6 Washington insiders who suspected a JFK plot

Jackie Kennedy’s private thoughts about Dallas

Defenders of the semi-official theory of JFK’s assassination sometimes suggest that anyone who disagrees is deluded or dishonest. Dale Myers and Gus Russo have dubbed the benighted souls “the conspirati,” a term intended to convey disdain for those allegedly emotionally needy or intellectually incompetent people who doubt the claim that one man killed JFK for no reason.

The problem with this trope, alas, is the facts. There were plenty of astute observers of American power in 1963 who rejected the official theory of a “lone nut” and concluded President Kennedy had been killed by his enemies.

Here are six six U.S. government insiders in 1963 who suspected a JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

Lyndon Johnson

1) President Lyndon Johnson. Publicly JFK’s successor endorsed the lone nut theory. Privately, he told Atlantic magazine writer Leo Janos, “I never believed that Oswald acted alone, although I can accept that he pulled the trigger.”

2) and 3) Jackie Kennedy and Robert Kennedy: Publicly, they endorsed the lone nut theory. Privately, they rejected it. Their views were unknown until 1999, when historians Tim Naftali and Aleksander Fursenko published a book on the Cuban missile crisis, One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-1964. Using newly available documents, Natfali and Fursenko wrote that artist William Walton — a friend of the First Lady — went to Moscow on a previously scheduled trip a week after JFK’s murder. Walton carried a message from RFK and Jackie for their friend, Georgi Bolshakov, a Russian diplomat who had served as a back-channel link between the White House and the Kremlin during the October 1962 crisis:

RFK and Jackie wanted the Soviet leadership to know that “despite Oswald’s connections to the communist world, the Kennedys believed that the president was felled by domestic opponents.”

This was what Jackie and RFK said privately one week after the tragedy in Dallas. They later publicly endorsed the findings of the Warren Commission.

Sen. Richard Russell

4) Senator Richard Russell: This baron of the U.S. Senate and mentor to the young Lyndon Johnson was the epitome of a Washington insider, knowledgeable, discreet, and powerful. A member of the Warren Commission, he rejected the “single bullet theory,” which is the forensic foundation of the lone-nut theory. You can read Russell’s thoughts on the subject here. His biographer lauded Russell as “the first dissenter” in the JFK case.

5) Cabinet Secretary Joseph Califano. In 1963, Califano served as the Secretary of the Army and was involved in developing plans for a U.S. invasion of Cuba, including Operation Northwoods, which envisioned using deception operations to perpetrate a spectacular crime and blame it on Cuba. Califano would go on to become Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. In his memoir, “A Public and Private Life,” Califano wrote that he had come to share Lyndon Johnson’s view that Fidel Castro was behind JFK’s assassination.

“Over the years I have come to believe that the paroxysms of grief that tormented Robert Kennedy for years after his brother’s death arose, at least in part, from a sense that his efforts to eliminate Castro led to his brother’s assassination,” he wrote.

CIA station chief Win Scott (Photo: Michael Scott)

 

6) CIA official Winston Scott;

Scott was the respected chief of the CIA’s station in Mexico City at the time of Kennedy’s murder. A conservative Agency loyalist, he later wrote an unpublished memoir in which he said the Warren Commission’s findings about CIA surveillance of the accused assassin Lee Oswald in Mexico City were false. He knew it was false because he had been in charge of watching Oswald.

In the memoir, Scott wrote that there was “no serious investigation” of Oswald’s communist connections and concluded JFK was probably killed by a conspiracy. When Scott died, the CIA seized his manuscript and kept it hidden for 25 years, a revealing story I tell in my book about Scott, Our Man in Mexico.

 

 

Editor’s note:

After publication, I modified this piece on the suggestion of Mark Zaid, Anthony Summers, and John McAdams. Originally I included Col. Fletcher Prouty as one of the Washington insiders who suspected a JFK plot. Nothing I wrote about Prouty was inaccurate but these readers advised me of other things Prouty had done and said that called into question his veracity. So he’s not the best example to cite. I replaced him with another Washington insider, Joseph Califano.

For the record, here’s what I wrote about Prouty.

5) Col. L. Fletcher ProutyThis career military man served as chief of Pentagon special operations in 1963. He believed that there had been a plot against JFK among enemies of his policies in the national security agencies. Prouty was the basis for the character “Colonel X” in Oliver Stone’s “JFK.”

 

 

64 comments

  1. JSA says:

    Most Washington insiders (parents when I was growing up in D.C.) privately DOUBTED the Warren Commission, including my dad, who was part of the Executive Branch bureaucracy after he served at the Pentagon. The cocktail party talk (as I heard about it later) was that the Warren Commission was constructed for mass public consumption, but was never meant to “solve” the case. And many CIA parents I knew HATED Senator Frank Church. I thought there was something about the Kennedy assassination that was like a sexual affair — people knew it wasn’t right, but they just didn’t discuss it. Incidentally, I find it interesting that in cases of “hearsay” (which get bandied about in this blog by posters as in: “You can’t trust a person’s word; you have to have facts to back it up.”), when women come forward, be they interns or others who say that they had an affair with President Kennedy, they are usually believed, no questions asked, taken at their word. But when someone says they saw bullet holes that don’t match up to the WC findings they are just “spouting hearsay”. As Diane Rehm would say, “Fascinating.”

    • leslie sharp says:

      JSA, The dysfunction of the ’50′s and ’60′s certainly must have impacted the investigation. More troubling is your observation that a double standard is applied to testimony.

  2. Photon says:

    L. Fletcher Prouty? Are you serious?

    • jeffc says:

      Most of Fletcher Prouty’s insights regarding the national security state, foreign policy during the Kennedy years, and so on, have been shown to be true. Vince Palamara, for example, has made a point of saying that Prouty’s discussion of Secret Service security detail – roundly criticized by WC defenders – has proven to be absolutely correct.

      Prouty consented to many long discursive interviews, deep into which he would offer occasional speculation – and it is these speculations which have been seized upon by detractors in an attempt to discredit him in total. These same detractors largely believe the single bullet theory is fact, so who is the serious one?

      • JSA says:

        Prouty’s book, “The Secret Team,” which describes in great detail how the armed services became integrated with CIA after 1947, is a great book. For those who may think there was a MILITARY and not just CIA element behind the coup d’tat, Prouty’s book explains how really CIA/Military were so well integrated that it was almost one and the same. Or at least they worked together better than with FBI, who were rivals.
        Walt Brown I think is the one who thinks the military was behind the assassination, perhaps with General Maxwell Taylor as one of the secret coordinators, leaving Robert McNamara out of the loop.
        http://hobrad.angelfire.com/tokyo.html

        • joe says:

          JSA:

          General Maxwell Taylor was one of Robert Kennedy’s closest friends. In fact, Robert’s son Maxwell was named for General Taylor. Impugning the name of General Taylor is disgraceful.

          • G.H. Monroe says:

            I have read several biographies of RFK. his relationship with Taylor was more complicated than you suggest. As the younger Kennedy was forever trying to prove himself to his father, he was always looking for was to test himself or at least give the appearance of doing so (as seen in his climb of mt. Kennedy in 1965). Taylor had the pedigree of a rough and tumble war hero that RFK admired. So RFK looked up to Taylor and sought out his friendship. Taylor started out rather cool to the idea and eventually grew more lukewarm to the idea. The “friendship” was much more one sided than you seem to wish to make it appear.

          • Nathaniel Heidenheimer says:

            I agree with the comments of Mr. Monroe. Too often people extrapolate too much on personal relations between officials in the same cabinets of JCS, or other bureaucracies “under?” the administrations “of’ JFK and LBJ. In intense group dynamics such as the Excom meetings and others–which have been forgotten in a process labeled “nuclear amnesia” by the premier diplomatic historian of US and NATO, Marc Trachtenberg, because the combination of the possibilities of a first nuclear strike which the JCS and SAC were salivating over, when combined with Vietnam, Cuba, Indonesia, Brazil, Congo et. al. reveals too much about just how much policies really changed with the Coup of 1963– role-playing happens. Take for example the changing role of RFK in terms of its relation with both JFK and, also its relationship with rest of the Excom crew. There are many ways those relations can be read.

            The Excom meetings were not as unique as some would make them out to be in terms of momentous moments of the JFK presidency. Look at how MacNamera changed between two administrations. Personal relations are fleeting and can be misread, especially at such high levels when so many eggs are being counted up in the same basket.

      • D. Olmens says:

        My first reaction to seeing Prouty’s name included in that list was also: “Prouty?”

        I’ve read Prouty’s work and listened to his lengthy, digressive interviews. It’s clear that he enjoyed the notoriety his views generated amongst a particular audience. Prouty also had some unusual ideas about a variety of topics. When you consider Prouty’s views on the JFK assassination in that wider context and his gleeful embrace of the respect afforded to him by researchers I find it difficult to take him all that seriously.

        In my view, the fact that Prouty has become something of a guru-like figure amongst some researchers says more about the scarcity of more robust and reputable sources than it does about the importance and coherence of the man himself. Prouty’s public persona was almost like a caricature. The all-knowing insider. The smoking man from the X Files made real.

        Just to be clear, I don’t find the magic bullet theory particularly persuasive either.

        • Michael Flower says:

          So you think someone who was actually THERE , in official capacity ; someone who worked with the CIA and the Pentagon is “difficult to take all that seriously” ? Sounds to me like you are not wanting to go to places where THE TRUTH will lead you …

          • D. Olmens says:

            When you’re trying to make a balanced judgement on the value of a particular person’s ideas I think it is important and useful to take a step back and consider those ideas in a larger context.

            In the same way that I don’t believe you can write a balanced book about JFK and omit his medical history or promiscuity, similarly, I don’t think it’s sensible to take Prouty’s ideas about the JFK assassination onboard whilst overlooking his comments on other topics.

            As far as the truth, if you read some of my other comments on this site you’ll find I’m highly curious about a particular branch of recent research on the case. Believe me, if there’s any new developments, I’ll be here reading about them.

          • P Coll says:

            I think he’s trying to make the simple point that ultimately, Prouty is not a material witness and is speculating.

        • larry wheeler says:

          COL.Prouty talks about where he was on 11-22-63 and overs insight into how the Oswald bio got into the daily paper so quick that he recognized a cover story had been put out. He also pointed out the security in Dallas was very light considering Dallas was very hostile territory to Kennedy during that era. What’s next -having to hear that Col.Prouty was not even in the military or knew Dulles and Landsdale?

    • Michael Flower says:

      Yes Prouty ! He was in the thick of the military groups that were doing intelligence work , being the Air Forces liaison to the CIA. PROUTY WAS THERE … why would you doubt someone who actually was in the THICK OF IT ?

    • Gerald Campeau says:

      Photon read L. Fletcher Prouty account of crash of Powers U-2 The clue to everything

  3. Hans Trayne says:

    Probably the biggest influences on my opinions on the JFK assassination were formed in my high school years by my educators. Their statements & opinions still echo in my ears from time to time. Things like, ‘So what if Lee Oswald was an intelligence agent, can’t an intelligence agent get unhappy with life & take it out on someone who did absolutely nothing to them?’ ‘How many people grabbing guns and going off on a mass killing spree do you need to see on TV before you realize just about anyone can be a ticking time bomb?

    As for the Warren Report itself: ‘Look, your Federal representatives gave you an aspirin to take to make the headache go away. Swallow it & move on with your life. JFK, Oswald, Ruby, Tippit & others caught up in that tempest are all dead. You can’t do anything for any of them. What’s done is done & none of it required your knowledge or approval’.

    The more I try to follow Bill Simpich’s work on the Oswald legend & ‘State Secret’ online & attempt to understand the early spy vs. spy stuff the bigger the headache grows for me. Perhaps my educators were right. Still, no one can tell me if Lee Oswald was really in Mexico City or not, who impersonated him & why.

  4. Dan says:

    William Fulbright and others warned JFK against going to Dallas. JFK responded he could not be afraid to go to an American city. JFK remarked to Mrs. Kennedy the morning of 11/22/63 after reading the newspaper ad attacking him: “We’re heading into nut country today.”

  5. Jean Davison says:

    The Kennedys’ views in 2-3 are said to be based on “newly available documents,” but instead of a direct quote, the authors apparently offered a paraphrase: “despite Oswald’s connections to the communist world, the Kennedys believed that the president was felled by domestic opponents.”

    Has anyone ever produced these documents? With such a controversial claim, wouldn’t you think they’d quote the original source?

    • JSA says:

      Jean, You need to buy a copy of David Talbot’s “Brothers”. He did a good job of running down, through interviews, Robert Kennedy’s thoughts on who killed his brother. It would be nice if the network that broadcast the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interview with Charlie Rose would release the video of that conversation as well.

      • leslie sharp says:

        I wonder if RFK, Jr wouldn’t have access to the video record of that interview? Would not an appeal from this site be instrumental in persuading him to secure it and share it with the American public? In full deference to the Kennedy family, after 50 years I think it is apparent that while much was lost when their loved ones were assassinated, our Nation was severely impacted as well. I frequently wonder what Eleanor Roosevelt would have done if faced with a similar dilemma.

      • Jean Davison says:

        JSA, I’m looking for the original source for the claim about the Kennedys’ message to the Soviets, which Talbot doesn’t provide so far as I can find. He quotes Naftali and Fursenko instead. The claim may well be true, but where’s the evidence? If there are “available documents,” I’d like to see them for myself, wouldn’t you?

        Many untrue claims get passed from one author to another. For instance, author Douglass and others have claimed that Oswald had a top secret “crypto” security clearance, footnoting to other books that say the same thing. But the original source for “crypto” was apparently an anonymous caller to a radio show that researcher Weisberg appeared on years ago. Oswald’s military records, and those of others who served with him in the same job, show a low “confidential” clearance, according to the HSCA.

        • JSA says:

          Jean,

          I think David Talbot needs to respond to this thread. His sources seem to be pretty credible, and in character with the liberal Kennedy leanings, particularly when you hear/read the transcripts of the tapes that President Kennedy made of his Joint Chiefs all wanting to strike Cuba, and JFK making the decision not to do so, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As author Douglas points out correctly in his book, JFK did deescalate in Berlin, in Cuba, and was in the process of deescalating in Viet Nam when he was assassinated (NSM263). He also pushed for (and got) passage of a partial nuclear test ban, which the military certainly didn’t want in 1963. Kennedy’s record holds up and needs to be understood to see how he had become isolated from his military by late 1963. Having Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. say what he said on Charlie Rose now seems to support the view that President Kennedy was trying to draw down the military, and was assassinated in a domestic coup as a result.

          David Talbot, are you reading this? Can you provide us with further documentation on the Walton visit to the Soviet Union? Do the Soviets have files or records on this?

          • leslie sharp says:

            JSA, I support your request of Talbot; and further, Robert Kennedy, Jr., if you are you reading this, can you provide us with the video of the Charlie Rose/Dallas interview?

        • Gerry Simone says:

          It was the Kennedys’ unofficial belief so I doubt there’s an actual document unless the communique to the Soviets about a domestic conspiracy was a telex but later destroyed or kept from the public.

  6. leslie sharp says:

    Jackie Kennedy’s personal history as it relates to her financial security must have weighed heavily in the days and months following the assassination. Afterall, she accepted Averill Harriman’s invitation to move into his Georgetown home in the immediate aftermath. Both Auchinschloss (her step father) and J.T. Lee, her maternal grandfather were deeply involved with Rockefeller interests. Through her Bouvier roots she would have been impacted by the Pan American/ W.R. Grace investments, and through them there were connections to Aristotle Onassis long before she met the Greek tycoon. To consider whether or not she should have been expected to set aside the implications of these relationships, how they might have related to the death of her husband, and pursue the investigation relentlessly is a subjective exercise.

  7. Avinash says:

    Also Clinton and Gore believed in a JFK conspiracy.

    • Clinton and Gore, two of the most powerful liars in history. They are two clowns who understand the power of lies in American history.

      The JFK assassination is easily solved but only if you understand that you have been lied to. Independent evidence PROVES that the US gov’t forged and lied but you have to look at it in the correct light too. The average JFK researcher is looking for evidence that ties everything together when in actuality there is evidence that PROVES the US gov’t forged, lied and harassed witnesses.

      There are TWO INDEPENDENT ways to time the shots that killed JFK. One way is almost universally accepted as valid and the other way to determine the timing of the shots is usually thought of as invalid.

      OBVIOUSLY IF THE TIME BETWEEN SHOTS IS THE SAME IN BOTH METHODS, IT MEANS THAT BOTH ARE VALID.

      Here is what the previous statement means:

      1. In the Zapruder film, there are several frames where we can tie movements to a shot. Here are two of them that most agree were reactions to a shot:
      a. Zapruder frame 224: Connally reacts to a shot immediately after we see him emerge from behind a sign. He throws up his arm and begins a turn….
      b. Zapruder frame 313: JFK is shot in the head, everyone agrees a shot was fired here

      The time between those frame 313 and 224 is calculated by using the FBI measured film speed of 18.3 frames per second. That means the time between frames 313 and 224 is about 4.8 seconds.

      2. The other way to measure the time between shots is to use the only audio recording made during the shooting that might have recorded the sounds of the shots. The HSCA in 1978 examined the police audio recording and used the technique called ECHO CORRELATION ANALYSIS to determine if the sounds of shots were recorded. The following figure shows the time between shots using their analysis technique which compared the actual recording with recordings made when test shots were fired. Echo patterns would only match if the gunman locations and microphone locations MATCHED the locations of the test shots. As we all know, the audio experts said they matched, a bunch of educated fools published papers that said they did NOT match. Nobody used ECHO CORRELATION except the audio experts. Looking at the following figure shows who was right:

      http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b97/Cortex_2005/Warren_Comm_Audio_5_shots.jpg

      The only way that the Zapruder film and the audio evidence could have the same time between two shots is that BOTH are valid otherwise you are forced to say the audio experts guessed 4.8 seconds using random noise.

      Let’s verify that with another example: The time 4.8 seconds is the time between shot #3 and shot #4. Shot #3 was fired from the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) and it caused a minor wound to both JFK and Connally. Connally reacts by turning almost completely around in his seat to look over his right shoulder. Nobody with any sense would believe he was seriously wounded there when other evidence clearly shows Connally was wounded later…..

      As everyone knows, JFK was shot in the head at frame 313. The audio evidence PROVES that shot was fired from the grassy knoll. It knocked JFK’s head violently rearward away from the gunman.

      The audio evidence review shows shot #5 was fired from behind, it missed JFK’s head and hit Connally in the back bending him over, exactly as John and Nellie Connally said in interviews the rest of their lives.

      So what do you believe? A clear analysis that shows the US gov’t lied and forged evidence to hide the truth? Or can you think without big brother telling you what to think? Watch this to see one of their pathetic lies that hid the truth for decades. The keepers of the lie still being paid for by our corrupt government think you’ll still wonder what happened even though this video shows you can finally know the truth:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NfgTEi12p0

      • rose says:

        The youtube video is private cannot be viewed without password

      • Gerry Simone says:

        On Clinton and Gore; bigger than Richard Milhous Nixon?

        Generally I agree with the rest of your post but I don’t think there’s consensus as to a shot at Z224. Some say the lapel flip is caused by a gust of wind. In any event, it’s a frame that doesn’t easily show a reaction by Connally from a gun shot that smashes through a rib and wrist bone. If anything, it’s NOT CE399 as Kennedy has already been struck for a variety of reasons.

      • Jerry McComb says:

        I really don’t care when the shots hit kennedy or the govenor, I want to know where the shots came from and who pulled the triggers. You notice I said triggers, because there were more than 1

    • Jerry McComb says:

      this will be a first for me, I do not agree with anything these 2 have to say except this , if you look hard enough,I guess you can finally find somthing you can agree on with anyone. It was not Oswald. He was set up big time Ever give any thought why there were so many “hitmen” in Dealy Plaza that infamous day? 5-6 by my count maybe even 2-3 more

  8. Sen. Barry Goldwater (1973) was convinced that Lyndon Johnson was behind the JFK assassination

    Goldwater told Jeffrey Hoff that in October, 1973

    At the 2012 Dallas JFK Lancer conference I ran into JFK researcher Jeffrey Hoff of Arizona. Jeffrey Hoff was a leadership position in the local Cochise County Democratic Club from 1980-1983. He used to be a member of SDS in the 1960′s. Now he installs “off the grid” solar systems. I briefly interviewed Hoff on Saturday, November 17, 2012 in Dallas, TX, at the JFK Lancer conference.
    Jeffrey Hoff told me that in October, 1973 he met Barry Goldwater at a Republican political picnic in Willcox in Cochise County, AZ. I asked him how he ended up at a Republican picnic and he told me his friend Louise Parker, a friend and “real estate lady” from an Arizona “pioneer” family, had invited him. She said do you want to meet Barry Goldwater? Hoff said yes.
    When Hoff met Sen. Barry Goldwater, Hoff, who had a keen interest in the JFK assassination, brought up that topic. Sen. Barry Goldwater told Hoff in October, 1973, that he (Goldwater) was convinced that Lyndon Johnson was behind the JFK assassination and that the Warren Commission was a complete cover up. Hoff got the impression that Goldwater had told others privately the same thing. I asked Hoff how confident was Goldwater when he was making these statements. Answer: Goldwater was very confident.
    Jeffrey Hoff currently (2012) lives about 35 miles from Pierce, AZ. Lyndon Johnson died in January, 1973. J. Edgar Hoover had died in May, 1972. Allen Dulles died in January, 1969.

    • joe says:

      Robert:

      Conveinent that Barry Goldwater is dead.

    • Michael J Poblocki says:

      President Johnson knew within 48 hours of the assassination that there was a conspiracy. Hoover had advised him that another person had used his name in Mexico City in a phone transcript between the two men. As to whether Johnson was involved….I just don’t know

  9. Bill Kelly says:

    Jeff, I never said Fletcher Prouty was not credible, I said that despite the attacks on him for being a Jew baiting Holocaust denier, made because he once gave a talk to a group that supported such beliefs, and his book was published by a questionable group, the facts he provided me have stood up. He told me that the MO – Modus Operandi for whatever you believe happened at Dealey Plaza was a covert intelligence operation – and that Gen. Krulak, the USMC general in charge of SACSA – was deep into the Cuban CIA covert ops, which the Higgins memo proves to be true. Prouty also gives an insider’s history of the origin of SACSA at the Pentagon in his extended interview with Dave Ratcliffe, which can be read at Dave’s web site if you google it.

    And Jeff, my name is spelled Kelly without the e.

    Thanks, Bill Kelly

    • lysias says:

      The obituary for Prouty in The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/news/2001/jun/22/guardianobituaries, says that Prouty allowed himself to be published by the Liberty Lobby, associated with Holocaust deniers, but that he never espoused such views himself:

      In 1986, Prouty’s book-length manuscript, The Role Of Intelligence In The Cold War, appeared as a series in a magazine called Freedom, published by the church of Scientology. Like other assassination critics, he found an outlet via the Liberty Lobby, a far-right organisation with ties to Holocaust deniers.

      Although Prouty himself never espoused such beliefs, the connection enabled critics to dismiss his later writings. He helped them by publishing articles that made easy targets, such as his revelation that, according to President Franklin Roosevelt’s son, Kermit, himself an OSS/CIA man, Stalin believed “the Churchill cabal” had poisoned Roosevelt, and his widow, Eleanor, had kept his coffin closed to stop anyone finding out.

      The Liberty Lobby’s current weekly, American Free Press, publishes such non-Holocaust deniers as Paul Craig Roberts.

      I would hazard the guess that Prouty then and Roberts now have had difficulty getting published elsewhere, so they have used the outlet available to them.

  10. Steve Cearfoss says:

    “. . .Califano wrote that he had come to share Lyndon Johnson’s view that Fidel Castro was behind JFK’s assassination.”
    Not what I would all a legitimate rejection of “the official theory” of the assassination

    • Once you prove to yourself what happened during the shooting, you are quickly faced with a dilemma: How could the government have missed when Connally was shot in the back?

      MANY witnesses described the last two shots as BANG-BANG

      Connally said repeatedly the force (of the blow to his back) bent him over. Connally was NOT bent over until after JFK was shot in the head

      The HSCA discovered additional evidence in 1978 that showed the last two shots were fired a split second apart. The gubermint worked overtime to hide the facts that would allow anybody to reach reasonable conclusions. One of the facts shown in this video at the end is the lie told to hide how you would align shots from the audio recording.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NfgTEi12p0

  11. Steve Cearfoss says:

    “I modified this piece on the suggestion of Mark Zaid, Anthony Summers and John McAdams.” John McAdams!!??

  12. Mary Anderson says:

    I do not understand why Jackie did not pull the president,along with herself down into the seat low enough to avoid any following bullets. She just looked at him without doing anything. If the president knew that there were threats on his life, why would he ride in an open limo almost saying come and kill me. It seems his assassination was copied by the Romans -Julius. Cesar – everyone stabbed him. He was the best president ever, then president Clinton

    • Nominay says:

      That’s one that is very easy for me to answer. When JFK was first shot in the throat and fully responded physically with his elbows and fists, he could no longer use his voice, so at that moment, he tried to turn his head toward his wife to get her attention, but just as he did, the second shot hit him in the back, and he spent the last few seconds of his life paralyzed. That explains why he responded with elbows and fists and arched posture when shot initially, only to go all limp before the head shot. After the shot to the back when JFK could no longer react with instinctive self-preservation, which followed the shot to the throat when Kennedy could no longer speak, Jackie got distracted by Connolly’s wailing of “Oh no no! no! Ohhhh!” Etc. You can see this clear as day in the Zap film. By the time she turned her attention back to her husband, still not having processed what was happening, it was too late. Nellie Connolly too was discombobulated, not protecting her husband until after reacting to the head shot.

      • Jerry McComb says:

        I have been in combat and when shots are fired, your first thing you worry about is YOU not your best friend or buddy in the space of a few seconds you can not expect these 2 women to react to a terrible situation.

  13. Jim says:

    I interviewed CIA Director Richard Helms back in the 1990′s. I still have a voice mail recording from him giving me his private phone number so can indeed prove we talked. He told me persons involved with the CIA and the Watergate burglary killed Kennedy.

  14. [...] "Top 6 Washington insiders who suspected a JFK plot,"" (Oct. 2, 2013). [...]

  15. How come so many seem to ignore Amos Euins.He was th
    e best eyewitness.He makes Billy Lovelady the #1 suspect.Th
    e tramps are not shooters they are doppelgangers.

  16. Liam Kelly says:

    I think that some people have a problem with ‘Prouty’ mainly because he does speculate somewhat and he has no problem at all with the most outrageous scenarios, some of which he constructs with a sort of ‘boyish’ enthusiasm and occasionally there does seem to be a little naivity of other facts.
    However, let’s not forget that ‘Prouty’ was much closer to the clandestine world than most of us and his contribution to the JFK debate is very important because it highlights the very real possibilty that a conspiracy involved a signifiant number of people in very high places.

  17. Liam Kelly says:

    To the editor….
    Well if thats what you wrote about ‘Prouty’ then its simple and accurate, he was Chief, Special Operations Division, Joint Chiefs of Staff under Kennedy.
    More importantly it’s a little dissappointing that you changed your your piece especially after comments from these particular people.(He did work for the Pentagon and he did have a view.)
    The fact is that many people were unhappy with the Warren Commission conclusions including at least 2 commission members.
    At the time the public on the whole was satisfied.
    Many senior government people were not.That is a fact which is easily seen with a very small amount of research.
    Hale Boggs, Commission Member, for instance was convinced the FBI lied about most of the important evidence.
    Just one example, so it is indeed correct, that many US government insiders were sceptical.
    Indeed, almost the first conspiracy theory, which was taken very very seriously by the government was based on the fabrication (by the CIA) that Oswald visited the Russian Embassy in Mexico City.(Answering Hans’s comment above).
    How do we know it was a fabrication?
    By declassified documents and from the mouth of David Atlee Philips who said himself at a conference in USC ‘….you will find that Lee Oswald was never in Mexico City…”

    We know

  18. Jonathan says:

    Re Fletcher Prouty:

    If John Dillinger offered to give me insights on how to rob a bank, I’d listen to him. In the real world, not a court of law and not the court of public opinion, you take your expertise from the sources who can provide it. I assure readers here that’s how intelligence operations work.

    In intelligence work, the case officer collects information from a person; writes a factual report; and sends the report securely to HQ. From there, it’s analyzed by trained analysts and compared with other such reports. A senior analyst or team then forms a mosaic, which becomes intelligence.

    Prouty did speculate. He purported to know some things professionally about the assassination. I don’t gather he was either a case officer or an analyst. I’d love to talk with him, mainly to learn about his expertise.

    • John Kirsch says:

      Jonathan, what you said about how intelligence operatives (?) take their expertise from the sources that can provide it applies equally well to journalism. As a reporter, I often dealt with people who had an obvious ax to grind (former employees) or agenda to push (political consultants) or even, in one case, an accused murderer. I listened to them, extracted as much information as I could out of them, and then checked out their stories independently. Sometimes I found that they had told me the truth, as far as they knew it, which helped me assemble the various pieces of the puzzle, and other times I discovered that they had misled me, intentionally or not. Basically my approach was that I would talk to anyone, at least once. If they gave me good information, then I might talk to them again. If I found out they had intentionally lied to me, they were off my list.

  19. Len Osanic says:

    I’m wondering now what kind of journalist reporter that Morely is ?
    First who asks mcadams for advice on anything?
    Mark Zaid. seriously…
    Second, you would someone who knew the man, or check his official website. The Col. L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site. http://www.prouty.org

    To even consider asking mcadams for advice, is why morley is on the outside looking in. Prouty’s, The Secret Team book published by Balentine books first printing 1974. JFK by Birch Lane Press /Carol Publishing 1992. And now both on Skyhorse Publishing. Oliver Stone hired Fletcher for the making of JFK, and thought highly of him, and echoed that in my interview with him on Black Op Radio in January. To obfuscate what Prouty writes about, with a one time licence deal to re-print a limited run for the IHR publisher is saying, “don’t look behind the curtain”.
    Morely has my phone number and email but doesn’t have the guts to call me or Dave Ratcliffe. I leave it up to you to decides if he even knows anything about Fletcher Prouty, or further has the journalistic skills to write about this topic, which his website claims as “FACTS”. When you have to ask a mcadams, what the facts are, that means you really don’t have any idea at all.

    Makes me regret even having morley take part in my
    50 Reasons For 50 Years series.

    jfkfacts- “making non-sense of JFK’s assassination after 50 years”

    • John McAdams says:

      Oliver Stone hired Fletcher for the making of JFK, and thought highly of him, and echoed that in my interview with him on Black Op Radio in January.

      Prouty told all kinds of wacky stories:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty.htm

      • Gerry Simone says:

        WC defenders will argue that nuts abound on the pro-conspiracy side, from Lee Bowers & Roger Craig all the way to Jack Ruby and White.

        The only exception on their side is Lee Harvey Oswald.

        :o

      • Jonathan says:

        John,

        For the novices here, please tell why (no links) Fletcher Prouty is wacky. Please. I’m interested in the details.

    • leslie sharp says:

      Len Osanic, the particular vignette relating to Prouty appears to have prompted from you very serious questions about jfkfacts. That’s not an insignificant concern, and I assume that you did not make your comment lightly.

      If you’ve followed the exchanges of the last few months on this site, you know that others of us have wondered why John McAdams along with those aligned with his claims continue to participate here with little if any impediment.

      Many of us wonder why McAdams is claiming so much airtime here when he has his own site? And as you point out, why is Jeff Morley leaving an impression (albeit possibly misconstrued, but if so, I think that Mr. Morley has an obligation to clarify) that he somehow values McAdams’ research and writings. The worry is that in the popular mind, especially in new students at the university level who are being wooed by not only McAdams but Jeff Morley, things are shifting and tens of thousands more Americans interested in the assassination and the history of the ’60′s are looking to ‘establishment’ figures – immediately accessible on the net with credentials ie. the former WaPo reporter Morley and a Marquette University assoc. professor – to show them the way. The pendulum swings.

    • Jonathan says:

      Len,

      I love your 50 reasons series.

      I respect your work.

  20. Paul says:

    On LBJ saying he can believe Oswald pulled the trigger, I wonder which shot LBJ refers to. Also, if LBJ thinks Oswald didn’t act alone, why didn”t he, as President, order efforts to catch the other guys?

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Maybe it could had led to complicity or foreknowledge on his part?

    • Gerry Simone says:

      …if LBJ thinks Oswald didn’t act alone…

      It’s not an ‘if’.

      He thought so after his Presidential term, and probably during it when you hear his exchange with a prospective Warren Commissioner on his doubts about the SBT, as well as his justification to Earl Warren that the assassination could’ve been executed by the Soviets and/or Castro.

      LBJ was only interested in ending rumors and speculation about conspiracy including any suspicions against himself.

      He just wanted a politically-expedient resolution before the next election.

  21. Gerry Simone says:

    I wouldn’t discount Prouty just because he seems ‘to good to be true’.

    He probably knew too much and was untouchable.

    It’s ironic that in the movie JFK when Kevin Costner asks him to testify, Mr. X laughs it off and says that they would deem him mentally disturbed and lock him inside a mental asylum.

    It appears the same is happening to his post-mortem reputation now.

  22. Lanny says:

    Hmmmm….

    LBJ and Califano suspected Castro.

    Goldwater suspected LBJ.

    The Kennedy family seemed to suspect a “domestic” conspiracy, but RFK and Teddy remained tight-lipped about the details.

    It would seem the Washington “insiders” are no more unified as to the specific nature of a JFK conspiracy than are conspiracy theorists within the general public.

    Might that uncertainty weaken the case for conspiracy?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more