Vince Salandria: The JFK Conspiracy Theorist

Fifty years ago Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission told America that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone in the assassination of JFL. Vince Salandria has spent a lifetime trying to debunk that conclusion. Shortly before his death, did Specter hint that Salandria just might be right?

WHODUNIT?  JFK Conspiracy Theorist Vince Salandria photographed on January 29, 2014

Vince Salandria photographed on January 29, 2014.
Photo by Gene Smirnov

THREE YEARS AGO, Vince Salandria got a phone call from Arlen Specter, a man he didn’t know. Salandria had been in the Senator’s company only once before, but that was almost a half-century earlier, at a public event. When he called, Specter wasn’t running for anything—he had recently been voted out of office. All he had was a simple request of Salandria, who was 83 years old, a retired Philadelphia school-system lawyer: Would you have lunch with me? They eventually met at the Oyster House, on Sansom Street in Philadelphia. The lunch would turn out to be one of strangest meetings of Salandria’s life.

Vince is a man of high energy; he’s still doing pro bono lawyering in labor relations for the city’s schools. He’s small—all of 137 pounds—with a large balding head that narrows toward his jaw. He has an impish smile, and it would be easy to call him cute. But he isn’t, by nature, impish or cute—Vince is intense. And that was especially true when, as a young man, he attended an event held in Arlen Specter’s honor.

In October 1964, the Philadelphia Bar Association invited Specter, then a young prosecutor in the D.A.’s office, to speak about his work as an investigator for the Warren Commission, which had been formed to come up with a definitive answer to who assassinated President John F. Kennedy. Specter was assigned to figure out the basic logistics of the shooting: how many shots, how many gunmen, where did the bullets come from? The commission’s report had just come out, declaring Lee Harvey Oswald the lone killer, and the bar association had Specter address about 150 people one evening in a City Hall courtroom. Afterward, he asked if there were any questions.


Vince Salandria—who in 1964 was a history teacher at Bartram High School in Southwest Philly—stood up that night in City Hall and said he had some questions. Though really, his questions were more like statements. He said that Specter’s analysis—specifically, that a bullet had gone through the President’s neck and into Texas Governor John Connally in front of him, where it penetrated his back, smashed his right wrist, wounded his thigh, and then ended up on a gurney in a Dallas hospital in pristine condition—was a fabrication. An impossibility. An absurdity. A concoction that amounted to fraud.

Vince stood up and said that to Arlen Specter, back in 1964, before anyone else had. How could Specter come to a conclusion that was so clearly and patently wrong?

Specter was taken aback, though he remained calm. Things did get a bit testy when Vince said the commission owed it to the public to reenact “the performance of Oswald” with a rifle on moving targets; Arlen Specter wondered whether Vince would have them kill a man in order to perform a ballistics test. Vince ignored the joke; he didn’t find murder funny. Dummies, he said to Arlen Specter. Dummies could be used.

Some lawyers came up to Vince Salandria when it was over and told him he should write up his critique, that it might be important. If that bullet didn’t do what Specter said it did—travel through the President and then take a circuitous route in Connally—there had to be a second gunman, and the assassination was then a conspiracy. Which would make the Warren Commission’s lone-gunman conclusion utterly wrong.

Vince went home that night and wrote his analysis, and the first detailed critique of Specter’s Magic Bullet Theory appeared in Philadelphia’s Legal Intelligencer two weeks later.

That was just the beginning. Vince quickly became part of a small, loose collective of Warren Commission debunkers. He wrote more articles and shared his thinking with fellow researchers; Jim Garrison, the New Orleans district attorney portrayed in Oliver Stone’s JFK, asked Vince to edit one of his books. Vince is front and center in Calvin Trillin’s 1967 New Yorker portrayal of conspiracy researchers. He made speeches. And if anything, his conclusion—what he surmised almost immediately when the President was murdered—has only grown firmer over the years: Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA and the U.S. military, not Lee Harvey Oswald.

Specter, meanwhile, went on to become … Arlen Specter. The bulldog senator who brought us the infamous battles over Robert Bork and Anita Hill. Specter never seemed to shy away from a good fight, and throughout his 30-year reign in the Senate, the Magic Bullet Theory followed him everywhere. It became theater at every public event and campaign stop where Specter fielded questions, the Senator pantomiming the movement of Commission Exhibit 399 through the President’s neck, out his tie knot in front and so forth. The questions never abated; his response was always the same: one gunman.

Specter would realize early on that he could thwart a lot of public animosity by asking a Magic Bullet skeptic if he had actually read the Warren Commission Report. Almost always, the answer was no.

But Vince Salandria had read it. He read the entire report­—all 888 pages—within a couple of weeks of it coming out. So he was ready for Arlen Specter at the meeting in City Hall back in 1964.

The two men had never discussed that night when Vince accused Specter of fraud—they had never even had a conversation before Specter called Vince out of the blue to ask him to lunch. They met in January 2012 at the Oyster House, one year after Specter’s five terms in the Senate were over. Later that year, Specter would be hit by a third round of cancer. By that October, he was dead.

At their lunch, Arlen Specter had a question for Vince Salandria.

1 2 3 4 5 Next >View as One Page
  • http://ratical.org/ Dave Ratcliffe

    In email Vince sent this morning, he observed, “that for a conventional magazine, his [Bob Huber's] piece is unique. I congratulate him for doing a remarkable job. My sole criticism is on his underplaying the role of my hero, Gaeton Fonzi, and not mentioning the courage of his employer, Herbert Lipson, who has long demonstrated his undying passion for historical truth and the true role of a free press.”

    It is unfortunate that the author adopts the pseudo-debate meme “conspiracy theorist,” applying it more than once to Vince as well at the close, indirectly, to Marty Schotz, the second person Jim Douglas dedicates JFK and the Unspeakable to. In Schotz’s 1996 book, “History Will Not Absolve Us,” Marty writes in the section titled, “Letter to Vincent J. Salandria, April 5, 1995″:

    “All of this brings us to the real cover-up over all these years, which was not `Oswald’ per se but rather `the debate over Oswald.’ In this process we see the CIA following the principles of intelligence agency assassination and cover-up as outlined by Isaac Don Levine, an associate of Allen Dulles, in his analysis of the assassination of Leon Trotsky by the Soviet Union’s NKVD. As Levine revealed, the classic manner by which an intelligence agency attempts to cover itself is by the use of confusion and mystery. The public is allowed to think anything it wants, but is not allowed to know, because the case is shrouded in supposed uncertainty and confusion. This was and is the big lie, that virtually no one is sure who really killed President Kennedy or why.” (pp.11-12)

    “Because the work of Salandria, [Raymond] Marcus, and several others provided proof of a conspiracy that was simple and obvious, the media had to distort the work of these critics in order to rescue the government’s good name. In this effort the media resorted to Orwellian use of the term `conspiracy theorists’ in referring to all Warren Commission critics, including Salandria and Marcus. While there may be many conspiracy theorists among the critics of the Warren Report, Salandria and Marcus were not among them. Rather they were conspiracy provers. But by this use of language the media were able to take proof of conspiracy and turned it into theory of a conspiracy. With proof turned into theory, knowledge was turned into belief and the government was able to retreat to the position that perhaps the Warren Commission was mistaken, but of course no one would be `so extreme’ as to claim that Earl Warren and the other Commission members were anything but honorable men. Thus was launched the thirty-plus year debate over the Warren Report.

    “Since the Warren Report was an obvious fraud, so was the pseudo-debate over whether there was or wasn’t a conspiracy, a debate over a question which had long ago been answered definitively. This thirty-year pseudo-debate over the validity of the Warren Report has occupied the efforts and attention of many honest citizens who were taken in by it. Unwittingly many honest citizens, tricked into participation, became part of the cover-up, because the debate gave legitimacy to the notion that there was doubt and uncertainty when there really was none. While Salandria’s and Marcus’ proofs of conspiracy are detailed and conclusive, it turns out that there is a much simpler and more elegant proof of conspiracy which involves the bullet holes in the back of the President’s shirt and jacket. See Appendix III.” (Footnote, p.11)

    Schotz’ entire book is available online at , as well as words and works of Jim Douglass at , and an annotated hypertext version of Vince’s 1998 exposition, “The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes” (see the top of ).

    Marty Schotz dedicated “History Will Not Absolve Us,” “To our children, all our children, the children of the world, who someday will want to know.” A primary voice in the effort to make it possible for the children of the world to know is Vincent Salandria. The combination of his common sense, humility, and practice of critical thinking inform his contribution to making an accurate diagnosis of this crisis.

    In his own “Notes on Lunch with Arlen Specter on January 4, 2012″ (Ibid) Vince expresses his opinion that his life was saved by the effectiveness of Mr. Specter’s work and the ineffectiveness of his own. In my view, Mr. Salandria’s devotion to honoring and serving Life’s needs was and is highly effective. His persistant tenacity caused him to speak and write as a witness to the truth of why President Kennedy was murdered by elements of the federal government that were determined not to allow JFK to pursue a rapprochement with the Soviet Union nor a normalizing of relations with Cuba; in other words, to lessen tensions that could have lead to a cessation of the Cold War. He stands as a shining light representing what a single human being can do to promulgate historical truth. As Vince writes in his own “Notes”:

    “I know that my efforts to convince people to oppose Kennedy’s assassins were feckless. But was the effort of a small community of people to establish the historical truth of the Kennedy assassination valueless? I think not. I feel that historical truth is the polestar which guides humankind when we grope for an accurate diagnosis of a crisis. Without historical truth, an accurate diagnosis of the nature and cause of crisis, we would have no direction on how to move to solve societal disease.”

  • Jane Yavis

    Arlen Specter’s One Bullet Theory was the political path Arlen Specter took. I don’t think even Arlen believed it.

  • Robert_Morrow

    Vincent Salandria has been one of the blue chip JFK researchers for decades – literally since the day of 11/22/63. Salandria correctly points out that the JFK assassination is a “false mystery” and the real issue is whether we are going to accept the reality that US military intelligence murdered JFK for Cold War reasons. I would add that the role of Lyndon Johnson in this murder is equally obvious. See the book LBJ: the Mastermind of the JFK Assassination by Phillip Nelson for that. (And, of course, Roger Stone’s book The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ)

    You can google a lot of these essays or find Salandria’s work on Amazon.

    1) False Mystery: Essays on the Assassination of JFK
    by Vincent Salandria

    2) Correspondence with Vincent Salandria by Michael
    Morrissey

    3) History Will Not Absolve Us by E. Martin Schotz

    Web link to this fabulous book: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/HWNAU/contents.html

    4) Praise From a Future Generation: The Assassination of
    John F. Kennedy and the First Generation Critics of the Warren Report by
    John Kelin

    5) Google “Vincent Salandria False Mystery Speech.”

    6) Google “Vincent Salandria Spartacus” for his
    bio

    7) Google “The Waters of Knowledge versus the Waters
    of Uncertainty: Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy” by
    E. Martin Schotz

  • Robert_Morrow

    LYNDON JOHNSON HAD A MURDEROUS ATTITUDE TOWARDS ROBERT KENNEDY – “I’ll cut his throat if it’s the last thing I do.”

    Robert Caro describes the LBJ-RFK relationship post 1960 Democratic convention, where RFK had moved heaven and earth attempting to keep LBJ off the 1960 Democratic ticket. Caro:

    John Connally, who during long days of conversation with this author was willing to answer almost any question put to him, no matter how delicate the topic, wouldn’t answer when asked what Johnson said about Robert Kennedy. When the author pressed him, he finally said flatly: “I am not going to tell you what he said about
    him.” During the months after the convention, when Johnson was closeted
    alone back in Texas with an old ally he would sometimes be asked about Robert
    Kennedy. He would reply with a gesture. Raising his big right hand, he would draw the side of it across the neck in a slowing, slitting movement. Sometimes that gesture would be his only reply; sometimes, as during a meeting with Ed Clark in Austin, he would say, as his hand moved across his neck, “I’ll cut his throat if it’s the last thing I do.” [Robert Caro, "The Passage of Power," p. 140]

  • rabbit23

    this story really confused me. so the leading conspiracy theorist had the huge opportunity to have lunch with arlen specter, and instead of asking him anything, like any questions at all that have been buggin him for fifty years, he instead just launches into a diatribe?? what a missed opportunity and how indicative of conspiracy theorists. dude, you were on the sidelines for 50 years, this guy was in the arena, there had to be something you wanted to get on the record, even personally, right???

    • Tom O’Neill

      That’s EXACTLY what I was thinking. Why lecture the guy when you had the opportunity to ask him the questions you’d been trying to get the answers to for fifty damned years? Especially when HE initiated the meeting! And if he wouldn’t answer outright, at least just follow his lead and ask him what the hell he meant by calling his work on the WC “incompetent.” So simple, yet so squandered. Makes me almost doubt it actually took place. Question for reporter Huber: what did Vince produce as far as notes, etc., to substantiate this lunch and what he says transpired during it? Also, have Spector’s family weighed in on this piece? Certainly, if he expressed doubts/guilt/whatever with Vince, he must’ve with them, too.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdLrXPnp0zs Menachem Mevashir

        I think Vince was playing Specter very cleverly. He was flattering him, telling he was always a competent attorney, thanking him for keeping Vince off the commission where he no doubt would have been killed for insisting on finding the truth about the JFK assassination. He was basically telling Specter that he understood that Specter had to act as a moral coward. He invited Specter to confirm that.

        Vince was offering him something like a priestly absolution following confession. But Specter couldn’t do it. Vince must have been a masterful attorney.

        Remember it was Specter who asked for the meeting. Vince had every right to play it as he did.

        And always remember this: there is more genuine forensic investigation in a one hour TV episode of CSI or Perry Mason than in 13 years of 9-11 reporting in the whoreporate mess media.

        America: a nation of fools, by rules, for jewels will perish speedily from the earth.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdLrXPnp0zs Menachem Mevashir

        The reason Vince didn’t ask penetrating questions to Specter is because he knew that Specter was incapable of telling the truth. He probably figured that if Specter asked for the meeting it was in order to confess that he had been morally compromised and fearful.

        No discussion could proceed until Specter confessed.

        Vince was not willing to waste his time listening to more bogus rationalizations and outright lies. He simply wanted Specter to say: “The Warren Commission was a shakedown operation from the get go.”

        But Specter was not up to it. He couldn’t get it up to tell the truth. Or just to admit he had been compromised.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdLrXPnp0zs Menachem Mevashir

        Here are Vince’s notes as found on the Net:

        http://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/VJS010412.html

        Notes on Lunch with Arlen Specter on January 4, 2012

        by Vincent J. Salandria

        This is an annotated transcript that started with the copy at

        http://politicalassassinations.com/2012/11/1560/.
        All hyperlinks by David Ratcliffe with the permission and sincere thanks of Vincent J. Salandria.

        Editor’s note:

        The following is distilled from observations shared with me
        by Martin Schotz and Vincent Salandria. It is useful to make
        explicit some of the implications in these Notes. An important
        element is what Mr. Specter did not say. First, his reaching
        out to Mr. Salandria to have lunch demonstrates that in Arlen
        Specter’s mind, Vincent Salandria was a person worthy of
        his respect and consideration. Secondly, at no point did Specter
        attempt to defend the veracity of the Warren Report. Instead,
        he seeks Salandria’s thoughts regarding:

        what was the reason for the assassination?

        what Mark Lane believed regarding the assassination?

        if the Warren Commission was a setup?

        A point of clarification that Mr. Salandria shared through e-mail
        is that Professor Jacob Cohen explicitly warned him, stating,
        “You will have to be killed.” Evidence of the intent to silence
        Mr. Salandria was the tampering with his car and another
        vehicle described in the following:

        “On several occasions the lug nuts on one wheel of my car
        were loosened so as to have the automobile threatened with the
        loss of a wheel at high speeds. When Jim Garrison sent a staff
        car to Philadelphia to have me deliver a manuscript to his book
        Heritage of Stone to his publisher, the car shook on the
        highway. When we pulled over, we discovered that the lug nuts were
        loosened on a wheel of that car. The Garrison car was driving us
        from Philadelphia to New York. The incident occurred while we were
        on the New Jersey turnpike driving at a high speed.”

        Vincent Salandria expresses his opinion that his life was saved
        by the effectiveness of Mr. Specter’s work and the
        ineffectiveness of his own. In this writer’s view, Mr.
        Salandria’s devotion to honoring and serving Life’s
        needs was and is highly effective. His persistant tenacity caused
        him to speak and write as a witness to the truth of why
        President Kennedy was murdered by elements of the federal government
        that were determined not to allow JFK to pursue a rapprochement
        with the Soviet Union nor a normalizing of relations with Cuba;
        in other words, to lessen tensions that could have lead to a
        cessation of the Cold War. He stands as a shining light
        representing what a single human being can do to promulgate
        “historical truth [as] the polestar which guides
        humankind when we grope for an accurate diagnosis of a
        crisis.”

        Martin Schotz dedicated History
        Will Not Absolve Us, “To our children, all
        our children, the children of the world, who someday will
        want to know.” A primary voice in the effort to
        make it possible for the children of the world to know is
        Vincent Salandria. The combination of his common sense,
        humility, and practice of critical thinking inform his
        contribution to making an accurate diagnosis of this crisis.

        This recounting of their meeting—which occurred because
        Mr. Specter reached out to Mr. Salandria—indicates an
        attempt by Mr. Specter to meet as equals with a former adversary
        for the purpose of coming to terms with a portion of his life
        about which he was ambivalent. The tone of the exchange conveys
        a meeting of equals who related to each other with honor and
        respect. From the observation that, “Specter was smiling
        broadly as we left,” it can be deduced that for Arlen
        Specter this meeting provided some solace and resolution
        regarding his participation in as conflicted a so-called
        investigation as the Warren Commission was. Regarding this, I
        asked Mr. Salandria to clarify the implication of Mr. Specter
        recalling “that in our confrontation [in 1964] I had
        accused him of corruption”:

        “Arlen Specter wanted me to declare him
        ‘incompetent’ and not ‘corrupt.’ I feel
        that this was an essential aspect of his desire to share a
        lunch with me. Given his sharp intelligence, rich experience as
        a district attorney and ambition for political office, I could
        not in good conscience satisfy this need of his.
        Additionally, I could not oblige Specter because I recognize that
        incompetency is much employed to seek to cover up the U.S. state
        crime of killing President Kennedy and many other covert U.S.
        warfare state atrocities. I have never declared the covert
        actions of the U.S. intelligence agencies to be incompetent. They
        are almost invariably and unerringly competent in murdering,
        individually and massively, in defense of U.S. military dominance
        and empire.”

        Beyond this, Mr. Salandria related Arlen Specter’s genuine
        interest in listening without rebuttal or interruption to his
        former opponent’s understanding of why the assassination
        occurred:

        “On the issue of what Specter left unsaid, the following subjects
        went unexplored by him or me. Was there a conspiracy? Who were
        the shooters? Specter asked a question about the setup of
        Oswald by the Warren Commission. This opening allowed me to go
        directly to the explanation of the motivation for the
        assassination. He was willing to bypass 49 years of unfruitful
        and phony debate on whether there was a conspiracy and who were
        the shooters in the bushes. Instead, Specter discussed the
        Commission’s setup which lead to my discussion of the motivation
        for the killing. He was willing to hear me out without a word of
        rebuttal. He listened carefully to the motivation for the
        assassination that James Douglass in
        JFK
        and the Unspeakable
        has resolved through solid and convincing proof i.e. that JFK was
        killed by U.S. intelligence to perpetuate the Cold War.”

        Through his actions regarding this meeting, Arlen Specter
        expresses the same human capacity to change and grow as was
        indicated in the
        question President Kennedy posed to the Quakers who visited
        him in the Oval Office on May 1, 1962: “You believe in
        redemption don’t you?”

        • paul williams

          thanks for the links.

    • Pat Speer

      There are a number of JFK “researchers” with Salandria being Exhibit A, who haven’t researched the case in decades. They decided long ago that there was a conspiracy involving the government, and consider debating specific points a waste of time. In this light, then, Salandria’s reluctance to engage Specter in an actual discussion is not the least bit surprising.

      When it comes to Specter, moreover, Salandria may have been right to draw a line. In 1964, Specter nagged the government into showing him a photo of Kennedy’s back wound. A tracing of this photo was later released. it showed a wound on the back, inches below the shoulder line. Specter then turned around and told everyone the wound was at the base of the neck, and used the wound’s being at the base of the neck to help sell his single-bullet theory.

      All the while knowing that the wound was actually inches below this location…

      Unless Specter was willing to admit his deception, there wasn’t much point in talking to him.

  • http://www.patspeer.com Pat Speer

    My November 21, 2013 presentation at the Adolphus Hotel in Dallas was focused in large part on the central question in this story: was Arlen Specter incompetent or a liar? Sadly, I concluded the latter. An extended discussion of this question can be found midway through this webpage:
    http://www.patspeer.com/chapter10%3Aexaminingtheexaminations

  • Magnum Opus

    Specter would be dead about 10 months later. Mason Gerald Ford pushed to get Specter on the Warren Commission. Specter was Pennsylvania state senator and some say he served nearly as long as Mason Ben Franklin.

    Vince S. is very close—–he needs to add in the FDR Mason days and FDR’s “Four Freedoms” issues that offended the Masons and England. JFK echoed FDR on elimination of Imperialism and wanted Algeria to gain self-determination, along with de Gaulle, who was targeted for death also, using funds from Dallas and New Orleans.

    FDR was even going to go after releasing Vietnam from French control and release Hong Kong from English control, and that was to happen just following the time of FDR’s death, due to what many suggest was poisoning. Then Mason Truman took over and soon the CIA was under control of Mason Dulles, who JFK fired.

    When the Pope died in mid 63, the Vatican went for peaceful co-existence with Communism and JFK went along also. JFK bypassed what FDR called an English filled state Department to communicate with Khrushchev and Castro and peace was coming quickly.

    Near Dallas, a Mason party at Clint Murchison’s house celebrated that Mason Hoover had forced LBJ onto the 1960 Los Angeles JFK ticket, and much as happened with Lincoln’s bullet in the head, and Mason Andrew Jackson taking over happened with Mason supported LBJ taking over.

    Even the Civil Rights movement was filled with White Supremacist Masons acting in the same fashion as what they did with Prince Hall Masons in the Southern Scottish Rite. Almost all the biggest Black Civil Rights folks were Prince Hall Masons going against the Southern Apartheid Scottish Rite hate for Blacks in the South and wanting segregation.

    Add in the Masons involved before the JFK hit, and those involved after the Mason JFK and you find Hoover common to both times. Plus, LHO’s handler was Mason Guy Banister. Warren was a Mason, Gerald Ford Mason, Arlen Specter Mason, et al.

    Add in the old history of Mason Lamar of the Texas 8F gang’s namesake, and you discover JFK went after Bobby Baker and LBJ as part of that Mason click. You also discover that Zapruder was a Mason and then he sold his film to Mason Henry Luce and that was used to suppress the article on Baker and LBJ that was to appear just after the assassination date.

    Then you really solve the JFK hit and why.

    • paul williams

      Andrew Who ???
      Magnum, you ought to find an outlet where you can footnote this stuff. Footnotes are a boon to plausibility. People would definitely take the time to read you.
      Andrew Jackson had been the Masonic Grand Kleagle in Tennessee back when Lincoln was still plying Illinois high school basketball. But he also killed the Bank.
      He must have been the only Mason on the planet who didn’t get the message on the need for privatized national exchequers.
      Johnson, A. was another story.
      Go, Magnum!

  • Magnum Opus

    Solving the JFK murder is as simple as recounting the history for FDR, as JFK was a follower of FDR’s great insights. Study the FDR history going against English Imperialism and you find Churchill’s hate of FDR and the need of the English to be rid of FDR.

    FDR was going to put England under International Control to eliminate their Imperialism push on the world. FDR was countering their using WWII as their boost into world power.

    Study the history of FDR on Vietnam, Hong Kong, Algeria, et al.

    http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/002-3_monnet.html

    http://members.tripod.com/american_almanac/FDRlw95.htm

  • SRVES339

    Rarely do you find a comment thread that upstages the original piece as much as this one… thanks to all.

    No matter how much more truth I learn on the subject the reaction is always the same, profound sadness… the world changed that day in Dallas, the gloves came off, the masters of the universe revealed the evil of power for all who cared to see… and the crimes of the elite just get more brazen (and desperate) each day.

    What a wonderful world?

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdLrXPnp0zs Menachem Mevashir

    Comment from Jacob Cohen of Brandeis following my bringing this article to his attention:

    From: Jacob Cohen
    To: Menachem Mevashir
    Sent: Thu, Mar 6, 2014 3:37 pm
    Subject: Re: Vince Salandria: The JFK Conspiracy Theorist

    Dear Menachem Mevashir: The material on me is complete nonsense. Totally invented. There was no such public debate.. There was no such conversation at a hotel, all that is either a , a hallucination, or a lie. It didn’t happen! I was not teaching at Yale at the time and had not been for five years. I have never spoken such words and I don’t believe that Vincent said that I did. If he did, I regret his dementia.

    I did meet him in the mid- sixties, at his home in Philadelphia. I was living in New Jersey then away from Brandeis, where I started in 1960, and working as a writer with CORE, the Congress of Racial Equality. I initiated the meeting, as I have with meetings with other conspiracists through the years, wishing to discuss his early articles which I thought were formidable, but dead wrong. I explained why to him and to several associates in suspicion whom he he had gathered for the occasion.

    Perhaps Fonzi was there but I didn’t know the name yet so can’t recall meeting him, ever. Somehow I recall a mock up of Dealy plaza, quite elaborate, perhaps in the basement, but I know the tricks that memory can play, I teach about that stuff in my conspiracy course at Brandeis. But of this I am certain, there was no public debate and no exchange such as is reported above. Me warning him that he was in danger? That, as we used to say in the civil rights movement is worse than bull—-. It is snake—-. It would be much more likely for me to warn him that he was not in danger, in the slightest, and they he was only in danger of losing the paranoid fantasy which he was so addicted to. I liked him, that I recall. I am glad that he has eluded his would-be assassins. Many years later, just a few years ago in fact, we laughed about our divergent views in a surprise encounter at Brandeis University, where he came, I think in connection with a graduation.

    Advise the purveyors of this mishagas to seek help. And if you yourself, are of this mindset, take the advise yourself.

    Jacob Cohen

  • JimGlover

    It is incredible for me to see as I told Poppy Bush when i was kid “This is about Russia Isn’t it?”

    Like in the wars on Russia, there are two stories for everything which can only mean the truth is systematically being obscured with a Psy ops plan that keeps the coup going in the belief that “Just trying to keep the public safe” can be the untimate excuse for any war crime or violation of human rights.

    Like Oliver Stone asked, “can we have a Communist hero”? ~ “Castro got him first” LBJ

  • paul williams

    Thank you Mr. Huber. You seem to have an accurate feel for this business.

  • david krall

    from; david t. krall
    email: truthatlarge@hotmail.com

    I applaud and thank Phila. Magazine for this article…Vincent Salandria
    is to be commended and saluted along with Gaeton Fonzi, and all the early
    researchers such as Josiah “Tink” Thompson, Mark Lane, RB Cutler, Jones
    Harris, Maggie Fields, Shirley Martin, Lillian Castelano, Joachim Joesten,
    Harold Wiesberg, Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Mae Brussell, Donald Freed,
    Richard E. Sprague, Dick Russell, David Lifton and all the others who never gave up and paved the way for other concerned citizens who deeply care about this nation….why oh why didn’t we see thru this when it happened???
    On 7/20/44 a (large) group of good men tried to kill a monster…
    On 11/22/63 a (large) group of monsters killed a good man…

  • david krall

    from: david t.krall
    email: truthatlarge@hotmail.com
    follow-up: may I add also, Ray Marcus, Harold Feldman, Leo Sauvage, Thomas Buchanan, Fred Cook, Richard Popkin, Edward J. Epstein, Paris Flammonde,
    Sylvia Fox, Stanley Marks, Red (Rojas) Robinson also as early trailblazers who also never gave up and “sniffed, dug, clawed and scratched” for the truth…a truth and justice that has been denied and unrecognized, with deliberate & witting contempt by our own government & some lapdogs and sycophants in the media.

  • Vince Salandria

    Professor Jacob Cohen denies having participated in a panel discussion with me on Wednesday, November 30, 1966, at the Charles Street Meeting House in Boston which was billed as “Seven Judges, No Jury- A Second Look at the Murder of a President.” As an irrefutable fact, the discussion occurred. The panel consisted of seven people, two of whom were Professor Cohen and me. An extensive reporting of that meeting with Professor Cohen is found in the book of John Kelin, the author of “Praise from a Future Generation,” Wing Press San Antonio, Texas 2007, pages 335-338.

    The professor declared that my recollection of the 1966 events was false, an invention, caused by my fantasy and dementia. In declaring my account spurious Professor Cohen writes in the service of the national-security state which profits from untruth and war. In writing and proving the falsity of the professor’s denial of the events of November 30, 1966 in Boston I stubbornly persist in seeking to serve our people who profit from historical truth and peace.

  • david krall

    from: david t. krall
    email: truthatlarge@hotmail.com

    Bravo !!! Mr. Vincent Salandria…Bravo! Thank you for your research and insights
    …from one longtime researcher to another…your perspectives and perceptiveness
    have contributed in a monumental way to shed light on a “dark” chapter in US and
    World History…if more light was used, shined and eminated in 1964…I believe justice, truth, real truth…and power could and would have been wrestled away or at least tempered the interests that was behind the “coup” of 11/22, 1963. with some, or most of the key players exposed, disgraced, jailed, exiled and/or “worse”…while others scurrying like rats and other types of rodents under any number or type of legal, financial, and/or national security “cloaks” or “blankets”…