REAL FAQ v1.6- ADDENDUM:The Fascist Connection This Addendum is based on notes received from a claimed 'former member of MI6' (see my previous posts 'Disclosures in Geneva') who uses the name: 'Quentin Lancaster'. I have here transcribed the notes, remarks as they appeared on the back of a REAL FAQ hardcopy, received July 18, at Geneva, the hardcopy originally given him at Britannia Hutte - just outside the Felskinn Berg Station, Switzerland, on July 8. He has referred to various Parts of the FAQ where he would make changes (including emphasis), modifications or revisions. I don't necessarily agree, but give these comments anyway. Also, I have tried to provide independent references to as many of his remarks as I can. So readers can get an independently (referenced) source and check for themselves. The main thrust of this new section - what it leads to, is the upsetting conclusion that strong fascist interests (and Nazi sympathizers), already present in the U.S. as early as the late 1940's (through Operation Paperclip & its linkage to U.S. Intelligence), were behind the JFK assassination. This also comports with similar fascist interests that attempted to kill DeGaulle (using the French 'Secret Army Organization, funded through Permindex) - See Part 2B. Thus begin Lancaster's Comments: REAL FAQ - Part II: I am inclined toward rather more emphasis of the *fact* of Oswald's intelligence bona fides, and that he was indeed an intelligence agent and employee (most likely of the Office of Naval Intelligence). As I disclosed in conversation, the process of his transfer to the Soviet Union was made via military air transport, not commercial. And this was on October 10, 1959, not October 9 - as the Warren Report would have you believe.* Merely a cursory reading of Newman's 'Oswald and the CIA' and other pertinent files, establishes that: a) Oswald was a paid agent of the CIA/ONI(possibly at different times) b) His defection was a false defection (cover), he was working undercover for the CIA all the while he was in the Soviet Union c) He was the person that made the attempt to warn FBI offices of the planned assassination on Nov. 17, 1963 d) Part of his undercover work on return from the USSR included a stint at Guy Bannister's 544 Camp St. Offices. In this sense, I recommend you excise the sections (at the end) where you belabor Oswald's 'ineffectiveness'. Or, at the last these ought to be revised. If he were at all 'ineffective' he could not be inducted by the ONI into their Russian Language school while at Atsugi, or recruited by the CIA as an agent.** ------ * Reference check: 'On the Trail of the Assassins'. J. Garrison, Warner Books, 1988. p. 55: "The Warren Commission stated that Oswald flew straight to Helsinki on October 9, the very day he arrived in England. However, Oswald's passport showed that he did not leave England until October 10, the following day. It was known that Oswald checked into his Helsinki hotel on October 10. But this would have been impossible considering the timetable of the only commercial direct route from London. Under the circumstances, the question arose whether he actually flew to Finland aboard a commercial airliner." ** Groden, R.J.:1995, 'The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald',Bloomsbury Books, Great Britain, p.35: "Notwithstanding the allegedly low test scores, his proficiency in Russian makes it appear he was being trained professionally and extensively by the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)- if not by the ONI, then by someone else within the alphabet soup of U.S. military intelligence or the marines themselves." Also reinforcing the fact of Oswald's intelligence 'bona fide's' is a recently released document. As reported in The Baltimore Sun, (Nov. 28, 1997): 'Document Supports Conspiracy Theory In JFK Slaying' Paper Buttresses Theory That Oswald, Agent Met "A long secret government document released Wednesday lends credence to a favorite theory of conspiracy theorists on President John F. Kennedy's assassination: the contention that Lee Harvey Oswald was seen in Dallas with a U.S. Intelligence agent about two months before the killing. This issue has long been connected with unproved reports that a violent Cuban exile group - perhaps with the help of a U.S. intelligence agency - was involved in the assassination. "The House Select Committee on Assassinations investigated the reports, but the panel said in 1978, that it was unable to substantiate them. However, the document obtained Wednesday by *Newsday* provides a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ previously lacking measure of credibility to the reports. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ These reports center on a shadowy figure called Maurice Bishop - likely a pseudonym - said to have been an intelligence agent during the early 1960s. "Antonio Veciana, founder of the Alpha 66 Cuban exile group that launched repeated guerrilla raids against Fidel Castro's regime, testified before the House Committee that he considered Bishop his U.S. intelligence contact; that he met with Bishop more than 100 times over a 13 year period; and that Bishop had directed him to organize Alpha 66 and had paid him $263,000. Moreover he said, he had met briefly in Dallas with Bishop and Oswald sometime around September, 1963 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ two months before Kennedy's assassination Nov. 22. "G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel to the House committee, said 'After careful analysis, we decided not to credit Veciana's claim' because among other things, there was 'no proof that Maurice Bishop existed'. "But the document released Wednesday by the U.S. Assassinations Record Review Board supports the contention that Bishop existed and otherwise backs Veciana's story. Government sources said the document - a U.S. Army intelligence report dated Oct. 17, 1962 - describes a man who fits the profile of Bishop. 'He used a different name, but we believe this man fits Bishop's profile very closely', one government official said. "The document is a report from an Army intelligence officer, Col. Jeff W. Boucher, to Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, assistant to secretary of defense Robert S. McNamara and a controversial figure in the Vietnam war." Comments: For many more of the sordid details of the Bishop-Veciana connection, please refer to Gaeton Fonzi's book 'The Last Investigation' (chapters 14, 15). Fonzi, as matter of interest, also believed that 'Maurice Bishop' was none other than David Atlee Phillips, the spymeister extraordinnaire responsible for the 'Oswald in Mexico City' deception. Clearly from this (just released) document, however, we can see that Oswald was exactly the intelligence (either ONI, or CIA contract agent) operative many of us believe him to me, ultimately sheepdipped into patsyhood. Further, it should be noted that 3 months after the HSCA report was released - with Veciana's testimony - "Veciana was driving his pickup truck home from his Miami marine supply store when a 1971 Buick station wagon pulled alongside and four .45 caliber slugs ripped into the cab. The shots only grazed the lucky Veciana, and he was out of the hospital in two days." (see 'Deadly Secrets - the CIA-Mafia War Against Castro and the Assassination of JFK' by Warren Hinckle and William Turner, 1992.) On a more personal footnote - Alpha 66, the group that 'Bishop' commissioned Veciana to found, was responsible for the blowing up of Cubana Airlines Flight 455, off the south coast of Barbados, on October 6, 1976. This resulted in the loss of 73 lives, including the entire Cuban national fencing team. I was in Barbados at the time, and heard the explosion. My nieces saw pieces of the bodies wash up on the shores of Paradise Beach. My wife - and other workers at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital there - had to deal with the carnage left in its wake. These things are real folks - not make believe. Or the work of solitary 'psychos'. Finally, the released document shows that the pursuit of the remaining files (still locked away) must be pursued with renewed urgency. If the 'wall' shrouding and protecting the conspirators begins to collapse with disclosure - as we see it is - we know we are on the right track. No effort can be spared - and any naysayers (minimizing the value of disclosure and file release) must have their own integrity and motives questioned to the fullest. PART III: Part 3A, Question 7: It is well to emphasize psy ops' role, for example, in general public media such as Usenet newsgroups. Their strategy is to prevent consensus on major issues pertaining to the assassination. This is most expeditiously done by continuously challenging any and all information, files or evidence put out in that media. Thus, evidence is put forward that is unambiguous, but a 'challenge' is instantly issued to cast a pall of uncertainty over the quality of the information. In this way, the strategy is to keep the pro-conspiracist side from progressing very far, by continually keeping them on the defensive: making them consume time to offer citations, evidence, files, information that will never, ever be accepted, no matter how good, how sound, how unimpeachable. In other words, so long as pro-conspiracist side plays the psy-op game, they cannot win, and moreover, cannot progress beyond endless discussions of endless points. If the ultimate goal of pro-conspiracists is to convince the hardliners in the opposition, then they lose before they win. They cannot convince the hardliners, because the hardliners are not *there* to be open to inquiry, discussion or objectivity. Their purpose is to inhibit or prevent the disclosure of truth, not to cooperate with it. I further disagree that there is any inherent 'insolubility' or what you call 'complementarity' of evidence. Exactly the opposite applies. The data and evidence, such as it is, when logically reviewed (with inconsistencies noted) unequivocally points to one conclusion that an honest person can make: JFK was assassinated in a well-planned conspiracy. The conspiracy embraces not merely the event, the assassination, but the coverup of the truth in its wake. All the 'complementarity' (as you call it)that appears is by virtue of the pro-conspiracist side allowing itself to be deflected from rigorously following the consequences of logic, directed at the available facts and evidence. The working tactic of the opposition is to relentlessly ignore this logic, or its process, or conclusion, and demand an ever higher standard that cannot possibly be met.# For example, a photograph is presented which clearly shows bullet grooves. The total grooves can be deduced from symmetry considerations and logic. However, the opposition demands a higher standard: i.e. go to some Archives and examine the bullet, photograph it on all sides, and bring it back to post. But they're well aware this is a standard that cannot be met. (Since, if memory serves, the bullet cannot be taken out, examined or photographed!) Thus it is they keep the pro-conspiracists forever on the defensive, and engaged in discussion they can't win because the opposition has already set the terms for winning. Unattainable terms! The only way pro-conspiracists can 'beat' the psy ops is not to engage them. Once they do, it is 'check and mate'. This is extremely difficult, make no mistake, but that is your stark choice. Refuse to play their game, refuse to offer answers, information, evidence that they will never accept under any circumstances. Remember, they are not there to enlighten or to be enlightened, but always to disinform and misinform. # My remark: I suspect Lancaster misunderstands me here. By 'complementarity' I mean that the conspiracy advocate and Lone nut adherent basically attach validity to (largely) mutual exclusive sources, data and evidence. The former emphasize that the whole truth cannot be found within the official version for obvious reasons. (It is co-opted, compromised - in the service of those who did the deed). Hence, one must go to *outside* sources. These are not of equal quality, but that only means more diligence needs to be applied in sifting through the information, cross-checking and so on. The latter, of course, will never deviate far from their 'bible' - the Warren Report. PART 3B: You make much ado over the limo windshield, but neglect entirely to mention the cleaning of the limo, before ever sent away. Who cleaned off the blood, biologic (probably brain) matter on the trunk, and other material? * The Secret Service also? Then they are fully culpable in destroying critical evidence, and that also is part of the 'destruction and compromise of evidence'. And what about Connally's shirt? Whatever became of that?** The shirt would have had material on it and probably bullet holes as well. Extremely critical evidence, to solving the case. Who attended to the shirt? Whoever had access to this evidence, had culpability in its disposition. There are no excuses or justifications to be made. ------------------------------ Reference checks: * Op. cit., p. 258, footnote: "Before the day was over, the Secret Service also cleaned out the presidential limousine - washing away bullet fragments with buckets of water." ** Ibid., "Governor John Connally's clothing (bullet holes, bullet traces and all) was sent to be cleaned and pressed. Preservation of important evidence was clearly not high on the Secret Services;' agenda." and: Livingstone, H.E.: 1993, 'Killing the Truth', Carroll & Graf, p.81: "Connally's clothes were cleaned and pressed before any tests could be conducted for metal tracings. It is very hard to believe that the investigating bodies allowed this to happen. But it was Lyndon Johnson's aide who took Connally's clothes and cleaned and pressed them, and they ended up in the possession of Congressman Henry Gonzalez." Note: a photo of Connally's shirt - before it was 'sanitized' can be seen in the first photo section of 'High Treason' (Groden, R. and Livingstone, H.E., 1984) four pages prior to page 25. ------------------------------------- PART 3A (Question 3a): Blahut was probably attempting to substitute a doctored photograph for the original, before the committee examined it. Did he succeed? Pitzer's killing, as described, has all the earmarks of an intelligence operation. I have no reason to dispute Marvin's account at all. The issue regarding JFK's head 'exploding' is yet one more red herring, introduced purely for purposes of deflection (by those who insist it didn't 'explode'). Arguments concerning the validity of the Nix film (I have also seen the original version) are in the same category. All these are basically clever ploys to induce pro-conspiracists away from too close scrutiny. Certainly JFK's wife was most proximate to him. What does she say? Her evidence, testimony ought to be unimpeachable? * ------------------------------ *Reference check: Jackie's testimony Groden & Livingstone, op. cit., p. 15 (extracted from WCT, V): "I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises. You know. And my husband never made any sound. So I turned to the right. All I remember seeing is my husband, he had this sort of quizzical look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand. And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored." (clip) "You know, then, there were pictures later of me climbing out the back, but I don't remember that at all." And from her secret testimony (excised from original version), op. cit. p. 16: "I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." ---------------- My own comment: The preceding - an officially 'authorized' transcript/testimony and an excluded portion (which sheds light on the entire issue of the head exploding and the skull fragment) is one more instance of compromise and destruction of evidence. This is - again, what the 'pro-conspiracist' (to use Lancaster's term) has to deal with, and why it is nearly impossible to argue with LN hardliners (since they inevitably adopt the 'official version' - i.e Warren Report, from which the most critical testimonies are conveniently excised). This makes me believe that Lancaster's recommendation of 'non-engagement' - which, btw I had often suggested in different posts myself, is the best strategy. We delude ourselves into thinking we are doing anything other than wasting time, by responding to the hardline LN'ers. ---------------- Lancaster (from conversation at Brittania Hutte, previously posted - 'Disclosure at Geneva' II): "The Nix film, the original that is, shows just what the conspirators don't want you to see. That was why they had to step in at some point and generate modified copies. There are probably more than a dozen versions that exist. This way no one knows which is correct, and the real one has no more to commend it than any other. Keep everyone guessing, that's the name of the game." Lancaster: (from notes written on back of FAQ part 3b): The 'question' of whether Jackie is reaching for JFK's head fragment, because she can't recall it, is disingenuous. A glance at the Nix film unequivocally and irrefutably shows she recognized it, and was moving (over the limo boot) toward it. How can this possibly be an issue? It is if you allow it to be. The same applies to the photographs showing 'Oswald' at Mexico City in September of 1963. The most cursory inspection discloses this is not Oswald, but an impostor. So how is it an issue? More important, *why* is it an issue? I cannot reiterate frequently enough that you can't be so easily diverted by psy ops. I recommend, in fact, removing all obvious issues from your FAQ and focusing on those that remain truly unresolved. The teletype to FBI offices (first sent to Washington, then disseminated to local offices)is another aspect not sufficiently emphasized. All indications point to Oswald dispatching this teletype, as a warning. He was the undercover agent. He found there was a plan. He revealed it through proper channels and accomplished his mission. For all one knows, he probably thought he had succeeded, up to the hour and minute of the assassination. At that point, he noticed the change in route,* and realized he'd been set up. I surmise the group he infiltrated discovered his betrayal of their cause, and inserted him into their plans, as a patsy. This would easily be accomplished by having the motorcade route altered to cross in the vicinity of the School Book Depository Building. Oswald probably realized his predicament too late, and panicked. Indeed, Oswald probably had to kept *off* the 6th floor until the action was completed, and then killed. They missed doing so at the Book building so had to revert to next plan, engaging Tippitt to do it. However, Oswald pre-empted him. ----------- Reference check: The Dallas Morning News of 22 November, 1963 clearly showed the motorcade route going along Main St., not making turns onto Houston or Elm. The Warren Commission Exhibit of the same, however, is bastardized - in that it is not the faithful reproduction of the original paper, which should include all its aspects. Some commentators have attempted to defend the Warren Commission Exhibit version as being the accurate one ('since everyone in Dallas knew one could not go from Main St. direct to the Trade Mart'), and therefore preferable. This is egregious for two reasons. First, if a Commission of Inquiry - as the Warren Commission was purported to be- was doing its duty, it puts out its 'exhibits' as fully faithful reproductions. This includes presumed 'errors' and all. It is not up to any Commission to alter an exhibit, to comport with what it 'thinks' is accurate, or how the paper 'should have appeared.' Second, the argument that the original published route could not get to the Trade Mart is wrong. As Groden and Livingstone observe (op. cit., p 130-31): "The motorcade could have progressed westward through Dealey Plaza on Main Street, passed under the underpass, and then proceeded on Industrial Boulevard to the Trade Mart". The Dallas papers, in fact, indicate a route change in evidence from as early as the previous evening. (Diverting from Main Street to Houston, then on to Elm). In fact, this is nearly a 90 degree diversion. Who could have authorized it? None other than the Mayor or Dallas at that time Earl Cabell, who - by 'coincidence' just happened to be the brother of ousted CIA Depty. Director Charles Cabell (after the Bay of Pigs). Those who blithely dispute or choose to ignore collusion by the Cabell brothers - to at least getting JFK into the firing zone, are both blind and naive. True, there may not be 'hard' evidence - there probably never was anyway - merely word of mouth communications, untraceable, and unverifiable. But the coincidental confluence of circumstances, and the power to effect a course of action to a certain pre- determined goal, is too great to overlook or minimize. --------------------------------- FAQ Part 3C (Question 3a): I suggest omitting this question as well, unless you are genuinely convinced new readers are not aware of the implausibility (most would say improbability) of this 'effect'. When it first surfaced, it had our own weapons experts in stitches. The fact is, it is contrived and spurious. It was invoked because the Warren Commission's professed 'experts' were not able to duplicate Oswald's firing feat, using the selfsame weapon and the rigid time limits. (As you noted in the following Section, Part 3D). PART 4: Information on Allan Dulles requires more depth and breadth. He was the pivot for the Warren Commission, much moreso than McCloy, concerning whom you've written five times as much. This gives an unbalanced perspective on the Warren Commission. Let us understand that the Lee Oswald-lone nut story was/is a cover. The Warren Commission was the esteemed group founded to ratify it. It is no coincidence the formal ratification process would have the most powerful intelligence operative of the 50's and 60's at its helm. (As you correctly noted, Earl Warren himself was the titular head). I suggest broadening your Dulles coverage by showing how he ingratiated himself with a leading Nazi, Reinhard Gehlen, and had him and others brought over through 'Operation Paperclip'.* With someone like Dulles stage-managing the Warren Commission, the end was similarly forced to justify the means. The truth a liability this time, as honor was when he ingratiated himself with Reinhard Gehlen.** In other words, if Dulles stooped to rescuing one of the most notorious Nazi criminals, in the service of 'national security', he certainly stooped to sabotaging the Warren Commission, in the interest of a specious national security.# ----------------------- Reference checks: * 'Project Paperclip': 1971, Clarence Lasby, Atheneum. ** 'Destiny Betrayed': 1992, James Di Eugenio, Sheridan Square Press, p. 276. "But some of the Commissioners, like Dulles and McCloy..went even further. Because they were part of the founding of the national security state, they felt no compunctions about allying with Nazis: borrowing, pardoning, or granting free entry into American life, members of the ugliest, most insane fascist dream ever fashioned." Op. cit. p. 277: "America had emerged from the War with its status and role altered. It became a model for and protector of what came to be called the free world. But the image presented in the struggle was, from its inception, a false one, both in its exaggeration and demonization of the 'monolithic' Red threat, and its glowing portrayal of a morally upright United States. The Gehlen Deal, which underpinned the image, at the same time underpinned the model. "Dulles needed Gehlen's warped and exaggerated view of the Soviet threat to expand and perpetuate the new American security fortress that included: Gehlen, Dornberger, and Paper Clip; Bormann and Odessa; McCloy and the Krupps; the coups and assassinations of the Eisenhower era; the CIA-Mafia ties; the gun running and dope trafficking, and all the while great fortunes were being made in the growing military-industrial complex, which men like Dulles and McCloy represented in their law firms." Follow-up footnote: Bellant, R.:1991, 'Old Nazis, The New Right and The Republican Party', South End Press, Boston, p. 77. An Office of Special Investigations (within the Dept. of Justice)was established "by a 1978 Act of Congress to discover and deport Nazi war criminals who entered the U.S. after World War II." Bellant further notes (ibid.): "Almost immediately the Ukrainian Quarterly (published by the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America) denounced the Office of Special Investigations, as did the quasi-Nazi Liberty Lobby, and the neo-fascist Lyndon LaRouche organization." ----------------------- Back to Lancaster's commentary on The REAL FAQ: Part V: You need to include the use of false stories, or theories as part of the cover-up mechanism. For example, books, films, CDs, or Usenet posts can be circulated in the name of a 'pro-conspiracy' person...who is nothing of the sort. This exacts formidable damage to the conspiracist position, often without him knowing it. You have admirably exposed the role of the CIA in USA's major newspapers. (Which ought to remind people they cannot always believe what they read). Also, the biggest lies, like the Warren Report, are often the most credible to many people. Why? I think Hitler was once quoted as saying: 'The great masses of people will more easily believe a big lie than a small one'. * ------------------------------------ * Reference check I found the quote of Hitler's in Bellant's book (op. cit. p.xi) It actually reads: "The great masses of people..will more easily fall victim to a big lie than a small one". PART 6: You have provided a basis for further exploration into those ultimately responsible for the conspiracy. I am confident you have a rudimentary outline, but that is all. You , like so many others, are unable to conceive the complex ways in which the sources conceal themselves. You know/can identify the most crude categories (e.g. 'CIA'), but not the intricate maze of networks and groups which interconnect them on multiple levels. I make suggestions here of further avenues to pursue. An outline for you to follow. You need to check into Ferenc Nagy+, Licio Gelli*, Philip Guarino*(**) and his role in the P-2 network, as well as to Michele Sindona**, and interestingly, one of those shot in Dallas: John Connally***. Similarly, you want to research the American Security Council, and its meetings convened from 1955 to 1961,(****) with both military and corporations. Go back also to the beginning of the movie 'JFK' (I believe) and replay Eisenhower's farewell speech. Notice how he warns of the rise of the 'military industrial complex'. This is not a nebulous, arcane or abstract entity. It is real. It is embodied in the American Security Council and in the myriad of networks it supports. This network was also tied in with the Nazis brought in under 'Operation Paperclip'. I am convinced it is also the primary 'architect' of the assassination of John Kennedy, and its coverup. Nor is JFK its only victim. A veritable trail of bodies lies sacrificed to Nazi ideals perpetuated within it: Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, Olaf Palme, Albino Luciani (Pope John Paul I), Roberto Calvi (P2 member and 'executioner', found hanging under Blackfriar's Bridge, London, June 17, 1982); Anwar Sadat, Yitzak Rabin and (most recently) the Nobel Prize Economics winner, Edward S. Vickrey. ------------------------------------------------ Reference checks: + This is referenced with a newly revised section in Part 2b, Question 4a. * Yallop, David: 1984, 'In God's Name', Corgi Books, Great Britain. p. 441: "This book has already recorded many instances of the power and influence that Gelli has exerted. At the time of Albino Luciani's death in September, 1978, Licio Gelli, to all practical purposes, ran Italy too. His access to any person or any place within the Vatican City State was unrivaled, thanks to Umberto Ortolani. The fact that these two men were in South America at the time of Luciani's death is no alibi in the conventional legal sense." Yallop, Op. cit., p. 442: "On April 8, 1980, Gelli wrote from Italy to Philip Guarino, a senior member of the Republican Party National Committee, which at the time was concentrating all its efforts on getting Ronald Reagan elected President. Gelli wrote: 'If you think it might be useful for something favorable to your Presidential candidate to be published in Italy, send me some material and I'll get it published in one of the papers here." "Without any knowledge of the power that Gelli wielded it might seem a curious offer. How could a man who officially owned no newspapers guarantee a favorable mention and sympathetic coverage for Reagan? The answer was a consortium of P-2 members plus the Vatican-controlled Rizzoli, the massive publishing group with interests stretching as far as Buenos Aires. Among the many magazines and newspapers was Corriere Della Sera, Italy's most prestigious newspaper. Other p2 members were planted throughout the television, radio and newspaper media of the country. The favorable comments about Ronald Reagan, carefully placed by Licio Gelli, duly appeared in Italy." ** Bellant, R.: Op.cit., pp. 17-18: "A theology student in Mussolini's Italy in the late 20's and much of the 1930's, Philip Guarino helped establish the ethnic division of the GOP in 1952. He was vice-chair of the Republican Heritage Groups Council from 1971-75." ----- Di Fonzo, Luigi: 1983, 'St. Peter's Banker', Franklin Watts Press, New York & London, p. 229: Guarino is referenced here as 'an honorary member of P-2'. Bellant notes (ibid.) "Foreign members of P-2 were rare." ----- Bellant, R., Op. cit. p. 18: "Gelli was an ardent Blackshirt in the Fascist Party of Mussolini's Italy and one of his firm supporters to the end. As the leader of P-2 he made violations of the Lodge's oaths punishable by death. "After police traced Sindona to Gelli, it was discovered that Gaurino had been corresponding with Gelli. The New York Times(6/4/81 p. 7) reported that Guarino wrote Gelli that 'things were going badly for Michele', the banker imprisoned in New York. Guarino had hosted Gelli at Reagan's 1981 inauguration, and introduced him to 'members of the entourage'." -------- Bellant, R.: Ibid. ***Guarino was also involved in John Connally's Committee for the Defense of the Mediterranean which propagandized on the Italian Communist Party (PCI) threat to the West. Connally, Richard Nixon's Secretary of the Treasury and member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, under Nixon and Gerald Ford, was a friend of Sindona's. ---- Gurwin, Larry:1983, 'The Calvi Affair', MacMillan Books, London. Roberto Calvi cited as 'another friend' of Connally's and 'guest at his Texas ranch.' ------ My comment: The role of Connally is both revelatory and problematic. Was he, at the time of the assassination, involved with the architects? Did he help plan the motorcade route, authorize its change etc.? The rapid retort is 'How could he, he was one of the victims?' Nonetheless, that shooting could have been the perfect ploy to render him conveniently beyond suspicion. In other words, shoot him to make it appear he was a victim. When one begins to read of the Machiavellian Mindset at work in fascists such as Gelli - as in the attempted P-2 overthrow of the Italian government in the early 70's, by setting off bombs and blaming the communists, one realizes *anything* is possible. These maniacs will stop at nothing to put into place their fanatic beliefs. Nonetheless, there is no material record or evidence I have that points to Connally's involvement with Sindona and Gelli much before the early 1970's. Hence, it is possible that Connally only entered that 'orbit' after he left the Democrats and joined the Republican Party (which already had strong ties with Nazis and Nazi sympathizers - i.e. see what follows). **** Bellant,R.: Op.cit., p. 30: "It has been called 'The Cold War Campus' and 'The Heart of the Military Industrial Complex'(Washington Post, 1/8/79, p C1). Both are names the American Security Council wears with pride. Its boards are filled with retired senior military officers, executives of major corporations, including some of the largest military contractors, and some New Right leaders. Wes McCune of the Washington DC -based Group Research, which monitors the political right wing, says the ASC 'is not just the representative of the military-industrial complex, it is the personification of the military-industrial complex'." "Little noticed by the press, the ASC is extremely influential among right wing groups and within the Reagan Administration...the ASC is in some respects more extremist than the Republican Heritage Groups Council. It also serves as a connecting point between Nazi ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ collaborationists and fascists on one hand, and Reagan Administration ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ policymakers on the other." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "The ASC began in Chicago in 1955, staffed primarily by former FBI agents. In its first year it was called the Mid-American Research Library. Corporations joined to take advantage of what former FBI agent William Turner described as ...'a dossier system modeled after the FBI's, which was intended to weed out employees and prospective employees deemed disloyal to the free enterprise system." ----- Bellant,R.: op. cit., p.33: "Although the ASC began as an anti-labor operation with support from Sears, and other businesses, it soon became involved in foreign policy issues. It co-sponsored a series of annual meetings from 1955 to 1961 called National Military-Industrial Conferences in which elements of the Pentagon, National Security Council, and organizations linked to the CIA discussed cold war strategy with leaders of many large corporations, such as United Fruit, Standard Oil, Honeywell, U.S. Steel, and of course, Sears Roebuck. Robert Wood was the key organizer of these events." ______________________END OF ADDENDUM (END OF REAL FAQ) Letter from Lancaster (recent): I have lurked in the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup and it is abundantly obvious the psy ops tacticians are diverting the discussions to their own ends. As I implored you earlier, it is a waste of time and resources to debate minutiae. Thankfully, you've taken my advice, though many of your compatriots have not. They continue to endlessly dredge up detail after mindless detail, believing they are engaged in a constructive pursuit. They are not. They believe they are dealing with 'hard science'- they are not. They are merely being conveniently exploited, by having been allotted a few crumbs of no significance to sift through. Some sort of larger scale defining goals need to be set forth. I suggest the following to start: 1- Who, which political elements, have prospered most since the demise of JFK? 2- What are the most significant events occurring right now in the worlds of finance and politics? 3- What connections do these have to agendas that JFK had, or which he vigorously opposed in his tenure? Who are the people involved in these currently? 4- Identify all the major participants in the two or three last great conspiracies. What are they doing now? What are their agendas? (You should start with Iran-Contra, and go to BCCI.) 5- Why has the follow up investigation of the BCCI scandal been imbued by coverup and censorship while something like 'Whitewater' continues to make news? The answers to each of the above, will assist in defining a more global set of objectives. These will justify the occupancy of bandwidth vastly more than the current preoccupation with minutiae. These issues, of course, do not have 'direct' relevance to the JFK assassination. But, their introduction in the group's discussions will have a salutary effect in getting to the reasons of why JFK was killed. Surely, this is germane to the ongoing thrust of arguments, no? A side benefit is that all those who oppose such discussion can be exposed as possible assets deployed by those who seek to keep you all in the dark. Grinding yourselves into dust by endlessly re-gurgitating the same set of facts ad infinitum, while making absolutely no progress where it counts.