Senior Air Force officer saw JFK’s assassination as ‘a military coup’

Sven Christensen, who held a series of high-ranking jobs at the Pentagon in the 1960s, told his family and his 12-year-old son on November 22, 1963, that President Kennedy had been killed by a military coup. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the claim is the father’s career as a senior officer and his work in counterintelligence. The Counterintelligence Staff of the CIA was the component of government most knowledgeable about the accused assassin Lee Oswald.

The problem with this video is that that the son isn’t identified, making it impossible to follow up. Does anybody know anything more about the speaker in the illustrated audio file here? If so, send me an email now.

169 comments

  1. Air Force General Joseph J. Cappucci, a man with a long history of high level counterintelligence and a man who was very close to J. Edgar Hoover – one of his best friends, told his military friends that Lyndon Johnson murdered John Kennedy. Cappucci said that Hoover had implicated LBJ in JFK’s murder. Cappucci’s comments came in 1969 after Ted Kennedy’s tragic event at Chappaquiddick. The military couples at the table were making derogatory comments about the Kennedys and Cappucci said in disgust “Now I know why Lyndon Johnson killed John Kennedy.”

    Jan Amos, alive today in Dallas in 2014, was sitting at the dinner table at the Hilton in Rome when Cappucci made these comments. On the way home, Jan’s husband Col. William Henry Amos, told her to keep Cappucci’s comments private.

    Web link: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21162

    Lyndon Johnson, military intelligence, CIA, Dallas, TX oil men – all groups were deeply involved in the JFK assassination.

    Jan Amos’ blockbuster revelations will be in the second edition of Roger Stone’s “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ.”

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Interesting. When will Roger Stone’s second edition come out?

      As for Sven Christiansen video, I’m assuming that Sven told his family to keep his comments to themselves (although we don’t hear his son say that in the video).

      (Perhaps, being in the Pentagon, it was normal course for Sven’s family, including a 12 year old, from bragging or repeating anything his father might have repeated at home, when such discussion or revelations would get Sven in trouble, or endanger his family).

    • Jonathan says:

      LBJ didn’t need to organize the murder of JFK. There were other highly placed persons who could have arranged it. He only had to be on board and go along with cover-up. Of course he would be on board; that was a given. Allowing the cover-up to occur also was a given. A real investigation of motive, means, and opportunity would turn in his direction. Even if he was innocent of the murder.

      JFK made a big mistake letting LBJ onto the 1960 ticket. GHWB was mindful not to make the same sort of mistake.

      • Paul Turner says:

        I’m not sure JFK “let LBJ onto the ticket”. Certainly it was a decision his close aides, and RFK, didn’t like, but there may well have been some backroom dealings going on. Of course, JFK needed Texas in his win column, though. But recall that JFK wasn’t sure LBJ would accept the offer.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          I know I shouldn’t post without source documentation but… I’ve read somewhere LBJ blackmailed his way onto the ticket using compromising pictures of JFK provided by LBJ’s neighbor and frequent dinner guest of many years, Hoover.
          From Mastermind?

      • LMB says:

        ” Defense analyst Daniel Ellsberg, who years later leaked the Pentagon Papers, reported, “There was virtually a coup atmosphere in Pentagon circles.”

        CIA spymaster William Harvey screamed at the president and my father during a White House meeting: “We wouldn’t be in such trouble now if you guys had some balls in the Bay of Pigs.”

        By ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/john-f-kennedys-vision-of-peace-20131120#ixzz33bwROOC3

      • Thom Zajac says:

        Well said, Jonathan. LBJ would have been one of the first people to be asked to come on board, but I don’t believe he was in the room when the decision was made to assassinate JFK. Although LBJ, being a Texan and all, could have played an important role in the planning of the assassination, his biggest contribution was in controlling the ‘investigation.’ The guys who made the decision to kill JFK, knew LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover would be delighted to be on board, and with those two as part of the plan (and the CIA bigwigs), they knew no real investigation would ever be attempted- that is one of the reasons, I think, they were so confident and brazen in killing JFK in broad daylight in front of hundreds of people…… On one point, though, I have a different perspective: GHWB did not have to worry about a VP, in my opinion. GHWB is at or very close to the very pinnacle of power, and he was, of course, involved in the JFK assassination.

    • Sandy K. says:

      A new article on the CTKA web site presents evidence that the Dallas PD was deeply involved in framing Oswald. Here is the link: http://ctka.net/2014/hill.html

      Among the bad actors are Sergeant Gerald Hill and Officer Nick McDonald. Assuming the author’s posits are accurate, whose orders were these men and other DPD officers following?

      The article also discusses the role of Larry Crafard, a Ruby associate and (according to Ruth Paine) an Oswald look-alike.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Thanks for the link Sandy. I started reading the article last week but just finished it tonight. Anyone really interested in the subject should. Thanks to Mr. Yusuf and Farley in particular.
        The light went off for me when Hill rode the front passenger elevator to the 5th/6th floor. ! That’s impossible!
        Brian’s “guess” statement on 2-3 shells corroborates James Tagues’s reporters statement of 2 shells.
        The whole who had what gun at the Texas Theater when and O’s actions at the time are kind of mind blowing.

    • Chris Roberts says:

      I always wonder about possable involvement of curtis Lemay who reportly was the model of general ploting coup In Seven days In May.

      I really need to buy Stone’s book even though I am liberal.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        I wouldn’t doubt that General LeMay and JFK would have liked to kill each other. But I don’t think they did.

        As for Stone’s book, I’d save my money.

        • KenS says:

          Many Texans hold few illusions about LBJ, but Stone’s arguments are not especially persuasive. He does throw a lot of dirt around, if that’s what you’re looking for. I agree with Mr. Clarke. If you must read it, check it out of the library.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Ken

            You are right, most Texas knew LBJ well. Or the old ones at least.

            My family has been in east Texas since the late 19th century. My old man hated LBJ for stealing the election with Box 13. Dad would say, “by god Coke Stevenson was a good man”.

        • Sealord says:

          You’re wrong, he [Curtis LeMay] did it along with one more person.

  2. George Simmons says:

    From the video : “Create new legislation for occasions of Presidential assassinations where a Presidential Assassination Committee takes the responsibility for the investigation into an assassination and has full investigatory powers with no exemptions or limitations, including national security”.

    I have long believed that this is the biggest chance we have of getting to the truth in the JFK assassination.

    • mball says:

      Any congressional or other governmental entity that would be so appointed would be poltically driven. Congress simply isn’t going to do an unfettered investigation into assassination. Especially JFK’s. There is dirty laundery as well as legitimate intell operations rolled up in this thing, and the government will not let it go. The slow release of info over the years is what you’ll get. I believe that an unfettered investigation in 1963-64 would have had the culprits behind bars fast.

  3. Bill Clarke says:

    Jonathan June 1, 2014 at 5:29 pm

    I believe, Jonathan, that JFK was a more savvy politician than you and Bobby Kennedy. JFK knew he had to have the south to win and LBJ was his best shot at carrying the south. So he made the deal.

    A good thing JFK made the deal because in an extremely close election he would not have won without the south. JFK picked up, I believe, 75 electoral votes from the south. Without them we would have had Tricky Dick running the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    • mball says:

      My suspicion is that with Tricky Dick as president at that time, those missles would not have been in Cuba. I’m sure that the Russians understood that they wouldn’t likely have been able to pull that off against Nixon.

      • Fearfaxer says:

        I agree that if Nixon had won in 1960, there would have been no Cuban Missile Crisis. That’s because the world would have gone up in flames when the Nixon-managed invasion of Cuba known to history as the Bay Of Pigs failed and Mad Dick sent in the Marines and the fighter jets while hiding in the WH basement with a case of his favorite booze and an unlimited supply of whatever pyschotropic drugs he was taking while watching John Wayne in “Sands of Iwo Jima” over and over again.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Fearfaxer June 2, 2014 at 11:14 am

          Khrushchev didn’t fire his nukes over the barricade of Cuba and I doubt he would have fired them had Nixon been president and sent in our military at the Bay of Pigs. Khrushchev understood JFK trying to overthrow Castro. That was a play right out of the Soviet playbook (and our playbook too I fear). What he couldn’t understand was failing in this mission. He thought JFK was a weak leader.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            Khrushchev would have moved on Berlin. And Nixon would have freaked out, the way he so often did, getting himself drunk and holding conversations with long dead presidents.

            This idea that Nixon was looked upon as some mighty force not to be fooled with by the Communist world is absurd. When he was president years later it didn’t prevent them from doing what they wanted. Just as they did when Eisenhower and Dulles were running things in the 1950s.

        • mball says:

          Well, that’s your take on Nixon. It’s not mine. If Nixon had gone ahead with the Bay of Pigs operation, I suspect it wouldn’t have proceeded with out Castro and some of his top people being dead. Nixon was smarter than JFK when it came o the realities of international politics at that point in their careers. Kruschev put missles in Cuba because he thought he could get away with it with JFK. I doubt he’d have had the same feeling about Nixon.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            Your take on Nixon is wrong, as we can see from what happened when he was president. He was mentally unstable (to put it mildly), and when he made his move against Castro the Soviets would have moved on Berlin, probably signing a treaty with East Germany (one of Ike’s worst nightmares) which would have resulted in Walter Ulbricht cutting off land and air access to West Berlin. And if we had moved against Castro in such an overt fashion, and killed him and the other top Cuban leaders, world reaction would have been anti-American in the extreme.

          • mball says:

            mentally unstable? The same argument could be made for LBJ, JFK, and on and on. They all had quirks. If you think Nixon was paranoid, I invite you to read SECRET AGENDA, by Jim Hougan. Like him or not, Nixon had good reason to be paranoid. As for the Soviets moving in East Berlin, they were always doing that. What could they do to top their involvement in constructing the berlin wall? A treaty with East Germany? Who do you think controlled the Warsaw Pact countries?

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to:

            mball
            June 3, 2014 at 4:51 pm

            Agree about SECRET AGENDA. It reveals the Nixon-CIA connflict and how the CIA undermined Nixon. Essential to an understanding of the CIA and Nixon.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        mball June 1, 2014 at 11:03 pm

        I agree but with a bit of a different angle. I think Nixon would have crushed Castro at the Bay of Pigs so no way the Soviets could have sent their missiles in.

        I believe the Vietnam story would have been different under Nixon. But that is just my opinion.

        • mball says:

          Oh, I think Viet Nam would have been a shorter business with Nixon as president. The mining of Haiphong harbor and the massive interdiction of the Ho Chi Minh Trail would have happened the day after the Tonkin Gulf resolution was declared. As to Castro, thaT would have been concluded more quickly as well.

          • JSA says:

            The question I have about Vietnam is, say we had really pushed aggressively in 1961, agent oranged the sh*t out of their jungle, put full force in the field, etc. in this civil war, and somehow during all of this we had managed to avoid drawing in the “Red Chinese” as they were called then. What if we had “won” Vietnam?

            What would we have “won”? Wouldn’t we just have a very unstable country on our hands, full of non-stop terrorist attacks? How would we have “run” this proxy state, presumably dominated by some kind of free (non-communist) regime from the South. I just don’t see anything of value in this place, except for a few raw materials. I think the USA stepped into a post-colonial French sinkhole that was of very little strategic value to the USA. That’s my opinion of course. But I see little lost there by completely withdrawing our forces in 1965. Fighting everywhere around the globe seems like a rather stupid way to conduct American foreign policy, especially in places where we are not wanted and where we don’t have any ideological foothold or strategic gain in staying.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            JSA June 4, 2014 at 10:41 am

            The trouble with this “civil war” is that it was led, supplied and supported by communist. Today they even admit that. Had it not been for this communist influence I doubt our efforts in Vietnam would have exceeded those of Ike in the 1950s.

            At the time of course we didn’t know what degree would bring “Red China” into the fight. Today with available documents it is generally felt that they wouldn’t enter the war, especially if we kept it in the south away from their border.

            Had we won, and we should have, I suspect we would have something more akin to Thailand, Indonesia and other countries of the Pacific Rim. Far from perfect but without communist control. That was our goal in Vietnam. The Vietnam War was a product of the Cold War and that should never be forgotten when discussing it.

            Vietnam had strategic importance to Japan in WWII so it had strategic importance to us to prevent it from happening again. It also anchored our Pacific Defense that ran from Hawaii to the Philippines to Indonesia. it had more to do than just raw materials.

          • JSA says:

            My dad was at the Pentagon during Vietnam, so I heard all about it (he didn’t censor too much at the dinner table). There definitely was concern about the Chinese, as what had happened in Korea was viewed as a model. And I understand (and remember) the Cold War. Still, I don’t think Vietnam was worth all those American lives. No Way. Did you serve over there, Bill? We should honor those who served, but as for the politicians who ramped up that war (I’m speaking particularly of LBJ here), we should be highly critical. Lyndon Johnson chose to interpret Tonkin 50 years ago this summer the way he did. He could have worked it out through negotiation, and pulled us out, the way we didn’t go into Israel over the USS Liberty in ’67, or the way we didn’t re-invade North Korea in ’68 when the Pueblo was captured. Cold War or no Cold War, JFK had the right idea—-to take our troops out by the end of 1965. Too bad he didn’t live long enough to do this. “I wonder why?”

            Vietnam was of interest, but held no major strategic influence. Are we going to re-invade it today? Nope. Is China not trading with us because they are still communist? Nope. Go to WalMart and buy something. You are supporting a communist regime. I wish we could bring back all those boys we lost in Vietnam but we can’t. They are gone. Hopefully we won’t get into another stupid war like that one. It was unnecessary. Oh, and my dad came to the same conclusion by 1967. He served in WW2 and said that one was important, and necessary. He said Vietnam wasn’t, and said he regretted having helped from the Pentagon when he did.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            JSA June 4, 2014 at 4:10 pm

            I rode with an armored cavalry troop with the Americal Division in I Corps, Vietnam. From June 70 until May 71, I have one Bronze Star and one Purple Heart. I came home a bit early due to the Nixon draw down.

            Since we lost it is clear that one of our men would have been too high a cost. Had we won….I honestly don’t know. The cost was so terribly high. Some things I don’t care to think about.

            I share you disdain for the war managers though probably for different reasons. I hope McNamara burned in a very hot hell.

            And yes, we trade with all the communist now (except Cuba??) but you have to remember that the Cold War is over now. If you are going to discuss American geopolitics in the 50s and 60s and even the 70s you have to keep your eye on the Cold War.

          • JSA says:

            Bill,

            Thank you for your service to our country.

            I remember the Cold War, and the intense competition between the Soviets and the Americans, AND I think that Kennedy was trying to find a way out of that from a military sense. He was ahead of his time. In 1963 he told someone (I think it was Ben Bradlee but it could have been Paul Fay or Ted Sorensen or somebody else—have to recheck) that he thought China and the USSR were not united any longer, that by 1963 there was no longer a “universal threat” of a united communist bloc. He wanted to reach out to China, but thought he would be crucified by the right wing then if he did so. It would have to wait until a REPUBLICAN president, Nixon, until China made a deal with this country, because a Republican could get away with doing so and not be labeled “soft on communism”—a phrase very popular during the Cold War as you may recall.

            I think Kennedy was far more sophisticated in looking at the world in his day than most of his contemporaries, and when he was replaced by Lyndon Johnson (who escalated rather than drew down Vietnam) we all suffered.

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to:

            Bill Clarke
            June 5, 2014 at 12:47 am

            You served in a dangerous part of the Nam at a dangerous time. My hat’s off to you for your Purple Heart in particular. Hope your wound hasn’t interfered with your life.

            What kind of track did you ride? Were you a platoon leader? How was troop morale? How, if at all, did you grade the leadership ability of officers in your chain of command? What was your home base? Thanks.

            FYI, I was an army intel officer in III Corps 15 Sep 71 – 14 Sep 72. There were 199,000 Americans in country when I arrived, 50,000 when I departed. It got kind of lonely the last month.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            JSA June 5, 2014 at 6:50 pm

            Thank you very much. And I agree, I think JFK wanted to clam things down, especially the Cold War. A very high price was paid to win that war.

            I’ve read that the Cuban Missile Crisis shook JFK and made him very concerned about what kind of world he would leave his children. I believe his concerns to reduce or end the nuke threat was very sincere and I applaud it.

            But JFK had two problems; the American public and some hard core Soviets. To be labeled “soft on communism” back then was the kiss of death to a politician.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Jonathan June 5, 2014 at 8:13 pm

            Thanks. No, the old wound doesn’t bother me except sometimes when the weather is cold and damp. A couple of pills take care of that.

            Our platoons were made up of 6 ACAVs (M-113) with a .50 cal MG and two M-60 MG. One M-113 converter to a mortar track and three Sheridan tracks with the 152 mm gun and one .50 cal MG and one M-60 on them. I rode on one of the AVACs in a stolen jeep seat strapped next to the track commander sitting behind the .50 cal. Three line platoons and one HQ platoon per Troop (Company).

            Yes, I started as a platoon leader, then XO and was Troop CO for about the last 5 or 6 weeks of my tour. Troop moral by that time was not great but we did our job. We had drug and race problems but not like you hear of in the big city commands. We were out in the sticks and didn’t have time for a lot of that crap.

            Leadership was a mixed bag. Some great, some terrible. My first colonel (Crosbie Saint) went on to wear 4 stars. A great leader and man. Second colonel was not popular and was shot down in Laos during Lam Song 719. His remains came home in 2004. Third colonel (Hathaway) was CO of the 196th LIB and was on the generals list until Firebase Mary Ann was overrun and they retired him. Another great man and officer that got a raw deal.

            First two Troop Commanders were West Point Jump qualified Rangers. They were both terrible and both were quickly fired. Then got a Captain that had been an E-7 and he was great. I’ve lost count of the lieutenants relieved from the Troop.

            We worked off the 196th LIB HQ at Hawk Hill and we worked the bottom part of Quan Nam Province and the top part of Quan Tin province. Hawk Hill was probably about 15 miles north of Tam Ky and about 40 miles north of Chu Lai, the Americal Division HQ. The 198th LIB worked between us and the 11th LIB which worked down to the Pinkville/My Lai area.

            I guess you were getting a bit lonely. Sometimes I wonder if we wouldn’t have been better off being in country before TET68. Just a thought.

        • mball says:

          I think Viet Nam’s strategic value was it’s position on the South China Sea. That’s a very important commercial shipping transit area. I think that there was a fear of communism taking root in all of Indochina, presenting then world with communist countries there, North Korea, China, and a fear that they would make common cause in furtherance of controlling that area. I think that the idea wasn’t that we’d “win” the country for ourselves, but that the communist dominated liberation/unification effort would have been kept at bay long enough for a viable government to take hold in Saigon. BTW, I was a corpsman with the Marines’ 2nd Combined Action Group in I Corps until may ’71. We probably passed each other on Highway 1.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Oh I think you are very correct. If you remember back in the 60s this old “it has no strategic value to us” was one of the slogans of the anti-war crowd. Of course it had strategic value to us.

            Small world. I never got north of Da Nang on QL1. We worked mostly the 1st Marine Division AO when they went north to replace the 3rd Marine Division that Nixon withdrew. Either the 5th or 7th Marine Regiment was at LZ Baldy and we used to spend the night there sometimes before going into the Que Son Valley. Also worked with the Korean Marines in I Corps. Marines are #1 in my book.

          • JSA says:

            Mball,

            I suppose your argument for shipping makes some sense, although the irony today is that the USA trades freely with China, a communist nation, so in the end the shipping argument kind of sinks itself. I can hear people saying “Hey, this was fifty years ago! Who could have predicted that?” Yet Kennedy did see a value in driving a wedge between China and the Soviets further (they had already started a split according to Kremlinologists in the early sixties). He knew it would be a very tough sell opening up relations with China under a Democrat though. Nixon saw the opportunity and ran with it, doing what Kennedy wanted to do earlier on.

            The problem I have with Vietnam is not just its SouthEast Asian strategic location; it’s the incredibly weak South Vietnamese political leadership that we had to work with. They almost guaranteed failure, just as Chaing kai-shek’s “out of touch” Chinese rule in the 1940s almost guaranteed that Mao would win, as American General Stillwell predicted. Stillwell was not listened to and when China fell to communist rule in 1949, the right wing blamed Harry Truman! Obviously Kennedy was well versed in this (to him) recent history. I don’t see any realistic way that a South-led government could have won, or even could have held off the North for long without major US intervention, perhaps making Vietnam a colony of the US as the Phillippines were made? The whole military intervention in Vietnam was a mistake which we would have been wise to pull out of by the end of 1965. I still think Kennedy was right in wanting to do this.

          • mball says:

            That waterway is one of the strategic areas of the world. Always has been. We strangled japan in WWII, in part, by using submarines to make it virtually unusable. The South Vietnemese government was certainly weak. But it was a new thing for the Vietnemese, and new poltical systems need room and security in order to flourish. The internal wars in South Vietnam were very debilitating on the their government. I think that the idea was to help them transition into a viable, popular entity, and to that end we were helping stave off northern backed subversion in the south. As to Chiang Kai Shek, he wasn’t perfect but he had some “help” on his downslide.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            JSA June 6, 2014 at 9:36 am

            “I don’t see any realistic way that a South-led government could have won, or even could have held off the North for long without major US intervention”.

            Please see Easter Offensive 1972. The SV government did exactly what you can’t see them doing. The communist couldn’t do it again until 1975 which I believe is a rather long time. All U.S. combat units had left Vietnam except the 196th LIB at Da Nang and they were not sent into the combat at this time. True, we still had advisors with ARVN and some air support. Hardly a “major” effort on our part.

            As Mball points out, Vietnam was a very young country. But so many of us expected them to be like our government. Same with their military.

            You continue to attempt to tie the country Vietnam to our reason for being there and naturally you find that reason lacking. Our role in the Vietnam War was fighting the spread of communism; Vietnam was simply the field it was played on.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            Bill Clarke: That 1972 offensive you speak of came damn close to overrunning South Vietnam. There were still approximately 100,000 US troops there, very few of them combat troops, and there was a very real chance they would have had to surrender to the NVA. The offensive was only beaten back through a furious air campaign by US and South Vietnamese pilots. After the NVA’s offensive had been broken by the massive casualties rom these air attacks, the ARVN was able to finally start taking back territory the Communists had captured. Even so, they didn’t succeed in retaking all of it, and their pathetic performance 3 years later pretty much obviates your claim that the ARVN had finally proved itself a competent army. There was also the miserable performance they gave when they invaded Laos in 1971. Here’s a summation from the Wikipedia entry on that fiasco: “The campaign was a disaster for the ARVN, decimating some of its best units and destroying the confidence that had been built up over the previous three years.”

          • JSA says:

            I wonder if the spread of communism by 1963 was still a monolithic one or not. I would agree with Kennedy that it probably wasn’t. So I’m talking about “spreads” and not one spread, and a division between China and the USSR which meant playing one off against another. Nixon’s 1972 trip to China (around the same time as his bombing of Cambodia to enlarge the war) was a chess move to further isolate the Soviet Union. I don’t think it’s being a “peacenik” to advocate withdrawal necessarily. Certainly the Wehrmacht Command on the Eastern Front weren’t “peaceniks” when they tried to get Hitler to allow them to withdraw their divisions from Stalingrad in order to live to fight another day. Instead, because of Hitler’s rigidity (learned no doubt as a corporal in WW1) he refused to give up any of his static line. The Soviets encircled them and the Germans suffered major losses. I would argue that Vietnam was: A) Not sustainable to leave as the South would always be too weak; and B) Communism could better be fought without our land forces being suckered into an Asian land war that even General MacArthur said would be foolish. Finally, the situation in China with Mao was not something we in the USA could easily stop. He had the hearts and minds of the Chinese peasantry at the time and as General Stillwell, who was a China military expert rightly said, Chaing kai-shek was nothing more than a “peanut”. A weak and ineffective leader who didn’t have enough broad support. You cannot build a house on shifting sands; similarly you could not build a friendly-US client nation state up in Vietnam. We didn’t have the anti-colonial grass roots support on our side. I applaud the bravery of you guys who served. I am in awe of our military servicemen and women who sacrifice so much. I feel that these people (to borrow from Colin Powell) don’t deserve to be put into wars that are not sustainable or winnable. That’s not good political leadership. Kennedy would not have committed to Vietnam as Johnson did, and I think we would have been far better off as a result.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            “Bill Clarke: That 1972 offensive you speak of came damn close to overrunning South Vietnam.”

            No it didn’t. It started off with a bang and fizzled out. And since air support is basic to most operations I don’t understand your point about air support. Was ARVN not supposed to use it or something?

            I’ll pass comment on 100,000 Americans having to surrender to the communist.

            Yes, Lam Song 719 was a disaster. One of the few bobbles Abrams made and I still don’t understand it. It was, however, an offensive operation as opposed to defending your country.

            I would never, as bad as it was,condemn ARVN in 1975 because WE are the ones that cut their supplies to the bone and made them defenseless. A most dishonorable action on our part.

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to:

            Fearfaxer
            June 6, 2014 at 2:01 pm

            I can speak to the Easter Offensive of 1972. Yes, it was the biggest NVA offensive to date. Fifteen NVA divisions crossed into South Viet Nam. They came armed with tanks and hand-held,heat-seeking anti-aircraft weapons.

            The NVA had initial successes but got stopped cold at An Loc north of Saigon and further north in the Central Highlands and up in Quang Tri City. The ground fighting was all-Vietnamese. American planes provided massive bombing support.

            The NVA had no chance. The NVA counted on the SVN forces to cut and run. At An Loc, for example, where the fighting was intense for months, the SVN soldiers performed extraordinarily well.

            If anything the Easter Offensive demonstrated the resilience of the SVN army.

      • billy says:

        The Cuban missile crisis happened because of U.S missiles in Turkey and no matter who was in office it still would have happened

    • Opinionator says:

      A bad thing Kennedy courted the southern vote in this way. He may still be alive today if he hadn’t sacrificed his emerging liberalism for expediency.

  4. Bill Clarke says:

    “Lyndon Johnson, military intelligence, CIA, Dallas, TX oil men – all groups were deeply involved in the JFK assassination.”

    Wow! That is a very large group of conspirators! I’m surprised they were able to keep their secret.

    A second edition of Stone’s junk? In an interview for the first book Stone said his main evidence came from Billie Sol Estes, Madeline Brown and that two bit lawyer who’s name escapes me at present. Pure junk.

    • Alan Dale says:

      “…A second edition of Stone’s junk? In an interview for the first book Stone said his main evidence came from Billie Sol Estes, Madeline Brown and that two bit lawyer who’s name escapes me at present. Pure junk.”

      ^ I agree with Bill.

      • Karl Golovin says:

        The more some point to LBJ invites looking as intently in opposing directions: Let’s not forget GHWB’s being briefed by the FBI on 11/23/63 in relation to JFK’s assassination, including concerns a “misguided anti-castro group” might believe JFK’s murder heralded a change in U.S. policy towards (and feel emboldened to attack) Cuba. GHWB needed to have a “need to know” to receive such a briefing – likely a nexus to CIA’s Bay of Pigs planning and the fiasco itself. Yet GHWB always denied having any “CIA” connection prior to being named Director in 1976 by former Warren Commission member and President (upon Nixon’s demise) Gerald Ford. Of course, GHWB also denied knowing anything of the “October Surprise” negotiations with Iran regarding U.S. hostages, who were released very symbolically on the very the day of Reagan’s inauguration in 1981. GHWB also denied any knowledge of or role in the “Iran Contra” activities during his years as Reagan’s VP (although as former CIA Director, he may have been able to offer good advice on such tactics). With certainty, Prescott Bush (who supported Richard Nixon’s political development) arguably would have expected Nixon to pick GHWB as his running mate in 1968. Nixon instead picked Spiro Agnew – perhaps employing a strategy similar to GHWB’s later choosing Dan Quayle in 1988). Bush was implicated in Nixon’s tapes with a role in laundering of money via Mexico to Watergate figures (but obviously not charged criminally). I wonder whether Nixon’s demise was delayed, hastened or simply complicated by not having selected GHWB as his VP, as would have facilitated GHWB’s rise to the presidency? Without commenting on events of George Bush (43′s) eight year tenure as president, it is curious the prospect looms of Jeb Bush being #45 just as the JFK assassination records are scheduled for release in 2017. I think we’d be better off having all the records released long before that election, or inauguration.

        • Robert Harper says:

          Regarding GHW Bush–I think it was Walsh’s book “Firewall” about the Iran-Contra investigation, that mentioned why Bush had picked Quayle. Apparently, Quayle had introduced someone involved in the caper to Secord or North. This was Bush’s built in insurance policy about impeachment over the matter, should that ever arise. He picked someone who would be tarnished as well, making any alternative too messy and complicated. It finally made sense to me why he picked such a lightweight.

    • JSA says:

      “Wow! That is a very large group of conspirators! I’m surprised they were able to keep their secret.”

      They didn’t. It leaked out through unofficial channels over the years. That’s why the House Select Committee decided to try to reopen the case. The only problem was that their access to CIA files was controlled by a CIA gatekeeper. So although the acoustical evidence alone was enough to show there was a second shooter, without access to all of the relevant CIA files the subcommittee could go no further.

      If you really think things can’t be kept a secret, you’re only partly correct. Look at the atomic bomb project in the USA during WW2. That one was pretty well guarded, and only a few insiders who weren’t just knowledgeable about piecemeal bits (need to know security as it’s called in top secret clearance work) knew the full picture of the atomic bomb project before it was proven in the summer of 1945 and then used in Japan.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        “Wow! That is a very large group of conspirators! I’m surprised they were able to keep their secret.”

        This is a straw man argument (or perhaps a lone-assassin factoid) as I’ve explained elsewhere in this thread, but glad you also commented on it.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        JSA June 2, 2014 at 10:07 am

        I was under the impression that the acoustic evidence was later proven to be flawed. Is this not true?

        I’ve read that when Truman told Stalin that we had a weapon that would end the war Stalin showed no surprise. I wonder why?

        • JSA says:

          There were a few attempts to disprove the acoustical evidence, which author Donald Thomas highlights and shows to have come up short, as he bolsters the case for the police dictabelt recording being accurate, it’s recording still proving that shots were fired from behind and in front of the car. His book is available on the Mary Ferrell site. It’s called “Hear No Evil.”

          As for Stalin, he thought Truman was nothing more than a shopkeeper and was very condescending to him. Stalin had no clue about the atomic bomb, but was too proud (and arrogant) to admit otherwise. He was damned lucky he was able to score a few German scientists after the war which Operation Paperclip didn’t manage to grab in time. I’m not saying that the Russians didn’t have a rocket program, but without the lead knowledge gained from the Peenemunde group, both the USA and USSR would have been slower to develop ICBMs and a space program.

          The American public was kept almost completely in the dark about the “Manhattan Project” as were many politicians and military. So my point about secrecy still stands as a valid analogy.

          • Norman Cottrell says:

            Stalin didn’t know about Operation Barbarossa either – an event a lot closer to home.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            Stalin did know about the atomic bomb. Soviet intelligence had quite a few moles throughout the entire Manhattan Project, including Klaus Fuchs, one of the top men working on it. When Truman dropped a deliberately vague and misleading hint about the Bomb at the Potsdam conference, Stalin knew immediately what he was talking about. Truman’s failure to explain it in detail did a lot to convince Stalin that the Western allies were not to be trusted.

          • JSA says:

            Hmm…Fairfaxer might be right about Stalin. The Soviets DID have moles in our operations, as the whole Rosenberg scandal revealed. We also had a Left Wing in this country that bent over backwards to apologize for “Uncle Joe” Stalin, until the 1941 Nazi-Soviet Pact (and Soviet brutalization of Poland and Finland) brought embarrassment to them. Still, without Stalin’s Eastern Front, the Normandy Invasion of 70 years ago might not have gone off so easily, so although I wouldn’t trust Stalin farther than I could throw him, it’s important to recognize his value in stemming Hitler’s expansion. In America just prior to WW2 you had two extremist groups who were really on the wrong side of history: the right wing isolationists (JFK’s dad was one) who thought Hitler couldn’t be stopped (some said shouldn’t) so we should stay out, and the far left who thought the USSR was some white knight good guy country and not a brutal totalitarian regime that oppressed its people (and made a deal with Hitler). The smarter folks were those who saw the dangers of fascism AND communism, and saw Europe as worth saving. The right wing went on to support police state tactics under McCarthism, and then supported Vietnam. The smarter folks saw that Vietnam wasn’t Munich, wasn’t even Berlin, and wasn’t worth expensive lives over. Kennedy (both John and Robert) saw the wisdom by 1963 of not escalating the war in Vietnam, while the military (including my own father) wanted to “win” Vietnam. My dad finally came to his senses in 1967. It takes a good leader however to steer clear of Vietnams, and Kennedy was trying to steer us out of it. Had he lived we would probably have pulled out.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          One scientific body argued later that the HSCA study was flawed, but it was later confirmed by D. B. Thomas. Dale Myers argued against it on the basis of the location of H.B. McLain, the cycle cop who supposedly had the mike stuck in the on position, but Thomas rebutted this at last November’s Lancer conference. Thomas also wrote about this in his book, Hear No Evil.

          https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Acoustics_Evidence

        • Sandy K. says:

          Bill, this article may answer your question by presenting testament from Uncle Joe’s inner circle that he never revealed what he was thinking. The piece also touches on Norman’s comment below — Stalin was preparing to invade Germany but Hitler beat him to the punch.

          http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/bionic-mosquito/stalins-grand-design-to-start-ww-ii/

      • Nathaniel Heidenheimer says:

        The idea that everyone needs to keep something a secret is a myth that is propagated, because it is an easy-out, less than one (book) and done truism.

        The history of Cold War Communications Research shows that the goal of “our” complex, multi-faceted propaganda is more akin to scrambling-after-the-fact. In other words, say that a true “secret” is uttered, and some important beans ARE spilled. So What.

        Why doesn’t it matter? Because our propaganda system will scatter those facts using a hundred other alternative narratives that receive probably MORE widespread coverage. Witness the widespread play that Malcolm Gladwell’s rehashing of the accidental magic bullet. That allegation got way way more coverage worldwide, than any CIA implicating bean would ever receive. Is that an accident? No it’s not.

        The truth beans will be scrambled in the hundred other narratives. In our rich poly-narrative propaganda system, it simply does not matter if there are beans spilled. Not under such an increasingly corporate-centralized media system that exists now.

        In order for the spilled truth beans to have any stimulating effect on our narcoleptified (neologism here coined because I see it as clearly a top-down process, however far back in C.D. Jackson’s career you choose to go)population, the beans must be ground and brewed into a cup wide and deep enough for enough citizens to have a sip.

        That is why, IMO, the most important thing that those who are struggling to save history form “buffdom” is to cut and to paste. Wider audience. The events of Watergate had the widest possible audience and a narrative was assembled.

        Where there’s a financed will there’s a way. When the will blows in the opposite direction, 1) Copy 2) Paste into more general audiences.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Nathaniel, “Why doesn’t it matter? Because our propaganda system will scatter those facts using a hundred other alternative narratives that receive probably MORE widespread coverage . . . ”

          In the microcosm, isn’t this at the core of the recent argument on this site relating to the participation of those that continue to propagate the lie of the conclusions of the Warren Commission?

          If we distill it down – setting aside the dissemination of ‘facts’ focused on LHO in the immediate aftermath and the oh so subtle guidance of freshly appointed commission members by Allen Dulles in December, 1963 (less than a month after the assassination) to implant the argument that Oswald fit a profile of lone assassins in the history of the US – the ‘facts’ began to be scattered by the propaganda system in September of 1964; an industry was spawned. That scattering continues to date – and, unfortunately, on this site under the guise of ‘fair and balanced’ debate.

          I’ve been studying the publishers behind a number of high profile books that propagated the lie of the commission, including WW Norton.

          Norton, with HQ at 500 Fifth Ave. that happens to have been the home of Littauer & Wilkerson, literary agents for E. Howard Hunt, published two books relating to the assassination of JFK that I’ve been able to locate. One was “Oswald’s Game” and the other was “Reclaiming History.” I’ve wondered why a purportedly distinguished house has not over the years chosen to publish a credible “conspiracy” argument in a nominal effort to offer a balanced approach – critical to any publisher’s credibility I would think. (If anyone can identify an instance when Norton did publish a conspiracy researcher I would be greatful for the information.).

          The chief editor of Norton working closely with Bugliosi was Starling Lawrence, a descendant of the Boston Brahmin Coffin family of General Electric Corporation. In fairness, Mr. Lawrence seems to have been conflicted by GE’s global domination tactics. Mr. Lawrence said, and I paraphrase, that Bugliosi’s book would ‘put a nail in the coffin (pun intended, who knows?) of all of the conspiracy theories once and for all.’ That is a rather bold statement by someone whose very reputation relies upon objectivity and public confidence in his or her keen intellect. Did Mr. Lawrence study the assassination in depth before making this statement or simply defer to Mr. Bugliosi’s word – or more accurately, hundreds of thousands of words in Reclaiming History?

          Was the title of Bugliosi’s book deliberate?

          Churchill admitted: History is written by the victors.

          Anyone interested in further esoteric aspects of the assassination in Dallas and the publishing industry involved in the recording of our nation’s history should consider the Texas School Book Depository enterprise at 411 Elm, propagators of the writing of our nation’s modern history; were similar enterprises an aspect of the Chicago and Miami “plots?” I think not.

          Side note: the judge in the mock trial of LHO (produced by London Television) with Bugliosi as prosecutor of LHO and Spence for the defense was from Midland, Texas.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      While I may not subscribe to Stone’s thesis, the argument commonly used by lone assassin proponents (including Vincent Bugliosi) that too many conspirators would’ve talked is fallacious.

      Any person involved would be an accessory and subject to criminal prosecution as the statute of limitations for murder does not expire.

      The assassination of President Kennedy is not water-cooler gossip.

  5. Bill Simpich says:

    George Simmons has it right. A standing presidential assassination committee is
    a practical tool that could force the needed documents from these agencies. Time and again,
    their admitted strategy is to wait it out, while filling the documents with improper deletions knowing there is no
    penalty for abusing the process.

    Critical witnesses keep dying, we should not passively wait for a document release in 2017. That will not do anything close to enough. Political action is needed to ensure preservation of evidence and ongoing investigation.

  6. Bill Kelly says:

    How come nobody can get a make on Gen Sven Christensen?

    • PBR says:

      I agree Bill. I did my best to run a trace on the Colonel. Checked Airforce online records of HQ at Pentagon during the early 1960s. Nothing. I also checked the history of Wright Patterson AFB in early 1970s (as mentioned in the purported citation for the Legion of Merit) and again, nothing. No record of a Legion of Merit having been awarded to said individual in any online records. I’m somewhat mystified and a tad suspicious. I traced the actual video on YouTube to one,” M Christensen”. It’s his voice alright as he has a strange video on his account where he is bemoaning the fact that his Sat Nav is not working in the car. I find it somewhat bizarre that he has nothing else on his YouTube account regarding the assassination never mind the illustrious career of Colonel Sven A Christensen. Below the video (in which he alleges that his father had made the claims of a military coup in the assassination) you’ll notice that he has a significant blurb and a link to a blog where there’s an article. I think you’ll find the whole thing somewhat strange. Here’s the link if you want to see the original video and his other contributions to You Tube. http://youtu.be/3_3ZnPlTZB4.

  7. H.P. Albarelli Jr. says:

    It appears to be a bogus report; best to check these things out before posting them as ‘facts.’

    • PBR says:

      Read carefully what Jeff has said again in his posting below the video. I believe he has posted it with the adjunct that it is a ‘claim’. He also states that it is ,”…impossible to follow it up”, adding that if anyone knows anything more about this to contact him. I’d hardly say it’s posted as a ‘fact’.

      • H.P. Albarelli Jr. says:

        Then why bother posting it under the banner of JFK Facts. I do read carefully; quite carefully. But thanks for the tip.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          To have it vetted.

          From About JFK Facts

          We will fact-check news stories, blogs, YouTube videos, books, and movies about the JFK assassination with the goal of dispelling confusion and establishing an accurate historical record.

  8. Bill Kelly says:

    I thought that’s what we are doing – checking it out.

    If its bogus its a pretty slick form of disinformation and not just a Quack.

    I think it’s possible the son is using a fake name for his father and that its some similar variation, but the story is true.

    • Willy Bova says:

      Bill and Jeff

      Col Swen Aage Christensen passed away 4-26-93, Born 10-28-1924, Married to Patricia Gertrude Christensen passed away in 2009. The Son’s first name is either Gary or Jeff, Last known address was 134 Pirate island Drive Hubert, NC 28439. A nice looking house according to Goole Maps. the home sold in May of 2009. He is buried Next to his wife Gertrude in Carolina State Veterans cemetery Plot C-734.

    • PBR says:

      I’m not sure Bill. I think that perhaps it’s the product of a fertile imagination. If the son had a story like this, which he was prepared to post on YouTube, why show the bogus citations if he was using a cover name? He has posted photos, allegedly of his father and a newspaper article which is illegible. I think it’s photoshop material. I have to say that I admire the guy and had a laugh at my own expense. Sending us on a wild goose chase. But heck that’s just one of the realities of research!

      • PBR says:

        Thanks for the corrective Willy. Good work. I was beginning to think it was simply a tall tale. Maybe there’s something to it after all.

  9. phd says:

    In the youtube vid, there’s a screen shot of a Col. Swen Christensen. A quick name look up shows a grave marker with what is presumed to be Col Christensen’s sons names at the very bottom. Gary apparently lives in Costa Rica and has provided additional youtube vids. His voice sounds very similar to the voice of this topics video.

  10. Jonathan says:

    The speaker in the vid purports to be the son of the Air Force officer whom we’re to believe told his family the JFK assassination was a military coup.

    The son says his father worked for “J-3″. That’s not intelligence. It’s operations. Intelligence at the time was “J-2″.

    The whole vid is hearsay upon hearsay.

    I believe the military was largely responsible for the assassination, but this video does nothing to firm up my belief.

    • PBR says:

      I have to agree. I’m skeptical. But at least we’ve tracked him down. If we could somehow get in touch with the son who narrated the video it might be interesting to hear his story. Then again, maybe it’s just that. A story.

  11. H.P. Albarelli Jr. says:

    There is a U.S. Army senior officer who worked briefly at the Pentagon who killed himself in the late 1960s. His last name is spelled slightly differently, but his children were a bit younger. He killed himself after being polygraphed ['fluttered'] twice by the CIA. No record of him ever speaking out on JFK’s murder.

  12. Gerry Simone says:

    I wonder if Col. Fletcher Prouty ever told his children what he suspected really happened in the JFK assassination.

    If I were top military brass myself, I would never tell a child or young adult on or about the day of the assassination for fear that they would brag about it or blurt it out.

    That kind of publicity would get any military guy in trouble, especially back then.

    • LMB says:

      Maybe. Sometimes when people are under stress or into something that is out of their comfort zone they may hint or say something that they might not normally do.

      On the morning of November 22nd, J.D. Tippit hugged his oldest son and said, “no matter what happens today, I want you to know that I love you.”

      My understanding is, this is something he would not normally do on his way to work.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Possibly. The Colonel in the video above may have been so distraught or disappointed that day, that he couldn’t help to make that brief utterance.

        If I were his son who made this video, I would’ve mentioned that my dad told me not to breath a word to anyone as to what his own thoughts were. Maybe this is a trivial point, but it’s a logical point that would make the story a bit more believable. (Saint John Hunt tells how his had told him not to mention to anyone about his assistance in tossing a suitcase of surveillance & burglary paraphernalia into a river after the Watergate incident).

        Could it explain why his son lives in Costa Rica and not the States?

    • Bill Clarke says:

      I wonder if Fletcher’s children knew their father was full of hot air.

      But I agree with you. Loose lips sinks ships. Too much talk can be dangerous for those involved.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        I don’t think he was full of hot air.

        It’s ironic and perhaps sad that the Mr. X in JFK, who portrayed Colonel Prouty as played by Donald Sutherland, was afraid to testify for Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) for fear that he would be ridiculed and locked up in a sanitarium.

        • LMB says:

          I agree with GS. As seen on this Youtube video of Jack Ruby, wanting to know why his test results from his lie detector test are not in Warren report.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxfXNzbSFcQ

        • JSA says:

          All you have to do is read of Billy Mitchell (early advocate for air power in the USA) to see that if you are military and you go up against the top brass, you either get marginalized or punished, but almost never rewarded. Mitchell proved his point about air power and the futility of old naval vessels, and got a court-martial. I can see why Prouty was a bit cautious for the same reasons.

        • John McAdams says:

          I don’t think he was full of hot air.

          You need to look at this page:

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

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I’ve seen that link somewhere else in this thread or elsewhere.

            With all due respect sir, I take your website with a grain of salt, but I had a look.

            In your tables, the Colonel bases his versions on hearsay if not his own opinion or theory based on personal experience, and the ‘reality version’ doesn’t seem entirely convincing or damning.

            Just as one example, why wouldn’t a blank have recoil if it carries a full charge but no bullet? Don’t riflemen in a firing squad use blanks except for the sole executioner so that nobody knows who actually shot the prisoner? (Frankly, I think a hit team would not use blanks since redundancy assures a kill).

            The New Zealand newspaper theory is just based on an incorrect assumption about the newspaper’s production process, but a legitimate question by Prouty at the time (I’d like to see the exact issue, but I couldn’t find a working link).

            As for Lansdale, he served in the OSS and CIA, and would be the first one to discount Prouty’s suspicions as paranoia (you’ve got to be kidding me).

            Perhaps, the ‘problem’ with Prouty is that he speaks from his personal authority and observations, and this might not be enough for journalistic integrity, but he’s not mad to suspect the CIA who still want files locked away.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Gerry Simone June 5, 2014 at 2:28 am

            Whatever you think of the McAdams webpage, and I have found it most useful, has nothing to do with the fact that Prouty was a nutcase.

            I am much more familiar with his stuff on Vietnam than I am with his assassination work and some of his stuff is way out in lala land.

            Trust me; the guy was a nut.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Gerry Simone June 5, 2014 at 2:28 am

            Small point but one that needs to be corrected. Without getting into Newton’s third law, without a bullet (a blank) you have no recoil. Not only the weight of the bullet but also its velocity plays a role in creating recoil. I have fired blanks in the M-14 (.308 Nato) on training exercises and it had no felt recoil. I have fired a .270 with 150 grain bullet with considerable recoil. Using the same rifle I fired 115 grain bullets with much less recoil. So I think Newton got it right.
            _______________________________________
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil

            Since momentum of a body is defined as its mass multiplied by its velocity, we can rewrite the above equation as:

            m_f v_f + m_p v_p = 0\,
            where:

            m_f\, is the mass of the firearm
            v_f\, is the velocity of the firearm immediately after firing
            m_p\, is the mass of the projectile
            v_p\, is the velocity of the projectile immediately after firing
            ______________________________________

            And why do you suppose Pouty had such “personal authority”? He was a small fish in a big sea.

          • Jonathan says:

            (The wiki equation is written incorrectly. The terms on the left side of the equation add to zero only when v is designated as a vector quantity.Reply to:

            Bill Clarke
            June 5, 2014 at 4:08 pm

            Bill, you get the physics wrong. A blank shell fired in a rifle is like a rocket held in a static test. The firing exerts a force, albeit relatively small, rearward.

          • Jonathan says:

            Bill Clarke
            June 5, 2014 at 4:08 pm

            Disregard the parenthetical stuff. It’s correct but an artefact.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Jonathan June 5, 2014 at 5:29 pm

            Damn! I hate it when that happens. Thank you for pointing out the error.

            Would this “small force reward” be strong enough to be felt?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Bill and Jonathan:

            Thanks gents.

            I think some recoil is felt. The gunpowder’s blast against the gun’s chamber? I re-iterate the point about shooters in a firing squad. If they don’t feel anything, then they know they shot a blank.

            AS for Newton’s law of physics, why do WC proponents ignore it when it comes to Z-Frame 313?

    • leslie sharp says:

      There are average citizens and their extended families that might have heard murmurings. Where are they now? Has anyone created a verifiably safe environment to encourage full disclosure? Recently I followed an exchange on another popular JFK website and was appalled by exchanges employed by seemingly well-meaning researchers. Anyone with possible revelations is “shut down.” Has the search for the truth been taken over by the method and the flawed personalities involved.

      I recognize that “Secure Drop” and similar sites are designed for a safe exchange, but what are the bona fides of that mechanism other than a number of high profile, sympathetic journalists endorsing the process? What is the agenda behind such sites … profit or revelation of truth?

      Where is the venue that will assure an objective consideration of what could well be cathartic claims, sans ridicule?

      For instance, we see a certain pattern on the Christensen thread on this site which includes follow-up analysis that skirts on “silencing.” I’m not defending or endorsing the person that is making those specific claims; however, I am wondering how the reaction on this site in particular will affect those with legitimate memories – and that does not mean that I know for a fact whether or not the alleged son of an alleged Air Force officer’s claims are valid.

      I’m asking .. where are the open-minded journalists willing to take risks that welcome Any Leads – those journalists with a proverbial “nose for the news.” Who will pursue claims without prejudice? Will those with memories find a safe haven? I fear the opportunity has passed, and contend that nothing is being done on this site in particular to insure that those with information can feel secure in speaking out. Ridicule and dismissal is displacing fear. I’m guessing that is a key element in the art of cover up.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        “Ridicule and dismissal is displacing fear. I’m guessing that is a key element in the art of cover up.”

        Good point Leslie.

        It reminds me about that CIA memo that encourages the use of assets to DISCREDIT conspiracy theorists, which essentially is a different kind of weapon to kill dissent:

        - Character Assassination

        • PBR says:

          Gerry, I see above that you were looking for a link to the Christchurch Star newspaper. I came across this link on the web. Hope it is of some use. http://whokilledjfk.net/Navigation/christchurch_star.htm

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Thank you kindly PBR!

            It’s an excellent read. The article contains errors though (Secret Service man shot, J.D. Tippit being at the Texas Theatre, etc. etc.).

            It doesn’t state that Oswald was charged, so if Prouty says that, it isn’t correct.

            They did compile a lot of info though in that afternoon edition.

            Interestingly, they also described the shooting as a ‘burst of automatic gun fire’ and that President had been shot in the temple.

  13. Mickey K says:

    I have read where John Connally had said that he would never speak publicly about what he thought happened that day. Does anyone know if he ever spoke privately about what he thought happened?

    • leslie sharp says:

      Mickey K, I hope that my previous comment relating to this issue will be posted. I believe that it may be somewhat apropos to your question.

      Individuals are frail, especially when a threat to one’s physical safety is introduced. I’ve long viewed John Connally as a somewhat pathetic character in the drama that unfolded on 112263. In the years that followed I had occasion to encounter certain members of his family so I speak with a certain, albeit limited, degree of perspective.

      There were no “heroes” in Dealey Plaza that day.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        I’d say IMHO, that there are some heroes in DP that day:

        -President John F. Kennedy

        -Mrs. Jackie Kennedy

        -Abraham Zapruder

        -James Tague, Ed Hoffman, Roger Craig and other witnesses who subjected themselves to ridicule, etc. with their accounts.

        -I will add Clint Hill (he recently said that Jackie climbed on the trunk to retrieve a piece of JFK’s head – not the lone assassin factoid that she was summoning his help).

        -Some of the DPD cops who pursued unknown suspects

        -Maybe even Lee Harvey Oswald (if he was an informant and a patsy)

        • Mickey K says:

          I hear ya, Gerry, and agree wholeheartedly! I was just thinking, Connally ran for President, refused to have Sergio Aracha-Smith extradited from Texas for Garrison’s case. He was in a position of power yet seemed unwilling to help.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Of course Gerry, you’re right (perhaps with the exception of Zapruder … he profited and in my mind that was reprehensible.) I was thinking of those with the real power to have affected the events in the immediate aftermath, including Connally.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I think Zapruder is a hero for shooting that film and taking the necessary precautions to ensure it wasn’t just confiscated and lost.

            I don’t blame him for getting compensated. Who knows what he or his family would’ve endured in the aftermath. If you see Parkland, he says he needs to protect or provide for his family. I’m sure Time Life made millions off that first assassination issue.

            Whatever A. Zapruder or his family did, they did not cause the cover-up.

            Have you seen Images of An Assassination?

        • Gerry Simone says:

          I should also add the wounded Governor Connally, and his wife. At least he was also honest about being hit by a separate shot.

    • Sandy K. says:

      The governor took Dealey Plaza lead in his body to the grave. More than one authority has pointed out that the weight of the bullet fragments left in his body, combined with the weight of those fragments surgically taken out of his body, exceed the weight of missing lead from the magic bullet CE399.

      • John McAdams says:

        I’m not sure what “authorities” you have in mind; Tink Thompson, for example, saw the weights as consistent.

        Thompson estimated the weight of all the fragments that would have been shed by CE 399 in the body of John Connally as “about 1.5 grains.”

        See Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 150.

        • Michael Hogan says:

          In that same chapter Josiah Thompson concludes:

          “Although the argument from weight loss fails, the more critical argument from deformation succeeds.
          The nearly pristine character of CE 399 precludes
          its being the bullet that injured the Governor.”

          Six Seconds in Dallas, page 154

          • Sandy K. says:

            From the Mary Farrell Foundation web site article entitled “Connally Wounding”:

            “Among the many problems with the single bullet theory and Connally’s wounds in particular, there is also the issue of whether the metal fragments taken from Connally’s wrist and left in his leg could possibly have come from the nearly intact bullet CE 399. JFK autopsy surgeon Commander Humes told the Commission ‘I can’t conceive of where they came from this missile.’ There is also some doubt about whether the fragments now in evidence (CE 842) comprise all that was removed from Governor Connally’s wrist.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            … and to add insult to injury, it appears that CE399 was cleaned before it was turned over to the FBI Forensic lab. No one knows who cleaned it or why it was cleaned, therefore the FBI did not analyze the bullet for microscopic traces of blood, human tissue, or clothing fibers. Though ballistically matched to the Manlicher-Carcano, it was never physically established that it had played a part in the wounding (my correction) of the President or the Governor. (Martin, p. 159)

            The fact that it was devoid of blood, tissue or cloth fiber, and bears a striking resemblance to a CE of a similar bullet shot through cotton wadding, CE399 probably would be inadmissible, especially when you factor in its lost chain of possession.

          • John McAdams says:

            Unfortunately for Tink, actual experiments by Martin Fackler and John Lattimer show that, given that the bullet had slowed down markedly before it hit the hard bone of the wrist, the condition of CE 399 was perfectly plausible.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet3.jpg

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ John McAdams:

            I’d like full details of that test you cite.

            John Hunt’s excellent article on this, based on common points, shows that CE399 would not have slowed down enough to not have deformed.

            http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Addendum:

            Even Dr. Joseph Dolce (the dissenting expert who was not called to testify for the record) believed that it was not possible for CE399 to be in it’s nearly pristine state. (See his letter in the link).

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=99785&relPageId=4

            Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, he was taped* saying essentially that ” CE399 could not have been the bullet that went through both Kennedy and Connally, even at low velocity (my emphasis added) – this we proved with experiments”.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Addendum 2:

            I forgot to include the note to the * above.

            The taped deposition is seen on Chip Selby’s documentary, REASONABLE DOUBT: THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY.

            http://www.amazon.com/Reasonable-Doubt-Single-Bullet-Theory/dp/6301815866

            (I just pointed my review of it :) )

        • Sandy K. says:

          Regrettably, the bullet fragments in the governor’s body were buried with him and have not been forensically analyzed. There are x-rays of them only. The fragments have never been weighed nor tested for composition visa vi CE399 or other bullet fragments collected from the limo or from JFK’s body. Hours after the governor died in 1993 the FBI pressed the governor’s family to have the fragments removed before burial. The family angrily denied the request. We are left to speculate, postulate and debate because the governor’s body has not been exhumed after 21 years to collect the fragments.

          Permit me to quote:

          “Renowned JFK assassination expert and professor John McAdams weighs in on the findings of the Warren Commission, the deficiencies of the medical and autopsy evidence, and the lack of understanding on the part of the Kennedy camp on the need for a forensic autopsy at the time.”

          - NOVA TV press release, August 8, 2013.

          You are correct that a forensic autopsy of JFK’s body is long overdue. Do you advocate a forensic autopsy of John Connally’s body as well?

          • Stanley says:

            Sandy K…wow, you just pulled a mental block out of my brain. Maybe it was the childhood trauma of the whole assassination episode, but I have never even once entertained the idea of a forensic exhumation of JFK. It was just beyond my mental horizon, lol. Not anymore though. It should be done immediately.

          • John McAdams says:

            The fragments have never been weighed nor tested for composition visa vi CE399 or other bullet fragments collected from the limo or from JFK’s body.

            The weight can be inferred from the x-rays.

            As for composition: do you mean Neutron Activation Analysis?

            I thought you folks rejected that?

          • Sandy K. says:

            I believe I just received my first Professor McAdams stripe. Sir, I am happy to be part of “you folks” as characterized by citizens seeking hard information about the JFK/LHO/Tippit murders. Neutron Activation Analysis? Fine. Exhumations? Yes. Release of all remaining JFK assassination-related government files/recordings? Absolutely. Whatever it takes to determine the facts and find the truth.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Sandy K., welcome to the club of “folks.” I had become somewhat desensitized to the use of the term used frequently by those that want to diminish the significance of American citizens searching for the truth about the assassination. Thank’s for the reminder. cheers.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          I don’t have my copy of Tink’s book on hand.

          Is he only taking into account the slivers removed from JBC’s wrist?

          What about the fragments lodged and/or removed from his chest/rib by Dr. Gregory, who incidentally didn’t comment on them nor asked to testify about it by the WC? (JFK-Analysis of a Shooting: Martin, p. 158)

          What about the large fragment that was embedded in his femur, which supposedly was not removed? (Martin, p. 158)

    • John Kirsch says:

      In his testimony to the Warren Commission, Connally said, “…the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved, or more, in this—or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle.”[16] Connally disputed the single bullet theory.[17] A friend of Connally’s, Doug Thompson later claimed he asked Connally if he was convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed John F. Kennedy. “Absolutely not,” Connally said. “I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission.” Thompson asked why he had not spoken out about this. Connally replied: “Because I love this country and we needed closure at the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe.”[18]

  14. Bill Kelly says:

    Why is Mikey K’s comment on Connally in this thread that is supposed to be about Col. Christensen?

    It appears there was such an officer who was in position to know if the assassination was a military coup and I’d like to know more about him.

    Same goes for Prouty, despite John McAdam’s attempts to discredit him, he had a desk and an office at the Pentagon at the time and was in a position to know.

    I’d like to bring this thread back on topic – and continue considering the possibility the Dealey Plaza operation was orchestrated by the Pentagon and thus a military coup.

    Does anybody else want to do that?

    BK

    • Bill Clarke says:

      The Pentagon is a very big place. It has a high population of generals, a colonel being rather low on the pecking order there.

      Just because Prouty had a desk there doesn’t mean he knew jack squat about the assassination or Vietnam. In fact, that Prouty claimed to know the inside scope on BOTH matters (and others) should probably raise the red flag.

      You can defend Prouty till the cows come home, he remains a nut.

      • Mike says:

        He wasn’t just any officer with a desk at the Pentagon.

        “From 1955–1964 he was assigned to U.S. Air Force Headquarters where he directed the creation of an Air Force worldwide system for “Military Support of the Clandestine Operations of the CIA”, as required by a new National Security Council Directive, 5412 of March, 1954. As a result of a CIA Commendation for this work he was awarded the Legion of Merit by the US Air Force, and was promoted to Colonel being assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

        With the creation of the Defense Intelligence Agency by Secretary McNamara and the abolishment of the OSO, he was transferred to the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to create a similar, worldwide office and was the Chief of Special Operations, with the Joint Staff all during 1962–1963.”

        He may have had some off the wall ideas later in life, but that doesn’t disqualify what he witnessed during JFK’s term. In other words, prove to me that he was a nut in ’63. Apparently the Pentagon didn’t think so!

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Well Mike, I don’t think the Pentagon is a good judge of who is a nut and who isn’t. If they were good judges we wouldn’t have such nuts in the Pentagon and we have had some dandies.

          But I see your point. What concerns me is all the bases Prounty seems to have covered. He couldn’t have know so much about so many things I believe.

      • Willy Bova says:

        Bill Clarke,

        I would have to respectfully disagree with you on a Colonel being a small fish in the Pentagon. Every General has a staff that includes Colonel’s, Major’s and Captain’s and NCO’s that make a General’s policy’s become action in the Pentagon, and in the field. At the time of the Kennedy assassination Former General Alexander Haig was a Lt Colonel working in the Pentagon, among other things contingency plans as to what to do if one of America’s leaders was assassinated by Castro or someone else. Lt Colonel Haig then went on to become the fastest person in military history to go from Lt Colonel to Rank of Four Star General. Incidentally on 11-22-63 Lt Colonel Haig signed for President Kennedy’s body after the autopsy…

        The staff of Generals have access to very important information, For instance I had an Uncle who worked with Lt Colonel Haig, at the time of the assassination, whose rank was a Captain or Major at the time who eventually became a top aid to General Westmoreland in Vietnam and retired as a Lt Colonel in the early 70′s to pursue politics.

        My Uncles stories about the assassination and aftermath, mirror those of Colonel Christensen, and those of Colonel Prouty, to some degree. In addition his stories about the Vietnam war, were particularly interesting about Agent Orange. As General Westmoreland’s aid for two tours, he attended, many meetings about the Agent Orange operations and which he described the Agent Orange Operations, as an experiment in warfare for “Future Wars”. In fact in the 90′s it was declassified that indeed two different versions of Agent Orange were used to different levels of success in Vietnam. As for my Uncle, as he has chosen not to speak publicly about his Classified Military experiences, I will not reveal his name until after he dies, as he is very old.

        My point is anyone who is a Commissioned Officer or NCO and retires with a rank of Major, Colonel or E-7 could very well have had access to information, that is very relevant to understanding the assassination of our 35th President, or to what became the Major FUBAR of the Vietnam war, and their opinions should they choose to speak out, need to be respected, not ridiculed. Questioning the “Mental Health” of the Veterans who choose to question the “Official narrative of the Warren Commission”, is a tactic that is disingenuous and beyond the scope of the this forum.

        Willy Bova

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Willy, you are right of course. A E-7 on the right staff can know some very important stuff.

          But it seems to me that Prouty would have had to be on a lot of different staffs to know so much about everything.

          Some of his Vietnam stuff is really out there.

          • There are roughly 200 generals in the army and air force and 200 admirals and 50 marines.

            So the notion that just because Prouty was not a general means he was a nothing is wrong.

            I suggest you look up what position he held and figure out who his superior officers were from 1958-1963 then you’ll see what type of position of importance he was in.

            The position and title he held still exists today. I suggest you also figure out who the person above it is today…..

            I am not saying everything should take everything he said at face value – or you should do that with anyone else in this case – but to blanket dismiss someone the way you did is not right.

            He held a very important position in the Pentagon.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Read the 3rd obit on Prouty. His website and books for greater insight. He’s a United States Hero for speaking his intelligent mind in a time of danger.
            http://www.prouty.org/

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            “Was the Chief of Special Operations with the Joint staff during ALL 1962-1963.” I.E. as stated elsewhere The connection between the JCS and the C.I.A. Sent to the South Pole for the week of the murder of the President, to guide dignitaries there??? This is absurd. But the JCS could have arranged it. Wasn’t LeMay JCS?

        • bogman says:

          Wow. Any chance of your uncle talking with Jeff under an alias?

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Questioning the “Mental Health” of the Veterans who choose to question the “Official narrative of the Warren Commission”, is a tactic that is disingenuous and beyond the scope of the this forum.

          Ironically Willy, Prouty’s character in the movie ‘JFK’ (Mr. X) refused to testify for Garrison for fear that they would put him in a straight jacket and lock him away inside a sanitarium. It seems that WC proponents are trying to impugn his post-mortem reputation the same way.

          • JSA says:

            The military remind me a bit of the old Catholic Church. If you said (or tried to publish) anything that ran counter to their doctrine, or dared to criticize the Church, you ran the risk of torture and/or being called a lunatic. Power doesn’t like to be challenged, and when facts run counter to that power system, the deliverer of those facts is discredited or eliminated.

  15. anonymous says:

    Has anyone read the Pentagon Papers? A top secret “Department of Defense history of the US involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967″…in other words: a little HISTORY of the war minus some BS disinformation. After reading some of these comments I can see what Victor Marchetti meant when he wrote:
    “By suppressing historical fact, and by manufacturing historical fiction, the CIA, with its obsessive secrecy and its vast resources, has posed a particular threat to the right of Americans to be informed”

    I can see how some of the indoctrinated generals must have thought JFK unfit to be President after loosing Cuba,China,Laos,Russia AND Vietnam…

    Whether to Stranglethe Baby in the Cradle – JFK was said to have considered taking out China’s nuclear facilities rather than face the threat of a China with nuclear weapons – but this might be more CIA disinfo…

    • Bill Clarke says:

      anonymous June 7, 2014 at 8:12 pm

      Actually the Pentagon Papers isn’t free from disinformation BS itself. Read the section written by Peter Dale Scott for starters.

      And it doesn’t matter what the generals thought of JFK. They don’t get to choose their commander in chief. They didn’t kill Bill Clinton. They haven’t killed Obama. What makes you think they killed JFK?

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Not to implicate U.S. Generals or MIC, but after the JFK, MLK and RFK assassinations (and that last one was crucial for them IMHO since RFK would’ve opened those wounds again), the conspirators learned that assassination with extreme prejudice unnecessarily creates martyrs. Also, and perhaps more importantly, the People are more on their guard as they trust the government or certain agencies to a lesser degree.

        Today, character assassination, rigged electioneering, propaganda, disinformation, and other ingenious methods are utilized to influence campaigns or even a President in office.

    • lysias says:

      JFK was murdered at the height of the Cold War, when anti-Communist hysteria was at its height in the military and intelligence communities. Later, that atmosphere became less intense and eventually dissipated.

  16. anonymous says:

    “Oh, I think Viet Nam would have been a shorter business with Nixon as president.”

    But Nixon was president – The Vietnamese much preferred to fight the US over fighting China:
    “It’s better to eat American dung for ten years than Chinese dung for 1000 years”

    Nixon just prolonged the war. The Congress finally stopped him with the Case–Church Amendment.

    “You can defend Prouty till the cows come home, he remains a nut..the fact that Prouty was a nutcase…Trust me; the guy was a nut.”

    Col. Fletcher Prouty was no more nutty than Major General Smedley Butler or USAF Brig. General Ben Partin – Prouty was just talking off script.

    This Cat was nutty as took two months to separate the BS:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LctoUV-tag

    William Blum puts the Vietnam war in perspective:
    http://williamblum.org/books/killing-hope/#toc

    • Bill Clarke says:

      anonymous June 8, 2014 at 9:43 am

      Nixon was on a path to winning the war. Congress did indeed stop him but they didn’t stop the communist.

      Your cat is indeed nutty and belongs on the Kiddie circuit.

      William Blum’s book is “not available” at this time. With strong recommendations by Noam Chomsky, Oliver Stone and Vidal Gore I’d bet the farm Blum doesn’t know much about Vietnam.

      Got anything else?

      • JSA says:

        I thought when Nixon ran for president in 1968 he promised to end the war in Vietnam.
        Even if we had “won” the territory, how would we have “held” it? Iraq and Afghanistan were won, if you count standing military defeated. Similarly, Napoleon “won” Spain. But if you hold territory and keep getting picked off by guerrillas, how can you say that you have really won the country? Maybe the only way to win Vietnam would have been to do to it what the Romans did to Carthage—-destroy EVERYTHING and then put salt in the ground so nothing could grow again. But I seriously doubt that the American public, never comfortable with outright imperialist colonial power (unless it is done by proxy a la globalism) would stomach a “Carthagization” of Vietnam. And let’s face it—the Catholic South was in no way going to lead a united country, because they were hated in the north. I think our military would have been better used elsewhere, especially as Vietnam had no oil, as the Middle East has.

        Kennedy, by rejecting an extension of old world European colonialism, was on the right side of history. He mostly rejected support for old colonialist regimes, and tried to move our country toward fewer entanglements and a lessening of cold war tensions.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Nixon said he had a “PLAN” to end the war. While running to be president he never told us what this plan was. Turns out his “Vietimization” policy was much like Kennedy’s plan as outlined in NSAM 263. It was a great plan but wouldn’t work in 1963 because the communist were too strong and the SVN government was too weak. But it would have been a good starting place. It wouldn’t work in 1969 because we had run out of time in Vietnam. After TET 68 we lost the war for the American people and that was the beginning of the end. Actually General Abrams made a lot of progress during this time despite withdrawing our troops and a greatly reduced budget. But it was too late.

          And again you seem to think the Vietnam War was about Vietnam. It wasn’t. It was about containing communism at the time.

          Are we being picked off by guerrillas in Thailand? Indonesia? Korea? They get a little rough every once in a while but basically no, we aren’t getting killed there. That is the way it works.

          • JSA says:

            You don’t think the Soviets saw us as suckers for funneling all those men and materials into Vietnam, even if the war wasn’t about Vietnam as you say?

            I get the George Kennan containment policy you refer to Bill. I studied that in school. I am not against what we did via the Marshall Plan, in Europe. But at a time when the smart people could see that communism wasn’t monolithic, that Tito’s Yugoslavia wasn’t the Soviet form, that Mao wasn’t staying aligned with the USSR, holding in communism could be a difficult ideological position to sell if there wasn’t one monolithic threat. There actually were a few sophisticated people (like Kennedy and Galbraith to name two) who didn’t see a need to hold the line in Vietnam, whether the war was about Vietnam or about the Soviet Union. Letting that country go its own way in 1964 wouldn’t have mattered that much, certainly it wasn’t worth all those American lives and the billions of dollars. We could have fought communism far more effectively by helping other developing countries with American aid. That was John Galbraith’s argument, and I think JFK was coming around to that same idea before he was assassinated.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            JSA June 10, 2014 at 4:39 pm

            I’m sure the Soviets were happy to see us use up our men and dollars in Vietnam. I chuckled when the Soviets went into Afghanistan.

            I can assure you that when a communist made RPG is coming to you the first thing that pops into your mind is NOT if it was a monolithic communist RPG or not. And that shows about how important this monolithic argument is. Despite the split both the Soviets and China supported the communist in Vietnam in a big way. Uncle Ho used this to his advantage as he played one against the other.

            I don’t see how you can say JFK didn’t believe in holding the line in Vietnam. Why did he escalate the American end of the war if he wasn’t trying to hold the line. His last written policy (NSAM 263) is still holding the line.

            I’ll pass on your, “it would have been better to let the country go in 1964″. It would take too much space to cover it for you.

            And foreign aid can be a good thing but some have a pie in the sky attitude about it. It doesn’t do too much good if a communist is killing you and the poor chap you are trying to help. You have to provide security for the poor man first before you can help him.

          • JSA says:

            I also thought of Vietnam when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

            Kennedy was trying to balance his wishes (to get out of Vietnam) with the reality of the political situation, which was still hell-bent on containment policy, and perceptions (fed by the right wing domestically) that we shouldn’t let any country “fall to communism”. The fact is that President Kennedy was in the process of withdrawing US advisors and technicians in 1963, while at the same time offering a vague assurance to the people that he supported Diem (and then briefly in November) that he supported the South. But everything he was doing was geared toward withdrawal after the 1964 election. The fact that his NSAM 263 was immediately overturned by Lyndon Johnson and his hawks in the JCS upon Kennedy’s burial speaks volumes—as does his brother Bobby’s turn against the war as a peace candidate first in the senate and then as presidential candidate in 1968. JFK told his closest advisors (even Robert McNamara confirmed that JFK would have pulled us out of Vietnam by 1965) further confirms Kennedy’s wishes to get out. John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, Robert Dallek and Jim Douglass have all written about this, as have Ted Sorensen and Robert McNamara.

            Kennedy was obviously not stupid. He knew he couldn’t make a radical shift before the 1964 election, to pull everyone out. But he started to move to withdraw men, and the only slip up was his intransigence (or being duped by CIA) over how the Diem regime change would come about. Kennedy was either out of the loop or not enough involved, and Diem was assassinated. After that assassination, JFK was determined to pull us out. The fact that he was running for office merely complicated matters, making it a bit less obvious and a bit less blatant to those not able to read between the lines. His entire history as President however showed a reluctance to use military force, in Laos, in Berlin, in Cuba, in Latin America, and in Vietnam. The revisionists want us to believe otherwise, because it makes for a more comfortable scenario, but it’s just not true.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            JSA June 10, 2014 at 9:27 pm

            I have no doubt JFK would have loved not having Vietnam to deal with. We probably differ in that I have no doubt LBJ would have loved not having Vietnam to deal with.

            But neither could get rid of the devil. Now no one knows what JFK would have done in Vietnam. Quoting Peter Dale Scott, John Newman, McNamara and other Camelot groupies doesn’t seem very solid. Why would anyone believe McNamara?

            Take a close look at NSAM 273. Can you tell me how it overturned NSAM 263? That is some junk originated by Peter Dale Scott and even the brilliant fool Noam Chomsky rejects it. Can you be anymore left that Noam Chomsky?

          • JSA says:

            Perhaps if Kennedy had died in January of 1961, you would have been arguing that Kennedy would of course have proceeded with air support in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion?

            Or suppose he had died in the late summer of 1962. The Camelot Groupies would have been arguing that Kennedy would not have attacked Cuba, even though all of his Joint Chiefs and most of his “groupie” cabinet were arguing for a first strike by US forces to take out the missiles. Following your logic, Kennedy would have followed the advice of his JCS, and attacked. He didn’t. That is a fact. Hard for the military people to believe, even, but that’s how it happened.

            Now to Vietnam. I think Kennedy would have pulled us out. He spoke out against support for the French when he was a senator and Ike pondered bringing in the military. He kept only advisors, and in 1963 began pulling them out. He told some of his “groupies” that he wanted out. His brother, Bobby, said he would have pulled us out. Bobby would have pulled us out had he won in 1968.

            LBJ didn’t have to escalate that war. He chose to. It’s that simple. I’m glad that war is over. See you at Walmart!

          • Bill Clarke says:

            JSA June 12, 2014 at 7:14 am

            Evidently you don’t understand my “logic” since you misstate it. Follow this logic. No one knows what JFK WOULD have done. To claim that you have such a crystal ball is …well you know what it is.

            At least you include the civilian advisers calling for an attack on Cuba during the CMC. Most of your kind leave this out and blame it all on the military

            Now to Vietnam, as you say. I wish you would stop glowing about what JFK said and more on what he did. Politicians say a lot of stuff. What he did was escalate the war in Vietnam. That isn’t debatable, it is a proven fact. Count the troops if you don’t believe me and we can go from there.

            You say, “He kept only advisors, and in 1963 began pulling them out”. Here you are either being disingenuous or simply don’t know the history. I suspect the latter. These “only advisers” were engaged in combat operations. True, he pulled out 1,000 men by normal rotation. So that didn’t mean much. The others were to come out as ARVN progressed. You should have made that clear.

            You have a reference for Bobby saying JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam. If so please present it because I don’t think you do. In fact in the oral history interview with Bobby for the JFK Library Bobby says something entirely different.

            Again, you don’t know what Bobby would have done. Please note he didn’t become antiwar when it was his brothers war. He waited until it was camp and politically beneficial to be so.

            I notice you didn’t show me how NSAM 273 reversed NSAM 263. I didn’t think you would.

          • JSA says:

            Bill, how can you be so sure that Kennedy would not have withdrawn from Vietnam? I think you miss my point: JFK didn’t listen to his “experts” — including the military — on countless occasions regarding when to use force, when to intervene in a country, etc. I showed you a few big examples. So go ahead and bash me personally all you want — but you can’t take away the FACT THAT KENNEDY WAS VERY RELUCTANT TO USE MILITARY FORCE IN HIS PRESIDENCY. You can’t ignore that. Try and bluster, but it’s fact. Period.

            And you can’t prove that JFK would have brought boots on the ground as LBJ did in 1965 at Da Nang Province. You can’t. I’m saying he wouldn’t. You speak about policies. NSAM 263 had in it not just rotation of advisors, but withdrawal, with more planned in 1964. I’m acknowledging the politics of the situation. 1964 was an election year. Kennedy told Evelyn Lincoln, Kenny O’Donnell and others close to him that he planned to get us out of Vietnam by 1965, AFTER THE ELECTION.

            NSAM 273 was a reversal of JFK’s NSAM 263, written without JFK’s consent or knowledge, and never read by him. Here’s my source on what you claim I won’t talk about (I’m talking about it):
            https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Kennedy-Johnson_Transition_in_Vietnam_Policy

            Since my dad was “gung ho” about Vietnam, as was my whole family in the early sixties, I guess I don’t understand what you mean by “your kind”. The difference I guess was that my father got more information (at the Pentagon) and changed his mind. He grew disgusted with that war and said we never should have gone in full force with all those draftees like we did. I agree with my military dad, and not with you. Catagorizing people isn’t a very good way to try to understand how things work. It just ends up biting you in the ass, Bill.

          • John McAdams says:

            He told some of his “groupies” that he wanted out.

            At least, that’s what the groupies were saying years later, when the war was immensely unpopular and they would have had every incentive to burnish his reputation.

            His brother, Bobby, said he would have pulled us out.

            That’s not what Bobby was saying in April 1964, before the war became unpopular.

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

          • JSA says:

            John, JFK also pulled out of Cuba twice, angering the same military. How do you “burnish” this if you are one of the “groupies”? Because it actually happened! I can’t make this stuff up.

            RFK no longer had his big brother to help him in 1964 and he was running for the senate. But okay, I’ll give you a freebie on this one (you and Bill).

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to:

            Bill Clarke
            June 12, 2014 at 1:36 pm

            Correction: JFK did not escalate the war in SVN by increasing the number of U.S. army advisers there. The pace of the war in SVN at that time was being dictated by the National Liberation Front (Viet Cong).

            In 1963, the U.S. did not have one combat battalion in SVN and was completely incapable of waging a ground war there.

            As you know, Bill, all of that had changed and was changing still by November 1965.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            JSA June 12, 2014 at 3:58 pm

            First of all JAS, I didn’t set out to “bash” you. Rereading my reply to you I shouldn’t have been as harsh as I was. For that I sincerely apologize but sometimes we get a bit emotional about these things. I like to keep it civilized.

            Second of all, and please get this straight, I have never said JFK would have put combat units on the ground in Vietnam. Never. That is because I don’t know what the man would have done in 1965 when faced with the collapse of Saigon. Neither do you or anyone else and it is tiring to hear this junk over and over again. I guess that is why I was a bit short my last reply. And I don’t have to bluster but have you read JFK’s speech in Fort Worth the day he died. Here is just a part of it; “and increased our special counter-insurgency forces which are engaged now in South Viet-Nam by 600 percent.” That doesn’t sound like a pull out to me but you may differ here.

            Be advised, Da Nang is a city. It is in Quan Nam Province. Da Nang is not a Province. I’ve been there many times. And you?~~

            I’m going to post NSAM 263 in a separate reply for you and Mr. DiEugenio. It is my humble hope that both of you will read and study it so we can, as Mr. DiEugenio says, finally deal with it. So it can be “dealt with” as he says. I’m pretty sure by his statements that DiEugenio has never read it. Have you?

            As for NSAM 273, your reference, which I’ve read long ago doesn’t say if it reversed NSAM 263 or not. It leaves it up in the air. It even raises the possibility that what changes there was are a “molehill”, which they were. I read Peter Dale Scotts junk long ago too. Pure junk and he should be ashamed of himself. If you wish we can post that one too. But JFK had ordered Mac Bundy to write the NSAM while he was gone. So he did know about it and had in fact requested it.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            JSA June 12, 2014 at 3:58 pm

            I’m going to have to send this in two parts to keep from going over the word limit

            Part 1

            http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM263.html‎

            NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263
            TO:

            Secretary of State

            Secretary of Defense

            Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

            SUBJECT: South Vietnam

            At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.

            The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3)* of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

            After discussion of the remaining recommendations of the report, the President approved the instruction to Ambassador Lodge which is set forth in State Department telegram No. 534 to Saigon.

            McGeorge Bundy
            Copy furnished:

            Director of Central Intelligence

            Administrator, Agency for International Development
            cc: Mr. Bundy
            Mr. Forrestal

          • Bill Clarke says:

            John McAdams June 12, 2014 at 4:06 pm

            I’m still waiting for a reference that Bobby said JFK would have pulled out.

          • JSA says:

            Here’s what Robert Kennedy, Jr. wrote just a few months ago about Vietnam, and his uncle, JFK:

            “Today it’s fashionable to view the quagmire of Vietnam as a continuum beginning under Eisenhower and steadily escalating through the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations. But JFK was wary of the conflict from the outset and determined to end U.S. involvement at the time of his death.”

            Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/john-f-kennedys-vision-of-peace-20131120page=2#ixzz34TL7Q1Lp

          • mball says:

            There’s an excellent article in the Christian Science Monitor by Peter Grier (Nov. 6, 2013) that deals with the question of JFK’s intentions in re Viet Nam. Essentially, he hadn’t decided what to do. He wanted to start bringing troops home, but he also wanted to intensify the conflict. Trying to get some ideas on how to accomplish these goals was the reason for a State Dept. conference in Hawaii after the Diem coup. JFK told CBS earlier that the war might be unwinnable, and that the Vietnamese had to make victory happen, implying that we couldn’t do it all for them. This was exasperation over the situation there. But JFK was a “cold war Democrat”, an I do not believe that he had any intention of disengaging in Viet Nam. I believe that he intended to change the nature of our involvement but stay committed.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            JSA June 12, 2014 at 7:54 pm

            Who told you Junior knew anything about it? Read what his old man, who was actually there, had to say about it.

            Here are some parts of Kennedy’s oral history in the LBJ Library.

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

            Martin:
            There was never any consideration given to pulling out?
            Kennedy:
            No.
            Martin:
            But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .
            Kennedy:
            No . . .

            Martin:
            It’s generally true all over the world, whether it’s in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .
            Kennedy:
            Yes.
            Martin:
            . . . and couldn’t lose it.
            Kennedy:
            Yes.
            Martin:
            And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to?
            Kennedy:
            Well, we’d face that when we came to it.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Jonathan June 12, 2014 at 5:43 pm

            If going from less than 1,000 troops to over 17,000 troops isn’t escalation please tell me what you call it. We won’t mention the fighters and bombers, helicopter units and all the other equipment sent in 1962.

            I applaud you for knowing that the communist controlled the pace of the war. Most don’t seem to understand this. You could have mentioned that the VC were supplied and controlled from Hanoi but still an impressive point here.

            True, we didn’t have a ground combat unit in SVN in 1963.

            True again, that changed. In December of 1963 the communist in Hanoi decided to send intact combat units to SVN. In the fall of 1964 they did so and it was then a new ball game. Except for Nixon’s Christmas bombing the communist always had the initiative. We simply reacted to their pace. Very dumb for some very intelligent Americans.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            JSA,

            When I pointed out the false statements about NSAM 263 made by Mr. DiEugenio I knew he wouldn’t be back to address his false statements. This includes his false statement that everything in John Newman’s book was noted. As DiEugenio said to me, “I’m waiting” for that.

            I thought you, on the other hand, would be interested in knowing the truth about what NSAM 263 actually said. That is why I posted NSAM 263, so that you could read it. Until then I suspect that you were guided mostly by what you had “heard” NSAM 263 said.

            So, was I wrong about your interest in the truth?

  17. lysias says:

    The Ultra secret (the fact that we and the Brits were decrypting Germany’s most sensitive cyphers) was successfully kept secret for some 35 years, including 29 years after the end of World War Two, even though many thousands of British and American civilians and military personnel were in on the secret at the time. (Since I was later in military signals intelligence, I can testify from personal experience on the numbers of people who must have been in on the secret.)

    • JSA says:

      And even when there IS scientific consensus on factual information, a large group of people can STILL be fooled with propaganda into believing falsehoods and disinformation. Take global warming: It’s proven to be happening. It’s backed up by scientific fact, and by 97% consensus among climate experts. Yet because of the carbon fuel lobby spreading disinformation, a large segment of the public is either confused or in doubt about whether global warming is man-made or is happening. Couldn’t the same thing be done with the JFK assassination? We already have the acoustical evidence of more than one shooter, which is scientifically rock solid evidence. Yet most people either don’t know about this, or they are told disinformation, which keeps them in doubt or confused. A properly run disinformation campaign can work wonders to keep large segments of the population from knowing the facts, even if the facts are available and in the open.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Absolutely with respect!

        (However, even though I’m behind the acoustical evidence, it is still debatable. Bottom line, does Steve Barber’s cross-talk discovery debunk the HSCA’s acoustical consultant, or it is an over-dub as per D. B. Thomas’ analysis? Some argue that the dictabelt recorder didn’t or couldn’t have had a needle that jumped the disk. Other arguments such as Dale Myers’ argue that cycle cop H.B. McLain was not in the right position with the stuck mike, but D. B. Thomas showed us at Lancer with extant photos that he was.)

        D.B. Thomas’ book, Hear No Evil covers the acoustical debate. You can also find his debut article on this subject via Google.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          …with respect to all you said about disinformationists.

        • JSA says:

          Thanks. I bought Thomas’ book, “Hear No Evil.” Then I read it—-every page and every footnote. It’s pretty well documented, and pretty convincing–to me. I think the dictabelt evidence is very solid, and very damning to the lone nut crowd. As Thomas surveys in his book, there were a few attempts to counter or discredit the dictabelt recording, but he shows how those attempts have fallen flat.

          I applaud additional studies done on Oswald, on other aspects of the assassination, but to be clear, I feel the proof (via the acoustics) is in. Now it’s up to historians to accept the facts, and move on to fill in the holes where any new information can do so. Getting the CIA files released would be a good way for this to happen.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I got Thomas to autograph my copy of his book between session at the Lancer conference last November.

            He looked surprised if not flattered.

            I commended him on his presentation and how he explained things in layman’s terms.

            He’s a mental giant, yet humble & modest.

        • mball says:

          Myers and others who don’t believe the HSCA acoustics conclusions,nor Thomas’ confirming tests and conclusions, have to account for the extremely close correlation between the sounds on the dictabelt and the sounds on the HSCA’s recreation in both time and space. I haven’t heard or read of any debunckers who can explain the almost impossible coincidence that would entail. I also haven’t read or herard of a peer reviewed study of their contrarary conclusions.

  18. Bill Clarke says:

    JSA June 12, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    Mr. Johnson
    NSC Files
    ________________________________________
    Part 2, NSAM 263.

    Here are your comments about NSAM 263.

    And you can’t prove that JFK would have brought boots on the ground as LBJ did in 1965 at Da Nang Province. You can’t. I’m saying he wouldn’t. You speak about policies. NSAM 263 had in it not just rotation of advisors, but withdrawal, with more planned in 1964.

    1. Note you can’t prove JFK would not have introduced combat troops.
    2. Note you will see nothing in NSAM 263 about “more planned in 1964”. There is no schedule given except for the rate that ARVN came up to snuff. I hear this 1,000 men a month junk all the time and it just isn’t in NSAM 263. The “normal rotation” is the trick used to brag about withdrawing 1,000 men without actually reducing the total number of our troops in Vietnam.

    3. Please note, and I certainly hope DiEugenio reads this, that NSAM 263 does not say “All” troops will be withdrawn. It says hopefully we can with draw the “BULK” of our troops. If you listen to the Miller Center Tapes you can hear that they planned on leaving around 3,500 American troops in Vietnam. So was JFK going to let these 3.500 men fight the communist all by their self or what?

    [Here is the section of the McNamara/Taylor report included in NSAM 263. Section 1B (1-3)]
    [SECTION] 1: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    B. Recommendations.

    We recommend that:
    1. General Harkins review with Diem the military changes necessary to complete the military campaign in the Northern and Central areas (I, II, and III Corps) by the end of 1964, and in the Delta (IV Corps) by the end of 1965. This review would consider the need for such changes as:
    a. A further shift of military emphasis and strength to the Delta (IV Corps).
    b. An increase in the military tempo in all corps areas, so that all combat troops are in the field an average of 20 days out of 30 and static missions are ended.
    c. Emphasis on “clear and hold operations” instead of terrain sweeps which have little permanent value.
    d. The expansion of personnel in combat units to full authorized strength.
    e. The training and arming of hamlet militia to an accelerated rate, especially in the Delta.
    f. A consolidation of the strategic hamlet program, especially in the Delta, and action to insure that future strategic hamlets are not built until they can be protected, and until civic action programs can be introduced.

    CONT to Part 3.

  19. Bill Clarke says:

    JSA June 12, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    Part 3

    [Here is the section of the McNamara/Taylor report included in NSAM 263. Section 1B (1-3)]

    [SECTION] 1: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    B. Recommendations.

    2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.

    3. In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.

    End.

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