RFK i shadowed

6 Washington insiders who suspected a JFK plot

Defenders of the semi-official theory of JFK’s assassination sometimes suggest that anyone who disagrees is deluded or dishonest.

Jackie Kennedy
Jackie Kennedy’s private thoughts. (Credit: Andy Warhol)

Dale Myers and Gus Russo have dubbed the benighted souls “the conspirati,” a term intended to convey disdain for those emotionally needy or intellectually incompetent people who doubt the claim that one man killed JFK for no reason.

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

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

Lyndon Johnson

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

2) and 3) Jackie Kennedy and Robert Kennedy: Publicly, they endorsed the lone nut theory. Privately, they rejected it. Their views were unknown until 1999, when historians Tim Naftali and Aleksander Fursenko published a book on the Cuban missile crisis, One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-1964. 

Using newly available documents, Natfali and Fursenko wrote that artist William Walton — a friend of the First Lady — went to Moscow on a previously scheduled trip a week after JFK’s murder. Walton carried a message from RFK and Jackie for their friend, Georgi Bolshakov, a Russian diplomat who had served as a back-channel link between the White House and the Kremlin during the October 1962 crisis:

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

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

Sen. Richard Russell

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

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

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

CIA station chief Win Scott (Photo: Michael Scott)

6) CIA station chief Winston Scott

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

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


TAKE ME TO JFK STORY #22: Prime Suspect, CIA assassination chief Bill Harvey, was very dangerous man




129 thoughts on “6 Washington insiders who suspected a JFK plot”

  1. I do indeed trust that L. Fletcher Prouty is a very reliable source, and his conclusions about why Kennedy was killed are very credible. The man had nothing to gain by bringing the truth to light. I guess no one wants to believe this.

  2. Pingback: Editor of JFK blog speaks about QAnon | iamanonymous.com

  3. Pingback: Lost, Not Found: Raft of CIA Files on Lee Harvey Oswald Has ‘Gone Missing’

  4. The truth hurts doesnt it Tom? It takes courage. if dilettantes need a link to corroborate anything I posted in my opinion piece neither they or you know much about the case. BTW I don’t recall your demanding his ilk provide a link to voice their own personal opinion. Just a very lame excuse. Guess its ok to smear the deceased Prouty with lies, yet not ok to mention McAdams issues….Here’s a link for you. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm. You tell me me there disinformation starts and ends…. JFKFacts? Not so much anymore. IMO This site has really gone down the tubes with your “moderation.” Sorry to interrupt your frequent posts patting yourself on the back for noticing the obvious irrelevant minutiae…..

  5. John (neo…..@…..) your comment, ending with:

    ….and his ilk, is cowardice and patently unAmerican.

    …is laced with insults, but not a single supporting link. You could solve those problems and submit a comment meriting JFKfacts.org readers’ attention.

  6. Ira Jesse Hemingway

    Senator Stuart Symington from Missouri he would have been JFK Vice President in 1964. LBJ would have been dismissed and prosecuted for involvement in the theft of missing critical material from the stockpiles; with a value in 1950’s of billions of dollars. This is the only unsolved mystery that disappeared when JFK was executed.

    1. Make this #110. Re: Prouty. In an earlier post, McAdams provided a link to a Christchurch newspaper website. The link established three points: a) the timing of the publication, 2) the speed of global communications, 3) the reliability of its sources. Now maybe Mr. Prouty was confused about his personal timing, but he was correct in that Oswald was not formerly charged before the publication of the paper (there’s 15 hrs. time difference between NZ (ahead) and Dallas). With the benefit of hindsight, one might call into question how strong was the relationship between the CIA and the media in the mid 20th century. And one might discuss at length on how an organization like the CIA might manipulate news, but what I found interesting were the following: 1) in the the Christchurch article , regarding the day of the assassination, no illustrious international journalist stated: “It is not known if this was the result of one man or many.” (Consider the current manhunt in Europe). The obvious question to ask and answer is: “Are others involved?”. And 2), the size of the Oswald photograph, which is 2/3rds the size as Kennedy’s and six times larger than Johnson’s (on page 3)! Now, if I were familiar with the work of one my co-workers, as Prouty was to Landsdale, I think I would be thinking something funny is going on here. Just a point of view.

  7. How Senator Russell was “handled” at the end of the WC proceedings is very interesting and revealing. I can’t remember which one or two at the moment it’s in but it’s covered in at least one of the books out in the last 3-4 years. This is from memory, maybe someone else can help me out here.
    When the report was finished and ready to print Russell refused to sign off without including a dissent from him regarding things like the SBT and Lone Nut aspects. I believe it was Dulles who said ok, we can do that. He was asked to come to a room with only him Dulles and a stenographer. He told his objections while the stenographer typed. He was told his comments would be included and asked to sign the report which he did. The stenographer was not a stenographer and didn’t type up anything. The report was published and his comments lost forever.

    1. I thought I’d found a source for this on pgs. 257-259 of Jim DiEugenio’s Reclaming Parkland. It is a subtitle “Russell’s Dissent” within a chapter. It is mainly background on what I mentioned above.
      I’d forgotten that Russell saw the writing on the wall as early as December of 63 and actually wrote a resignation letter in February 64. He had his own investigation done which concluded in part, CIA Rouges.
      What I read could have been in Gerald McKnight’s Breach of Trust as I read a copy of it from a library but don’t have one for reference.

  8. Hi Tom, or Jeff. FYI, the links provided in the original article at the top of the page concerning Senator Russell are now incorrect and expired (?). The first regarding his thoughts “here” does take you to MFF but its WC testimony of General Walkers aide being questioned by Jenner. The second regarding being the “first dissenter” takes you to University of Georgia Law but says requested page not found.

  9. Here I am, speaking for Gaeton again, but I’ve read correspondence where Gaeton expressed faith in Fletcher Proudy, who he visited at his home in Virginia.

    1. Thank you Mrs. Fonzi. I personally think Mr. Prouty was an American Hero, not just for his Military service, but for speaking out on the JFK Assassination. It took courage to do so at the time. Mr. Fonzi is also an American Hero for his work.

    2. Re: Prouty. Just finished his book: “JFK”. What I found interesting was that Talbot’s book echoed the basic premise that Prouty expressed: That JFK’s assasination was the result of a high level conspiracy and cover-up in response to JFK’s ‘peace policies (among others)’. That made me wonder, who else who had worked in government, publically expressed that idea in the 20th century. The nuances of any operation or opinion can be argued indefinetely, however, if there was a cover-up and a strangulation of the truth, then it seems, only certain people with the ‘skill’ could enact that, and that implies a conspiracy,
      no matter the shape, condition, or number of any bullets..

    3. Hi Marie,

      I have been following Col Prouty since the early 1980’s when he would speak on Pacifica Radio – I heard and recorded dozens of his talks on KPFK in Los Angeles. The breadth of the mans knowledge of military history is unparalleled in my view. From his catbird seat within the system, his information is simply invaluable. I think those who have not taken advantage of his knowledge are really missing the bigger picture of both Vietnam and the coup in Dallas.

      1. Prouty was a fool. A lying fool. The fact that you can’t detect this Willy doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in some of your other opinions.

        Willy, I decided I needed to read some of the conspiracy books so I read Newman’s “JFK and Vietnam” and “JFK and the unspeakable” by Douglass. Not disappointing at all; both books were BS. I ordered “JFK The CIA, Vietnam and the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy” by Prouty. Haven’t read it yet but have it in hand.

  10. My parents lived and worked in the Us for many years.

    From their point of view (as Canadians). They though LBJ was behind it.
    Why the war in Vietnam was big money! At that time as a kid early in the 70’s
    I thought they were crazy.

    In this case who has the most to win and lose?

    Thanks for a great site!


  11. Jean Davison is right – unless we see the original note from Bobby and Jackie, who can believe they suspected domestic enemies? And for this same reason, I still think Lincoln in alive (I never saw the death certificate), and that he never made the Gettysburg Address (I never heard nor saw the speech), Elvis still walks the earth (never saw the grave, the body, or the death certificate), Oswald was from Afghanistan (I never saw his birth certificate) and I don’t really exist (can’t find my birth certificate).

  12. I have to express my surprise as to the doubts here regarding Fletcher Prouty. I have his book JFK, and The Secret Team. And I would recommetnd both to any who want an early insiders view of the assassination.

    I have countless cassette tapes of Prouty interviews from Pacifica as well. He does have a great range of interests and will regress from time to time as a philosophical background for his views. I have never heard him make any so-called “antisemitic” statements, or even make mention of the Jewish people.

    As far as those willing to publish his written works — who would expect a “well respected” publishing house to promote such a taboo subject as Prouty’s “conspiracy theories”?

    I consider Prouty one of the earliest and best sources for assassination research.

    1. Willy Whitten December 19, 2014 at 3:22 pm

      Prouty might have known something about the assassination, although I have my doubts, but he didn’t mind lying about Vietnam.

      Prouty claims he helped write NSAM 263 in Krulac’s office. That is a lie.

      Prouty claims the Kennedy policy on Vietnam was a “complete withdrawal”. That is also a lie.

      It has been my experience that if a man will lie about one thing he will lie about the other thing. I wouldn’t trust Prouty as far as I could throw him.

      1. “Prouty claims he helped write NSAM 263 in Krulac’s office. That is a lie.
        Prouty claims the Kennedy policy on Vietnam was a “complete withdrawal”. That is also a lie.”~Bill Clarke

        I would suggest that you provide proof when you make allegations that someone is lying. So prove Prouty wasn’t involved with writing NSAM 263.

        See my post of December 19, 2014 at 8:21 pm, with the text of NSAM 263. The language is very clear. That is unless you happen to prefer the Doublespeak of NSAM 273.

        1. Willy Whitten December 20, 2014 at 5:34 am

          Bill. Oh dear Willy, I seem to have had a senior moment here. Prouty claimed he helped write the McNamara Taylor Report in Krulac’s office. Not NSAM 2Bill. Really writing the M/T report but NSAM 263 can be thrown into the heap. Keeping in mind the impossibility of proving a negative we will precede here.63 as I mistakenly stated. My apologies. But since parts of the Report are the meat of NSAM 263 we probably should take a look at both of them.

          Willy. I would suggest that you provide proof when you make allegations that someone is lying. So prove Prouty wasn’t involved with writing NSAM 263.

          Bill. Really writing the M/T report but NSAM 263 can be thrown into the heap. Keeping in mind the impossibility of proving a negative we will precede here.

          The M/T report was written by Mac Bundy on the plane flying back from Vietnam. He speaks of his difficulty in writing it due to lack of sleep.
          http://en.wikipedia.org wiki/McNamara_Taylor_mission

          After a one-day stopover in Honolulu to prepare their report, McNamara and Taylor arrived back in Washington on October 2. The report was written hurriedly on the plane trip back to Washington. Forrestal described the report as a “mishmash of everything.”[6] During the 27 hour flight, Bundy managed only to get two hours of sleep between his writing and later opined that “neither their draftsmanship nor judgment is likely to be at its best under such working conditions.[6] They promptly met with the President and the National Security Council.

          I can’t prove neither Krulac nor Prouty was absent at the M/T briefing to JFK nor the National Security Council meeting to draft NSAM 263. I can prove that if they were at either meeting neither of them spoke up. If they wrote the report or had a hand in NSAM 263 wouldn’t this strike you as strange?


          Do you really think Mac Bundy would sign something that he had no input in writing? You think men of power like McNamara and Taylor would allow someone else to write their report and put their reputation on the line? This is one of Prouty’s bigger war stories.

          Willy. See my post of December 19, 2014 at 8:21 pm, with the text of NSAM 263. The language is very clear.

          I don’t have to see your post, I know what NSAM 263 says and I agree that the language is very clear. So why our problem? Do you really think it calls for a complete withdrawal as Prouty claims? Did you see “complete” or “total” or “all” will be withdrawn? No, you didn’t. You saw “the bulk of”. Did it say “we will withdraw come what may” or did it say “we should be able to withdraw?

          Read the Miller Center Tapes referenced above. You will see that they planned on leaving 3,500 after the “bulk” came home. That is not “complete withdrawal”. You will hear JFK say if 1965 doesn’t work out we will get another date.

          1. Willy Whitten December 20, 2014 at 5:34 am

            For some reason my first paragraph became jumble up. Here is the corrected paragraph.

            Bill. Oh dear Willy, I seem to have had a senior moment here. Prouty claimed he helped write the McNamara Taylor Report in Krulac’s office. Not NSAM 263 as I mistakenly stated. My apologies. But since parts of the Report are the meat of NSAM 263 we probably should take a look at both of them.

        2. Bill Clarke,

          Have a look at this interview with Prouty. Therein he explains the whole thing in great detail:

          “Prouty claimed he helped write the McNamara Taylor Report in Krulac’s office.”~Bill Clarke

          Yes, think about it, Taylor and McNamara were on a whirlwind tour of Vietnam, constantly on the move, they had no time to put together such a professionally packaged presentation as the document they supposedly delivered to Kennedy the day they got back.
          The fact of the matter is that Kennedy was monitoring the entire construction of this document while consulting with Taylor and McNamara by phone and had control of the whole report from start to finish so that he could officiate the policy that he wanted put in place. Kennedy was in effect the editor in chief of this document which was produced as a beautiful bound document in DC and delivered to McNnamara and Taylor on their stop in Hawaii on the way back from Vietnam. They had about eight hours to study it and get familiarized with it, before landing back on the mainland and “delivering” it back to Kennedy in an act of public theater.
          . . . .
          Public Myth:
          ‘The M/T report was written by Mac Bundy on the plane flying back from Vietnam. He speaks of his difficulty in writing it due to lack of sleep.”

          Take a close look at what was delivered to Kennedy. To believe this was not only written by one man on an airplane, but that it was then produced as such a professionally bound package as would be produced by a full service publishing house is preposterous.

          View the video I offer above. It is my opinion that anyone watching this who comes away thinking Prouty is some kind of crank and impostor is simply hooked on the myths of Lollipop History.

          I’ll tell you Bill, I have been studying, not only the JFK Assassination, but deep history, and the techniques of propaganda, and the perception manipulation of society for many years. To grasp the totality of the architecture of modern political power, one must step back for a panoramic view, as well as constructing that view by detailed analysis of the parts.
          I would posit that one must become familiarized with the modern techniques of psychological public relations as developed by Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays. A study of the history of how the Prussian school of “training” and “regimentation” rather than “education” was brought to the US in the early 19th century.
          I would add to this that one must also grasp the psycho-biological effects of electronic media, especially television on the individual viewer and the mass psychology of a society made up of such a TV audience.

          In other words Bill, the technocratic society is one that is engineered through the use of ‘public myth’ presented as history and current events.

          If used as a doorway, research into the JFK assassination can lead to the discovery of this larger over arching paradigm.

          1. Willy Whitten December 21, 2014 at 5:17 am

            Willy, I suffered through the Prouty interview. The Bay of Pigs was hard enough to take but I was shocked to learn that the 1,000 men JFK was withdrawing was not American troops but the CIA! Jack was withdrawing the CIA from Vietnam and other countries as well. This is a biggie and I wonder how all the other historians missed it!

            So according to Prouty, JFK sent his two main men on a 20,000 mile round trip so he could call them on the phone and tell them what to say. And I assume then called Prouty and told him what to write. You really believe that?

            Here is my take Willy. Prouty might have indeed played a part in the drafting of the Krulak Report. But that report isn’t as prestigious as the McNamara Taylor Report and wasn’t made part of NSAM 263. So, like many before and after him, ole Fletcher stretches it a bit and claims he worked on the M/T Report and comes up with a hell of a good story of how this came to be. In doing this he joins LBJ telling war stories about his Silver Star MacArthur gave him, Hillary claiming she and Chelsea took sniper fire in Bosnia and claims of racism suffered from our current president and first lady. Hogwash.

            I wonder why the historians of the Vietnam War don’t give Prouty any space in their work. Even John Newman in his wildly speculative book, “JFK and Vietnam” fails to even mention Prouty. This is rather shocking because some of Prouty’s BS supports Newman’s BS.

            Now, for this dolled up report, the only thing I saw on JFK’s coffee table are a couple of vanilla folders. Backup material perhaps since the M/T Report isn’t really that long. The stopover in Honolulu gave them more than enough time to prepare their report.

            I don’t see Fletcher’s account as holding water.

            You didn’t commit on Fletcher’s claim that the official policy was a complete withdrawal so I hope we are clear on that. Either Prouty lied or he didn’t know the policy. Neither case is not a comfort in believing Fletcher Prouty.

          2. Hi Bill,

            I am sorry you still don’t find Prouty credible.

            The point of US withdrawal; the term is “all US personnel” it doesn’t mention CIA, but that does INCLUDE CIA, as well as military. That is the crux of the whole issue, cutting out CIA from covert war-making.

            You say:
            “So according to Prouty, JFK sent his two main men on a 20,000 mile round trip so he could call them on the phone and tell them what to say. And I assume then called Prouty and told him what to write. You really believe that?”

            First of all, yes I think it is true. As Prouty explains it, JFK had already decided to get out of covert operations altogether. He sent McNamara and Taylor, less to assess the situation, and more to make it clear to the Vietnamese leadership that they had better get their act together because the US was on its way out of S.E.Asia. So it was by no means a wasted trip, but one under different auspices than is popularly known.

            You continued with; ” This is a biggie and I wonder how all the other historians missed it!”

            Now, I have urged you to consider that what is popularly called “History” is actually public myth – not simply in the JFK arena, but in general.

            As is said, “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.”

            I am going to cut this short, as I see that you view things from a different paradigm than I do, and any further discussion will just be talking around each other without actually connecting.

          3. Sorry Bill, just one more thing, a question:

            Is it your opinion that JFK was killed by a conspiracy – specifically one by the military industrial complex?

            If you do not my following comment will not be applicable:

            If you agree that JFK was killed in a coup d’etat, then you understand that the official narrative is a fabrication. If it is a fabrication then all of the “history” surrounding it is a fabrication to solidify the major founding lies to cover up the event.

          4. Willy Whitten December 22, 2014 at :17

            No Willy, we probably aren’t going to see eye to eye here and we won’t be changing the others mindset. But that is okay, I’ve enjoyed chatting with you.

            I’m not naive about believing what my government tells me or the history they peddle. I’m an old man, I lived through the Vietnam War, Nixon and a steady stream of trash in America. I don’t trust my government as far as I can throw them.

          5. Willy Whitten December 22, 2014 at 6:26 pm

            No Willy, I don’t believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy. I particularly don’t believe our military, our CIA or LBJ had Kennedy killed. I don’t think he planned on abandoning South Vietnam to the communist but I don’t think he would have done what LBJ did in 1965. I do think there was probably some coverup with the WR but that is just my guess.

            I realize that puts me in the minority here but I think we have a right to make our own conclusions without someone trying to kill us for it.

            I understand what you say about if the official narrative is false then it colors the history around it. I agree.

          6. Thank you for your further replies Bill,

            Well, I’ll have to say that I am a bit surprised that you don’t think JFK was killed in a conspiracy. And yes I would guess that does put you in the minority of commentators on this site.

            I have often been in such situations myself, being a holder of minority views on some sites. So I know how it is to be harangued by those disagreeing with you!

            That’s why I prefer level headed discussion to belligerent argumentation.

            I have enjoyed our exchange as well.

            Thank you, Willy

  13. Eisenhower was in office for 8 years and oversaw plenty of controversy but I can’t think of anyone who wanted him dead (maybe Hitler). Consider all the people or groups of people who wanted JFK out of the way after just 3 years; the anti-Castro Cubans, Cord Meyer, big business, Marcello, Poppy, Big Oil, the far Right, Dulles, LBJ, Hoover, LeMay; Giancana, Santos, Husbands who’d been cuckolded, Secret Service people who’d looked on as JFK was shot full of speed and narcotics before his Summit meeting with Kruschev or who were told to stand down when they attempted to look through the purses of strange women who were escorted into Kennedy’s hotel room; Incidentally, those women weren’t all strange: Some were E. German spies, World reknowned sex symbols and the top molls of major crime-syndicate Godfathers; HL Hunt, Murchison, the Mobsters who’d put up big bucks and broken legs in Cook County in order to get Joe Kennedy’s boy into the White House on the promise that Bobby would be muzzled and they’d get their Casinos back; Don’t forget some of the very powerful old-timers who’d been royally screwed by the Ambassador during his heyday, Mac Wallace,Estes and Baker, LBJ(is that twice?), Hell, even Adlai Stevenson hated the Kennedys. Those are just right off the cuff, there are many more (as anyone who has read this far well knows). But along with all the bad guys who wanted the Kennedy’s neutralized there were a lot of Red Blooded, Patriotic, family value oriented War heroes – Our Greatest Generation – who saw this chap as a Womanizing, Pinko, Junkie, Playboy, SOB who genuinely needed to be dispatched for the best interests of the Country. We’d seen our Five Star, Supreme Allied Commander replaced by a Junior Grade PT boatsman. He would have been re-elected and that possibility was a non-starter for far too many. The Big Event was able to be covered up so easily because so many rich, powerful, ruthless people, both in and out of Government, honestly believed that killing Jack Kennedy was absolutely in the best interests of the United States of America.

  14. Hmmmm….

    LBJ and Califano suspected Castro.

    Goldwater suspected LBJ.

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

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

    Might that uncertainty weaken the case for conspiracy?

    1. “It would seem the Washington “insiders” are no more unified as to the specific nature of a JFK conspiracy than are conspiracy theorists within the general public.
      Might that uncertainty weaken the case for conspiracy?”~Lanny

      Consensus is not a determinant in the issue of truth. It is quite often the opposite.

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

    He probably knew too much and was untouchable.

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

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

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

    1. …if LBJ thinks Oswald didn’t act alone…

      It’s not an ‘if’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        The only exception on their side is Lee Harvey Oswald.


      2. John,

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

      3. Mr. McAdams

        Have viewed your some of the links you provided on your website and its incredible the length and detail on this subject matter.

        Obviously you support the WC conclusions so I know there will be a ton more info discrediting conspiracy supporters and evidence but does your website discredit any WC supporters or evidence ?

        I cant even imagine the amount of time put in for the site

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

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

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

  18. Re Fletcher Prouty:

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

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

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

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

    We know

    1. Is that David Atlee Phillips statement at USC true? regarding LHO not being in Mexico? That seems to align with the Hoover memo comments about being misled by the CIA.

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

  21. Pingback: JFKfacts » Ex-flame says Jack Ruby ‘had no choice’ but to kill Oswald

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

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

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

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

    2. Mary, as for your “open limo” part-had the bubbletop covered the car, he still wouldn’t have been out of danger, as it wasn’t buletproof. Yet it would have given the shooters a more difficult target. He was a great President indeed.

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

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

      MANY witnesses described the last two shots as BANG-BANG

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

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


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

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

    Thanks, Bill Kelly

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Goldwater told Jeffrey Hoff that in October, 1973

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

      1. Re: Joe ===>

        When Barry Goldwater was alive Barry Goldwater also read and complimented Fred Newcomb’s book Murder From Within (1974) on the JFK assassination. Newcomb pointed the finger at the Secret Service, with deep suspicions of LBJ.

        Barry Goldwater: “… the book … seems to be very concise, detailed and documented” which he told Fred Newcomb in a letter complimenting his book. (Sen. Jesse Helms and Russell Long also read this book according to Tyler Newcomb, the son of Fred Newcomb.)

        The book has been re-released (2011) and retitled as “Murder From Within: Lyndon Johnson’s Plot Against President Kennedy.”

    1. Michael J Poblocki

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

      1. Michael, I think LBJ knew there would be a conspiracy way back when he and his lawyer/friend Ed Clark discussed a plan to kill JFK(I think this was early into JFK’s Presidency).

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

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

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


      Here is what the previous statement means:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


      1. On Clinton and Gore; bigger than Richard Milhous Nixon?

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

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

        1. Jerry-from all accounts I’ve read so far, I think shots came from the Dal-Tex Bldg., the grassy knoll, the TSBD 6th floor(but from Mac Wallace and possibly Loy Factor, the Indian-American who Wallace recruited), and a street-level location.

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

      1. and if he(LHO)was set up as the JFK assassin, he may well have been set up for the Tippit killing, too. Recall his answer to a reporter in the Dallas police station, as LHO at one point said “I didn’t shoot anybody sir”. If someone believes he did, I need to see logical proof.

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

      1. Since when does a verifiable fact matter in your assumptions about associations?
        For heaven’s sake, Jackie recuperated on Onassis’ yacht after the death of Patrick.

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

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

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

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

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

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

        1. Jean,

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

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

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

          2. JSA October 3, 2013 at 2:47 pm

            You once told me you were going to read NSAM 263. Did you get around to doing that?

            In all fairness most all of his civilian advisers wanted to strike Cuba also. Are they suspect in the conspiracy too?

            I’ve read that the Douglass book is crap and it must be if he says what you claim he says. And I have no doubt that he does. JFK hung tough in Berlin or it would have been in communist hands asap. Operation Mongoose and Castro assassination attempts are not deescalation. The naval blockade of Cuba was an act of war. And we have discussed NSAM 263 at length in the past.

            The statement of Junior that JFK was trying to draw down the military is ridiculous. Read what JFK said in Fort Worth the morning he was killed;

            “In the past 3 years we have increased the defense budget of the United States by over 20 percent; increased the program of acquisition for Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers
            and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in
            the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by over 60 percent; added five combat ready divisions to the Army of the United States, and five tactical fighter wings to the Air Force of the United States; increased our strategic airlift capability by 75 percent; and increased our special counter-insurgency forces which are
            engaged now in South Viet-Nam by 600 percent. I hope those who want a stronger America and place it on some signs will also place those figures next to it.” ——-John F. Kennedy, November 22, 1963.

            Now I don’t think anyone can call that a draw down.

          3. Bill Clarke.

            You say that NSAM 263 are not draw down orders for 1963 nor an order for complete withdrawal from Vietnam by 1965.

            You then go on to say this:
            “The statement of Junior that JFK was trying to draw down the military is ridiculous. Read what JFK said in Fort Worth the morning he was killed…”
            Which goes on to describe the beefing up of US military forces in general.

            This is irrelevant to the issue of Kennedy ordering a withdrawal from Vietnam.

            I have many issues with Horne, but the issue of NSAM 263 and the orders to withdraw are not one of them. Horne cites the minutes of McNamara’s instructions to the military while in Hawaii, and those orders were a direct implementation NSAM 263. These minutes were declassified with the large numbers of documents relevant to the Assassination ordered by the House Committee, and subsequently found in the records of the ARRB.
            . . . . .

            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
            spacerCopy furnished:

            Director of Central Intelligence

            Administrator, Agency for International Development

            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.

            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.
            . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        1. JSA:

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

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

          2. Nathaniel Heidenheimer

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

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

          3. Kennedy did name a son after Taylor. There is suspicion though that Taylor was a traitor, and spied on the Kennedy’s. For whom is the question. It goes to show how the Kennedy’s didn’t realize how they were surrounded by enemies. They thought they had somebody on their side and it simply wasn’t the case.

          1. Nominay October 4, 2014 at 11:36 am

            I think so too about Taylor but also about Wheeler. Taylor bought “his boys” to the front during this time. Wheeler was one of his boys and I don’t think he would have been a part of something Taylor would have certainly not approved of.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          1. John McAdams leads us to his site with articles against Prouty on several levels.

            McAdams uses terms such as “at odds with history”. What history is he talking about?

            My view is that he speaks to “Lollipop History”, the ‘Public Myths’ taught by the System and its Public Relations Regime, which includes not just “the news”, but covers the entire spectrum of perception manipulation in western culture.

            I would urge those who are taken in by those such as McAdams to look into the works of Walter Lippman and Edaward Bernays – the genesis of modern psychological propaganda technique.

        3. You haven’t given one iota’s worth of intelligent criticism or arguement to support your strange (and illogical) opinions. FACTS, and nothing but the facts–as Dickens wrote. Where are your facts?If you doon’t like Prouty, say so and be done with it. But not-liking someone is no substitute for a coherent, persuasive argument founded on verifiable facts.

      3. OpheliaMcIntyre

        I read several versions of Prouty’s book (S.T.) and though it’s sometimes very deep into unfamiliar territory, all happened during my lifetime and is not only credible to me but I believe IS a part of the true story of JFK’s murder.

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

      1. EXACTLY Michael. Those who don’t see that have not done their research and lack the critical thinking skills to be taken seriously.

      1. Prouty made 2 statements about the Gary powers U2 plane incident that IMO would go along way to establishing his bonafides of understanding a political assassination of this level- the ultimate insider.

        He claimed Powers ID was intentionally placed on him by a 3rd party as the air force U2 flying suit had no pockets and there was zero chance Powers would have brought such ID on this flight as it was against security protocols.

        Also his knowledge that the U2 jet had hydrogen in its fuel. Allegedly many U2 pilots were not even aware of this. Also the day after the incident, one of his colleagues wrote down the handful of people that had the means to set this U2 incident up, showed this to Prouty and he was immediately shipped out of DC?

        Have these statements proven to be accurate ? If they were then his assassination plot statements can not be automatically dismissed.

        At the moment I try and separate many of Prouty speculations but I tend to believe his statements about covert nature of the plots as his bonafides (at the moment) appear genuine. I’m not sure why anyone would automatically dismiss his statements without further analysis as his background is impressive.

        If these statements are true then I don’t believe any truth seeker can automatically dismiss his comments and statements on the operational nature of the assassination.

        It will be interesting in the next decade or two when 3-D printing technology and photo analysis are far better than today, if the photo of the man Prouty and his General colleague allege was Ed Lansdale was actually him. This will be confirmed at some point and it will be a real breakthrough in establishing the what and who. His Lansdale statement could end up being the smoking gun in the case.

        This case will be solved with technology so we will all eventually know who was right.

    3. Photon October 2, 2013 at 8:41 am

      Oh but I’m afraid they are serious. This Prouty crap is unbelievable. If you can’t spot Prouty for a flake you are in serious trouble researching the assassination and the Vietnam War.

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

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

Leave a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top