In the spirit of evidence based history, we should all thank Dulles, who left copious handwritten notes titled “Confessions” made public by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke (1). The Dulles strategy was plain to dictate foreign policy independent of the White House. A U.S. president could distinguish himself only by letting the American public think he was in support of Dulles. Before Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower did yield to Dulles, although he bitterly protested with his farewell speech, “The dangers to American democracy by the military industrial complex.(2) A few year later, and soon after Kennedy’s death, Harry Truman would voice similar concerns about secret allegiances threatening our democracy (3).

One gift of immense importance is rumored to be Dulles’ ability to dictate strategic decisions unacceptable to the executive powers he was attempting to influence through indirect means; thereby, his target, boss, foe, enemy or friend would end up doing precisely what Dulles had wished him to do through complicit, often well-coordinated, chess-like moves forcing his adversary to eventually practice the Dulles foreign policy. Or Dulles’ adversary would be neutralized or destroyed.

A good example of Dulles’ destructive power was evident in the Bay of Pigs disaster.

James W. Douglass, the author of “JFK and the Unspeakable,” writes: “Four decades after the Bay of Pigs, we have learned that the CIA scenario to trap Kennedy was more concrete than Dulles admitted in his handwritten notes. A conference on the Bay of Pigs was held March 23-25, 2001, which included ex-CIA operatives, retired military commanders, scholars and journalists. News analyst Daniel Schorr reported on National Public Radio that, “from the many hours of talk and heaps of declassified secret documents” he had gained one new perception of the Bay of Pigs:

“It was that the CIA overlords of the invasion, Director Allen Dulles and Deputy Richard Bissell, had their own plan on how to bring the United States into the conflict. It appears that they never really expected an uprising against Castro when the liberators landed as described in their memos to the White House. What they did expect was that the invaders would establish and secure a beachhead, announce the creation of a counter-revolutionary government and appeal for aid from the United States and the Organization of American States. The assumption was that President Kennedy, who had emphatically banned direct American involvement, would be forced by public opinion to come to the aid of the returning patriots. American forces, probably Marines, would come in to expand the beachhead. In fact, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed.”

Even if President Kennedy had said “no” at the eleventh hour, the whole Bay of Pigs idea, the CIA, as it turned out, had a plan to supersede his decision.

Another well-documented aspect of the Bay of Pigs was, of course, General Maxwell Taylor’s conclusion of the military operation. General Taylor, who chaired the Cuban Study Group to investigate the invasion, concluded: McGeorge Bundy’s order to reverse President Kennedy’s air strike was the single most important cause of the operation’s failure. We know, by now, that Bundy then offered his resignation and the President declined, instead firing Allen Dulles as the director of the CIA.

Dulles’ influence in international politics did not end after the Bay of Pigs. In retrospect, it is understandable that Dulles’ membership on the Warren Commission was not by chance. It is equally unlikely that two Dulles pupils (the Bundy brothers) took the top jobs as National Security Advisor to the President and Undersecretary of Defense at the Kennedy White House. Both had established public service for the CIA. The incestuous connection among secret powers at times seems transparent. A good example is the McCarthy-Dulles communication regarding the Senator’s demands for Dulles to fire William Bundy. The Senator claimed Bundy was a communist sympathizer. Dulles did not yield and Bundy kept his job.

The bloody events of the summer and fall of 1963 dating back to the infamous August 24 cable, to the Diem assassination and the coup d’état in South Vietnam witnessed the complicit sabotage of Kennedy’s Southeast Asia policy by McGeorge Bundy and his two top aides, Michael Forrestal and Roger Hilsman. In the absence of Bundy, Forrestal and Hilsman had sent an unauthorized cable to instruct Ambassador Lodge to go ahead with a coup d’état in Vietnam. Other mishaps and conduct consistent with treason, such as a handwritten note by Hilsman suggesting open defiance of presidential orders, are all part of the bigger picture of a Bundy-led slow dismantling of the Kennedy White House. Some of these details have already been published in other articles and are beyond the scope of this article. However, in retrospect, all the secret and complicit battles lead to a major question. Did President Kennedy know of the Bundy brothers’ allegiance to Dulles? Did he know of their loyalty to Dulles as he was trying dismantle the CIA after the Bay of Pigs? The brothers, of course, were to become the architects of the Vietnam War with a stronger and more formidable CIA.

Regardless of the answers, a common sense approach for democracy seems logical. Anyone working for the President and the White House or the U.S. government must disclose all his secret or not-to-secret affiliations, allegiances and obligations. Full disclosure of all past and present ties, including memberships of secret societies. History says the Bundy brothers and Dulles were all members of Yale’s Skull and Bones.

A new paradigm for individual and institutional integrity must include total and unconditional disclosure of all allegiances and affiliations. No excuses, no exceptions.

Practical measures – washing hands, boiling water – may prevent catastrophic infections and save lives. Similar methods may enable us to enjoy democratic leadership in the White House without ordinary minds practicing simple crimes to silence democracy. The Bundy brothers help us understand how easy it is to harm and mislead billions for decades with infinite malignancy and yet appear so civil and sterile at the same time. For this, we must also thank them for their contributions to progress on Earth.

References

1. Douglass, J., JFK and the Unspeakable. Orbis, 2008.

2. Eisenhower, D., Farewell Address. January 17, 1961.

3. Filler, L., Editor, The President Speaks: From William McKinley to Lyndon B. Johnson. New York, Capricorn Press, 1965. Pp. 363-368.

4. Truman, H., A Threat to Democracy. Washington Post, December 22, 1963.

Audio of Dr. Salerian interviewed on Voice of America

Dr. Salerian’s presentation included a review and analysis of documents from President Kennedy’s medical records from Parkland Hospital in Dallas, ballistic evidence, witness reports, photographic and film images from the scene of the assassination and Newton’s Second Law of Motion.

The evidence Dr. Salerian presented included the following:

1. President Kennedy suffered three wounds, none of which was inflicted by Oswald.
2. President Kennedy’s throat wound was caused by a flechette-transported poison, probably with a main chemical or chemicals that are d-tubocurarine, or a d-tubocurarine-like substance with rapid paralyzing action.  In 1975, CIA Director William Colby’s testimony at a U.S. Senate hearing before the Senate’s Special Intelligence Committee described such a neurotoxin.
3. Because of the paralysis caused by the poison, President Kennedy was immobilized and speechless for several seconds before a frontal entry bullet shattered his skull.
4. A second bullet struck President Kennedy with posterior entry 6.5 inches below his neckline and was lodged in his chest.

Contact:  Alan Hermesch, 202-210-6262, 301-365-4762, ahermesch@aol.com

Created in less than a year “These 80 works took over my life because as I read more about that period in our history, my hand was driven to explain the inexplicable loss all people felt when that great statesman and his hopes were extinguished.” Public exhibitions are being planned, but for a glimpse of the collection browse our gallery below:

[View with PicLens]

1234...151617►

Consistent with the Warren Report, at present, the U.S. government’s official belief is that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin who killed President John F. Kennedy on Elm Street at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. Although many hypotheses have questioned the scientific validity of the Warren Report and hence Oswald’s guilt, there has never been any peer-reviewed evidence of Oswald’s innocence. This paper offers evidence to demonstrate that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill President Kennedy and from the moment he was arrested to his death, he was framed up as the fall guy.

We studied the evidence of Oswald’s potential participation in the assassination from three separate angles. (A) Review of Oswald’s previous work consistent with his services for the U.S. government. (B) Review of the evidence by the Dallas city police and FBI declaring Oswald as a suspect in the assassination. (C) Review of forensic evidence to prove Oswald’s innocence.

Review of Evidence of Oswald’s Work for the U.S. Government

Several documents clearly demonstrate that Lee Harvey Oswald had worked for the U.S. government.

1. The evidence shows that Lee Harvey Oswald contracted gonorrhea in the line of duty in 1958.

2. Oswald also worked for the CIA and carried an identification card DD Form 1173, which was the same type of ID carried by U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers who was a civilian employee and a CIA contract agent (Dalla Municipal Archives and Records Center).

3. Shortly before his arrest in the assassination of President Kennedy, Oswald had contact with the FBI as an informer.

The Evidence That Oswald was Framed

1. Oswald was framed at the killer precisely 70 minutes after the assassination when there was no reason to make him a suspect for the assassination.

2. The Dallas police misled the public by declaring that Oswald was the primary suspect, for he was supposedly the only missing employee at the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, where the evidence shows that there were at least four people missing.

The Evidence That Oswald Did Not Kill Officer Tippit

1. The ballistic evidence did not match Oswald’s gun. The ballistic expert from the FBI concluded that it was not possible to determine whether or not the bullets had been fired from Oswald’s weapon. No external physical evidence such as fingerprints or shirt fibers linking Oswald to the crime scene was established.

2. The ballistic evidence proved that Oswald was not the killer of Officer Tippit. Of the four bullets extracted from Tippit’s body, there were three Western Winchesters and one Remington Peters. Oswald’s revolver (a .38) contained six rounds of live ammunition at the time of his arrest. The four empty shells found at that time at the murder site were two Remingtons and two Winchesters and Oswald’s revolver did not eject empty cases. Rather, Oswald’s revolver had an automatic ejection system, whereby all six shells should have been ejected at once.

Ballistic Evidence Proving Oswald’s Innocence

1. The trajectory of the bullets suggests that the bullet that struck JFK was shot from the front, consistent with a frontal entry and exit from the back according to the autopsy findings. Fragments of JFK’s skull and blood splattered the motorcycle policeman who was behind the presidential limousine on the left side, again consistent with a shot with a frontal entry.

2. Paraffin tests conducted on Lee Harvey Oswald were negative on his face, which meant Oswald had not fired a rifle that day. The FBI submitted the paraffin tests to the Atomic Energy Commission’s facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where Dr. Frank Dyer and Dr. Juel Emery tested them using neutron activation analysis. They concluded that the cheek testing could not be specifically associated with a rifle, therefore exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald.

Salerian AJ. Medical Hypotheses 2008 Oct;71(4):597-9. Epub 2008 Aug 20. The postmortem examination of President Kennedy is invalid: the evidence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18718721

By Alen J. Salerian, MD

One of the saddest aspects of President Kennedy’s assassination has been the unethical and unprofessional conduct of many government physicians, including Dr. George Burkley, the chief White House physician, and Dr. James Humes, the senior pathologist at Bethesda Naval Hospital, at the time of the autopsy. To say that their performance is a blemish for Navy medicine and governmental integrity is a gross understatement.

Dr. George Burkley and Dr. Humes, in writing, admitted that they jointly destroyed part of the autopsy records. Further, some of the most routine aspects of the autopsy were done so poorly to suggest perjured incompetence. The best example is the weight of the president’s brain – which had lost half of its content, weighed 1500 grams, an impossibility with 1500 grams as the average brain weight. Brain autopsy did not include cross-sectioning, a major deficit. There was no careful documentation of how the entry wound on JFK’s throat was probed. Mysteriously or not so mysteriously, a bullet recovered from JFK’s body disappeared either during or immediately after the autopsy. If none of the above inconsistencies seemed accidental, the disappearance of JFK’s occipital bone, the Harper fragment, left no doubt that some people, for whatever reason, did not want forensic evidence to help resolve JFK’s homicidal death. The Harper fragment found by a medical student at Dealey Plaza the day after the assassination was photographed by Dr. Cairn, the chief pathologist at Methodist Hospital, who concluded that this piece represented a part of the occipital bone of JFK’s skull. Dr. Burkley took over the Harper fragment and later it disappeared. Dr. Cairn, of course, did not know that the Parkland doctors had observed a sizeable hole in the back of the president’s skull consistent with an occipital location. The findings of the Parkland Hospital doctors and the opinion of the chief pathologist of Methodist Hospital greatly increase the likelihood that, indeed, the Harper fragment was from JFK’s occipital bone and very likely supportive of a conspiracy, for Oswald, from his position, could not have caused the damage consistent with a frontal entry wound

Doctors are not supposed to lie. No doctor should remain a doctor and violate the Hippocratic Oath. JFK’s autopsy is a sad statement that, indeed, at least two doctors violated their sacred oath.