special thanks to Brad Ayers, Shane O’Sullivan, and Kenneth Watson for feedback.

References
[1] Bradley Ayers, The Zenith Secret, Vox Pop, 2006.
[2] Shane O’Sullivan, Who Killed Bobby?, Sterling Publishing, 2008
[3] Ibid.
[4] Shane O’Sullivan, RFK Must Die: The Assassination of Bobby Kennedy, DVD (2007).
[5] David Sánchez Morales, Spartacus Educational.
[6] Bradley Ayers, Spartacus Educational.
[7] Jefferson Morley and David Talbot, “The BBC’s Flawed RFK Story”, The Mary Ferrell Archives (July 2007).
[8] Jefferson Morley, Spartacus Educational.
[9] O’Sullivan, RFK Must Die.
[10] O’Sullivan, Who Killed Bobby?
[11] “CIA Agents killed Robert Kennedy—Part 1” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0eh0hRlfCU&feature=related
[12] CIA Agents killed Robert Kennedy—Part 2” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw-6SrVs0K8&feature=related
[13] “JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed them, The Patsies that Didn’t” http://www.voltairenet.org/article165721.html
Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota Duluth, has chaired or co-chaired four national conferences on the death of JFK and has published three books about it. He co-edits http://assassinationresearch.com with John P. Costella.

Jack White
10-26-2010, 04:32 AM
This post has disappeared, not only from The Deep Politics Forum, but from The Education Forum as well, together with the comments that were posted about them. I find this rather stunning. If anyone knows what's going on, I would like to know. This cannot be a coincidence.

It appears that the original post has now reappeared.

Jack

James H. Fetzer
10-26-2010, 04:37 AM
Apparently, I posted it in the "Political Assassinations" section rather than the "JFK Assassination" I did a search and it wasn't there because I was in the wrong search space. The joke is on me! But there's still the EF! I suppose that it was missing there primed me to miss it here. Jim



This post has disappeared, not only from The Deep Politics Forum, but from The Education Forum as well, together with the comments that were posted about them. I find this rather stunning. If anyone knows what's going on, I would like to know. This cannot be a coincidence.

It appears that the original post has now reappeared.

Jack

James H. Fetzer
10-26-2010, 04:42 AM
Very interesting, Albert. I like the way you are reasoning this through. Excellent! Jim


I just realized that Roman might be a real and traceable person who actually held an executive position at Bulova. In order for Campbell to be his double there would have to be some kind of arrangement the permutations of which are numerous - but possible. Perhaps O'Sullivan found out there was a real Mr Roman and backed-down right there? But that doesn't preclude there being some kind of arrangement where Campbell shifted in as Roman when needed. The rest follows suit as written above. Once you get some kind of knowing cooperation by Roman in all this the rest becomes easy.

The shame of this is not having done this in 1969 or so and get a microphone under Roman's mouth.

Albert Doyle
10-26-2010, 03:54 PM
It kind of boggles the mind to think CIA would think way outside the box and configure a strategy where they went out and sought look-a-likes for Campbell or others and then formed the phony Bulova executive arrangement around this plan.


Another thing that would work as strategy would be using Sirhan Sirhan to draw animosity towards the Palestinians - a group that just so happened to be the "enemy" of a foreign government our government was backing at the time and using as justification in a new front against the Soviets in the Middle East. I'm not so sure how much Bobby was a symbol of anti-Palestinian powers. And don't forget Sirhan was a christian. By installing maniacal hate in Sirhan through hypnosis CIA could kill three birds with one stone by using it to drive him towards shooting Bobby. I'm not sure if Bobby threatened the Palestinians as much as those who opposed them. In any case we can clearly see the typical modus operandi of a certain organization fleshing-out here. One that was already well practiced at sheep dipping and creating agent provocateurs like Oswald and people who weren't what they seemed they were.

James H. Fetzer
10-26-2010, 04:33 PM
You are surely right about selecting Sirhan in part because he looks like and would be taken to be a Palestinian, promoting a sub-conscious bias against those who kill our most admired leaders. This was replicated on 9/11 by adopting 19 Islamic fundamentalists and a guy off in a cave in Afghanistan as the "patsies" extending that pattern. Take a look at my London lecture, "Are wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?", http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/ (http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/) on the "dancing Israels", for example. According to John Armstrong, of course, the agency has gone much further by having two young men lead parallel lives for the sake of one ("Harvey") serving as the patsy, in part for acts taken by the other ("Lee"). As I have elsewhere explained on this forum, I have my own doubts about the adequacy of his research, but it is fascinating that at least one serious student of JFK has suggested the agency would go to even greater extremes to promote its own nefarious schemes.


It kind of boggles the mind to think CIA would think way outside the box and configure a strategy where they went out and sought look-a-likes for Campbell or others and then formed the phony Bulova executive arrangement around this plan.


Another thing that would work as strategy would be using Sirhan Sirhan to draw animosity towards the Palestinians - a group that just so happened to be the "enemy" of a foreign government our government was backing at the time and using as justification in a new front against the Soviets in the Middle East. I'm not so sure how much Bobby was a symbol of anti-Palestinian powers. And don't forget Sirhan was a christian. By installing maniacal hate in Sirhan through hypnosis CIA could kill three birds with one stone by using it to drive him towards shooting Bobby. I'm not sure if Bobby threatened the Palestinians as much as those who opposed them. In any case we can clearly see the typical modus operandi of a certain organization fleshing-out here. One that was already well practiced at sheep dipping and creating agent provocateurs like Oswald and people who weren't what they seemed they were.

Peter Lemkin
10-26-2010, 04:55 PM
Look-alikes is a very old trick of the intel community - dating back hundreds if not thousands of years....along with multiple people impersonating each other; even sharing names and ID et al. The modern assassinations are just other examples. Look at how difficult it is just to pin down who the 'tramps' were in Dallas...that was all pre-planned and then honed through the years....ditto Lee and many others. Think of all the 'faces' of Oswald.....and all the people impersonating and setting him up....if not one being his life double. All magician's tricks really....to have you [the audience] focus on one thing while the real action is happening somewhere else...and you don't see it, because you were distracted and/or confused. :bandit: Leaders throughout history had doubles to stand in for them to prevent the real leader's assassination. Military and Intel types are always looking for doubles or creating them.

Paul Rigby
10-26-2010, 06:15 PM
RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador*

Jim Fetzer

Like Jefferson Morley and David Talbot, Shane O’Sullivan did not know any of them. The weight of the evidence from those who weren’t shading their testimony strongly suggests he was being misled. That he fumbled the ball over “Roman” and “Owens”, moreover, is difficult to deny. Recall that Rabern told Shane he had also observed the man others identified as Campbell in and around the LAPD “probably half a dozen times” as Shane reports in WHO KILLED BOBBY? [10] (page 441). But, on page 454, he also observes (in relation to his DVD, “RFK Must Die”) that, “At 12:47, ‘Morales’ emerged from the pantry [where Bobby had been shot at 12:15] and walked into the ballroom among a group of police officers.” At 1:03, ‘Morales’ is observed comparing notes with someone who looks like a plainclothes detective, though, according to the LAPD, no police were present at the time RFK was shot. If Joannides, Campbell and Morales were Bulova executives, they did not act as if they were Bulova executives.

An outstanding piece, for which many thanks.

Phil Dragoo
10-26-2010, 08:08 PM
The proofs of O'Sullivan's misidentification are as convincing as the production of Witt as Umbrella Man.

http://derosaworld.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c7c7d53ef0120a664b867970b-450wi

Charles Drago
10-27-2010, 04:43 PM
Commenting upon, and at times taking issue with, the noble work of a friend.



In both instances, we are looking at staged events that fit into a recurrent pattern in U.S. and world history where innocent individuals (or “patsies”) are baited and framed for cover-up purposes.

Agreed.



In spite of their history, most Americans continue to believe that their nation is “an exception” and that, while conspiracies occur elsewhere, including Europe and the Middle East, especially, they do not occur at home. The truth, of course, is that conspiracies are as American as apple pie.

American exceptionalism, like Aryan superiority, is a product of a division of I.G. Farben.



The assassinations of RFK and JFK were both conspiracies. Both involved the destruction of evidence. Both involved the fabrication of evidence. Both involved framing their patsies. Both involved complicity by local officials.

Agreed.


Both involved planning by the CIA.

This is dangerously simplistic language, Jim. It supports the demonstrably false conclusion that the Central Intelligence Agency was and is a monolithic entity. It does nothing to situate CIA officers within the Sponsor-False Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic assassination conspiracy structure.



[T]he agencies responsible for these events continue to employ the same techniques, not only of killing their targets but of covering them up.

Define "responsible" within the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic construct, please. "Agencies" that ordered the assassination? Implemented the assassination conspiracy?



The more we understand how these things are done, the less likely we are to be deceived again.

AGREED!



The conditions required for movements capable of historic changes include intelligent, charismatic, and inspirational leaders, of whom there are very few like these. While the execution of Czar Nicholas II and his family in Russia and of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette in France meant there was “no turning back”, removing liberal leaders cements the status quo with its distribution of wealth and power.

A well reasoned, if not comprehensive, statement of motive for these crimes.



Thane Eugene Cesar, security guard, a prime suspect in the shooting of Robert F. Kennedy.

So far, so good.



Acoustics expert Van Praag tested an H&R 922 of the kind Cesar had and determined that an H&R 922 had been fired at the same time as Sirhan’s [9].

Unless there were two -- and only two -- H&R 22's in the world that night, you don't have enough to implicate Cesar as a shooter.



Further indications of conspiracy extended to a couple, including a woman in a polka dot dress, who rushed away from the scene shouting, “We shot him! We shot him! We shot Kennedy!” [10].

The "We shot him!" exclamations ring hollow. I interpret this incident as a planned diversion designed to confuse contemporary and future perceptions of the event.



[A]t least one witness reported seeing yet a third shooter in the pantry, perhaps as a back-up if Cesar failed.

Jim, you're jumping to a wholly unwarranted conclusion -- and for no constructive reason. Knowing what we know of Cesar, there is NOTHING to suggest that he would have been trusted with the all-important role of prime hitter. As I see it, Cesar's function, as carried out both during and after the assassination, was to serve as yet another layer of cognitive dissonance.



In fact, there are multiple indications that the CIA was involved.

Again I bristle at the self-destructive use of "CIA" as a one-stop solution to a political assassination. The involvement of CIA officers and other assets in the Kennedy murders cannot be questioned at this point in time. But the agency as a whole remains, to my mind, a FALSE Sponsor.

The CIA, to use a comparison I coined some time ago, was neither the architect nor the carpenter, but it surely was a tool.



And even more strikingly, three prominent CIA officials—George Joannides, David Sanchez Morales, and Gordon Campbell—have been identified as present at the Ambassador.

No such identifications are warranted -- at least not yet.



Bradley Ayers, an Army captain assigned to the CIA at JM/Wave in Miami from May 1962 to December 1964, had met all three and identified them in film footage from the Ambassador [15]. Gordon Campbell had even been Ayer’s case officer while he was working for the agency.

Jim, are you prepared to give Bradley Ayers a clean bill of health and state for the record that, in your considered judgment, he is not now nor ever has been an agent of disinformation assigned to support the coverups of the Kennedy murders?



Wayne Smith, who served as an ambassador with the Department of of State from 1957-1982 with JFK’s Latin American Task Force, also knew Morales [16]. When he viewed the same footage as Ayers, he immediately recognized Morales. As he later told Shane O’Sullivan, “Bobby Kennedy is assassinated [and] David Morales is there? The two things have to be related” [17].

Same question about Smith.

And you better than just about anyone can understand the logical failure within Smith's quote as you offer it above.


James Richards, an expert on the CIA, provided me with a photo of Morales, who looks exactly like the Morales-look-alike at the Ambassador. I don’t even think it’s a difficult call.

Are you able to post the photos together for our comparison? "Exactly" is meaningless as a subjective observation. Have the photos been examined using state-of-the-art equipment and techniques?


The George Joannides figure seems to be wearing a wig. Richards also sent me a photo of Joannides, which makes it obvious why he would have been wearing one: the man was virtually bald! While it has been claimed that Cambell died on September 19, 1962, he was Ayers’ case officer from 1963-1964. Faking a death certificate would be far easier for the CIA than having an impostor working with Ayers.

"Seems to be" wearing a wig?

"Faking a death certificate would be far easier"?

Again, can you post the photos?



David Sanchez Morales also appears to have been involved in the assassination of his brother, John, on November 22, 1963[.]

This is a charge I'd be comfortable with in a court of law. Agreed.



His involvement was confirmed by E. Howard Hunt, who told his son, St. John, that those who were responsible for the assassination of the 35th president included LBJ and CIA officials Cord Meyer, David Atlee Philips, William Harvey, and Morales [24]. Others who knew Lyndon well have also implicated him [25] [26]. And high-level involvement by the government has been confirmed by multiple lines of investigation.

Jim, again you eagerly accept the offerings of a master of disinformation when they happen to support one of your positions. The likes of Ayers and the masterful Hunt are simple truth-tellers when it suits us?

I think not.



The Mafia ... no doubt put up some of the shooters[.]

"Put up"???

I have MUCH doubt, Jim. Elements of LCN were involved up to the tomato sauce stains on their chinny-chin-chins. But the shooters had to be the best hunters of humans in all the world. So while Mafiosi no doubt were sent to Dealey Plaza in support of future False Sponsor provocations, I challenge you to name a Mafia-connected (in the "made man" sense of "connected") gunman firing at JFK.



As Martin Shotz has observed, the purpose of the disinformation operation in the death of JFK is not really to convince the public of the official account but to create enough uncertainty that everything is believable and nothing is knowable.

Agreed. A most important point. Although to be fair, Vincent Salandria, George Michael Evica, and even this humble correspondent reached and communicated this conclusion long before the admirable Shotz so opined.



When Bobby allowed that he was going to use the powers of the presidency to uncover the truth about his brother [60], it sealed his fate. And the lies continue.

Indeed.

Best,

Charles

Phil Dragoo
10-27-2010, 05:31 PM
May we agree that the three characters were mimicked in the spirit of cognitive dissonance, i.e., here is some chum, Chum, bon appetit.

The odds there being NO correlation between the appearance of not one, not two, but THREE such personae simulated at such a signal event being minute.

Scintillating stuff, gentlemen. I am in the midst of MIDP and will acquire the updated edition of A Certain Arrogance when it is available.

Again, Michael Calder deems the individual below to have been instrumental in directing the candidate to the pantry--yet notes that no surviving principal can or will identify him:

http://oi56.tinypic.com/4scuag.jpg

I had deemed Hunt's gambit with son Saint John, Bond of Secrecy, to be a deathbed deflection, citing LBJ and Cord Meyers for the work of others.

Indeed, the very title includes the name of a fictional spy, enabling the author to die with a smile on his face.

Someone put a shot on the EOP and the right temple within a split-second, and a shot in the throat and back earlier.

The walkie talkie is reminiscent of those used by the Dick Tracy's in trenchcoats surrounding the Weathermen at their pyre of police barricades October 1969 Chicago.

Someone waited in the Ambassador pantry behind the partition.

Confident in the power of distraction to cover the act and the escape.

Distraction, action, escape, as a cloud of confusion converges in its wake.

James H. Fetzer
10-27-2010, 07:37 PM
For the moment, let me say that Charles caught some differences affected by my further research on Bobby between "JFK and RFK" and "RFK", which are well-taken. What I say in "RFK" takes precedence over what I said about RFK in "JFK and RFK". As for JFK, there are indications of involvement by the Dallas Police Department, the Dallas County Sheriff's Department, anti-Castro Cubans, the CIA, the military, and LBJ's personal hit-man. I have said more about this many places, perhaps most conveniently in "Dealey Plaza Revisied: What Happened to JFK?", which can be download from http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/ as its Chapter 30. There are limitations as to the extent of the detail that can be covered in articles for public consumption, where references and later commentaries can bear some of the burden. For example, if you visit my blog and check out the discussion of "JFK and RKF", some points are covered that were not covered or were only incompletely covered in the article: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/06/jfk-and-rfk-plots-that-killed-them.html I certainly agree that not all the answers can be found here, but I am doing what I can to advance the cause of truth for them both. I value the kinds of discussion that are taking place here.

James H. Fetzer
10-28-2010, 04:18 AM
One of Charles' questions concerns Bradley Ayers, whom I have known now for at least 15 years, probably longer. He is one of the most principled men I have ever known. I have no doubt of his absolute honest and integrity, which has caused him to be extremely stubborn and difficult to work with from time to time -- a complaint that I suspect has been said of me as well. I would be willing to go into any court of law and swear to Brad's character, his truthfulness and his candor. [I wrote the foreword to his book, THE ZENITH SECRET (2006), incidentally.]

As for the identities of the shooters, obviously this is treacherous water. Johnny Roselli, by the way, apparently told Joe Bonanno's son, Bill (in prison) that he had been "left out to dry" in Dealey Plaza and had had to make his way through the sewers back to a dry river bed, where he was picked up and flown out. The host of "Erskine Overnight" has quoted him about this many times and, as I recall, had interviewed him. I'm not sure I buy it but, as Bonanno said on the show, he was a serious man, who was one of the mobsters at the St. Valentine's Day massacre.

James Files, of course, has identified himself as one of the shooters, although I am inclined not to believe him (even if I am intrigued by his suggestion of the use of a Remington "Fireball" as one of the weapons that may have been used). He said that Charles "Chuckie" Nicolleti had invited him to participate the morning of the assassination. And Jack Ruby was a mob man. If either Roselli or Files or Nicoletti was involved, then at least one mobster was a shooter apart from Jack Ruby, about whom there is no doubt. But Ruby was not a shooter in Dealey Plaza.

On page 365 of "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf I identify six shooting locations -- where there might have been one more on the grassy knoll, in which case six could turn out to have been seven. As far as I have been able to determine, however, all of the wounds can be accounted for on the basis of shooters at the six locations I identify (by building on the prior -- and quite brilliant -- work of Richard Sprague. Those I believe to have been firing the shots were (my best guesses):

(1) Harry Weatherford, Deputy Sheriff, from the top of the County Records Building (the shot to his back);

(2) Anthony "Tony" Izquierdo, anti-Castro Cuban, from the Dal-Tex (the missed shot that injured James Tague, the shot that hit the chrome strip, and the back-of-the-head shot);

(3) Frank Sturgis, CIA, from the west side of the TSBD (one to three shots at John Connally);

(4) Roscoe White aka "Badgeman", Dallas Police Department/CIA, from the pergola area (a close shot that missed, possibly to avoid harming Jackie);

(5) Jack Lawrence, USAF, from the above-ground sewer opening on the north side of the Triple Overpass (the shot to his right temple that blew his brains out the back of his head); and.

(6) Malcolm "Mac" Wallace, LBJ's personal hit man, from the above-ground sewer opening on the south side of the Triple Overpass (the shot that passed through the windshield and hit JFK in the throat).

The back and throat shots were the first, where the bullet passing through the windshield made the sound of a firecracker. The back-of-the-head shot and the shot to his right temple were probably the next-to-last and last shots, on my scenario, where the miss that hit the chrome strip of the windshield MIGHT have been a later missed shot. But in offering these as my "best guesses", I know that there are as many differing opinions on this as there are students of the assassination. I will not be surprised by those who contest my suggestions.

Because I value criticism as our most important means for improving our research and state of knowledge, I would not only welcome differences of opinion on this matter -- where I also agree with Lois Gibson that Charles Rogers, Charles Harrelson, and Chauncey Holt were "the three tramps", just to hang out there a little bit further -- but would welcome discussion of my chapter. If Harrelson actually was one of the shooters (which I do not happen to believe), then he would have been another mafia hitman who was involved in the assassination,

Which is perhaps a longer answer to his question than Charles had expected to receive.

James H. Fetzer
10-28-2010, 05:33 AM
Phil,

I have to take exception to your and Charles' skepticism about E. Howard's deathbed confession. If it were all we had to go on for his list of those who were involved -- LBJ, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Philips, William Harvey, and David Sanchez Morales, for example -- then that would be one thing. But we have a lot of corroborating evidence that points in the same direction.

I recommend taking a look at my review of Bugliosi's book, which can be found at http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1.html I had more than 100 conversations with Madeleine Duncan Brown, by the way, which I found quite convincing. And of course there is the new book by Phillip Nelson, LBJ: THE MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION (2010), which is quite brilliant.

So while I am willing to discuss and debate these things, it is contrary to the available relevant evidence to dismiss E. Howard's final reminiscences. Chauncey Holt, whom I got to know prior to his death, did something very similar by creating a videotape series for his daughter, Karyn, some of which I have viewed myself. So I think you've both missed the boat here.

Jim


May we agree that the three characters were mimicked in the spirit of cognitive dissonance, i.e., here is some chum, Chum, bon appetit.

The odds there being NO correlation between the appearance of not one, not two, but THREE such personae simulated at such a signal event being minute.

Scintillating stuff, gentlemen. I am in the midst of MIDP and will acquire the updated edition of A Certain Arrogance when it is available.

Again, Michael Calder deems the individual below to have been instrumental in directing the candidate to the pantry--yet notes that no surviving principal can or will identify him:

http://oi56.tinypic.com/4scuag.jpg

I had deemed Hunt's gambit with son Saint John, Bond of Secrecy, to be a deathbed deflection, citing LBJ and Cord Meyers for the work of others.

Indeed, the very title includes the name of a fictional spy, enabling the author to die with a smile on his face.

Someone put a shot on the EOP and the right temple within a split-second, and a shot in the throat and back earlier.

The walkie talkie is reminiscent of those used by the Dick Tracy's in trenchcoats surrounding the Weathermen at their pyre of police barricades October 1969 Chicago.

Someone waited in the Ambassador pantry behind the partition.

Confident in the power of distraction to cover the act and the escape.

Distraction, action, escape, as a cloud of confusion converges in its wake.

Charles Drago
10-28-2010, 08:38 AM
Phil,

I have to take exception to your and Charles' skepticism about E. Howard's deathbed confession. If it were all we had to go on for his list of those who were involved -- LBJ, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Philips, William Harvey, and David Sanchez Morales, for example -- then that would be one thing. But we have a lot of corroborating evidence that points in the same direction.

So while I am willing to discuss and debate these things, it is contrary to the available relevant evidence to dismiss E. Howard's final reminiscences ... So I think you've both missed the boat here.

Jim

Jim,

Here are my problems with your counter-arguments as reproduced above:

1. You implicitly draw a wholly unsubstantiated distinction between "those who were involved" in the assassination and Hunt. The only reason you do so, I'm forced to conclude, is that Hunt (at the bitter end) espouses a scenario which you've embraced.

"Ego te absolvo," say you to Hunt.

"Bullshit!" shout I to Hunt.

2. Hunt's "deathbed confession" does nothing more than "confirm" hand-picked aspects of oft-told tales. It is a feint. It breaks no new ground. It is the essence of propaganda: an argument from authority. And that authority, my friend, could not be more tainted.

3. In addition, Hunt's final masterpiece accomplishes the goal of creating additional fracture lines within our community -- which would be fine if there were anything to commend his offering other than its tainted provenance. I don't disagree with you when you name likely JFK co-conspirators above. But what Hunt is doing with that list is very subtle and very smart:

Hunt has used the truth (to the degree that he speaks it) to lure us toward unfounded, cover-up-supporting, ultimately sophistic conclusions regarding the usual suspects' positions within the hierarchy of the assassination conspiracy.

Does the term "limited hang-out" ring a bell? Especially within the Hunt context?

Was Hunt, among other objectives, settling old scores?



And of course there is the new book by Phillip Nelson, LBJ: THE MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION (2010), which is quite brilliant.

4. And speaking of ridiculously unwarranted conclusions, I give you the title of Mr. Nelson's book.

To cut to the chase: Do you agree with the title's conclusion?

I reject it out of hand. It is of a piece with Hunt's final burst of disinformation: an effort to oversimplify highly complex subject matter and divert our attention from the search for the true Sponsors of the Kennedy murders.

I write only of the title; I have not read the book -- yet. But if indeed it turns out that Nelson is describing LBJ as the assassination's Sponsor -- the person with the authority to order the hit in all of its ramifications (especially on the ruling class) and the expertise to design the conspiracy in all of its brilliant complexity, then Nelson is either a fool or an accessory after the fact.

(For what it's worth, earlier this morning I received an e-mail from a very loud supporter of the LBJ-as-sponsor nonsense [He asserts that LBJ was master of the Rockefellers, who simply bowed at the waist and did his bidding!] in which he describes Nelson's book and JFK and the Unspeakable as works of comparable merit. This is an old and transparent game of conflation -- honor by association. Are sinister motives at play, or is this guy just plain stupid?)

Best,

Charles

James H. Fetzer
10-28-2010, 02:55 PM
My replies to Charles' remarks may be found here in bold. Jim


Phil,

I have to take exception to your and Charles' skepticism about E. Howard's deathbed confession. If it were all we had to go on for his list of those who were involved -- LBJ, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Philips, William Harvey, and David Sanchez Morales, for example -- then that would be one thing. But we have a lot of corroborating evidence that points in the same direction.

So while I am willing to discuss and debate these things, it is contrary to the available relevant evidence to dismiss E. Howard's final reminiscences ... So I think you've both missed the boat here.

JimJim,

Here are my problems with your counter-arguments as reproduced above:

1. You implicitly draw a wholly unsubstantiated distinction between "those who were involved" in the assassination and Hunt. The only reason you do so, I'm forced to conclude, is that Hunt (at the bitter end) espouses a scenario which you've embraced.

"Ego te absolvo," say you to Hunt.

"Bullshit!" shout I to Hunt.

Hunt identified himself as a "back bencher" in Dallas, meaning he was there (as the Liberty Lobby case established) but did not participate as a shooter or in another capacity. I do not look for arguments to support a predetermined conclusion, which would be indefensible from one who spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. What is most important about his "confession" is that it fits -- it coheres -- with everything else we know about this case.

2. Hunt's "deathbed confession" does nothing more than "confirm" hand-picked aspects of oft-told tales. It is a feint. It breaks no new ground. It is the essence of propaganda: an argument from authority. And that authority, my friend, could not be more tainted.

There are two kinds of arguments from authority, fallacious and non-fallacious. Appealing to Einstein on physics, for example, is not-fallacious, even if appealing to him on bird watching -- assuming that was not his thing -- would be. Hunt was deeply involved in CIA ops and appealing to his take on the assassination would be a non-fallacious appear. Moreover, there is a wide public who is unaware of crucial points you may take to be elementary. I admire him for doing it.

3. In addition, Hunt's final masterpiece accomplishes the goal of creating additional fracture lines within our community -- which would be fine if there were anything to commend his offering other than its tainted provenance. I don't disagree with you when you name likely JFK co-conspirators above. But what Hunt is doing with that list is very subtle and very smart:

Hunt has used the truth (to the degree that he speaks it) to lure us toward unfounded, cover-up-supporting, ultimately sophistic conclusions regarding the usual suspects' positions within the hierarchy of the assassination conspiracy.

Does the term "limited hang-out" ring a bell? Especially within the Hunt context?

Was Hunt, among other objectives, settling old scores?

Well, you are not offering any good reasons for thinking so. Insofar as he was addressing his son, St. John, and on the verge of death, I am inclined to believe that he was clearing his conscience and doing a more successful job of it than Admiral Burkley, who wanted to come clean but whose offer was not accepted by the HSCA. See, for example, a nice summary about him at http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician

That was a travesty, since he would have had much to tell us about the cover-up and was willing to speak out. It may also be related to why Sprague was ousted as counsel. I think that Hunt was doing what he could to reveal the truth, for which we have a great deal of additional corroborating evidence. They were not the only players, of course, but they were (with high probability) some of the key players. Of that, I have no doubt.


And of course there is the new book by Phillip Nelson, LBJ: THE MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION (2010), which is quite brilliant.

4. And speaking of ridiculously unwarranted conclusions, I give you the title of Mr. Nelson's book.

To cut to the chase: Do you agree with the title's conclusion?

I reject it out of hand. It is of a piece with Hunt's final burst of disinformation: an effort to oversimplify highly complex subject matter and divert our attention from the search for the true Sponsors of the Kennedy murders.

I write only of the title; I have not read the book -- yet. But if indeed it turns out that Nelson is describing LBJ as the assassination's Sponsor -- the person with the authority to order the hit in all of its ramifications (especially on the ruling class) and the expertise to design the conspiracy in all of its brilliant complexity, then Nelson is either a fool or an accessory after the fact.

I like the book, which, unlike you, I have read. I have also interviewed the author, Phillip F. Nelson, on "The Real Deal", http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com, if you want to listen. Your synopsis is a nice example of the straw man fallacy by offering an exaggerated version of a position to make it easier to take down. Lyndon was a genius at using others to get things done. Here is my review of the book as it is posted on amazon.com:

14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliant and pivotal, bringing coherence to our understanding,
October 5, 2010
By James H. Fetzer (Duluth, MN USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)

This review is from: LBJ: The Mastermind of JFKs Assassination (Kindle Edition)

From first chapter to last, this is a beautifully written, intellectually captivating, and ultimately persuasive account of the role of LBJ in the assassination of JFK. I had more than 100 conversations with Madeleine Duncan Brown, one of his many mistresses but the only one who bore him a son. She, too, became convinced that Lyndon was profoundly involved in the death of his predecessor. On New Year's Eve, six weeks after the assassination, they had a rendezvous at the Driskill Hotel in Austin, where she confronted him with rumors, rampant in Dallas at the time, that he had been involved, since no one stood more to gain. He blew up at her and told her that the CIA and the oil boys had decided that JFK had to be taken out. She wrote about it in her book, TEXAS IN THE MORNING. Her account has been reinforced by Billy Sol Estes, the Texas wheeler-dealer who made mountains of money for Lyndon, Connally, and their buddies, who explains in his book, A TEXAS LEGEND, how he became convinced that Cliff Carter, LBJ's chief administrative assistant, and Malcolm "Mac" Wallace, his personal assassin (by whom Lyndon had a dozen or more persons terminated, including one of his sisters), had been personally involved. E. Howard Hunt, in his "Last Confessions" in ROLLING STONE, explained to his son, St. John, that LBJ, Cord Meyer, William Harvey, David Sanchez Morales, and others in the CIA had been involved in the assassination. For an overview, enter "John F. Kennedy: History, Memory, Legacy", and download Chapter 30. Or visit [...], "Reclaiming History: A Closed Mind Perpetrating a Fraud on the Public", and you will understand the context within which it took place. For a short course, try "Reasoning about Assassinations" via google. I also recommend James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE. Both make profound contributions to the case.

(For what it's worth, earlier this morning I received an e-mail from a very loud supporter of the LBJ-as-sponsor nonsense [He asserts that LBJ was master of the Rockefellers, who simply bowed at the waist and did his bidding!] in which he describes Nelson's book and JFK and the Unspeakable as works of comparable merit. This is an old and transparent game of conflation -- honor by association. Are sinister motives at play, or is this guy just plain stupid?)

Lyndon, in my view, was "pivotal" in covertly responding to the disparate forces opposed to JFK and inducing the cooperation of elements of the Secret Service. This post, I think, demonstrates -- conclusively! -- that even some of the most insightful and serious students of the assassination of JFK can -- on rare occasion! -- get it wrong, not just in part but in whole. I am a huge fan, Charles, but this time you have missed the boat again, "big time"!

Best,

Charles

Charles Drago
10-28-2010, 03:58 PM
Jim,

Here I sit dockside, waiting for my ship to come in. Have I missed it, or am I early?

We'll let others decide. In the meantime, I'll respond to your bold commentary. And rather than take up additional bandwith by reprinting our exchange in its entirety, I'll ask readers to scroll up when memory needs refreshing.

1. Your statement that Hunt's confession "coheres ... with everything else we know about this case" is just plain wrong. We know much more about the JFK hit than the matters of which Hunt speaks. Said coherence is, therefore, highly selective (on Hunt's part) and, in terms of what we have every right to expect Hunt to know, suspiciously simplistic.

2. If you say that Hunt argues from the authority of an established speaker of truth with no history of being a disinformationalist par excellence ... well, I know that you would never make such a claim.

Hunt's expertise in the matters under scrutiny cannot be denied. But the authority that comes with such expertise must be considered in full context. Hunt's expertise was that of a master CIA propagandist.

Accordingly, when you write, "Hunt was deeply involved in CIA ops and appealing to his take on the assassination would be a non-fallacious appear [sic?]," you are missing the critical point.

Let me try it this way: Richard Helms brought the deepest imaginable involvement in CIA ops to his perjured testimony before Congress -- a crime for which he was convicted.

Hunt's is, for me and others, clearly a fallacious argument from authority.

Said argument, by the by, offers nothing we didn't already know. Is it your contention that Hunt shared his JFK knowledge in full?

You describe my synopsis of the Nelson book as "a nice example of the straw man fallacy by offering an exaggerated version of a position to make it easier to take down." Two points:

1. I did not offer a synopsis of the book. How could I, given that I haven't read it -- yet? (I might note that, when you wrote, "I like the book, which, unlike you, I have read," you implicitly charged me with making an a priori judgment -- even though I took care to establish just the opposite. Now who's dealing in the creation of straw men?)

I was commenting on Nelson's own choice of title: LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination. It is Nelson and not I who opted for hyperbole. And again, if the title accurately describes Nelson's assessment of Johnson's role, then the author's intellect and motives immediately become suspect -- at least for me.

I ask you: Do you agree that Lyndon Baines Johnson was the "mastermind" of the Kennedy killing? How do you define "mastermind"?

You write, "Lyndon, in my view, was 'pivotal' in covertly responding to the disparate forces opposed to JFK and inducing the cooperation of elements of the Secret Service." I'd go the extra mile: Without LBJ's active complicity, the coverup would not have been possible.

LBJ was a Facilitator of the assassination. There is no evidence to suggest that he was a Sponsor.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that LBJ was elevated to False Sponsor status.

LBJ was a brainy thug with a huge ego and grand ambitions -- the Sponsors' perfect tool in the perfect position at the perfect time.

Finally, let's take a step back and smile. I love that you wrote, "This [Drago's] post, I think, demonstrates -- conclusively! -- that even some of the most insightful and serious students of the assassination of JFK can -- on rare occasion! -- get it wrong, not just in part but in whole. I am a huge fan, Charles, but this time you have missed the boat again, 'big time'!"

It's a breathtakingly beautiful mid-Autumn day here by the harbor. I can see bright white sails on the horizon ...

Our Mutual Admiration Society exists not in spite of our willingness to disagree on vital matters, but because of such willingness.

Onward!

Best,

Charles

Jack White
10-28-2010, 04:04 PM
May I assert that NO ONE PERSON knows for certain the exact solution
to the JFK case. Many brilliant minds (for instance Charles Drago and
Jim Fetzer) have studied all the same facts and often reach differing
conclusions. So it is a mistake for anyone to claim that anyone is
right or wrong.

As much as I admire the grasp of facts and logical assimilation of them
by Jim and Charles, I agree/disagree with them on numerous threads of
the overall assassination fabric. Where Charles is often super-cautious
and conservative even in the face of strong evidence, Jim often rushes
in to embrace weak evidence as being compelling. These traits, however,
do not diminish the overall thrust of either toward reaching a solution.

Not as a criticism of either of these brilliant researchers, let me offer
my thoughts, which may differ from theirs in detail, but are all aimed
at the same target as theirs:

1. Lyndon was a PIVOTAL player in the assassination, but not necessarily
the planner nor prime mover. He was NECESSARY to the plot. It could
not be pulled off without his cooperation and approval. He was necessary
for the coverup. So in name only he was the MAIN player, the most
essential.

2. The plotters were a loose-knit informal CONSORTIUM of many
powerful players which Prouty called THE SECRET TEAM. I will not go
into detail on that here, but it operated through Dulles and was controlled
by those who controlled Dulles. Big Money people.

3. Lee Harvey Oswald was a persona used by the CIA for various
purposes. Two OR MORE persons connected to the CIA and the
assassination used the LHO persona. The invention of the LHO
doppelgangers was initially related to an infiltration of Russia, but
then was morphed into other assignments, including PATSY.

4. Much evidence was fabricated/altered to frame the patsy, the
most important of which was the fabricated Zapruder film.

5. All we know for certain about the case is that JFK was killed
on Elm Street in Dallas at 12:30 on 11-22-63, and that on Sunday,
Jack Ruby killed the accused patsy.

6. Subsequent to 1963, other persons came to our attention with
information, some good, some bad, some disinformation. Here is my
appraisal of the importance of some of them:

Madeleine Brown...yes
Gordon Arnold...yes
Steven Louis Witt...no
Charles Harrelson...yes
E H Hunt...yes
David Atlee Phillips...yes
Gedney, Abrams, Doyle...no
Charles Rodgers...no
Roscoe White...yes
James Files...no
Chauncey Holt...no
Judyth Baker...no
E H Hunt confession...yes

This may not be a complete list. But I have studied the same information
as Jim and Charles, and though my conclusions may differ from theirs,
I feel my conclusions are as valid as theirs, given my study of all the
evidence since 1963. BUT LISTEN, PEOPLE...these are all minor players
in this list, with minor pieces of the puzzle. Agreeing or disagreeing on
these minor details is inconsequential. They are distractions from the
target. The bullseye of the target is who the plotters were...and certainly
nobody on the list was a prime suspect. So let's agree that disagreement
over these minor characters is not significant in pursuing the ones
behind the killing of the president. No disrespect to Jim's beliefs, but
it is totally irrelevant to finding the killers whether or not a woman had
an affair with the patsy; likewise, no disrespect for Charles' belief
that the faking of the Z film is totally irrelevant to identifying the killers.

Jack

James H. Fetzer
10-28-2010, 04:20 PM
Charles, thanks for the spirit of collegiality that I find in all of your correspondence just as I also do in my occasional differences with Jack.

Jim,

Here I sit dockside, waiting for my ship to come in. Have I missed it, or am I early?

We'll let others decide. In the meantime, I'll respond to your bold commentary. And rather than take up additional bandwith by reprinting our exchange in its entirety, I'll ask readers to scroll up when memory needs refreshing.

1. Your statement that Hunt's confession "coheres ... with everything else we know about this case" is just plain wrong. We know much more about the JFK hit than the matters of which Hunt speaks. Said coherence is, therefore, highly selective (on Hunt's part) and, in terms of what we have every right to expect Hunt to know, suspiciously simplistic.

Of course. What I meant -- which I doubt anyone else misunderstood -- is that, with respect to the part of the event that he addresses (some of the key players in bringing it about), it coheres with what else we know about it. I am including the work of Noel Twyman, James Douglass, Phillip Nelson, and all our research on the case, including MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA and such.

2. If you say that Hunt argues from the authority of an established speaker of truth with no history of being a disinformationalist par excellence ... well, I know that you would never make such a claim.

Hunt's expertise in the matters under scrutiny cannot be denied. But the authority that comes with such expertise must be considered in full context. Hunt's expertise was that of a master CIA propagandist.

Accordingly, when you write, "Hunt was deeply involved in CIA ops and appealing to his take on the assassination would be a non-fallacious appear [sic?]," you are missing the critical point.

Let me try it this way: Richard Helms brought the deepest imaginable involvement in CIA ops to his perjured testimony before Congress -- a crime for which he was convicted.

Hunt's is, for me and others, clearly a fallacious argument from authority.

This really upsets me, Charles. My point was perfectly clear. Under the circumstances -- on the verge of death and addressing his son -- I believe he was being completely sincere and attempting to clear his conscience. Your position would be reasonable if what he said did NOT cohere with everything else we know about the case. But it clearly and obviously DOES cohere.

Said argument, by the by, offers nothing we didn't already know. Is it your contention that Hunt shared his JFK knowledge in full?

Another straw man. He doesn't have to have "shared his knowledge in full" to have "shared his knowledge in part". The point is that he WAS "sharing his knowledge" and that what he has to say confirms what we know from other sources. Take another look at BLOODY TREASON, for example, which I would cite as a prime example of research with which his confession coheres.

You describe my synopsis of the Nelson book as "a nice example of the straw man fallacy by offering an exaggerated version of a position to make it easier to take down." Two points:

1. I did not offer a synopsis of the book. How could I, given that I haven't read it -- yet? (I might note that, when you wrote, "I like the book, which, unlike you, I have read," you implicitly charged me with making an a priori judgment -- even though I took care to establish just the opposite. Now who's dealing in the creation of straw men?)

Of course. You were offering a speculative conjecture about its content that was highly exaggerated -- in my view, for rhetorical effect -- in a fashion that virtually guarantees that -- if you were right, which you aren't -- it would be very difficult to take it seriously. You can argue your case any way you want, but the use of straw men does not inspire confidence.

I was commenting on Nelson's own choice of title: LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination. It is Nelson and not I who opted for hyperbole. And again, if the title accurately describes Nelson's assessment of Johnson's role, then the author's intellect and motives immediately become suspect -- at least for me.

I ask you: Do you agree that Lyndon Baines Johnson was the "mastermind" of the Kennedy killing? How do you define "mastermind"?

You write, "Lyndon, in my view, was 'pivotal' in covertly responding to the disparate forces opposed to JFK and inducing the cooperation of elements of the Secret Service." I'd go the extra mile: Without LBJ's active complicity, the coverup would not have been possible.

LBJ was a Facilitator of the assassination. There is no evidence to suggest that he was a Sponsor.

Yes, he was a facilitator. And once you read the book, you will find, as I have found, that the author's case for Lyndon having been at the center of the conspiracy -- the pivotal player, in my judgment -- was crucial. I would certainly agree that, without his active collaboration, the cover up would not have been possible. But the assassination itself also would not have been possible absent his involvement.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that LBJ was elevated to False Sponsor status.

LBJ was a brainy thug with a huge ego and grand ambitions -- the Sponsors' perfect tool in the perfect position at the perfect time.

Finally, let's take a step back and smile. I love that you wrote, "This [Drago's] post, I think, demonstrates -- conclusively! -- that even some of the most insightful and serious students of the assassination of JFK can -- on rare occasion! -- get it wrong, not just in part but in whole. I am a huge fan, Charles, but this time you have missed the boat again, 'big time'!"

It's a breathtakingly beautiful mid-Autumn day here by the harbor. I can see bright white sails on the horizon ...

Our Mutual Admiration Society exists not in spite of our willingness to disagree on vital matters, but because of such willingness.

Well, I was willing to come back and respond to your earlier remarks for precisely that reason. I like this forum because we can have strenuous and intense but nevertheless intelligent and civil exchanges like this one, which, in the end, advance our understanding of the issues that concern us. And for your contributions toward that end, I salute you -- and Jack, too!

Onward!

Best,

Charles[/QUOTE]

Albert Doyle
10-28-2010, 04:30 PM
While blaming "CIA" in general can be too broad an accusation in the case of cells and compartments and a large number of minor divisions of such into rogue groups of members, I defend the use of "CIA" to describe these groups simply because they are so directly related that CIA can't escape association with them. If CIA itself is a once-removed aspect of American government from Constitutional oversight, then these rogue groups are removed even further and represent the ultimate empowered and unaccountable force.

The reason I defend the use of "CIA" to describe these people is because the way our system is structured CIA has to take responsibility for them one way or the other. Our system is based on extreme application of personal responsibility and legal accountability. We have an "ignorance of the law is no excuse" ethic in this country. We also have an equal rule of law for government and citizen standard. So when an individual goes before the law he is held accountable for that which falls under him in terms of this system and order. And so goes it for those government bureaucracies that have taken so much power under their legal, ethical, moral, and structural domain.

The sword cuts both ways and CIA has to be responsible for its own shop. If it insists on creating such a dark woods then it has to be responsible for that which goes on in its shadows. Those woods are still legal, Constitutional territory that someone has to take responsibility for. You can't, in a Constitutional system, create such a murky woods, raise shadowy creatures within it, teach them dark methods, and then deny any responsibility when they create mischief in the village, whether that be rogue strays or not. Government is not as tolerant or forgiving when it comes to individual accountability.

America deals with this by saying on cable TV News or in the Times that Congress is set-up to monitor CIA and its doings. That's what people should be getting their fur rubbed the wrong way over - IMO.

James H. Fetzer
10-28-2010, 06:16 PM
I agree with Albert Doyle, who has made some astute comments in the course of this thread. Jack and I only rarely differ, as we do in the case of the identify of the third tramp, whom I believe to have been Chauncey Holt, and of course regarding Judyth Baker, in whom I believe but Jack does not.

His suggestion that I sometimes "leap to conclusions" might be correct but is a more serious matter, since, if he were right, it would count against me with greater force than with others, since I have spent my professional career as a professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years!

So if Jack has drawn that inference, then could there be an explanation that might exonerate me to some degree? I would note that students should converge in their conclusions only when they are considering the same evidence and the same hypotheses using the same rules of reasoning.

The case of Chauncey is a cast in point. Not only did I meet him and study him extensively, I also arranged for a symposium involving members of is family, where his daughter, Karyn, presented photos from their family album and superimposed them over various photos of the third tramp.

Jerry Rose was present for the session, which unfortunately was not filmed, and observed during the question period that, while he had long believed the figure in question was E. Howard Hunt, he now believed that it actually was Chauncey Holt. I only wish that Jack had been there, too.

While the principles of deductive reasoning are generally well-known, those of inductive reasoning, especially those of inference to the best explanation -- which depends upon the use of probabilities and likelihoods -- are not, where every inductively proper argument is deductively invalid.

That, I think, is the rub. Those who have not studied inductive reasoning are likely to suppose inductive arguments are logically fallacious. Plus a distinction must be drawn between conclusions that are "preferable" and "acceptable", like the strongest suspect before an arrest is warranted.

The most difficult part of scientific reasoning, moreover, is to expose the full range of alternative explanations. There are some in the 9/11 truth movement who still think I endorse "space beams" as satellite-mounted directed energy weapons when I instead encourage research on them.

An accessible introduction to scientific reasoning may be found in the initial sections of "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK". While I may have committed mental lapses in the course of my research, I would like to know the particulars before I plead, "Guilty as charged"!

Charles Drago
10-28-2010, 06:43 PM
Jack (and by logical extension, Jim),

Imagine this: mutual respect among honorable JFK scholars who yet harbor many significant differences of opinion and conclusions! Next thing you know, we'll be hooking up at the Lancer/Copa Joint Forum!

(And if you believe that, you've had too many joints and attended too few forums!)

I'll take issue with Jack on two points only:



5. All we know for certain about the case is that JFK was killed on Elm Street in Dallas at 12:30 on 11-22-63, and that on Sunday, Jack Ruby killed the accused patsy.

You left out the most important aspect of the case that can be known (forgive me, Dr. Fetzer) to the degree of metaphysical certitude:

John Kennedy was killed by conspirators.



likewise, no disrespect for Charles' belief
that the faking of the Z film is totally irrelevant to identifying the killers.

Jack, I NEVER held such a belief. What I have written and said many, many times is that we do not need proof of Z-film alteration to establish conspiracy beyond all doubt.

This distinction, I submit, is critical to a full understanding of whatever it is I bring to our common table.

Warm regards,

Charles

Jack White
10-28-2010, 07:46 PM
Thanks, Charles. I may have misstated your actual belief
about the Zfilm, but I perceived it as a distinction without
a difference. Excuse me if I was wrong. My opinion just
happens not to coincide with yours. The fakery of the film
is extremely important.

Jim, if you will reread what I wrote, I did NOT say you
"jump to conclusions"...which therefore is a misquote.
I was contrasting your FORGE AHEAD style with Charles'
very temperate CONSERVATIVE slow pace.

That's OK, though. We have agreed to disagree on certain
subjects. You still think OJ killed Ron and Nicole. I have
studied that case far more extensively than you, and I
believe that Jason Simpson was the killer and OJ is
covering for his son. I bear no ill feeling because I think
you position is mistaken, I just think you have embraced
a popular position without having all the facts. I think
that had you sat on the jury, your verdict would have
been different.

Warm regards,

Jack

Charles Drago
10-28-2010, 07:56 PM
Jack,

I'll assume that you've read Killing Time, Donald Freed's engrossing take on the Simpson affair. If so, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Charles

Jack White
10-28-2010, 08:15 PM
Jack,

I'll assume that you've read Killing Time, Donald Freed's engrossing take on the Simpson affair. If so, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Charles

Charles...yes, I bought KILLING TIME in 1996 and read it
carefully...but that was 14 years ago, so I do not recall
details. I do recall that the Freed book had all the facts
correct as I remembered them. My memory of the events
and trial, WHICH I WATCHED EVERY DAY ON COURT TV, is
much sharper. Watching the actual events made it clear
to me that OJ was not the killer, but he knew more than
was apparent. The OJ case is one where POPULAR OPINION
prevailed over evidence...much like people who think
LHO killed JFK.

More important than KILLING TIME is the Bill Dear book,
OJ WAS GUILTY, BUT NOT OF MURDER. Dear, a private
investigator, actually solved the crime...coming to the
same conclusion I had. I think his book is now available
online.

Jack

James H. Fetzer
10-29-2010, 03:08 PM
Well, here's another issue where Jack and I disagree. I ALSO
watched the case every single day PLUS Gerald's excellent
discussions with experts EVERYDAY. I even taped them and
the house started to fill up with tapes! Sarah and Jan would
threaten to TAPE OVER my O.J. tapes if I didn't behave! The
fact of the matter is that I blew a sabbatical over this case.
I have no doubt that O.J. committed the crime. Nada! None.

There was a mountain of unrefuted blood evidence at the scene
of the crime, in his Bronco, leading up to his house, and even
in his shower. A driver had witnessed a near-collision between
her condo and Rockingham when a white Bronco without lights
on came into an intersection and, because there was a traffic
jam, the driver was yelling and screaming for the other cars
to clear the way. The witness reported that the driver was O.J.

This most important witness was not introduced by Marsha during
the trial because she had been paid $5,000 by a tabloid for her
story. This was an incredible blunder, but she thought she had
a rock-solid case that didn't need her testimony. She was wrong.
Jason would not have had motive, means, or opportunity. Why
would he have killed Ron and Nicole? None of which I am aware.
This was a crime of passion and rage, brutal, savage, and cruel.

The jury, of course, was incompetent. During an interview with
Geraldo, the woman foreman, in response to the question, "How
did you explain away the blood evidence?", replied, "We didn't!"
From what I can discern, they seem to have believed that if any
part of the prosecution's case was questionable, then they had the
right to dismiss it all! This was one of the most unqualified juries
in American history. When it was reheard as a civilian case, the
attorney, Daniel Petrocelli, did a far better job presenting evidence.

Here is a pretty good summary of the case, including evidence not
presented, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case
If Jack wants to make his case for Jason, it would be interesting to
hear it. But unless he was at the intersection where Jill Shively saw
the white Bronco involved in the traffic jam as O.J. was frantically
attempting to get away from the scene of the crime, I doubt that his
case is going to be persuasive. In retrospect, I can hardly believe
the extent to which the country was obsessed with the trial. They
could have knocked off Ft. Knox and no one would have noticed!



Jack,

I'll assume that you've read Killing Time, Donald Freed's engrossing take on the Simpson affair. If so, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Charles

Charles...yes, I bought KILLING TIME in 1996 and read it
carefully...but that was 14 years ago, so I do not recall
details. I do recall that the Freed book had all the facts
correct as I remembered them. My memory of the events
and trial, WHICH I WATCHED EVERY DAY ON COURT TV, is
much sharper. Watching the actual events made it clear
to me that OJ was not the killer, but he knew more than
was apparent. The OJ case is one where POPULAR OPINION
prevailed over evidence...much like people who think
LHO killed JFK.

More important than KILLING TIME is the Bill Dear book,
OJ WAS GUILTY, BUT NOT OF MURDER. Dear, a private
investigator, actually solved the crime...coming to the
same conclusion I had. I think his book is now available
online.

Jack

Jack White
10-29-2010, 07:46 PM
Jim apparently has not read Bill Dear's book, which lays out the
evidence perfectly.

http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/00554.htm

Jack

Jack White
10-29-2010, 08:07 PM
I should add that after a local lecture, I personally talked to
OJ attorney Alan Dershowitz and told him my theory that
Jason was the killer. He appeared startled. Pausing and choosing
his words carefully, he said only "WELL, HE WAS THE ONLY
SUSPECT WITHOUT AN ALIBI."

If you have time, watch Bill Dear's video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795#

Jack

Jack White
10-29-2010, 08:27 PM
I would also ask Jim whether he has read JASON'S DIARY,
which Dear obtained from a storage locker where Jason
had stashed it an abandoned it for unpaid rent. If not, then
Jim is not familiar with ALL the evidence.

Jack

James H. Fetzer
10-30-2010, 12:11 AM
The only suspect without an alibi EXCEPT FOR O.J., of course. And
bear in mind the evidence I have cited remains part of the evidence,
which is going to be difficult to overcome, no matter what else this
guy has come up with. The video runs two hours, so I will take a
look when I have time--which might even be this weekend. And if
he also studied Lee Oswald, what did he come up with about him?


I should add that after a local lecture, I personally talked to
OJ attorney Alan Dershowitz and told him my theory that
Jason was the killer. He appeared startled. Pausing and choosing
his words carefully, he said only "WELL, HE WAS THE ONLY
SUSPECT WITHOUT AN ALIBI."

If you have time, watch Bill Dear's video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795#

Jack

Jack White
10-30-2010, 12:49 AM
The only suspect without an alibi EXCEPT FOR O.J., of course. And
bear in mind the evidence I have cited remains part of the evidence,
which is going to be difficult to overcome, no matter what else this
guy has come up with. The video runs two hours, so I will take a
look when I have time--which might even be this weekend. And if
he also studied Lee Oswald, what did he come up with about him?


I should add that after a local lecture, I personally talked to
OJ attorney Alan Dershowitz and told him my theory that
Jason was the killer. He appeared startled. Pausing and choosing
his words carefully, he said only "WELL, HE WAS THE ONLY
SUSPECT WITHOUT AN ALIBI."

If you have time, watch Bill Dear's video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795#

Jack

The video runs only 80 minutes. It has extensive new evidence,
including the murder weapon. You really ought to look at it to
understand the case. Dear hopes that Jason sues him, because
he could then depose him.

Dear could likely solve the LHO affair, given the same 12 years
he pursued Jason. Coincidentally, 12 years is the same length of
time Armstrong took to nail down the LHO story.

Thanks for considering this.

Jack

Jack White
10-30-2010, 03:50 PM
I urge all to watch Bill Dear's video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7905933759946122795#

...to see how an investigation ought to be conducted.

I would like to hear comments from those who watch.

Jack

Keith Millea
10-30-2010, 06:46 PM
Jack,
I watched it.Dear comes up with some pretty darn good evidence that Jason was the murderer.I would say that he should have been the lead suspect.It's hard to imagine why he wasn't.He does speculate on some things though in his recreation of the plot..I'll also say that I didn't watch the OJ trial,so I don't know all the details of that circus.

Albert Doyle
10-30-2010, 06:59 PM
Jack White:


Thanks for that. The evidence is pretty damning and the watchcap is usually good enough for a grand jury.




Points:


The cap had to be covered in Jason's DNA. This begs the question whether the Los Angeles District Attorney's office is denying a re-opening of the case because of its complicity in hiding evidence? A criminal conflict of interest.

It struck me that Jason could have spoken to OJ before he drove over to Nicole's and gotten worked-up by OJ.


The medical examiner Lee mumbles something about other hairs besides OJ's being found at the scene. (Gee, I wonder if they were Jason's?)


Jason, being enraged and having snapped from whatever confrontation happened with Nicole, could have had Ron Goldman walk into view. It could be it suddenly dawned on Jason that Goldman's little rendezvous with Nicole was the reason why she canceled the family get-together at Jackson's. This would account for killing rage.


Perhaps Jason didn't track any blood because it hadn't spread out when he was there.


There's interesting ethical questions here. A (most-likely) innocent man sits in jail right now on shamefully trumped-up charges.


My first instinct when this happened was OJ was set-up by blackmailers. I wasn't too far off.

Albert Doyle
11-03-2010, 04:22 PM
I remember clear as day from 1994 that there was a "mystery witness" who said they saw a dark hispanic man running from the walkway. The general consensus was this was another case of blame it on a black man scapegoating and was met with a "yeah, sure, nice try." But now that I think of it Jason could easily be seen as a dark-skinned hispanic.

That mystery witness obviously saw Jason. This case is a good example of public bias. But, on the other hand, it is also a good example of jurisprudence. In the end the jury made the correct decision.

James H. Fetzer
11-03-2010, 06:19 PM
As I have posted before, I am going to watch this video presentation of the evidence that Jack finds convincing about Jason. At the point in time, having squandered a sabbatical on watching the trial and the discussions on Geraldo's show, I have been impressed by the blood at the scene, in the Bronco, leading up to OJ's house and in his shower drain. None of that was ever refuted. And OJ had a hair-trigger temper, was obsessed with Nicole, paranoid about her having a relationship with anyone else, and was probably high on meth. If Jason was there, he was accompanying OJ, who might have used him as a lookout just in case anyone came up to the condo. Jason might have had no idea that OJ could actually kill them. OJ had the physical strength and the visceral hatred to have performed a slaughter of this magnitude. I will be stunned if the same were true of Jason. I will watch the video, but it's going to take a lot to convince me. And even if Jason was there, OJ would obviously have still been complicit in the crime.

Keith Millea
11-03-2010, 06:52 PM
OJ had the physical strength and the visceral hatred to have performed a slaughter of this magnitude. I will be stunned if the same were true of Jason.

Prepare to be stunned James.

A.J. Blocker
01-12-2011, 04:56 AM
It appears that for the past two months Mr. Fetzer who's research and opinions i have come to admire and respect, has been stunned into silence on this case and Detective Dear's investigation!

Magda Hassan
01-12-2011, 05:04 AM
Do make sure you watch Dear's video. I was stunned too.

James H. Fetzer
01-12-2011, 05:24 AM
Jack can confirm it, AJ, but I was blown away by William Dear's study of the case. I
am convinced that I was wrong based upon the new evidence and the new hypothesis
he presented. I no longer believe OJ did it and agree that Jason committed the crime.
If you do a search you can probably find my earlier posts about this matter. Thanks
for asking. Jack challenged me about it on several threads, but I only replied on one.


It appears that for the past two months Mr. Fetzer who's research and opinions i have come to admire and respect, has been stunned into silence on this case and Detective Dear's investigation!

Jack White
01-12-2011, 06:14 AM
Jack can confirm it, AJ, but I was blown away by William Dear's study of the case. I
am convinced that I was wrong based upon the new evidence and the new hypothesis
he presented. I no longer believe OJ did it and agree that Jason committed the crime.
If you do a search you can probably find my earlier posts about this matter. Thanks
for asking. Jack challenged me about it on several threads, but I only replied on one.


It appears that for the past two months Mr. Fetzer who's research and opinions i have come to admire and respect, has been stunned into silence on this case and Detective Dear's investigation!

Yes, Jim quickly saw that Jason was the culprit when he saw Dear's evidence.

I predict that if he will ever read H&L, he will be convinced that there were
TWO OSWALDS. Magnificent research.

Jack