SURE DICK ! ! !










So, Jack Ruby was interested in Italian rifles in the 1950's ! ! !







Quite a number of Witness testimonies can be found HERE> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/testimony.htm


Here's what I found Today on the internet.



Agency:        HSCA                     
Record Number: 180-10109-10310
Agency File Number: 014182
Originator:         HSCA
From:               Gilbert, Howard M.
Title:              Phone Interview; Gochenaur
Date:               06/01/77
Pages:              28
     Gatton [sic - Gayton], Carver
     Hosty, James
     Moore, Elmer
     Oswald, Lee Harvey
     FBI; Association with Oswald, Lee Harvey
     Conspiracy Theory

Box:           252

Select Committee of Assassination
U.S. House of Representatives
3342 House Office Building, Annex 2
Washington, D.C.  20515

June 1, 19               77

MEMORANDUM TO: Robert K. Tanenbaum

FROM:               Howard M. Gilbert

SUBJECT:       Telephone interview of Gochenaur

DATE:               June 1, 1977

     According to critic R. E. Sprague, he had been informed by James
Gochenaur that Gochenaur had had conversations with former FBI agent Carver
Gayton.  According to Sprague, Gayton told Gochenaur that James Hosty had
stated that Lee Harvey Oswald was a paid informant who had been giving
information regarding the potential assassination of Kennedy.  During the
telephone conversation with Gochenaur, he con-firmed the fact that he had had
conversations with Carver Gayton at the University of Washington, and that
Gayton had told Gochenaur that he, Gayton, and Hosty had worked together at the
Kansas City office after Hosty had been transferred from Dallas.  Gochenaur
related that Hosty had said that Oswald had been paid by the FBI to inform, but
that Oswald had not come up with any information.  According to Gochenaur,
there had been no discussion of an assassination, but that Hosty had gone to find
Oswald when he didn't make his re-port.  Gochenaur also allegedly had
conversations with Secret Service agent Elmer Moore regarding the Secret
Service's feelings about Kennedy, and that Moore allegedly said that he had
induced one of the treating physicians in Dallas to change his statement.  A tape
recording of the Gochenaur telephone conversation was made with the consent of
Gochenaur and a transcript is now being prepared.  The address where
Gochenaur may be reached is contained in the transcript.  Gochenaur gave an
affidavit to Senator Church with Gochenaur promised to send me, but hasn't.


Telephone interview of:  James Gochenaur
Interviewed by:          Howard M. Gilbert
Date:               May 10, 1977
Time:               3:20 p.m. EST

G:  (Above information) . . . I am on the telephone with Mr. James Gochenaur, G-
o-c-h-e-n-a-u-r, is that correct, Mr. Gochenaur?
JG:  That's right.
G:  All right, and I have indicated to Mr. Gochenaur that I would like to tape this
telephone conversation, in lieu of taking written notes, with his permission.  Is that
JG:  That's right.
G:  And do you give your permission that this telephone conversation may be
recorded.  Is that correct?
JG:  Right, could you do me a favor?
G:  Sure. 
JG:  Could you send me a transcript of it?
G:  Certainly.
JG:  Ah, thank you.
G:  Your address, let me make sure I have your address correct.  Is it 3515 E.
Tesch St.?
JG:  Ha, no, I'm moving, but the problem is, I've forgotten the number, I want you
to mail it to my parents . . . .
G:  Oh, you'd like it mailed to your parents address, and what is that?
JG:  2930 . . .
G:  2930
[end of page one of transcript]


JG:  South Harmon.
G.   South Harmon.
JG:  Milwaukee, and that's 53207.
G:  Mil-waukee, [sic] what is the number?
JG:  53207.
G:  53207, Milwaukee, WI.  OK?  And why don't you give me their phone number,
too, just to . . . .
JG:  481-
G:  481-
JG:  2052
G:  2052
JG:  Area code is 414.        (414-481-2052) 
G:  Now Jim, let me just make sure that this is recording, so lets, stop for a
second and let me just check that.
JG:  OK.
G:  Now, what I'd like you to do is go back and go through this chronologically, as
to the first contact that you ever had with a man by the name of Carver Gayton. 
And would you spell his last name for me please?
JG:  G-a-     G-a-t-
G:  -t-e-n?
JG:  -t-o-n, yeah, something like that.  Carver.
G:  It's either -ton or -ten.
JG:  Right, -ton, I believe.
G:  -ton, and his first name is Carver, C-a-r-v-e-r?
JG:  Right.
G:  And where was Mr. Gayton when you first met him?

[end of page two of transcript]


JG:  Ah, the situation was that my wife and I were looking for another apartment in
G:  Seattle, Washington?
JG:  Right.  We were on 135 Harvard Ave. at that time, and my wife responded to
an an [sic] ad in the paper, and ah, called the guy, and gave him the particulars on
what we were looking for, what we were willing to pay, and everything, and he
said that he made a point of meeting the people before he, ah, you know, would
G:  OK.
JG:  Ah, he did come over and this was in December or 19- ah, I believe 1971.
G:  December 1971 - were you a student at that time?  Or working in
JG:  1970, make it 1970, I blew it.  Ah, yeah, I was a student at that time, at the
University of Washington in Seattle.
G:  December of 1970.  All right.
JG:  Right.
G:  And Gayton come [sic] over - or you went over to Gayton's?
JG:  No, he came over to our place, he said he was in the area -- he didn't live too
far from where we were.
G:  OK.
JG:  And he came over, and talked for a while, and he mentioned that he'd
happened to have been an ex-FBI agent.
G:  Did he initiate that usbject? [sic]
JG:  Yes.
G:  Now prior to your conversation with Gayton, had you had any connection at all
with the Kennedy assassination investigation?
JG:  Not directly.  What had happened prior to that is that I had been talking with
two people, one was a fellow who was involved with the Seattle Secret Service,
and I had met him in a sort of oblique way, and ah, what had happened was that I
was trying to get some photographs that had been taken in Dealy [sic] Plaza at
that time and I was going to make some photo silk-screen decals of them for an
art project.
G:  OK.
JG:  And when I tried to locate how I could get ahold of the

[end of the page three of the transcript]


photographs, the UPI said that I'd have to call the Secret Service.  And when I
called the Secret Service, I got, ah, this guy, ah, on the line, this Elmer Moore, and
started talking with me, and ah . . . .
G:  OK.  Well, let's take Mr. Moore at the -- after we finish with Mr. Gayton.
JG:  Yeah, right, well, I'm saying what he . . . .
G:  Right, I just wanted to know what information you had, so we know that you
had something.
JG:  Ah, very, very skinty.
G:  OK.  Now Gayton mentioned in, ah, now did you bring that, elicit that, that he
had been a former FBI agent, or did he volunteer it?
JG:  No, he - ah, I , he a - he asked me what I was doing and what my goals and
plans were, and after I told him, I said, by the way, what do you do?  He said, well,
I used to be an FBI agent, since he's a black guy, you know, I said -- Oh, yeah? 
'Cause I didn't really believe there were black FBI agents.  OK?
G:  All right.
JG:  And, ah, he says, of sure I was, and we started talking and we talked about,
you know, all the whole situation at that time, Spiro Agnew was into his thing, you
know, and we were going on about various different subjects, and it finally came
around to the fact that he was very disturbed by the King assassination thing.
G:  All right.
JG:  Very, very disturbed.  He said, by the way, by a curious coincidence, he said,
I happened to have been in, ah, assigned to the Kansas City field office . . . .
G:  Now, is that Kansas City, MO.?  [sic]
JG:  Right.
G:  OK.
JG:  He was assigned to that office right after he got out of the FBI academy,
G:  Now do you recall what year that would have been?  Did he indicate to you
what year he was assigned to that field office?
JG:  He did say it a year, but I can't remember it.
G:  All right.

[end of page four of transcript]


G:  Go ahead.
JG:  Anyway, he didn't, he did say that he was talking with a guy by the name of
Hosty, that had been . . .
G:  H-o-s-t-y?
JG:  Right.  Jim Hosty, who had been intimately involved with the Oswalds.
G:  All right.
JG:  And he said . . . .
G:  He vol-, ex-, let me interrupt just for a second.  Ah, Gayton was volunteering
this information to you?
JG:  Right, well, I was asking him some questions as it was rolling along.  We, it
was a very long conversation, you know?
G:  OK.
JG:  And I offered him some, ah, refreshment there, you know, and everything, we
were sitting there talking about it.
G: Do you recall the address where you were when he had this conversation with
JG: Yeah, 135 E. Harvard Ave. [sic] in Seattle.
G: OK, and was your wife present also?
JG:  Yes.
G:  Was there anyone else present?
JG:  (no audible reply)
G:  I understand now, let me just see if my notes are correct, I was told by Dick
Sprague that perhaps other [sic] researcher had also been present at the time of
your conversation with Gayton.
JG:  No, no, no.
G:  OK.
JG:  No, ah, just my wife and myself and ah, her sister was there for a little bit.
G:  What was her sisters [sic] name?
JG:  Tina Tingle.
G:  And do you know, how old was she at that time?

              [end of page five of transcript]


JG:  Seventeen, no, she would have been, take that back, she would have been
G:  All right, and do you have a present address for her?
JG:  No, I don't, I could get it . . . .
G:  Is she -- are you still married to the same woman?
JG:  No.
G:  All right.  What is Tina Tingle's name at this time, do you know?
JG:  I'm assuming, ok, that it's the same.
G:  All right, but you could locate her for us?
JG:  Sure.
G: All right, would you go back in the conversation to the point that Gayton started
talking about the Oswald's [sic] and Hosty.
JG:  Right, OK.  He brought up the -- he says, by the way, he says, I said to him, I
said, you know there's some speculation, uh, words to this effect, and, I mean,
there's some speculation that Oswald was connected with the government, at
some point.  He says -- oh, he was.  I said, oh, you know that for a fact?  He say,
[sic] oh, yeah.  Hosty told me that he was, ah, what he was a security, ah,
potential security informant.
G:  Now, did he say that Hosty used the term potential security informant?
JG:  I -- yeah, that was his [sic] first thing that he said.
G:  OK.
JG:  And he said that, ah, the problem with Oswald was that he wasn't doing any
G:  You mean he wasn't turning in sufficient information?
JG:  He wasn't doing anything, apparently.
G:  All right.
JG:  He said that Hosty was irritated, he was getting pressure to find out why
Oswald wasn't giving information.
G:  OK.

              [end of page six of transcript]


JG:  And, ah, that he was running around trying to pressure Oswald into talking
with him about it at some length, 
but . . . .
G:  Did he, that'd be Gayton, indicate what type of information that Oswald was
supposed to be giving to the FBI?
JG:  No.
G:  Did he indicate at that time whether or not Oswald was to be paid for the
information?  Or was he receiving money at that time from the FBI?
JG:  I'm trying to get it straight.  I think that -- that he told me that Oswald was
being paid.  He was being given a certain amount of money, but that Oswald
wasn't, 1) [sic] I can't remember distinctly, Oswald wasn't showing up at his drops,
he wasn't leaving the kind of information at these drops that he was supposed to,
and that he just simply wasn't communicating with the Bureau.
G:  All right.  Was there anything in this conversation relating to whether or not
Oswald was reporting information about potential assassination of the President.
JG:  No.
G:  OK.  What else was said about Oswald and Hosty?
JG:  Well, apparently ah, the reason that Hosty had talked with Gayton was the
fact that Gayton had bailed him out of a ticklish situation in Kansas City, 
(cough) . . .
G:  They were both agent -- FBI agents there together, weren't they?
JG:  Right.
G:  OK.
JG:  Apparently Hosty had blown some sort of a cover for some sort of
surveillance and ah, I guess Hosty was being in a punishment situation, in Kansas
City, to begin with, and I guess more black marks against him had been a
problem.  And apparently Gayton had covered up some indiscretion at the
stakeout of some sort.  I really don't remember the details on [sic] it.  Excuse me. 
(Apparently someone called to him)  Yes.  (Voices)
G:  Do you know the year that this conversation between Hosty and Gayton was
supposed to have taken place?
JG:  No, no, I don't
G:  OK.

[end of page seven of transcript]



JG:  But, ah (cough) Gayton was ecstatic about the fact ah, something was wrong
with Oswald, and that ah, he was an informer at some level, some sort.  But, he
wasn't talking, he wasn't giving information, he wasn't cooperating, and ah,
apparently ah, Hosty's mission, or one of the things that he had to do, was to try to
pressure Oswald into giving the information of talking information, but he wouldn't
do it.
G:  Well, did Gayton indicate to you ah, the nature of the information or what
Hosty was trying to do to encourage Oswald to reveal the information?
JG:  Not a bit, no.  In fact, ah, I think, if I remember right, I asked the question,
well, do you know what he might have been informing about, and he said, well,
Hosty didn't tell me, and, ah, I left it at that.  OK?
G:  OK.
JG:  He intrigued me about that of course, I felt that it was kind of interesting that
he would be talking to me about it.  Ah, it seemed to me that as the conversation
was going along, he was getting more and more vented up that Hosty had been
wronged, somehow, by the Bureau, in the whole episode.
G:  Well, did Ho-, did he reveal to you anything that Hosty had told him about the
JG:  No, no, he didn't.  Not at that time.
G:  Did he -- you had later conversations with him, did you?
JG:  Yeah.
G:  Did he reveal during that first conversation for what reason Hosty had been
moved to the Kansas City Office?
JG:  Yes, he did say that ah, Hosty had opened his mouth somewhere along the
line and Hoover or, I guess they have some sort of an inspection bureau or
something, within the FBI, said, you known, that he did a transgression there in
handling the whole situation around the assassination situation, so they sent him
to Kansas City as part of a punitive situation.
G:  During that first conversation, though, they didn't become more definite as to
what Hosty had done wrong.
JG:  No, no.
G:  OK.  Was there anything else that went on during that first conversation?

              [end of page eight of transcript]


JG: Nothing other than the fact that he closed up the conversation by saying that
he was perfectly willing to rent the apartment, or actually it was a flat, to me, on
23rd St. and that he'd like to talk about it further.  He had an interesting
conversation [sic]
G:  All right.  When's the next -- but you didn't become a tenant at that particular
JG:  No, it was about three weeks later that we moved in.
G:  Was that -- would that have been after the first of the year?
JG:  Right.
G:  OK.
JG:  But, see, I've got a -- I've got in my possession a -- a lease between Gayton
and myself.
G:  All right.
JG:  And, ah, I don't remember the exact dates but I remember it was right around
the first of the year, because I -- why I had to hold off was I got a student loan and
it hadn't come in yet.
G:  All right.  Can you furnish us with a copy of that lease?
JG:  Sure.
G:  OK.  Now, when was the next contact that you had with Gayton?
JG:  Next contact was probably about 3 or 4 weeks later, when he whetted my
appetite enough to start [sic] him some point blank questions, you know, about
the fact that while, OK, here you're saying that, OK, that Oswald indeed was some
sort of an informer and being paid for it.
G:  Now, where did this conversation take place?
JG:  At the University, I talked with Gayton on a phone on a number of occasions, I
didn't document a lot of them, OK?
G:  Was he an administrator or, a teacher?
JG:  Yeah, he was an administrator at the University of Washington.

[end of page nine of transcript]


G:  This is located in Seattle?
JG:  Right, he was in the old main section.
G:  Right, you're [sic] second conversation that you had with Gayton about this,
was there anyone else present?
JG:  No.
G:  Had you become a tenant by this time?
JG:  Yes.
G:  At the time that you actually formally became a tenant, did you have any
further conversation with Gayton, about the Kennedy [sic], or Hosty, or the
assassination, or Oswald?
JG:  No.
G:  So, the next time, then, was about when you saw him at the University?
JG:  Right.
G:  Would this have been sometime after the first of the year 1971?
JG:  I think it was toward the latter part of January.
G:  All right, and what did this conversation entail?
JG:  Well, basically I went up there to tell him, you know, that I was in, and that I
really liked the place and everything, and we started talking again, and I guess at
that point, he showed me a picture of (cough) Bobby Kennedy, OK?
G:  Mm-hmm.
JG:  With Kennedy's signature on it.  OK?
G:  Right.
JG:  And he gave me a description of how people were being prepared to go into
shake hands with Hoover, and he was among the first group of black agents, ok? 
I think he graduated in '64 or something like that, out of the academy.
G:  All right.
JG:  And he would give me a description of that and then I think I broke in with ah,
hey -- you know, you were telling me that, you know, that Oswald was in fact
some level of informer for the FBI and I think at that point I did ask him what he
was supposed to have been informing about, and (cough) Gayton said -- I don't

[end of page ten of transcript]



G:  This was in your conversation at the University.
JG:  Right.  He said -- I, I, don't really know, all I really know is that ah, he said all I
really know is that Jim Hosty had been trying to pressure or find the guy, and pin
him down to why he wasn't, you know, cooperating.
G:  All right, what else went on in that conversation.  Did you get any more details
at all?
JG:  Well, he did say one thing that I thought was fairly interesting.  Apparently
Oswald had some sort of an apartment in (cough) in ah, some suburb of Dallas.
G:  In Irving.
JG:  Yeah.  Ok, and apparently Hosty just went over there one evening, and tried
to locate him.  OK?  And he banged on the door a couple of times and nobody
answered, or anything like that, so what he did was that he took a note out, --
now, Hosty told Gayton this, and Gayton was relating this back to me.  OK?
G:  Ok.
JG:  And he said that he wrote a telephone number and Hosty's name on this
paper and put the paper under the door.
G:  Who did this, Hosty?
JG:  Hosty, right.
G:  And he slipped that under, ah, Oswald's wife's door?
JG:  No, ah, ah, the apartment I believe.
G:  The one in Irving?
JG:  Yeah.
G:  OK.
JG:  And, ah, I guess Oswals [sic] never responded to it.
G:  All right.
JG:  And I guess at that point, ah, Hosty got pretty angry and was going to . . . .
G:  Is this what Gayton told you that Hosty had related to him?
JG:  Yeah.
G:  All right.

[end of page eleven of transcript]


JG:  And then, as the conversation went along, ah, he started to get away from
any real substantive kind of detail on anything, he just kept on saying that, well,
you know, the whole episode was just a big embarrassment for everyone.
G:  OK.
JG:  And, he said that, ah, ah, that it . . . .
G:  Di [sic] he . . . .  go ahead.
JG:  OK.  he [sic] kept on, in fact that word was used quite a bit, - [sic] the whole
episode was quite embarrassing.
G:  Now, did he at any time, ah, tell you that Hosty had discussed with him, a
particular note or threat, that Oswald was supposed to have left with the FBI for
JG:  No.
G:  OK.  Now, did you have anything else -- did you discuss anything else about
the assassination or about Oswald, at [sic] that particular conversation?
JG:  No, in fact, ah, he had to go, there was a person came [sic] into the room that
said that, ah, he had to go to a meeting of some sort.  And I remember it was, all
in all, about 20 minutes or so, that I talked with him.
G:  When is [sic] the next time that you discussed with him anything about Hosty,
of Oswald, or the assassination?
JG:  Well, I think it was probably about 2 or 3 weeks later.  I really didn't, as a
matter of fact, I didn't really get into a situation, like, like, Sprague likes to think of
me as a researcher, OK?  Not really.  I was interested, but I also had a hell of a lot
of other concerns, I was sort of just simply, you know, ah, catch as catch can, if I
saw Gayton, I decided to talk with him.  You know.
G:  All right.
JG:  And . . . .
G:  Well, did you get into any further conversations with Gayton regarding Hosty,
and what Hosty had said?
JG:  No, ah, not . . . . , [sic] now, let me see . . . . I talked with Gayton a lot, ok?
G: Mmm-hm.

[end of page twelve of transcript]


JG:  And about a lot of other things, other than just the assassination situation,
and I think that when it was brought up about Hosty, ah, Gayton sort of tailed away
from it, somewhat, so to speak, OK? after [sic] that, but he did emphasize the
point that Hosty was mistreated by the whole episode, he did emphasize the point
that Hosty was very, very, very, ah, sure and clear of the fact was some sort of
security informant.
G:  Did he ever say to you that Hosty had started or represented that Oswald had
been giving information about a proposed assassination?
JG:  No, no, I never heard any words like that, at all.  Ah, one day, toward the end
of the time that we were at Gayton's place,  which was about a year, ah, I went
over to his office and I wrote him a letter, ah, and in it I expressly said that I think
that the information that you have about this other thing, should be given to some
G:  What did you have reference to?
JG:  As to other things?
G:  Yes.  Were you referring to the fact that Oswald was supposed to be an
informant for the FBI?
JG:  Yes, I listed, ah, somewhere along the line I've got a copy of that letter, ok?
G:  Mmm-hm.
JG:  Uh, in it I listed a number of points that he had raised with me over the year
that I knew him, and . . . .
G:  Would you send us a copy of that letter that you sent to Gayton?  Together
with the lease?
JG:  That one might be rough to find, but I think I can duplicate enough of it, that
you know, he might still have it, ok?
G:  You mean, now, this letter that you sent to Gayton?
JG:  I hand delivered it to him.
G:  Hand delivered a letter to Gayton.
JG:  Right, in his office, and I, and I, intimated to him that my wife's relatives,
(clears throat) I have my wife's relative is a friend of Senator Proxmire, and that by
some means, you know that, what he should really do is, is tell what he knows,
you know, to an official person, you know, of some sort, and in it I, I went over the
fact that he had told me things that had to do with ah, Hosty, OK?

[end of page thirteen of transcript]


G:  The things that you have referred to me?
JG:  Right.
G:  Have been discussing with me?
JG:  Right.  Ah, things that had to do with certain situations at Seattle, and what
he supposedly knew about the King assassination.
G:  OK.  Did you have any further conversations after that with Gayton? -regarding
[sic] anything dealing with Oswald?  Hosty? or [sic] the assassination?
JG:  The only thing that I'm fairly clear about is the point in which we were -- ah --
one time I was down in the 23rd St. area, and I was hitch-hiking, and he picked
me up, and we were talking along the way, and he seemed to have -- ah -- he
intimated that, ah, you know, that -- ah, the Bureau thought of Kennedy as kind of
a play-boy nincompoop, a kind of person who was, ah, in fact, ah, incompetent,
ok?  And that he probably deserved what he got.  And he said that was what
some of the people in the Bureau thought.
G:  Did he ever say that he thought that Hosty had made that statement?
JG:  No, he didn't, but I the impression that thats [sic] what -- where it was coming
from, because in the next breath, he says, you know, poor old Hosty, he caught a
G:  Did he explain that at all?
JG:  No, He just, he, he ended up the conversation with the idea, you know, he
says, it was all a big embarrassment.
G:  Was that the last time that you dealt with Gayton?
JG:  Yeah, that's right.
G:  When was the last time that you saw him?
JG:  (sigh)  Ooooh, [sic] I think it was just before we left, we left Seattle in March
of '72, and I think I caught a glimpse of him at the University and said "hi" to him,
and he went by.
G:  All right.  Now, when you gave your notes to Sen. Schweiker and the other
gentlemen who were in the room . . .
JG:  Yeah.
G:  . . . . did you discuss with him, ah, with them the things that you and I have
discussed now?

[end of page fourteen of transcript]


JG:  No, they concentrated on Moore.
G:  Oh, they were speaking more about the Secret Service agent Moore, rather
than Hosty?
JG:  Right.
G:  Did your notes that you delivered to them -- and you're going to send us a copy
of those notes?
JG:  Yes.
G:  All right.  Did they concern agent [sic] Hosty, the FBI agent?
JG:  Ah, very briefly, I think toward the middle of the conversation I had with
Schweiker, very briefly they mentioned (cough) the Counsel, and I can't remember
his name -- mentioned that, well, he's also talked to a man by the name of Gayton
and he had told him that, ah, you know, that Hosty had this, and that, ok?
G:  Now, the Counsel for the Schweiker Committee . . .
JG:  Right.
G:  . . . indicated to you that they, the Committee, had spoken with Gayton, about
JG:  No, no, they didn't say that, no -- let me go back and tell you about that day,
ok? that [sic] I was in Washington.
G:  All right.
JG:  This was on the fourth and fifth of January in '76.
G:  Go ahead.
JG:  Ok [sic].  On the day that I arrived there, ok, they had me most of the
afternoon in conference, under oath, and all that.  They -- the very next day, they
had Moore, ok, coming in, and what they were going to do is that if Moore had
denied that he had ever met me, they were going to spring me on him.
G:  I see.
JG:  And they had me waiting in a room adjacent to Moore, when they were
interviewing him.
G:  This was after you had already testified.
JG:  Right.  Ok, now, when I was sitting in there, two other men came in the room,
and I remember their names, ok?
G:  All right.

[end of page fifteen of transcript]


JG:  It [sic] was a short fellow, ah . . . .
G:  Where was this room, here in Washington, D.C.?
JG:  Right.  It was right across the street from the Rayburn Bldg., it was a Hotel
[sic], old one.
G:  Ok.  Do you remember the name of it?
JG:  Yeah, it would be on the -- ok, there's the Rayburn Bldg., and it faces, the
face that goes west, ok?
G:  All right? [sic]
JG:  It's [sic] right across the street, directly across the street, an old hotel.
G:  All right.  Let me ask you this.  Do you, what year was this -- what year or
month, if you recall?
JG:  That I was interviewed?
G:  Yes.
JG:  January, [sic] 1976.
G:  All right.  Go ahead then, with the occurrences.
JG:  Ok, I was sitting in the room, there, waiting for them to spring me on Moore,
so to speak, and a little guy came in, small fellow, with glasses, ok?
G:  Mm-hmmm.
JG:  With an eastern accent.  He introduced himself as a man that was
concerning himself with the King assassination.  And that he had heard in
conversations that I had talked with a guy by the name of Carver Gayton.  And I
said -- yes -- and I, he said, well, could you furnish us a little more information
about this guy, and I very briefly said that I knew him, I very briefly went into the
fact, you know, that I have a document that shows that I know him because I had
a, you know, a lease from the guy, signed by the guy, and that ah, you know, he'd
given me certain information and certain intimacies about, you know, how he felt
about the way the bureau [sic] handled things.  The FBI.
G:  All right.
JG:  And the guy said he'd be very interested in talking with me over the phone
about it, ok?  And I said -- sure, fine -- and then he left the room.  And the guy
never got to me.  Let's put it that way.

[end of page sixteen of transcript]


G:  Ok.
JG:  And, ah, I don't know, he said he would like to -- I remember him saying that
he would like, he said ah, have you talked with Gayton in the last two years?  You
know.  And I said -- no.
G:  All right.
JG:  In fact, I haven't had any conversation . . . .
G:  You don't know what the name of this individual was then?
JG:  No, all I can do is give you a physical description.
G:  Did he give you, show you credentials showing who he was with?
JG:  No.  He came in with that guy that, ah, he came in with a guy that was the
Counsel for Schweiker.
G:  All right.  OK.  What is a brief physical description of the man?
JG:  He is a short man, I would say that he is probably Jewish, I would say that he
was, ah, slightly balding . . . 
G:  What age?
JG:  I would say, early forties.  Late thirties.  Ah, very intelligent guy, had good
command, ah, good communications skills.
G:  Any facial hair, do you remember?
JG:  No.
G:  All right.
JG:  He had glasses, dark rim.
G:  Did you get the impression as to whether or not he was an attorney?
JG:  Yes, he was an attorney.
G:  All right.
JG:  He identified himself as an attorney, and a counsel, and handling a certain
aspect of the King thing.
G:  All right.  Was he with the Schweiker Committee?
JG:  (sigh)  I believe he was, yes.
G:  All right.

[end of page seventeen of transcript]


G:  Well, now, you've mentioned also the Secret Service agent Moore.  Did that
have any connection to the Kennedy assassination?
JG:  Yes.
G:  What information do you have with respect to that?
JG: Let me ask you this.  Ah, do you have access to Schweiker Committee files?
G:   Well, limited amounts.
JG:  Ok.  Well, I, I heh, you know, . . . . [sic]
G:  I can't answer that totally because that's not my area.  So . . . .
JG:  What I'm saying is that everything that I, that I would tell you is detailed, --
[sic] they, they, took copies of everything that I writ-, [sic] that I had, ah, given
them.  Ok?
G:  Mm-hmmm.
JG:  They put them in a large, thick folio.  OK?
G:  Mn-hmmm. [sic]
JG:  And they had three thick folios when I was there, they had one that had, ah, I
saw the name Elmer Moore and that was the thickest one, ok?
G:  Yes.
JG:  Then there was a very thin [sic] with me, then there was another name I
couldn't see that was about as thick as Moore's.
G:  All right.  Do you -- can you send copies to us of the information that you gave
them on Moore?
JG:  Yeah, I, I, I, [sic] my own impression is that Moore is ten times more
important than Gayton, because it's . . . .
G:  Can you give me a very brief indication of why, what areas that Moore had
anything to do with.
JG:  OK.  Moore was a Secret Service agent, assigned to the Dallas area on
November 22, '63.  He's the only agent that wasn't there.  He said he was in San
Francisco.  He was in charge of the interrogation of the Doctors, [sic] he was in
charge of the Secret Service interrogation of Ruby, and he was liaison between
the staff of the Warren Commission and the Secret Service.  I think he directly
reported to a man by the name of Kelly [sic], in the Secret Service.  And Moore
gave me, he said two things that I think are important to me and caused a little bit
of stir when I

[end of page eighteen of transcript]


mentioned them when I was at the thing with Schweiker.  When I was, I went to
Moore's office one time, to talk to him, ok?  and While [sic] I was there he got
pret-         (end of tape)
G:  Hello?
JG:  Yeah.
G:  Just let it go for a second here 'til we make sure we're recording.
JG:  OK.
G:  Let me just test it again to make sure.  OK?  Hold on a second.
G:  OK, we're recording properly now, go ahead.  You were telling me about
Moore now.
JG:  Yeah, well, Moore said something -- he said ah, he said ah, to me in effect,
he said -- well, he said ah, I still think the little son-of-a-bitch, referring to Oswald,
did some shooting that day.  And I said -- hey, wait a minute, you're telling me
that, you know, he did the shooting.  He said, well, he said, all I know is this.  He
said, we know he met with a subversive the day before the assassination.
G:  Did he say what subversive?
JG:  No, but when I mentioned that Schweiker, when I was talking with
Schweiker, Schweiker interrupted me and he said -- are you sure he didn't say
three days before?  And I said -- no.  Moore said that he thought that he saw, that
he met with this guy a day before the assassination.
G:  All right.
JG:  And, ah, as far as I know, I've heard any reference to Oswald meeting a
subversive anywhere.  And I . . . .
G:  What was your connection with Moore?
JG:  Ah, he's a guy that I had called, ok? when [sic] I wanted to get some pictures
for an art project, and the guy held me on the line for a long time, he kept saying --
well, hey, you know, he says, I was intimately in-, [sic] he took the assumption,
ok, that I was some sort of a critic.
G:  All right.  Now, he was still with the Secret Service when you called?
JG:  He still is.
G:  Ok, still is.

[end of page nineteen of transcript]


JG:  But, ah, you know, he . . . .
G:  His first name is what?
JG:  Elmer.
G:  Elmer Moore.  Ok.
JG:  And, ah, he -- when I first talked to him, ah, he, he, was you know, just
completely and totally ah, into the thing that I was trying to write him about the
whole Kennedy thing, and all I really wanted to do is get information where I can
get ahold of a photo.  And ah, I call him now, he said, call me, you know, if you
have any questions, and so I did a couple of times, and he says, hey, why don't
you come on over to my office one day, we'll sit down and talk about it.  I said --
fine.  Heh.  So I went over there, and I talked with him for about five hours, 
and . . . .
G:  Where is his office located?
JG:  In Seattle, Washington.  The Court House.
G:  Ok.
JG:  One the second floor.
G:  Now, he had been attached to the Secret Service -- to the Dallas office?  Of
the Secret Service?
JG:  Right.
G:  Ok.  Now, what did your conversation with him pertain to?
JG:  Ah, basically, him venting his anger at Kennedy, and ah, . . . . [sic]
G:  What was his anger based on?  Did he say?
JG:  Well, he said he was a traitor.
G:  He said Kennedy was a traitor?
JG:  Yeah.
G:  This is what Elmer Moore said?
JG:  Right.
G:  Now, why he say [sic] -- how did he explain that?  What did he mean?

[end of page twenty of transcript]


JG:  Well, he prefaced it by saying that ah, well, he said, you know, no matter how
strange things get here, we've got it better than they do.  But he was giving every
thing away to the.  That's what he was saying.
G:  He was saying Kennedy was giving things away?
JG:  Yeah, to the Russians.  Ok?
G:  All right.
JG:  And, ah, then he went on to say that ah, well, ah, one of the things that was
pretty impressive to me was the fact that when I was talking with him, he said that
ah, we had to do what we were told, in regards to, you know, the way the way
they were investigating the assassination, or we get our heads cut off.
G:  Did he say who told, [sic] who gave them the orders?
JG:  No.
G:  Did he explain what he meant he meant [sic] by getting his head cut-off?
JG:  No, but he certainly was shaking at that time, he was ah, he went from-, [sic]
ok, let me explain that when I talked to him it was on May -- trying to think -- it was
May, May 7 . . . .
G:  What year?
JG:  1970, I believe.  May 7, 1970, in the evening, I had come over there roughly
around 4:30 or so, and I stayed until about eight o'clock with him.  And ah, as, as
the evening wore along, the guy got more and more -- fact is, he was scaring me. 
He was giving, you know, his speech mannerisms were getting pretty violent.  Ok?
G:  Well, did you think it was odd that he was being this candid with you, a
complete stranger?
JG:  Completely.  Ah, I -- to tell you the truth, if I were to all put it down into words,
I'm very amazed by the whole series of events.

[end of page twenty-one of transcript]


G:  Well, he, this was at the Secret Service Office that you met him, right?
JG:  Right.
G:  Ok.  Was there any one else present?
JG:  No.
G:  All right.  What did he have to say about Kennedy?  Or anything that indicates
to you  that he may have knowledge -- ah, or may have done something wrong in
the investigation.
JG:  Ok, what he told me was this, he said that he had badgered Doctor Perry into
changing his testimony, he did not feel good about that.
G:  He -- being Moore?
JG:  Yes, Moore talked to Perry and, I guess, really laid it on to the poor guy.
G:  In what respect, what areas did he badger Perry with respect t [sic]
JG:  Ah, what Perry had seen, as he was doing his emergency operation,
G:  Well, in what way's did he indicate to you that he had Perry distort the truth?
JG: In -- I think that what he was trying to say was him [sic] to making a flat
statement that there was no entry wound in the neck, or that where the position of
the wound in the back [sic], what Moore was telling me after he talked about that
was the fact that his study, and the study that went into talking with the Doctors
[sic], is that there was no conclusive evidence where any of the shots had come
from, at that point.  Ok?  If the report that he had written up . . . .
G:  Now, this was on the day of the assassination, you mean?
JG:  I don't know when it was, I don't, I don't know the date that it was.  He
showed me a couple of papers . . . .
G:  Well, did he, did he indicate to you in any way, or can you recollect as best
you can, the exact words or substance that he used with respect to what he did to
JG:  Apparently, well, he said that he had come back from San Francisco the day
after the assassination.  He went to Washington first.  From Washington, he got
some marching orders to go down and talk with the doctors at Parkland Hospital. 
And ah . . . .

[end of page twenty-two of transcript]


G:  So, he didn't get to -- there 'til the 23rd, then.
JG:  Something like that, I, I, I [sic] really wish I could remember clearly what he
had said on that, but I do know that he went to Washington, first, and then went to
-- he immediately went to talk with the doctors, and he talked to Perry, and
apparently he told me that there was one thing that he did during the whole thing
that he didn't have a very good feeling about, was, the way he put it, badgering
Perry.  And ah . . . .
G:  Did he explain to you what he meant by this Oswald meeting with the
subversive, the day before the assassination?
JG:  No, other than when -- well, he gave the idea . . . .
G:  'Cause he was in San Francisco the day -- he, being the agent, Moores (sic)
[sic] . . . .
JG:  Right.  So he says.
G:  So, how would he know what Oswald did the day before the assassination?
JG:  Good question.  When ok, when everything started to get heated was when I
asked him -- were you really in San Francisco that day, you know, then the guy
really blew up.
G:  What did he say?
JG:  He started shouting, he said, he came out with that phrase I told you about --
we were -- I did everything -- how'd he put is [sic] -- he says, ah -- I did everything I
was told, we all did everything we were told, or we'd get our heads cut off.  You
better believe that, is the way he put it.  Then he went in, launched into the thing
about -- right, immediately after that launched into the thing that ah, you know,
Kennedy was ah, you know, dealing the wrong way with the Russians, he felt that,
ah, you know, he had a traitor (teen) [sic] to him.  (cough)
G:  Was there anything else in your conversation with Moore that related to the
assassination, or anything that Moore did?
JG:  Well, when he drove me home, he drove -- or offered to drive me home,
which was -- hnn [sic] -- at that point I was not in such good shape.  I said, -- [sic]
ok, drive me home.  And ah, as we were driving along, he said, you know, he
says, ah, I don't know, he says, maybe Oswald didn't act alone.  He says, I guess
we'll never know, because he's dead.  But he says, where was the money, we
were trying to find the money, and we couldn't find where the money came from.
G:  Now, what money is he speaking of.
JG:  Good question, I d--, I didn't follow up on it.  Ah, I was,

[end of page twenty-three of transcript]


JG: (cont.) you know, twenty-one, twenty-two, no, how old was I?  I was about
twenty-three years old, I wasn't too -- heh -- I don't know how to put it, I, I, [sic] my
mind wasn't working as quick as it should have been, I should have followed up
everything that I had talked about, and I -- I've gone over this with my head a
number of times, but I do remember he saying something to the effect that -- well,
we couldn't find the money so we had to leave it alone, or something to that effect. 
G:  Did he say where he looked for the money?
JG:  No.  No, he said -- we couldn't find how, how, ah, he said -- we couldn't trace
the money . . .
G:  But did he tell you what money he was referring to?
JG:  No, but it sure came up in the conversation.
G:  What was that?
JG:  Well, I don't know.  There wa -, [sic] there was something about a Marina
Oswald trust fund.  I don't know what, how that came up, but I remember him
saying, he says, well we know there was a Marina Oswald trust fund.  And, ah,
then he said something to the effect about, ah, well, we couldn't trace the money. 
Now, Oswald and me have acted with others, and maybe there was a good
possibility he did, but he's dead now, was the way he put it.
G:  I see.  He didn't have any other substantive information?
JG:  No.
G:  Do you know what the results of the Schweiker Committee talking to him
JG:  No, they wouldn't, in fact they were, ah, the guy that I talked to, afterwards, I
said, well, what's you think of Moore?  And he said, damn, I wish you had a tape
recorder when you were talking to the guy.
G:  Hm.  [sic]
JG:  And he said, ah, something to the effect as I was leaving, he said, ah, I wish
you had had your shit together out there, you know?
G:  Ok, uh, have you been contacted by anybody else, ah, any official agency,
since your testimony in front of the Schweiker Committee?
JG:  No.

[end of page twenty-four of transcript]


G:  Ok, Jim, is there anything else ah, ah, that you, that you want to add at this
point in time?
JG:  I don't know,  I-  It probably sounds quite senile and staccato the way that I've
been talking to you, but what I'm getting at is, very simply, is that my minds really
not together at all of the things that have happened, and if I had those notes in
front of me I think I could give you a clearer picture . . . .
G:  All right.
JG:   . . . . (double voice) with Moore, ah (cough Gayton, I think, is just simply a
guy venting, you know, a lot of frustration.
Would you take down my name and address, and get a copy of that lease and the
notes, and any other materials you have, and send it off to me, just as soon as
you can?
JG:  Yeah.
G:  All right.  You got [sic] a pencil and paper?
JG: Mmm-hmmm.
G: My last name is Gilbert, G-i-l-b-e-r-t.
JG:  Mhhh-hmmm.
G:  My first name is Howard.
JG:  Mhh-hmmm.
G:  You send it to the Committee, Select Committee of Assassinations, House
Annex Bldg . . . .
JG:  Hold on, House Annex?
G:  Yeah.  A-n-n-e-x.
JG:  OK.
G:  Bldg. #2. Washington, D.C.
JG:  Zip?
G:  20515.
JG:  OK.
G:  All right.  What do you do right now, Jim?

[end of page twenty-five of transcript]


JG:  I'm an employment counselor with a national employment agency.
G:  All right.  Do you have a college degree?
JG:  Yes.
G:  In what field, and from what University?
JG:  Ah, I've got a BF- [sic] ah, MFA in Art, and that's ceramics major, from the
University of Washington, Seattle.
G:  OK.
JG:  (cough, cough)
G:  Very good, ah, Jim, I appreciate talking to you, ah, soon as we get a transcript
on -- we're a little short on stenography ah, help, here . . . .
JG:  Ha-ha.
G:  . . . . so, it will be a little while before we get it to you.Its' now, ah, 4:02 in the
afternoon, on May 10, and would you please try and get those notes to us, ah, and
the lease, copy of the lease, just as soon as possible?
JG:  Ok.  When are you going to -- ah -- are you going to be talking with Gayton
pretty soon?
G:  Pretty soon, and so I'd appreciate it if you could, ah, do you think you can get
those to us in the next day or so?
JG:  Yeah, I'll get that out to you tonight.
G:  Ok, I appreciate that, very much.
JG:  With a hand written note that I think would be more helpful.
G:  Yes, I'm sure they will help a lot.OK, very good, now, nice talking to you.
JG:  Thank you.
G:  All right,  Bye-bye.
JG:  Bye.   (end of conversation)

[end of page twenty-six of transcript and end of document]


Conspiracy TheoriesFor TeachersOverwhelmed?

Subscribe Free

Best Information

Recent News Posts

Concise Summaries

Hidden Knowledge

News Article Index

Key Media Articles

Top Resources

A Brighter Future

Online Courses

Reader Reviews

What You Can Do

About Us

Please Donate






Gadgets powered by Google


Best Free Videos

Most Revealing Videos

10 Best Truth Videos

PBS Documentary

Secret Government

BBC Documentary

Power of Nightmares

History Channel

Mind Control

Discovery Channel

Conspiracy of Silence

HBO Documentary

Hacking Democracy

9/11 Documentary

9/11: Press for Truth


Fluid Intelligence

Our Great Hope

Find Life Purpose

Transform Fear

Victim or Creator?

End Poverty

Moment of Love

Simple Keys to Life

Near-Death Awakening

10 Reasons for Hope

Insider Reveals All

Shifting Paradigms

Principles of

Information Centers

Online Courses







Mass Media

Mind Control


UFO Cover-up

War Cover-up

Email Messages

News Archive

Even Deeper




Bookmark and Share

News Articles

Excerpts of Key News Articles in Major Media


Below are highly revealing excerpts of key news articles from the mainstream media suggesting major cover-ups. Links are provided to the full articles on their major media websites. If any link fails to function, click here. These news articles are listed by order of importance. For the same list by date posted, click here. For the list by date of news article, click here. For headlines and links only to key news articles, click here. By choosing to educate ourselves and to spread the word, we can and will build a brighter future.



Note: For an index to revealing excerpts of news articles on several dozen engaging topics, click here.

U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
2001-05-01, ABC News

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's ... Fidel Castro. America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years. The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba. Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists." The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after.

Note: Why was ABC the only major news source to report on this highly revealing story? To read the shocking declassified documents on Operation Northwoods, click here. Many military and political leaders look at the world as a chess board. Sacrificing pawns (innocent civilians) is sometimes necessary to capture the queen. For other revealing news articles on military corruption, click here. For revealing 9/11 news articles, click here.



US plans to fight the net revealed
2006-01-27, BBC News

A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations". The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act. Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it. The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks. The military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans. "Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public. Strategy should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system," it reads. The document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum". US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum". The fact that the "Information Operations Roadmap" is approved by the Secretary of Defense suggests that these plans are taken very seriously indeed in the Pentagon.

Note: For other revealing news articles on military corruption, click here. For other revealing news articles on government corruption, click here.



Inside the secretive Bilderberg Group
2005-09-29, BBC News

How much influence do private networks of the rich and powerful have on government policies and international relations? One group, the Bilderberg, has often attracted speculation that it forms a shadowy global government. Every year since 1954 [they have brought] together about 120 leading business people and politicians. At this year's meeting in Germany, the audience included the heads of the World Bank and European Central Bank, Chairmen or Chief Executives from Nokia, BP, Unilever, DaimlerChrysler and Pepsi ... editors from five major newspapers, members of parliament, ministers, European commissioners ... and the queen of the Netherlands. The chairman ... is 73-year-old Viscount Etienne Davignon. In an extremely rare interview, he played down the importance of Bilderberg. "I don't think (we are) a global ruling class because I don't think a global ruling class exists." Will Hutton ... who attended a Bilderberg meeting in 1997, says people take part in these networks in order to influence the way the world works, to create what he calls "the international common sense". And that "common sense" is one which supports the interests of Bilderberg's main participants. For Bilderberg's critics the fact that there is almost no publicity about the annual meetings is proof that they are up to no good. Bilderberg meetings often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names. Bill Clinton went in 1991 while still governor of Arkansas, Tony Blair was there two years later while still an opposition MP. All the recent presidents of the European Commission attended Bilderberg meetings before they were appointed. Informal and private networks like Bilderberg have helped to oil the wheels of global politics and globalisation for the past half a century.

Note: Why is this meeting of top world leaders kept so secret? Why, until a few years ago, was there virtually no reporting on this influential group in the major media? Thankfully, the alternative media has had some good articles. And a Google search can be highly informative. For many other revealing news articles from major media sources on powerful secret societies, click here. And for those interested in exploring reliable information covering the big picture of how and why these secret societies are using government-sponsored mind control programs to achieve their agenda, click here.



The War On Waste
2002-01-29, CBS News

On Sept. 10 [2001], Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy." He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat. Rumsfeld promised change but the next day—Sept. 11—the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten. Just last week President Bush announced, "my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending." More money for the Pentagon ... while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends. "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted. $2.3 trillion—that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. A former Marine turned whistle-blower is risking his job by speaking out ... about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency's balance sheets. Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service ... tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records. "The director looked at me and said 'Why do you care about this stuff?' It took me aback. My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job," said Minnery. He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem. The Pentagon's Inspector General "partially substantiated" several of Minnery's allegations.

Note: To see the CBS video clip of this shocking admission, click here. For another key clip, click here. For other media articles revealing major corruption, click here. Even though originally not reported because of the trauma of 9/11, why wasn't this news broadcast far and wide later? Why isn't it making media headlines now? For other revealing news articles on military corruption, click here.



[9/11] Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
2001-09-23, BBC News

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well. The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt. Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September. His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world. He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities. He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring. But, he says, he left the United States in September last year [and] became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines. Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects ... says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver. Meanwhile ... a London-based Arabic daily says it has interviewed Saeed Alghamdi. He was listed by the FBI as a hijacker in the United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. And there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive. FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.

Note: The deceptions in the official story of 9/11 are nowhere more clearly shown than in this important story. The FBI never revised its list of alleged hijackers, and these four are all later listed in the official 9/11 Commission report as the hijackers. Click here and scroll down a little over half way to see their photos in the official report. For more on this, click here. For an abundance of reliable information suggesting a major 9/11 cover-up, click here. For other revealing news articles on 9/11, click here.



Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the U.S. House of Representatives
1979-07-00, United States National Archives

Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Tex., November 22, 1963. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy. The [original] investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive. The Department of Justice failed to exercise initiative in supervising and directing the investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the assassination. The Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President. The Central Intelligence Agency was deficient in its collection and sharing of information both prior to and subsequent to the assassination. The Warren Commission failed to investigate adequately the possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the President.

Note: This same US Congressional report, on the subject of the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination, states that "The committee believes, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence available to it, that there is a likelihood that James Earl Ray assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King as a result of a conspiracy." Why hasn't this information been widely reported and become public knowledge? For a possible answer, click here. For other revealing news articles on assassinations, click here.



It only takes $26 to hack a voting machine
2011-09-28, MSNBC

Researchers from the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois have developed a hack that, for about $26 and an 8th-grade science education, can remotely manipulate the electronic voting machines used by millions of voters all across the U.S. The researchers ... performed their proof-of-concept hack on a Diebold Accuvote TS electronic voting machine, a type of touchscreen Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting system that is widely used for government elections. Diebold's voting-machine business is now owned by the Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems, whose e-voting machines are used in about 22 states. Roger Johnston and Jon Warner from Argonne National Laboratory's Vulnerability Assessment Team demonstrate three different ways an attacker could tamper with, and remotely take full control, of the e-voting machine simply by attaching what they call a piece of "alien electronics" into the machine's circuit board. The electronic hacking tool consists of a $1.29 microprocessor and a circuit board that costs about $8. Together with the $15 remote control, which enabled the researchers to modify votes from up to a half-mile away, the whole hack runs about $26.

Note: Why isn't this making news headlines? For more on this critical development, click here. For many other news articles on serious problems with elections, click here.



Former U.S. Air Force Officers Recount Experiences With UFOs at Nuclear Missile Bases
2010-10-27, ABC News

The U.S. government's official line may be that unidentified flying objects (UFOs) don't pose a national security threat, but a group of former Air Force officers gathered Monday in the nation's capital to tell a different story. During a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., seven former Air Force officers once stationed at nuclear bases around the country said that not only have UFOs visited Air Force bases, some have succeeded in disabling nuclear missiles stationed there. "I want the government to acknowledge that this phenomenon exists," said Robert Salas, a former U.S. Air Force Nuclear Launch Officer. Salas said he doesn't think the UFOs he claims to have encountered had any offensive intent, but he believes they wanted to leave an impression. "They wanted to shine a light on our nuclear weapons and just send us a message," he said. "My interpretation is the message is get rid of them because it's going to mean our destruction." Other former officers recounted similar stories of unexplained moving lights and odd-shaped flying objects during their time in the service. Leslie Kean, an investigative journalist and author of the new book "UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record," said thousands of pages of documentation support the officers' accounts. She spent the last 10 years researching UFOs and combing through thousands of pages of declassified government material. Kean said that one declassified document that she researched for her book, relating to the Salas incident, said, "the fact that no apparent reason for the loss of the 10 missiles can easily be identified is a cause for grave concern to this headquarters."

Note: To watch 18-minutes of this most fascinating testimony on the CNN website, click here. This is not the first time government and military witnesses have testified at the National Press Club about a major cover-up of UFOs. To watch 22 witnesses testifying to remarkable personal stories in May 2001, click here. For a two-page written summary of amazing UFO testimony from top officials, click here. For more fascinating news articles on UFOs, click here.



How can it be that you pay more to the IRS than General Electric?
2010-04-01, Forbes magazine

Some of the world's biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do--that is, if they pay taxes at all. The most egregious example is General Electric. Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion. How did this happen? It's complicated. GE in effect consists of two divisions: General Electric Capital and everything else. The everything else--maker of engines, power plants, TV shows and the like--would have paid a 22% tax rate if it was a standalone company. It's GE Capital that keeps the overall tax bill so low. Over the last two years, GE Capital has displayed an uncanny ability to lose lots of money in the U.S. (posting a $6.5 billion loss in 2009), and make lots of money overseas (a $4.3 billion gain). Not only do the U.S. losses balance out the overseas gains, but GE can defer taxes on that overseas income indefinitely. It's the tax benefit of overseas operations that is the biggest reason why multinationals end up with lower tax rates than the rest of us.

Note: Can you believe that GE not only pays no taxes, they actually get credit from the US government? They ship US jobs overseas and then reap huge tax benefits as a result. What's wrong with this picture? For a wealth of media news articles on the hidden manipulations of major financial corporations, click here.



BlackLight's physics-defying promise: Cheap power from water
2008-07-02, CNN Money

Imagine being able to convert water into a boundless source of cheap energy. That's what BlackLight Power, a 25-employee firm in Cranbury, N.J., says it can do. The only problem: Most scientists say that company's technology violates the basic laws of physics. Such skepticism doesn't daunt Dr. Randell Mills, a Harvard-trained physician and founder of BlackLight, who recently claimed that he has created a working fuel cell using the world's most pervasive element: the hydrogen found in water. Mills says he has a market-ready product: a fuel cell that produces a chemical reaction to alter hydrogen atoms. The fuel cell releases heat that turns water into steam, which drives electric turbines. The working models in his lab generate 50 kilowatts of electricity - enough to power six or seven houses. But these, Mills says, can be scaled [up] to drive a large, electric power plant. The inventor claims this electricity will cost less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, which compares to a national average of 8.9 cents. Mills developed the patented cocktail that enables the reaction - a solid fuel made of hydrogen and a sodium hydride catalyst - only a year ago. (He recently posted instructions on the company's Web site, blacklightpower.com). Now that the device is ready for commercialization, he says, BlackLight is negotiating with several utilities and architecture and engineering firms. The business, Mills says, has attracted $60 million in funding from wealthy individuals, investment firms ... and it is no longer seeking money. BlackLight's board of directors reads like a Who's Who of finance and energy leaders.

Note: For two New York Times articles showing the viability of this amazing technology, click here and here. For many other exciting major media news articles on new energy inventions, click here.



Political ties to a secretive religious group
2008-04-03, MSNBC News

For more than 50 years, the National Prayer Breakfast has been a Washington institution. Every president has attended the breakfast since Eisenhower. Besides the presidents ... the one constant presence at the National Prayer Breakfast has been Douglas Coe. Although he’s not an ordained minister, the 79-year-old Coe is the most important religious leader you've never seen or heard. Scores of senators in both parties ... go to small weekly Senate prayer groups that Coe attends, [including] senators John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Observers who have investigated Coe’s group, called The Fellowship Foundation, [describe] a secretive organization. Coe repeatedly urges a personal commitment to Jesus Christ. It’s a commitment Coe compares to the blind devotion that Adolph Hitler demanded. "Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler. Think of the immense power these three men had.” Coe also quoted Jesus and said: “One of the things [Jesus] said is 'If any man comes to me and does not hate his father, mother, brother, sister, his own life, he can't be a disciple.’" Writer Jeff Sharlet ... lived among Coe's followers six years ago, and came out troubled by their secrecy and rhetoric. “We were being taught the leadership lessons of Hitler, Lenin and Mao. Hitler’s genocide wasn’t really an issue for them. It was the strength that he emulated,” said Sharlet, who ... has now written about The Fellowship, also known to insiders as The Family, in [a] book called The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.

Note: This article strangely has been removed from the MSNBC website, though you can still access it using the Internet Archive. Watch the incredible four-minute NBC video clip showing Coe praising a communist Red Guard member for cutting the head off his mother at this link. For more on Coe's powerful links to Congress and corruption, see the MSNBC article available here. And for powerful inside information from a mind programmer who claims to have escaped from "the family," and another who says he is from a very high level there, click here and here. To develop an understanding of the bigger picture behind all of this, click here.



A New Way to Fight Cancer?
2007-01-23, Newsweek

There are no magic bullets in the fight against cancer: that's the first thing every responsible scientist mentions when discussing a possible new treatment, no matter how promising. If there were a magic bullet, though, it might be something like dichloroacetate, or DCA, a drug that kills cancer cells by exploiting a fundamental weakness found in a wide range of solid tumors. So far, though, it kills them just in test tubes and in rats infected with human cancer cells; it has never been tested against cancer in living human beings. DCA ... is an existing drug whose side effects are well-studied and relatively tolerable. Also, it's a small molecule that might be able to cross the blood-brain barrier to reach otherwise intractable brain tumors. Within days after a technical paper on DCA appeared in the journal Cancer Cell last week, the lead author, Dr. Evangelos Michelakis of the University of Alberta, was deluged with calls and e-mails from prospective patients—to whom he can say only, “Hang in there.” DCA is a remarkably simple molecule. It acts in the body to promote the activity of the mitochondria. Researchers have assumed that the mitochondria in cancer cells were irreparably damaged. But Michelakis wondered if that was really true. With his colleagues he used DCA to turn back on the mitochondria in cancer cells—which promptly died. One of the great things about DCA is that it's a simple compound, in the public domain, and could be produced for pennies a dose. But that's also a problem, because big drug companies are unlikely to spend a billion dollars or so on large-scale clinical trials for a compound they can't patent. (Anyone interested in helping can click here)

Note: For a 2010 follow-up by Dr. Michelakis with promising results, click here and watch a 10-minute video at this link. For the DCA website, click here. Thank you Newsweek for this important article. Why haven't any other mass media reported this major story? Why aren't many millions of dollars being poured into research? Notice even Newsweek acknowledges the drug companies are not interested in finding a cure for cancer if they can't make a profit from it. Some suspect the drug companies have even suppressed cancer cures found in the past. For one amazing example of this, click here. More on DCA available here.



Free-hug man speaks out
2006-09-28, Sydney Morning Herald (Australia's leading newspaper)

The man behind the latest YouTube sensation has spoken out for the first time about his global cuddling controversy. Serial hugger Juan Mann describes the free hugs he hands out...as fast-food emotion. His cuddling campaign received an international dose of publicity today, after a clip showing his public displays of affection won a coveted front page spot on the video sharing website. An American television audience of millions also watched him at work, when the video was broadcast on the prime-time breakfast program Good Morning America yesterday. Today, the hugger was at it again, brandishing his "free hugs" sign in the busy pedestrian thoroughfare, and having quite a few people take him up on his offer. "It's a way to make people smile," Mann said. "For every person who gets a hug, you see five walk past with a smile on their face." But his efforts to spread the love became a little too popular for some people's liking, according to a blurb on the YouTube video, which said: "As this symbol of human hope spread across the city, police and officials ordered the Free Hugs campaign BANNED." Undeterred, Mann collected more than 10,000 signatures on a petition he presented to the City of Sydney council. Demands for a halt to the hugs petered out shortly after, and the end of the clip shows Mann hugging an official. City worker Elly Mitchell, who handed out a few free hugs on her lunch break today, said she was inspired to organise [an] event after seeing the video online. "We're going to hug the city," Ms Mitchell said.

Note: If you haven't seen this powerfully inspiring four-minute video clip, join the over 10 million who have by clicking here. The free hugs movement is rapidly spreading around the world! Click here and here to see more. For several other short, deeply inspiring videos, click here.



'Bonesmen' for president
2004-03-10, MSNBC News

Pres. Bush and John Kerry were both members of the secret organization. ‘Skull and Bones’ dates to 1832. It was in fact a reaction to a secret society, the Masons. Founder William Huntington Russell thought of his little enclave as sort of anti-Masons and as a home for the wealthy and the powerful ... who would do anything for another Bonesman. Each year, 15 young undergraduate seniors are tapped for membership. Members of ‘Skull and Bones’ gather on High Street in the Yale campus at the tomb. New members, the neophytes, are expected to do things like lie in coffins, wrestle in mud, kiss a skull, and confess their sexual histories in front of the group to bond themselves together. Once you‘re in, you‘re in: ‘Skull and Bones’ is for life. There are a lot of [famous] Bonesmen ... Henry Luce, who created “TIME” magazine; Harold Stanley, founder of Morgan Stanley; William F. Buckley; Averell Harriman, long-time governor of New York. And then there are the presidents: William Howard Taft, whose father, Alphonso, had helped found the group; George Herbert Walker Bush, whose father, Prescott, was a Bonesman and a senator; the current President Bush. [And there's] John Kerry, Bonesman class of ‘66. His wife Teresa Kerry‘s first husband, John Heinz ... was ‘Skull and Bones.’ Both Bush and Kerry refused to answer ‘Meet the Press’ host Tim Russert when asked about the organization. Alexandra Robbins, author of “Secrets of the Tombs" [said] "The sole purpose of Skull and Bones is to get members into positions of power and then to have those members hire other members to prominent positions, which is something that President Bush has done."

Note: For a highly revealing, four-minute CNN News clip on Skull and Bones, click here. For other major media video clips reporting on this powerful secret society, click here. Many have claimed that secret societies have not had much influence on world politics. This article and videos raises many serious questions about this. For those interested in exploring reliable information covering the big picture of how and why these secret societies are using government-sponsored mind control programs to achieve their agenda, click here. And for other revealing media news articles on powerful secret societies, click here.



Alleged [9/11] Hijackers May Have Trained At U.S. Bases
2001-09-14, Newsweek Magazine

U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in [the 9/11] terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s. Three of the alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla. -- known as the "Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation," according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source. Another of the alleged hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., said another high-ranking Pentagon official. The fifth man may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Both were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States, according to the Pentagon source. The five men were on a list of 19 people identified as hijackers by the FBI on [September 14]. The three foreign nationals training in Pensacola appear to be Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmad Alnami, who were among the four men who allegedly commandeered United Airlines Flight 93. That flight [ended in] rural Pennsylvania. The third man who may have trained in Pensacola, Ahmed Alghamdi, allegedly helped highjack United Airlines Flight 75, which hit the south tower of the World Trade Center. Military records show that the three used as their address 10 Radford Boulevard, a base roadway on which residences for foreign-military flight trainees are located.

Note: For more on this vitally important news, see the Washington Post news article available here and the Los Angeles Times news article here. Several of the alleged hijackers also contacted US media shortly after 9/11 to report that they were alive and were not on the hijacked planes. See the BBC News and Times of London news articles on this. Yet the 9/11 Commission Report lists these men as the official hijackers at this link. So what's really going on here? For many other major media news articles suggesting that rogue elements of government were involved in 9/11, click here. For our reliable 9/11 Information Center, click here.



When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing
1999-02-01, Washington Post

"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner. At least the voice sounds amazingly like him. But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Psychological operations ... PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives. Covert operators kicked around the idea of creating a computer-faked videotape of Saddam Hussein crying or showing other such manly weaknesses, or in some sexually compromising situation. The nascent plan was for the tapes to be flooded into Iraq and the Arab world. The tape war never proceeded ... but the "strategic" PSYOPS scheming didn't die. What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad urging the Iraqi people and Army to rise up against Saddam? According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air. A super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions."

Note: If the above link fails, click here. If you want to understand some of the many hidden capabilities of the U.S. military, this article is a must read. For other revealing news articles on the use of these "nonlethal" weapons, click here.



C.I.A. Data Show 14-Year Project On Controlling Human Behavior
1977-07-21, New York Times

The Central Intelligence Agency conducted a 14-year program to find ways to "control human behavior" through the use of chemical, biological and radiological material, according to agency documents made public today by John Marks. The documents ... suggested broader experimentation on unwitting humans by the intelligence agency or its paid researchers than had been publicly known before. Mr. Marks distributed 20 documents that described the following incidents, among others: In 1956, the C.I.A. contracted with a private physician to test "bulbocapnine," a drug that can cause stupor or induce a catatonic state, on monkeys and "convicts incarcerated at" an unnamed state penitentiary. A letter from an unnamed C.I.A. official in 1949 discussed ways of killing people without leaving a trace. "I believe that there are two chemical substances which would be most useful in that they would leave no characteristic pathological findings," the letter said. In 1952, two Russian agents who were "suspected of being doubled" were interrogated using "narcohypnotic" methods. The two men were given sodium pentothal and a stimulant. One interrogation produced a "remarkable" regression, the papers said, during which "the subject actually relived certain past activities of his life. The subject totally accepted Mr. [name deleted] as an old and trusted and beloved personal friend whom the subject had known in years past in Georgia, U.S.S.R." The C.I.A. conducted secret medical experiments from 1949 through 1963 under the code names Bluebird, Artichoke, MK Ultra and MK Delta.

Note: If the above link fails, click here. For a one-minute video clip showing Congressional testimony on a dart gun which causes a heart attack without leaving any evidence, click here. For lots more reliable, verifiable information suggesting a major cover-up of government mind control programs, click here. For other revealing news articles on mind control, click here.



Hypnotic Experimentation and Research
1954-02-10, Declassified CIA Document (Verify using note below)

A posthypnotic of the night before (pointed finger, you will sleep) was enacted. Misses [deleted] and [deleted] immediately progressed to a deep hypnotic state with no further suggestion. Miss [deleted] was then instructed (having previously expressed a fear of firearms in any fashion) that she would use every method at her disposal to awaken Miss [deleted] (now in a deep hypnotic sleep) and failing this, she would pick up a pistol nearby and fire it at Miss [deleted]. She was instructed that her rage would be so great that she would not hesitate to “kill” [deleted] for failing to awaken. Miss [deleted] carried out these suggestions to the letter including firing the (unloaded) gun at [deleted] and then proceeding to fall into a deep sleep. Both were awakened and expressed complete amnesia for the entire sequence. Miss [deleted] was again handed the gun, which she refused (in an awakened state) to pick up or accept from the operator. She expressed absolute denial that the foregoing sequence had happened.

Note: This text is quoted from page 1 of declassified CIA document MORI ID 190691. To verify the statement in the text, make a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request as described here, or directly view a scanned copy online here. To access thousands of pages of declassified CIA mind control documents online, click here. For lots more reliable information on this crucial topic, click here. For many revealing news articles on mind control, click here.



Massive Pentagon Child Pornography Accusations Not Investigated
2011-01-06, CNN

The Pentagon porn story began in 2006. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] child pornography sting operation called Project Flicker produced payment records of about 5,200 people, many of whom provided Army or fleet zip codes or military e-mail addresses. Subsequently, the Pentagon's investigative branch, DCIS, began going through the ICE list to identify who actually was a DOD employee. The investigation, however, only ran for eight months, and only cross-checked some 3,500 names for Pentagon ties. According to DCIS documents revealed in a Freedom of Information Act request, out of that 3,500, investigators uncovered 264 employees or contractors, including staffers for the secretary of defense. Nine people had top security clearances. But only about 20 percent of those 264 people were completely investigated. Fewer still were prosecuted. After about eight months, the entire probe was halted. It left about 1,700 names totally unchecked, 1,700 alleged kiddie porn customers, an unknown number of whom may still work in some capacity for the Defense Department. Late last summer, after investigations by "The Boston Globe" and Yahoo! News revealed the figures, a Pentagon spokesman promised to reopen the investigation, conceding that DCIS had stopped due to lack of resources. DCIS says it is now revisiting all 5,200 names. They have now identified 302 employees or staffers. [Yet] of the 302 people confirmed as DOD personnel or contractors, only 70 of them were actually investigated.

Note: To see the CNN video clip of this important news, click here. Isn't it interesting that the Pentagon, with it's huge budget, claims the investigation was stopped due to "lack of resources." If you are ready to see how investigations into a massive child sex abuse ring have led to the highest levels of government, watch the suppressed Discovery Channel documentary "Conspiracy of Silence," available here.



Predator Priests Shuffled Around Globe
2010-04-14, CBS News/Associated Press

There he was, five decades later, the priest who had raped Joe Callander in Massachusetts. The photo in the Roman Catholic newsletter showed him with a smile across his wrinkled face, near-naked Amazon Indian children in his arms and at his feet. The Rev. Mario Pezzotti was working with children and supervising other priests in Brazil. It's not an isolated example. In an investigation spanning 21 countries across six continents, The Associated Press found 30 cases of priests accused of abuse who were transferred or moved abroad. Some escaped police investigations. Many had access to children in another country, and some abused again. A priest who admitted to abuse in Los Angeles went to the Philippines, where U.S. church officials mailed him checks and advised him not to reveal their source. A priest in Canada was convicted of sexual abuse and then moved to France, where he was convicted of abuse again in 2005. Another priest was moved back and forth between Ireland and England, despite being diagnosed as a pederast, a man who commits sodomy with boys. "The pattern is if a priest gets into trouble and it's close to becoming a scandal or if the law might get involved, they send them to the missions abroad," said Richard Sipe, a former Benedictine monk and critic of what he says is a practice of international transfers of accused and admitted priest child abusers. "Anything to avoid a scandal."

Note: This is only the tip of the iceberg. If you want to understand how pedophile rings have infiltrated the highest levels of government, don't miss the powerful Discovery Channel documentary on this available here.







Top of page | Home | Spread the Word | News | What You Can Do | About Us | Contact Us | Donate