GangsterBB.NET


Funko Pop! Movies:
The Godfather 50th Anniversary Collectors Set -
3 Figure Set: Michael, Vito, Sonny

Who's Online Now
2 registered members (Captbony1999, 1 invisible), 111 guests, and 3 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Shout Box
Site Links
>Help Page
>More Smilies
>GBB on Facebook
>Job Saver

>Godfather Website
>Scarface Website
>Mario Puzo Website
NEW!
Active Member Birthdays
No birthdays today
Newest Members
TheGhost, Pumpkin, RussianCriminalWorld, JohnnyTheBat, Havana
10349 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
Irishman12 67,094
DE NIRO 44,945
J Geoff 31,284
Hollander 23,354
pizzaboy 23,296
SC 22,902
Turnbull 19,485
Mignon 19,066
Don Cardi 18,238
Sicilian Babe 17,300
plawrence 15,058
Forum Statistics
Forums21
Topics42,216
Posts1,056,182
Members10,349
Most Online796
Jan 21st, 2020
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #836080
04/04/15 01:14 PM
04/04/15 01:14 PM
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,021
far, northwest
Binnie_Coll Offline
Underboss
Binnie_Coll  Offline
Underboss
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,021
far, northwest
best books ive read on the JFK assassination.

" contract on America"..... by david scheim.

LBJ."the mastermind of the JFK assassination".. Philip. p. nelson.

" six seconds in dallas"... by Josiah Thompson

all great reads,



" watch what you say around this guy, he's got a big mouth" sam giancana to an outfit soldier about frank Sinatra. [ from the book "my way"
Re: JFK [Re: SonnyBlackstein] #836231
04/05/15 10:32 AM
04/05/15 10:32 AM
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,442
Alfa Romeo Offline
Underboss
Alfa Romeo  Offline
Underboss
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,442
Originally Posted By: SonnyBlackstein
Originally Posted By: Dwalin2011
The problem is though that, as usually happens with big crimes, nobody will ever know the complete truth. Thinking that Muslim terrorists may have had "moles" is not sacrilege because nor I nor you know whether that was the case. Writing every single member of the CIA off as suspects just because they are Americans and that's the only reasonable argument to say that they "couldn't have had anything to do with this", THIS "logic" offends the victims with its warped parody of "patriotism". The "inside" traitors, if there were any, should be hunted down as persistently as the terrorists, otherwise that wouldn't be an impartial position. I respect the victims very much and that's the reason I wouldn't want the investigation to be blinded by anything, not even "patriotism".


And THATS the thing.

We DO know the truth. The 9/11 report was three THOUSAND pages of evidence.
There is NO debate.
There is no controversy.
There is no EVIDENCE justifying ANY conspiracy.

So, stop chasing shadows, look at the EVIDENCE, and let it go.

And if your worried about 'patriotism' blinding? Mate, Im not even American.

Understand now?


Omitting the word conspiracy, more than one of the 911 Commissioners has said that the official story we've been told about 911 was a falsehood.

911 Commissioners Say Official Story is Bunk

Here is a caption...

"The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . " When Bush's own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done?"


Now, if there was no possibility of culpability on this side, why the need for a criminal investigation when the pilots of the planes as weapons already destroyed themselves?


"For us, rubbin'out a Mustache was just like makin' way for a new building, like we was in the construction business."
Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #836599
04/08/15 12:04 AM
04/08/15 12:04 AM
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 441
M
mickey2 Offline
Capo
mickey2  Offline
M
Capo
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 441
can't help to recommend this series of lectures

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svDEw3Jgkw8

its 6hours. i watched ~4h so far, and this guy's knowledge is incredible.

He was on the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) after the public outcry after the release of the jfk film.

He concentrates on the jfk autopsy and the cover-up by CIA, FBI, Secret Service and some doctors instructed by one of these agencies. highly recommended.

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #837246
04/12/15 09:00 AM
04/12/15 09:00 AM
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 172
ThisGuyOverHere Offline
Made Member
ThisGuyOverHere  Offline
Made Member
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 172
Originally Posted By: EastHarlemItal
Did LCN have a hand in blowing off JFK's head? If so who were the main players!

Iceman Kuklinski killed him. He was on the 6th floor of the book depository and behind the grassy knoll.

Re: JFK [Re: ThisGuyOverHere] #837249
04/12/15 09:12 AM
04/12/15 09:12 AM
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,776
D
Dwalin2011 Offline
Underboss
Dwalin2011  Offline
D
Underboss
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,776
Originally Posted By: ThisGuyOverHere
Originally Posted By: EastHarlemItal
Did LCN have a hand in blowing off JFK's head? If so who were the main players!

Iceman Kuklinski killed him. He was on the 6th floor of the book depository and behind the grassy knoll.

Some posters on a Russian blog say the Prokopovskaya gang killed him. No matter that its boss, Mikhail Prokopyev, was born 3 years after Kennedy was killed. It WAS him, I can feel it!!! lol


Willie Marfeo to Henry Tameleo:

1) "You people want a loaf of bread and you throw the crumbs back. Well, fuck you. I ain't closing down."

2) "Get out of here, old man. Go tell Raymond to go shit in his hat. We're not giving you anything."
Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #841181
05/08/15 10:19 AM
05/08/15 10:19 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
A
abc123 Offline
Underboss
abc123  Offline
A
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces

President John F Kennedy Secret Society Speech version 2.

Listen to this incredible audio recording of a speech made by JFK before the American Newspaper Publishers Association where he warns the press about the secret societies that are the real power in global affairs."

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #841194
05/08/15 11:38 AM
05/08/15 11:38 AM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 884
Hudson County NJ
D
DB Offline
Underboss
DB  Offline
D
Underboss
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 884
Hudson County NJ
I have no love for the Kennedy family as a whole and really don't like their father but man JFK was easily our best presidents. No president has ever stood up to the joint chief of staffs and top CIA officials over a war but this guy prevented us going into a winless war with Laos first, then preventing an all out invasion of Cuba in 1962 during that dangerous Cuban missile crisis that would have resulted in either dying or being subjected to a horrible radiation filled life. The CIA didn't know the Russians had 75 tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba nor nuclear subs in the area that would have fired all weapons at Miami, DC and NYC immediately upon attack (this has been confirmed by every Russian official during that time) and he was the ONLY person in the entire administration and military that said NO to such a Cuba invaion and under NO circumstances would we have had that pointless war in Vietnam that I lost an uncle to if he remained alive (the day before his death he signed an NSA order to withdraw 1,000 advisors by years end), not too mention having the balls to fire some of the most murderous and corrupt officials in this country (Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell), men who killed foreign leaders and supported leaders that needlessly slaughtered millions of their own people and which partly came out in the Church Committee meetings how evil this agency was.

Lets not even mention the anti nuclear weapon pact with Russia that most thought was impossible, his charge to end the cold war which likely would have happened under his watch with Russia and even Cuba, costing us trillions in unneeded military expenditures. Add in his desireing huge tax breaks for big oil and their super rich or limiting steel inflation that would have been another tax on people that couldn't afford it.

Its unfortunate that a man that made such great decisions for the average American, disregarding in many instances the ultra elite that only wanted things their way, was whacked for these same reasons. Quite frankly it set a precedent and a daylight killing was surely a way of informing future leaders not to forget who had the real power. Sadly we haven't had a president that was obviously on the side of the average man and pointless debt draining wars, and his killing and the joke of the Warren Report that let the real murderers get away, began the trend of us not believing in our govt. His death was such a tragedy on so many fronts that we have still yet to recover from, or learn from. Try and find a politician today that would take blame for something like the bay of pigs even though it was clearly not his fault

He may have had numerous personal flaws with sex and other issues but from a policy standpoint, he was as good as they come and really cared about needlessly putting average and poor Americans lives in danger.

I just hope 1 day the real murderers are discovered and we have a Treason day every year to remind the nation that many of these secret groups develop policies to make the rich richer, the poor poorer and send the average American into war, and depleting our treasury.

Its his policies that really gave me an interest in his murder

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #843327
05/24/15 09:49 AM
05/24/15 09:49 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
A
abc123 Offline
Underboss
abc123  Offline
A
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/phil-shenons-cruel-shocking-misinterpreation/#more-19123

Phil Shenon’s cruel and shocking misinterpretation.


Phil Shenon and I agree on at least a few things. In any resolution of the mysteries surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Mexico City will undoubtedly be important. The investigation into what happened there in 1963 was, for some reason, seriously curtailed by the U.S. government. The government has, since then, fought tooth and nail to keep the full story about what happened there secret.

While I have never met Shenon, I have spoken with him several times by telephone. I first heard from him when he called me around 2011. He introduced himself as a reporter for Newsweek Magazine. He said he was working well in advance on an article for that magazine for the 50th anniversary of JFK’s murder. He wondered whether I would be willing to talk about the HSCA’s investigation in Mexico City. I agreed to speak with him.

Dan Hardway
Dan Hardway
Over the course of that first conversation, and several follow-up calls from him over the next couple of years, it became apparent to me that Shenon was only interested in our work investigating what had happened in Mexico City in 1963 insofar as it might provide some kind of basis for linking Oswald to Castro or the Cubans.

I tried to discuss the details of the HSCA investigation into what happened in Mexico City in its anomalous issues, but he was uninterested in those details. While there is an acknowledgment in his book, A Cruel and Shocking Act, stating that Ed Lopez and I were “generous with their time and interviews for this book,” precious little, if any, of what we shared with him made it into the book or any of his subsequent writing on the subject of Mexico City. Not only does Shenon ignore the post-HSCA materials we tried to bring to his attention, he also ignores the primary thrust of our report written for the HSCA.

I would not take issue with Shenon if I thought what he is claiming is, merely, that the possibility of Cuban assistance to Oswald should be investigated. While I think the evidence of that is very weak at best, I will not deny that any avenue of investigation that remains open should be pursued.

What I take issue with Shenon about is his single-minded concentration on that one issue and the resultant misrepresentation of facts and questions related to, and arising from, Lee Oswald’s activities in Mexico City. It appears to me that Shenon may be carrying water for the proponents of the original conspiracy theory – that Castro did it – rather than offering any objective review of the complete evidentiary base of that underlies the Mexico City visit. Shenon deliberately ignores the indicators and evidence that suggest Oswald’s trip to Mexico was either designed in advance, or spun in the aftermath, to give the appearance of Cuban and Soviet collusion in the Kennedy assassination.

What I told Shenon

Shenon’s thesis, as most recently explicated in his March 18 article in Politico, “What Was Lee Harvey Oswald Doing in Mexico?”, is built on suspicions expressed by some government officials after the assassination and Charles Thomas’s reporting of the so-called “twist party” at Sylvia Duran’s home in Mexico which Oswald supposedly attended. This report was based on a story first told to the CIA by Elena Garro de Paz, a Mexican writer.

RFK and John McCone
“Did some of your guys do this,” RFK asked his friend CIA director John McCone after JFK was killed . (photo credit: CIA)
Many had suspicions of conspiracy after the assassination: Lyndon Johnson alleged a communist conspiracy within twenty minutes of JFK’s death; Bobby Kennedy’s first question to CIA Director John McCone that day was, “Did some of your guys do this?”

The members of the Warren Commission, meeting in Executive Session, were veryconcerned about Oswald’s intelligence connections, but Allen Dulles told them it was something that couldn’t really be proven, as a good intelligence officer would lie under oath to the Commission.

When Shenon and I talked, I tried to get him to consider evidence and facts that have come to light about Mexico City and the CIA’s handling of various investigations since, including the one I worked on in 1978, in his evaluation of the twist party story that lies at the root of his speculations. My efforts had no effect. Any possible explanation other than Cuban complicity has been ignored by Shenon who seems hell-bent on promoting the idea that Castro was behind the assassination, refusing to address any other possibility.

I tried, in vain as it turns out, to get Shenon to consider that what we had learned about Oswald’s activities, and the U.S. government’s reaction to those activities, could support a different explanation which also pointed to an additional avenue of investigation that needed to be publicized and followed. In my view, Oswald’s activities are more consistent with his being involved in an intelligence operation being run by U.S. intelligence than with him trying to make contact with Cubans to garner support for an assassination attempt on the sitting leader of this country.

What I saw in the HSCA investigation

George Joannides, undercover CIA officer who thwarted the HSCA investigation
George Joannides, CIA officer
To fully appreciate why I say that, a little background from Washington in 1978, is necessary. In 1978 the CIA resisted the HSCA’s inquiry into Mexico City more than any other area of inquiry. On August 15, 1978, the chief counsel, G. Robert Blakey, told the Committee that “the deeper we have gotten into the Agency’s performance in Mexico City, the more difficult they have gotten in dealing with us, the more they have insisted on relevance, the more they have gone back in effect on their agreement to give us access to unsanitized files. For a while we had general and free access to unsanitized files. That is increasingly not true in the Mexico City area….”

And we have since learned that the CIA used career undercover officer George Joanndes to shut down the investigation into Oswald and Mexico City. In doing so, they lied to us about who he was. He ran propaganda operations in Miami in 1963-64 and was the case officer for DRE, the anti-Castro group that scored the anti-Fair Play for Cuba Committee coup using Oswald in New Orleans in August of 1963. As Blakey has since acknowledged, “The CIA not only lied, it actively subverted the investigation.”

I think the CIA expected we would take the superficial approach of considering the “Castro did it” theory, but when we went beyond the initial appearances and began pushing our investigation into the propaganda sources, seeking interviews with the actual penetration and surveillance agents, seeking to find others in Mexico City who may have seen Oswald, then the Agency resistance to our investigation turned to a stonewall.

Shouldn’t it be enough to raise serious questions that when a congressional Committee investigating specific disinformation operations ran by the CIA, the agency brings one of those involved in the operation being investigated and uses him in an undercover capacity to forestall and subvert the investigation? But that’s not all.

What we didn’t know

Consider the scenario of U.S. intelligence involvement in Oswald’s activities in Mexico City that we were not able to fully investigate in 1978.

David Phillips
David A. Phillips, chief of CIA anti-Castro covert operations in 1963
Let’s start with some background on David Phillips, was one of, if not the, most experienced, ingenious, respected, and qualified disinformation officers in the CIA. In 1963 he was stationed in Mexico City, but, in early October, he was temporarily assigned to duty at Headquarters because he was being promoted from running anti-Castro propaganda operations to overseeing all anti-Castro operations in the Western Hemisphere.

Phillips was an experienced hand. In the late 1950’s he had been under non-diplomatic cover in Havana.. During the run-up to the ill-fated invasion at the Bay of Pigs, Phillips was stationed at CIA Headquarters where he had responsibility for the propaganda and psychological warfare aspects of the anti-Castro operations. In running those operations he was also the supervisor of the propaganda operations in the JMWAVE station in Miami run by a CIA officer William Kent (aka” Doug Gupton”). When anti-Castro students who fled Cuba for Miami, they were organized under Kent’s tutelage into the Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil (“DRE”) based in Miami. Later in 1961, Phillips was transferred to Mexico City, Kent was promoted to Headquarters, and in 1962 George Joannides took over Kent’s position in Miami, including supervision of DRE.

Phillips specialized in disinformation operations. While still stationed at CIA headquarters he had worked with Cord Meyer to develop the first CIA campaign aimed at discrediting and disrupting a prominent group of Castro sympathizers In the United States who had organized themselves into the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC).

In the summer of 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald formed a chapter of the FPCC in New Orleans. In August of 1963 Oswald had an encounter with DRE supporter, which led to a lot of publicity linking Oswald to communists, labeling him as pro-Castro, and discrediting the FPCC. In July and August of that year there is strong evidence that Oswald was used to identify and contact pro-Castro students at Tulane University. In early September, Antonio Veciana, an anti-Castro militant who worked with Phillips, saw his CIA friend with Oswald Dallas.

What Shenon ignores

On September 16, 1963, the CIA informed the FBI that it was considering action to counter the activities of the FPCC in foreign countries. To my knowledge, the CIA’s operational files on this new anti-FPCC operation have never been released.

CIA and FBI target the Fair Play for Cuba Commitee
FBI memo on CIA operations against the FPCC in Sept. 1963
On September 17, 1963, Oswald applied for, and received, a Mexican travel visa in New Orleans, immediately after William Gaudet, a known CIA agent, had applied for one. On September 27 Oswald arrived in Mexico City. This activity did not occur suddenly or in a vacuum. Oswald had started establishing his pro-Castro bona fides earlier that summer in New Orleans, including establishing an FPCC chapter there.

There are too many similarities between Oswald’s activities in New Orleans and Mexico City to simply dismiss, without investigation or discussion, the possibility that he was being used in an intelligence operation, either wittingly or unwittingly, in both cities. In addition to his contacts with the Soviet and Cuban diplomatic facilities in Mexico City, there is now also evidence of Oswald’s contacts with students at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and his presence at social events with Cuban Consulate employees.

David Phillips frequently lied about Oswald and Mexico City, but in a footnote in a little known book he self-published, Secret Wars Diary, he wrote: “I was an observer of Cuban and Soviet reaction when Lee Harvey Oswald contacted their embassies.”

One purpose served by an intelligence dangle is to enable the dangling agency to observe the reaction and, from that observation, identify roles of employees, procedures and processes of the enemy.

There can be little doubt that Oswald’s activities, especially the more flagrant, blatant and egregious ones such as those alleged by Shenon to have occurred at the Cuban Consulate, could only have scandalized the Cuban diplomats who heard the threats and bluster – all to the discrediting of the FPCC, just as the publicity about the New Orleans encounter between Oswald and the DRE formed one of the propaganda nails in that organization’s coffin.

Where the evidence points

It is much more likely, in my opinion, that the seasoned Cuban diplomats would be offended than it is that they would support someone exhibiting Oswald’s alleged behavior to attempt an assassination. It is much more likely that the Cuban diplomats would have, as the evidence shows they did, consider Oswald as a U.S. intelligence provocation. The Cubans knew of the surveillance on their facilities. Why would they use someone to do such a job who showed up under surveillance and announced his plans?

On the other hand, someone as provocative as Oswald should have generated a cascade of response that, when observed by the watchers, would have revealed an abundance of information. It could also serve to discredit the FPCC with the Cubans. The CIA prevented us, in 1978, from interviewing then surviving penetration and surveillance agents who would have known more about such an operation.

In 1978, we knew not only about the allegations of the twist party, but also about the stories of Oswald’s contact with students. The CIA prevented us from interviewing Oscar Contreras, a student Oswald contacted. But Anthony Summers, and others, have interviewed him since. Contreras acknowledges that Oswald, in late September, 1963, approached him and three other students who were members of a pro-Castro student organization. He asked them for help getting a visa to Cuba from the Consulate. Contreras did have contacts at the Consulate and spoke to the Consul and an intelligence officer. Both warned him to have nothing to do with Oswald as they suspected he was trying to infiltrate pro-Castro groups.

Contreras still wonders how Oswald identified him and his friends as the students, out of the thousands attending the University, as the ones with contacts in the Consulate. Shenon, some way or another, sees this incident as supporting possible Cuban involvement in the assassination. No mention is made to the similarity to what Oswald was doing with Tulane students in New Orleans.

The parallels in Oswald’s actions

Oswald
Lee Oswald leafleting for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee
While in New Orleans, Ruth Paine had asked fellow Quaker, Ruth Kloebfer, to check on the Oswalds while they were in New Orleans. Mrs. Kloebfer’s husband was a professor at Tulane University. There is information in the extensive records in this case that Oswald passed out FPCC leaflets near Tulane University and the homes of some of the professors there who were members of a local leftist group. The individuals who helped pass out pamphlets on the last occasion when Oswald passed out his FPCC literature in downtown New Orleans, were introduced by Oswald as students from Tulane.

There are, keeping things in parallel, indications in the documentation about the case that Oswald, while in Mexico City, made contact with Quakers studying at the Autonomous University. There are indications that one Quaker student at the University at that time was an active agent of the CIA, although that person has never been identified and it has not been determined that he had any contact with Oswald in Mexico City. The reason that it has not been determined is that it has not been investigated.

It has to be pointed out that June Cobb, a known CIA agent, was very involved in Agency actions aimed at the FPCC in the early 1960’s. She appears again as the first person to report Elena Garro de Paz’s story about the Duran-Oswald twist party. At the time she made that report to the Mexico City CIA station, Cobb, a CIA asset, was renting a room from Elena Garro de Paz, Sylvia Duran’s cousin.

Shenon bases most of what he writes on a supposition that, based on this twist-party story, Duran was at the center of the Cuban recruitment of Oswald. But the fact is that it is still very much in question whether Duran had been recruited as an asset by the CIA. David Phillips, as well as other CIA employees, in 1978, were of the opinion that she may have been targeted for recruitment by the CIA. The CIA, then and since, has gone out of its way to keep details about Duran buried, claiming, among other things, to have destroyed her Mexico City personality file.

The point is, the activities in Mexico City in September and October, 1963, are a capsule version of Oswald’s activities in New Orleans in June, July and August of 1963. In the context of the other information we’ve learned about the CIA’s FPCC black propaganda operation, the people involved in those operations and the role of at least one of those people, George Joannides, in subverting the HSCA investigation, how can anyone not seriously consider whether Oswald’s Mexico City activities were part of a CIA anti-FPCC operation?

The very first conspiracy theory, that Castro and the communists killed JFK – the one expressed by President Johnson 20 minutes after the assassination, and first seeing print in the DRE’s CIA funded newspaper, Trinchera, on November 23, 1963 – still has followers and proponents, the latest being Phil Shenon. None of the proponents, it seems, have ever really considered whether they may be the victims – or a part – of a very good, deliberate disinformation operation – possibly the best Phillips and Joannides ever ran.

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #843328
05/24/15 10:01 AM
05/24/15 10:01 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
A
abc123 Offline
Underboss
abc123  Offline
A
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
http://www.ctka.net/2015/Shenon%27s%20Crap%20Detector.html

Philip Shenon's Crap Detector

By Arnaldo M. Fernandez and Jim DiEugenio

Posted March 26, 2015

Shortly after Ernest Hemingway won the Nobel Prize (1954), Time Magazine writer Bob Manning visited him in Cuba to do a cover story interview. A decade later, Manning joined The Atlantic Monthly. He revisited his notes and published "Hemingway in Cuba" in the August 1965 issue of that periodical. One remembrance from that piece was Hemingway's notion of fiction writing as "to produce inventions that are true." Hemingway elaborated: "Every man should have a built-in automatic crap detector (...) If you're going to write, you have to find out what's bad for you."

Philip Shenon, a veteran investigative journalist who spent most of his career at The New York Times, uses this machine for nonfiction writing on the JFK assassination. But in reverse, as a way of bringing forward the detected crap as good arguments for supporting his nonsensical hypothesis. Which is, "Oswald did it, Castro helped."

After Shenon's crap detector worked flat out in A Cruel and Shocking Act (Henry Holt and Co., 2013), it is now doing overtime in the new paperback edition of the book by Picador (2015). From its afterword Shenon has just drawn an essay, "What Was Lee Harvey Oswald Doing in Mexico?" (Politico Magazine, March 18, 2015). Here Shenon does his, by now, usual high wire balancing act about how the Warren Commission was not really fraudulent or wrong, it just did not have all the facts it should. And therefore "historians, journalists and JFK buffs...would be wise to look to Mexico City." What balderdash.

Why? Because Shenon deliberately ignores all the sound and provocative investigations that have been conducted about Mexico City since the creation of the declassification process by the Assassination Records Review Board. These inquiries would include, among others, the integral and seminal "Lopez Report" done for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, John Newman's work in Oswald and the CIA, John Armstrong in his book Harvey and Lee, Jim DiEugenio in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed and Bill Simpich in State Secret. All of these authors; along with the most recent investigator, David Josephs--get the back of Shenon's hand. As if nothing they produced has any relevance at all to the mystery of what Lee Harvey Oswald was doing in Mexico City; or if he even went there. Because, as both Josephs and Armstrong conclude, he did not; at least not the way the Warren Commission and FBI say he did.

Which brings up another dubious point about Shenon's piece. In it, he writes that the FBI never adequately investigated Oswald's voyage to Mexico City. This is simply not true. With ample evidence, both John Armstrong and David Josephs demonstrate that the FBI did investigate this aspect of Oswald's life as well as they could. The problem was that the evidence trail they found was so full of holes, and so patently falsified by both the CIA and the Mexican authorities that it was almost made to fall apart upon any rigorous review. To use just one example: to this day, no one knows how Oswald even got out of New Orleans to Houston on the first leg of his journey. Or when he actually left the Crescent City. Its not that the FBI did not investigate this aspect. They did. But they could not find any ticket made out to Oswald from New Orleans to Houston or New Orleans to Laredo, which is where the official story has Oswald headed after Houston. The FBI did an extensive check on the two bus lines that could have gotten Oswald out of New Orleans after he closed his post office box and cashed his unemployment check. They could not come up with anything to substantiate Oswald's travel to Houston. (See Commission Document 1553, based upon Bureau investigation by agent Stephen Callender.)

Or how about this one by our New York Times veteran. He writes that the CIA had Oswald under surveillance in Mexico City. If that is the case then why, when the FBI got the audiotapes of Oswald in Mexico, the tapes did not match Oswald's voice? (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, p. 357) And why has the Agency never been able to produce a photo of Oswald entering the Cuban or Soviet embassies there? Why did they send a photo of a person who was clearly not Oswald to the Warren Commission? And why did the Commission then print it in its volumes? (ibid, p. 354) Shenon tries to cover up this lacuna by saying that there is evidence some people saw a photo, and maybe station chief Win Scott saw a photo of Oswald in Mexico City at the time. For instance, if Mexico City station chief Win Scott saw a photo of Oswald why did he then not show it to David Slawson and Bill Coleman of the Warren Commission, when they visited him? They were there for that express purpose: to inquire about Oswald's activities in Mexico City. (ibid, p. 360)

Shenon fails to point up the reason we know about all these problems in the evidentiary record about Oswald and Mexico City. We know about them because of the work of Dan Hardway and Ed Lopez of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. While preparing their 300-page report about Oswald in Mexico City, they found the work of Slawson and Coleman to be completely inadequate. They then got access to the CIA cable traffic record to and from Mexico City for the period of September,1963 to November 22nd. This is something the Warren Commission never even thought of doing. Their report is largely based upon that traffic; along with the records of the raw data as produced by the CIA's electronic and photographic surveillance of the two embassies. This latter record, is again, something that Slawson and Coleman never even approached as evidence while they were there. This is why, in the Warren Report and in the Slawson-Coleman report, one comes away very puzzled over two further lacunae. Neither source record mentions either David Phillips or Anne Goodpasture. Both of these people had cleared access to the surveillance raw data out of the embassies. And there is evidence that both of them helped falsify the record of Oswald allegedly being there. (ibid, pgs. 354-55) If Slawson and Coleman had done their jobs correctly this information and falsification could have been caught back in 1964. Shenon does not mention these facts.

Nor does Shenon measure Slawson's hoary canard about how any plot could not have been a far flung or complex one since Oswald did not get his job at the Texas School Book Depository until October, and the motorcade route was not announced until November. Shenon ignored the facts that the first announcement about Kennedy's trip to Texas was made April 23, 1963. It was made by Lyndon Johnson in Dallas and reported in the Herald Tribune the next day. This was echoed with a specific note to Kennedy from a local Dallas resident already working on the visit. Again, Dallas is mentioned in the note dated June 12, 1963. There is also a story in the same paper in September which also states Kennedy will be coming to Dallas. Further, people organizing the visit that fall knew it would have to be late in November due to scheduling problems. In other words, maybe be Commission was in the dark about this, and the public. But not people in the White House, advance man Jerry Bruno, or the business and political elite in the Dallas-Fort Worth areas. (See the online essay "Why JFK Went to Texas" by Joe Backes) Further, Shenon fails to mention that the failed Chicago plot to kill JFK mirrored, in its design and mechanics, the successful Dallas one. If that is not complex planning in advance, I don't know what is. (See Jim Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, pgs. 202-18) Could Castro have really done all of this maneuvering in two cities?

Instead our intrepid NY Times veteran peoples his mission of twisting conspiracy "facts" against Castro with the following "experts:"

- Thomas Mann, U.S. Ambassador in Mexico; who "suspected" and "was under the impression..."

- Winston Scott, CIA Chief of Station in Mexico City, who also "suspected..."

- David Slawson, WC investigator, who "believes" and has another "suspicion..."

- Clarence Kelley, FBI Director, who "came to believe"

- William Sullivan, FBI Assistant Director, who "admitted huge gaps" in the record

- David Belin, WC staff lawyer, who "came to believe..."

- Charles William Thomas, U.S. diplomat, who "was told by a friend..."

- And finally, "people who suggest that Oswald had many more contacts with people in Mexico City who might have wanted to see JFK dead..."

Let's summarize. None of the Shenon's sources brought a single quantum of proof for turning plausible his Castro hypothesis. Their suspicions, impressions, beliefs, admissions, second-hand tales, and suggestions are linked to long-ago debunked stories. For sticking with them along the substantiation of his hypothesis, Shenon must concoct, among others, these facts:

"Oswald had visited Mexico City (...) apparently to obtain a visa that would allow the self-proclaimed Marxist to defect to Cuba."

Knowing that appearances deceive, Shenon fabricates this one to get around the fact; proven by both CIA transcripts of taped phone calls and eyewitnesses at the Cuban Consulate; that "Oswald" asked the Cubans for an in-transit visa with the declared intention of going to the Soviet Union. For defecting to Cuba, he would have only needed to say it at the spot. Shenon simply hides that Marxist Lee in Mexico City perfectly blends with Castroite Harvey in New Orleans due to a CIA-FBI joint operation to discredit the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC). As Jim DiEugenio discusses in Destiny Betrayed Oswald was not connected with Castro, but with the CIA and anti-Castro Cuban exiles. (See especially pgs. 101-66)

"Oswald's six-day trip to Mexico was never adequately investigated by the CIA... and the State Department."

Shenon is correct here. But not in his nonsense that the plot to kill Kennedy was hatched in Mexico by Castro agents, and the U.S. agencies covered it up to avoid World War III. The cover up by the CIA started before the assassination, as John Newman has so thoroughly established since Oswald and the CIA. When CIA officers like James Angleton began to bifurcate the Oswald file in advance of the trip to Mexico. (See Newman, p. 393)

"And in fact, lots of evidence has accumulated over the years to suggest [it] would be wise to look to Mexico City."

Shenon is writing as if the HSCA's Mexico City Report, also known as the Lopez Report (1978) wouldn't have been almost fully declassified in 2003. It provides lots of collusion going on with the CIA in regard to Oswald in Mexico City, from phony cables to senior officers blatantly lying on facts as they were happening before the JFK assassination. It's almost as if Shenon does not want the reader to know about this bombshell report.

"Much evidence about Oswald's Mexico trip; including CIA tape recordings of wiretaps of Oswald's phone calls in Mexico; never reached the [Warren] Commission."

That's half-true. These tapes not only never reached the WC, but also have been never produced by the CIA, even though their transcripts were found. Since the CIA remained silent before the assassination about calls indicating that Oswald had been impersonated, no tapes at all is a conspiracy fact; as Gaeton Fonzi crystal clearly explained in The Last Investigation (Thunder's Mouth Press, 1993; that turns Shenon's hypothesis into excrement. (See Fonzi, p. 294)

"If Oswald openly boasted about his plans to kill JFK among people in Mexico, it would undermine the official story that he was a lone wolf whose plans to kill the president could never have been detected by the CIA or FBI."

FBI super spy Jack Childs reported on his mission (SOLO-15) to Cuba in March 1964 that Castro himself had told him: "When Oswald was refused his visa at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City, he acted like a madman and started yelling and shouting on his way out, 'I'm going to kill this bastard. I'm going to kill Kennedy'." Shenon recycles this discredited report and magnifies such an outburst; at the Embassy, not at the Consulate; as an assassination plan. Even though the HSCA already put the issue to rest in its Final Report (1979): "Nothing in the evidence indicated that the threat should have been taken seriously, if it had occurred, since Oswald had behaved in an argumentative and obnoxious fashion." (italics added) And, in fact, as both John Newman and Arnaldo M. Fernandez have shown, it likely did not happen. (See section six of the following review for details, http://www.ctka.net/reviews/shenon.html)

Shenon's "Oswald did it, Castro helped" must match with the notorious fact that a former Marine, re-defector from the Soviet Union, who had openly engaged into pro Castro activism in New Orleans, according to Shenon, this man was spotted by the CIA in Mexico City on September 27, 1963, as soon as he visited the Cuban and the Soviet diplomatic compounds. Since the CIA and the FBI missed him as a security risk in Dallas by the time of JFK visit, Castro could have helped the killing only in a conspiracy of silence with the CIA. Thus, Shenon's crap detector didn't find out what's good for him.

"State Department and CIA records declassified in recent years show that the agencies rebuffed Thomas in his requests for a new investigation."

That's another half-truth. Thomas' request was rebuffed on the grounds that the subjacent story; told by his friend, Mexican writer Elena Garro; was mere crap, like all the other allegations of red conspiracies in Mexico City made by Gilberto Alvarado, Pedro Gutierrez, Salvador Diaz-Verson, Vladimir Rodriguez Lahera, Antulio Ortiz Ramirez, Marty Underwood... etc. Shenon interweaves some of these, and other inventions that are not true, in order to arrive beforehand at a fact-free analysis on the Castro connection. As Hemingway told Manning, "no good book has ever been written that [way]." Accordingly, Shenon's latest essay on the JFK assassination is another cruel and shocking act against his readership. But before leaving it at that, let us add one other pertinent and disturbing fact about Shenon and his latest diversion from the truth.

Why did he write such a book? In his original 2013 edition, Shenon wrote that his inspiration for writing the volume was a call he got from a junior counsel to the Commission. Once he agreed to the project, this unnamed counsel then got him in contact with the other surviving staffers. According to researcher Pat Speer, the mysterious caller was none other than Arlen Specter, Mr. Single Bullet Theory himself. Since Specter died in 2012, and Shenon's book was first published in 2013, it turns out that; via Shenon--the Philadelphia lawyer was continuing the JFK cover up from his grave.

(Arnaldo M. Fernandez is a former professor of law at the University of Havana.)

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #843451
05/25/15 04:09 PM
05/25/15 04:09 PM
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 77
East Boston
Bennie_The_Ball Offline
Button
Bennie_The_Ball  Offline
Button
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 77
East Boston


Colin Sullivan: "What Freud said about the Irish is: We're the only people who are impervious to psychoanalysis."

Cincotti said: "They don't have the scruples that we have." Zannino agreed. "You know how I knew they weren't Italiano? When they bombed the fucking house. We don't do that."
Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #844560
06/04/15 07:43 AM
06/04/15 07:43 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
A
abc123 Offline
Underboss
abc123  Offline
A
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
http://jfkcountercou...aley-plazq.html


Disinformation at Dealey Plaza - By Bill Kelly

House Select Committee on Assassinations investigator Dan Hardway used the word “disinformation” to describe what they were questioning CIA officer David Atlee Phillips about when Hardway said, “Initially, the CIA was cooperating....(it was) when we started pushing on investigating the disinformation efforts after the assassination, and realizing that I could tie just about every single disinformation effort directly back to David Attle Phillips that George Joannides got involved.”

Disinformation is defined as "false or misleading information that is put out by a government or an intelligence agency to influence public opinion" – so if it doesn't stem from a national government intelligence agency then it isn't disinformation.

The specific disinformation efforts Hardway is referring to are the failed attempts to blame what happened at Dealey Plaza on Castro Cuban Communists – dozens of easily charted case studies that are of a very specific type of disinformation known as “Black propaganda,”- a type specifically defined by the CIA's Paul Linebarger, the former US Army officer and author of the standard textbook "Propaganda."

Any study of psychological warfare and disinformation would have to include the work of Paul Linebarger, a professor at the School for Advanced International Studies at John Hopkins University, who also taught the black arts of propaganda and psychological warfare operations to CIA agents, and among his best students were E. Howard Hunt, Ed Lansdale and David Atlee Phillips.

According to Linebarger, “Psychological warfare consists of the application of parts of the science called psychology to the conduct of war; psychological warfare comprises the use of propaganda against the enemy, together with such military operational measures as may supplement the propaganda. Propaganda may be described in turn, as organized persuasion by non-violent means. War itself may be considered to be, among other things, a violent form of persuasion. War is waged against the minds, not the bodies of the enemy.”

“Specifically defined,” says Linebarger, “propaganda consists of the planned use of any form of public or mass produced communication designed to affect the minds and emotions of a given group for a specific public purpose, whether military, economic or political. Military propaganda consists of the planned use of any form of communications designed to affect the minds and emotions of a given enemy, neutral or friendly foreign group for a specific strategic or tactical purpose.”

Linebarger warned his students not to use such techniques against Americans. “I hate to think what would ever happen,” he once said with a prophet’s voice, “if any of you ever got out of this business and got involved in U.S. politics. These kinds of dirty tricks must never be used in internal U.S. politics. The whole system would come apart.” Well, they were used and are being used today, and the whole system did come apart.

Note that if the communication is not planned, it cannot be called propaganda, and if it does not originate from an intelligence agent, agency, service or network, it is not disinformation, as it is classically defined: Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation.
Some of the information that real disinformation agents dish out is classified as “black.”

According to Ladislas Farago such, “Black Propaganda is a fundamental intelligence operation,…because it never identifies its real source and pretends to originate within or close to the enemy.”

Not one or two but over two dozen examples can be given – the most recent by Phil Sheon in his book “A Cruel and Shocking Act.”

http://jfkcountercou...king-twist.html

List of over two dozen case studies of the Black Prop Op at Dealey Plaza:

http://jfkcountercou...k-prop-ops.html

These are the “fingerprints of intelligence” that Sen. Richard Schweiker (R. Pa.) referred to in describing what he learned about the assassination of President Kennedy while serving on the Church Intelligence Committee, the records of which are still sealed to this day.

Two new and important books by Peter Dale Scott (Deep Politics III) and John Newman's “Where Angels Tread Lightly” refer specifically to the black propaganda efforts to blame the assassination on Castro.

Peter Dale Scott:

“In the days after the murders in Dallas, the U.S. Was flooded with dubious stories, most of them swiftly discredited, linking Oswald to either a Cuban or Soviet conspiracy. Those which most preoccupied the FBI and CIA all came out of Mexico. These stories exhibited certain common characteristics. - They all came from either directly from an intelligence source, or from someone in the hands of an intelligence agency - The Stories changed over time, to support either a pro-conspiratorial hypothesis (“Phase One”) or a rebuttal of this (“Phase Two”).- The Warren Commission was led to believe that the“Phase One”stories were without basis. In fact a number of unresolved anomalies suggest that behind them was some deeper truth, still not revealed.- In retrospect, these stories should not have been taken seriously. In fact the CIA was able to rely on them, not as a source of truth, but as a source of coercive influence over the rest of the government. It will help us to understand what was going on if we refer to the stories, not as 'information' or even as 'allegations,' but as MANAGED STORIES. To say this leaves open the question of who were the ultimate managers?”

Scott: “I do wish to argue that these managed stories, fleeting and insubstantial though they are, were of central importance in determining the outcome of the Kennedy assassination investigation. In succeeding years, furthermore, the discredited 'Phase-One' stories have been revived to manipulate public opinion, even after the CIA and FBI had agreed on a 'Phase-Two' interpretation of Oswald's movements in Mexico City. In 2013, for example, the discredited Garro story of the twist party was revived in a mainstream book by Philip Shenon.”

Newman: “The plot to assassinate President Kennedy was designed to deceive both people in the government and the public at large. A convincing trail of evidence was established to make it appear that the Kennedy brothers’ plan to overthrow Castro had been turned around and used against them by Fidel himself, resulting in the assassination of President Kennedy."

“There is an unstated corollary principal in the game of deception that Allen Dulles was kind enough to give us. Once a “single piece” of a black operation has been compromised, the entire fabric of that operation can potentially unravel.”

You can't understand what happened at Dealey Plaza unless you understand the fundamentals of psychological warfare, disinformation and black propaganda – because that's the part of the Dealey Plaza operational plan that failed, that failed in its contention that Castro Cuban Communists were responsible for the assassination, and because it failed it gives us a good glimpse into the Looking Glass and brings us very close to those who designed the plan, especially the part that failed.

Allen Dulles brought a book with him to the first meeting of the Warren Commission, Donovan's American Assassins, in which the author of PT109 designates most American assassins as looney loners. Instead, he should have shared his own book, "The Crafts of Intelligence," in which he recommends Sun Tzu's "The Art of War," in which the five types of secret agents - Native, Inside, Doubled, Expendable and Living Agents. When all of these agents are work together it is called the "Divine Skein," with a skein being a closely knit net and the Divine Skein a network of spies and the "treasure of the sovereign."

Those who were especially selected by the CIA were trained in psychological warfare by Linebarger, who besides using his own text "Propaganda," also used as a text book David Maurer's "The Big Con," the book that the movie "The Sting" was based on.

Linebarger notes that "security is designed to keep useful information from reaching the enemy, while propaganda operations are designed to get information to him. The term propaganda stems from the name of the department of the Vatican which had the duty of propagating the faith. And Black Propaganda must clearly be labeled as an act of the enemy"

In his book on propaganda Linebarger says that such disinformation, by its very nature, can be identified as such and traced back to its source, using his formula for doing so. Therefore, the real disinformation and propaganda on the assassination can be traced back to its source, which should be very close to those who were actually responsible for the assassination.

Linebarger developed the STASM formula for spot analysis, in which propaganda can be distinguished by the consideration of five elements:

1. Source
2. Time
3. Audience
4. Subject
5. Mission.

According to Linebarger, “This formula works best in the treatment of monitored materials of which the source is known. First point to note is the character of the source — the true source (who really got it out?), the ostensible source (whose name is signed to it?); also the first use source (who used it the first time?) and the second source (who claims merely to be using it as a quotation?). It is soon evident that the mere attribution of source is a job of high magnitude.”

It is apparent that the roots to many of the black propaganda operations related to Dealey Plaza, especially those that try to falsely implicate Castro in the assassination, stem back to David Atlee Phillips, another one of Linebarger’s protégés.

At the time of the assassination, David Phillips was working for the CIA in Mexico City, responsible for monitoring the Cuban and Russian embassies there, as well as keeping tabs on the activities of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) “in the hemisphere.” In August, 1963, the New Orleans representative of the FPCC, Lee Harvey Oswald, was seen with Phillips, aka “Maurice Bishop,” in the lobby of a Dallas office building, and shortly thereafter Oswald went on his mission to Mexico City.

In the immediate aftermath of the assassination, Phillips interrogated a Nicaraguan intelligence agent who said that he had seen Oswald with Cuban Communists in Mexico City, and though Phillips knew this information was wrong, he promoted it within CIA as plausibly possible, and tried to get other Cubans to confirm Oswald’s false Communist associations.

One of these is from conversations which David Phillips had with Kevin Walsh, a former HSCA staffer who went on to work as a private detective in Washington, DC In a conversation not long before his death, Phillips remarked: "My private opinion is that JFK was done in by a conspiracy, likely including American intelligence officers." - David Atlee Phillips, July 1986.

I was one of the two case officers who handled Lee Harvey Oswald. After working to establish his Marxist bona fides, we gave him the mission of killing Fidel Castro in Cuba. I helped him when he came to Mexico City to obtain a visa, and when he returned to Dallas to wait for it I saw him twice there. We rehearsed the plan many times: In Havana Oswald was to assassinate Castro with a sniper's rifle from the upper floor window of a building on the route where Castro often drove in an open jeep. Whether Oswald was a double-agent or a psycho I'm not sure, and I don't know why he killed Kennedy. But I do know he used precisely the plan we had devised against Castro. Thus the CIA did not anticipate the President's assassination but it was responsible for it. I share that guilt.”

So the precise plan they had devised against Castro was “to assassinate Castro with a sniper’s rifle from the upper floor window of a building on the route where Castro often drove in an open jeep.”

Among these plans we have records of Pathfinder, which we learned from the NPIC staff at JMWAVE where the Patherfinder records were intentionally misfiled, and the so-called Hemingway plot, in which Castro was known to visit Hemingway’s house in Cuba, providing an opportunity to shoot him.

Both cases were probably part of the attempt to adapt the Valkyrie plan for the German military to eliminate Hitler and take over Nazi Germany in July 1944, a plot that used a bomb but failed.

The aspect of the Valkyrie plan that was used at Dealey Plaza was the psychwar disinformation ploy to blame the murder of Hitler on the SS and Gestapo, while the plan adapted for use at Dealey Plaza framed Oswald as the designated patsy and attempted to blame the Dealey Plaza ambush on Castro Cuban Communists.

Links:

http://jfkcountercou...aley-plaza.html

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #844564
06/04/15 08:09 AM
06/04/15 08:09 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
A
abc123 Offline
Underboss
abc123  Offline
A
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/t...bout-clay-shaw/

The Garrison Group: What one top CIA official said about Clay Shaw.

In response to last week’s post on the CIA’s still-secret file on New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, author Peter Janney sent the following comment about the CIA’s secret monitoring of Garrison’s JFK investigation.

The fact that counterintelligence chief Jim Angleton oversaw this effort is very telling. Angleton’ job was to prevent penetration of the agency by a foreign powers. Yet his Garrison Group showed no interest in whether Garrison was cooperating with or advancing the agenda of another intelligence service. So why did Angleton care? To me the most plausible explanation is that Angleton feared Garrison might uncovered evidence of a counterintelligence operation in New Orleans or Angleton’s pre-assassination interest in Oswald. Or both.

To the story Janney, the son of a CIA officer, adds an important detail that I had forgotten.


Janney is the author of Mary’s Mosaic, an investigation of the murder of Mary Meyer, the Georgetown artist and mistress of President Kennedy whom he knew as a child.

Janney writes:

“What is lacking in this article is the fact that on September 20, 1967, the CIA held its first “Garrison Group Meeting” (No 1 – 20 September 1967). This high level, classified meeting was attended by the “Executive Director, General Counsel, Inspector General, Deputy Director for Plans, Mr. Raymond Rocca of CI Staff, Director of Security and Mr. Goodwin.”

“The Minutes of the Meeting read as follows:

“1) “Executive Director said that the Director has asked him to convene a group to consider the possible implications for the Agency emanating from New Orleans before, during, and after the trial of Clay Shaw.”

“2) “General Counsel discussed his dealings with Justice and the desire of Shaw’s lawyers to make contact with the Agency.”

“3) “[Raymond] Rocca [who was Jim Angleton’s chief lieutenant] felt that Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.”

“4) Executive Director said the group should level on two objectives: (a) what kind of action, if any, is available to the Agency, and (b) what actions should be taken inside the Agency to reassure the Director that we have the problem in focus. The possibility of Agency action should be examined from the timing of what can be done before the trial and what might be feasible during and after the trial. It was agreed that OGC and Rocca would make a detailed study of all the facts and consult with Justice as appropriate prior to the next meeting.”

“The meeting was chaired by my father – “F.W.M. Janney”

“So, as early as 1967, we learn here that ‘Rocca felt that Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.’ If this isn’t prima facie evidence that Clay Shaw was not only an asset of the CIA but was part of the conspiracy “to assassinate President Kennedy,” then I don’t know what else to say . . .

“Here, we have a high-level internal CIA meeting where the No. 2 main on the Counter Intelligence staff (Ray Rocca) tells everyone that Garrison ‘would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw,’ only because Rocca knew what had taken place. Game, set, and Match! The CIA is guilty, and always has been !?’

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #844566
06/04/15 08:14 AM
06/04/15 08:14 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
A
abc123 Offline
Underboss
abc123  Offline
A
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/t...vie/#more-19333

The CIA’s secret files on Jim Garrison, the prosecutor celebrated in the ‘JFK’ movie.

The CIA retains two secret files on New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, the crusading prosecutor who inspired Oliver Stone’s hit movie “JFK.”

The files–whose existence is reported here for the first time– are among the 3,600 secret U.S. government records related to JFK’s assassination that are scheduled to be released in October 2017. Earlier this week, Politico and NOLA,com reported on the existence of the 3,600 records, which was first disclosed on May 12 by JFK Facts.

The Garrison files contain 16 pages of undated and unclassified material, according to the National Archives’ online database of JFK assassination records

One file– labelled “CIA File on Garrison, James”–contains ten pages of material. The other–described as “Illegible Document, Garrison Investigation”–has six pages.


The CIA says that both files are “Not Believed Relevant” to the JFK’s assassination.

How a CIA file on Jim Garrison could not be relevant to the JFK story is one of those questions that only the metaphysicians of Langley can answer.

Richard Helms
Richard Helms, CIA director, targeted ‘conspiracy theorists.”
‘Highly-paid CIA source’ on trial

In the early 1960s Jim Garrison was a crusading local prosecutor dedicated to the Sisyphean task of stamping out the engrained vices of the city they call “The Big Easy.” His law enforcement work was of no conceivable interest to the CIA–until February 1967. That’s when Garrison made headlines around the world by announcing he was investigating a possible conspiracy behind JFK’s assassination,

Until that point no one had ever charged with the murder of the 35th American president, who was shot dead in front of a friendly crowd in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

Top CIA officials worried about what Garrison might find as he started his probe.

On April 1, 1967, CIA director Richard Helms launched a secret world-wide campaign, entitled “Countering Warren Commission critics,” which sought to discredit JFK ‘conspiracy theorists” with newspaper editors and reporters.

James Angleton
James Angleton, counterintelligence chief, targeted Jim Garrison
At the same time, James Angleton, chief of the agency’s Counterintelligence Staff, established a secret committee, which monitored Garrison’s investigation for the next two years. Declassified documents show that Angleton’s “Garrison Group” identified scores of CIA assets and sources who figured in the New Orleans investigation.

While intensely suspicious of the CIA, Garrison actually underestimated the extent of the agency’s interest in accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald before JFK was killed.

Angeton’s staff had monitored Oswald for four years after his defection to the Soviet Union in November 1959, according to declassified records released in 1990s. Jane Roman, an aide to to Angleton, told the Washington Post that certain CIA officials had “keen interest” in Oswald in late 1963.

Six senior CIA officers reporting to Helms and Angleton in the fall of 1963 were informed about Oswald’s travels, political activities, and foreign contacts six weeks before JFK was killed. (The names of these officers are found on the last page of this pre-assassination cable on Oswald, dated October 10, 1963.)

Another undercover officer reporting to Helms, George Joannides, the chief of psychological warfare operations in Miami, maintained a residence in New Orleans un 1963-1964, according to a sworn 2013 affidavit filed in federal court by Ron Machen, U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C.

While CBS News, the Washington Post and other national news organizations scoffed at Garrison’s investigation in the late 1960s, the high-level CIA interest in his investigation went undetected and unreported.

So did the agency’s pre-assassination interest in Oswald.

Shaw acquitted

In January 1969 Garrison brought charges against Clay Shaw, a prominent New Orleans businessman, alleging he was a CIA asset who had conspired to assassinate President

Clay Shaw
Clay Shaw, acquitted
Kennedy. At the time, the CIA denied any connection to Shaw, and Shaw denied any animus against Kennedy. After a trial featuring several less-than credible witnesses, Shaw was acquitted.

But a declassified 1992 document revealed that Shaw did work for the agency. One official who reviewed the agency’s records on Shaw described him as a “highly paid CIA contract source” (The quote is found on the the bottom of page 2 of the document.)

For some reason, Shaw’s documented relationship with the CIA is not mentioned on Wikipedia.

Question for 2016

Garrison died in 1992, less than a year after the release of Stone’s Oscar-winning movie in which he was portrayed by Kevin Costner. Twenty three years later, the CIA is still concealing the information it collected about him–for reasons that have yet to be explained.

Neither of the secret Garrison files is classified according to the Archives’ database, indicating they do not contain sensitive national security information.

Martha Murphy, chief of the National Archives’s JFK collection, told Politico that her staff is preparing to make all of the records public by October 2017.. However, the CIA and other federal agencies have the right under the law ask the president to postpone release of the records beyond 2017.

The CIA declines to say if the agency will request postponement of any of the 1,100 CIA records that have never been seen by the public.

“We are aware of the process and will work judiciously within that process, ”Dean Boyd, a CIA spokesman, told Politico.

Translation:: If the CIA thinks it can get away with keeping some, or all, of its JFK record secret past October 2017, it will.

Which begs a question for 2016 presidential candidates: “Do you favor the immediate release of the CIA’s files on Jim Garrison?”



Garrison files
The Garrison files, as listed in the National Archives online database

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #844567
06/04/15 08:17 AM
06/04/15 08:17 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
A
abc123 Offline
Underboss
abc123  Offline
A
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/w...day/#more-18969

Why Marina Oswald could sue the FBI for illegal surveillance.

Question: Why isn’t the FBI spying on Marina Oswald better known?

Answer: Because much governmental effort has gone into making sure that it is not better known.

Why? Maybe because Marina Oswald and her children–alive and living in Texas–have solid grounds for a lawsuit.

Before my research, I knew vaguely about a 1975 New York Times report on how the FBI admitted tapping and bugging Marina’s conversations. “Electronic surveillance,” the Times reported, was “based upon written approval of the Attorney General of the United States. The Government contended then that in national security cases, court approval was not required“.

That was true. It wasn’t until 1972 that the Supreme Court ruled in the US v. Keith case that “national security” was not a sufficient basis to conduct a search without a warrant.

But no one has ever seen transcripts of the surveillance of the wife of the accused assassin of JFK, a fact first noted by author Lamar Waldron in his book Legacy of Secrecy .

Nor has anyone has ever heard the tapes of this surveillance.

But we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the U.S. government spied on Marina Oswald after the assassination of JFK.

The results were not reassuring to Hoover’s insistence that Lee Oswald was solely responsible for JFK’s murder.

Dallas FBI agent Jim Hosty confirmed in his book that Marina was surveilled and he added a convincing detail: His FBI fellow agent Anatole Boguslav translated the Russian comments into English.

The transcripts and the tapes are still missing — a scandal that needs to be addressed as the National Archives prepares to release 3,600 still-secret JFK documents by the legally-mandated deadline of October 2017.

Hosty’s account indicates that the Dallas FBI office initially had custody of the tapes, with orders not to erase them.

Where are the tapes now? No one knows. I suspect that at least the transcripts are hidden inside informant files that have never been turned over to any investigative agency.

What the tapes revealed
Attorney General Robert F Kennedy
Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy approved the wiretapping of Marina Oswald’s phone in 1964
I unearthed some FBI documents that explain why these tapes and transcripts have not been turned over.

The surveillance of Marina recorded statements that went directly to the question of her husband’s guilt or innocence in the murder of JFK— yet the FBI halted the surveillance less than two weeks after it began, saying that the results were “insignificant”.

This evidence was not provided to the Warren Commission.

The documents also show that although Attorney General Robert Kennedy did provide approval to tap Marina’s phone, he never gave the FBI permission to plant microphones (“bugs”) inside her home.

This newly-discovered information gives Marina and her family the right to file a new suit against the FBI and certain officials for violation of their constitutional rights.

The contents of the newly-discovered files
On the Mary Ferrell Web site, I found three folders of FBI material that are highly relevant to the JFK story.

Folders U-10 and S-3 discuss the wiretapping and bugging of Marina Oswald’s home from February 27 to March 12, 1964. Folder O-11 is a file on Marina that begins during February 1964.

These three folders tell us that although the phone tap and bugs were revealing some important first-hand information–such as the doubts of Marina and Oswald’s brother Robert that Lee shot JFK– the surveillance was shut down based on the FBI’s inexplicable claim that nothing of significance was being learned.

On February 24, 1964, Warren Commission chief counsel J. Lee Rankin asked J. Edgar Hoover for a “stake-out” of Marina’s home with “discreet physical surveillance”. This memo, and others in this folder, are within Hoover’s famous “JUNE” mail file, conducted when he wanted to conduct technical surveillance.

(Note to researchers: See the second page of this FBI June mail file for “special storage”, and page 190 on “records management”).

On February 24 1963, field surveillance began, and agents surreptitiously monitored Marina’s movements.

RFK never gave the FBI permission to plant microphones inside her home .

The next day, February 25, we see Bobby Kennedy’s signature approving Hoover’s proposal for a wiretap on her home on 2/25/64.

Bill Sullivan, the head of domestic intelligence for the Bureau, wrote on the 25th that “the practical thing to do is to place the installation in her new home…and then give this coverage adequate time to see if anything relevant can be developed.”

However, for reasons unknown, the FBI exceeded the terms of RFK’s approval of the tapping of Marina’s phone. On February 27, the FBI obtained “internal approval” to plant bugs inside Marina’s home–without asking the Attorney General.

The microphones were planted throughout the house- – from the attic to the bedroom — on the night of February 28, hours before Marina was going to move in to her new home. The phone tap was installed on February 29 by Special Agent Nat Pinkston. The bugs became operational on March 2.

Although the plan was to conduct surveillance indefinitely, the whole operation was shut down for no plausible reason by March 12.

A decade later, an FBI memo admitted that the bugs installed by the FBI were never approved by RFK. The FBI justified its actions by citing “general authority then existing” for its action.

There was no such “general authority.” If he Bureau had no court order authorizing the planting of microphones inside Marina’s home, the bugging was clearly illegal.

If RFK had approved of the bugs, their legality would be a closer question. Without RFK’s approval, the FBI was clearly breaking the law as it was understood in 1964.

What was learned
Robert Oswald
Robert Oswald was overhead doubting his brother’s guilt
A report by FBI special agent Milton Newsom discusses what was picked up on Marina’s phone and the microphones inside the house. The results were not reassuring to Hoover’s insistence that Lee Oswald was solely responsible for JFK”s murder.

Newsom’s report shows that:

–at that time Robert Oswald, Lee’s brother, was saying that he thought Lee was innocent. Later Robert Oswald would say he had no doubt about Lee’s guilt.

–Marina went back and forth on whether Lee was guilty.

–Marine said that she didn’t remember the package that Lee’s neighbor and co-worker Buell Wesley Frazier claimed Lee brought with him to the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) that fateful Friday morning.

On March 11, Marvin Gheesling, a senior FBI counterintelligence agent in Washington, tipped off Lee Rankin, chief counsel of the Warren Commission, about some of what was learned about the conversation in Marina’s house.

Gheesling did not tell Rankin that the tap and the bugs were the source.

Gheesling took pains to avoid letting Rankin know about a conversation between Marina’s business manager (and paramour) James Martin with the Russian translator Ilya Mamantov.

Mamantov was brought into the case by Army Intelligence on the afternoon that JFK was killed. Mamantov believed Oswald was a Soviet agent. He proceeded to obtain a questionable statement from Marina on the night of November 22, 1963 that she recognized the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD as belonging to Lee.

Martin told Mamantov that “Marina understands English pretty well” and that she didn’t need a translator. That news would have caused shock waves at the Warren Commission, which had been given the impression that Marina had little comprehension of English-language conversations going on around her.

The FBI claim that ‘no significant results’ had been obtained was nonsense.

The FBI claimed there was a major problem with the surveillance: it was picking up attorney-client communications between Marina and her attorney William McKenzie.

In the past, the FBI had not considered that as a problem. McKenzie had already assured the FBI that he would assist them in “spot checking” her activities that were not direct attorney-client communications.

McKenzie also told Rankin that he would get a waiver of the attorney-client privilege from his clients about anything they knew about JFK’s assassination –and he had it in writing within days after the bugging began.

There is no denying that the information they were obtaining was of great importance. The FBI claim that “no significant results” had been obtained was nonsense.

What can be done today?
A lot.

I will take action to see if these tapes or transcripts of Marina Oswald remain in the possession of the FBI’s “informant files“, as indicated in the documents I reviewed. The FBI did not turn over any such material to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the 1990s.

I will also challenge the FBI’s refusal to provide these documents and the rest of the informant files to the ARRB or the other investigative bodies that have demanded that all relevant evidence be turned over. This is part of a pattern that I will discuss in my follow-up article.

Warren Commission in the dark
Marina Oswald
Marina Oswald in 1961
Marina’s love life also was an area of potential embarrassment for all concerned. After her husband’s murder in policy custody, she became romantically involved with her business manager James Martin, with whom she discussed the pros and cons of marriage which might lessen the possibility of her deportation. Marina was vulnerable to pressure due to her immigration status.

Chief counsel Rankin was informed that the surveillance of Marina would be ended. The FBI recommended that Agent Newsom’s report not be given to the Warren Commission, in order to avoid public criticism of the Bureau for tapping Marina. Hoover wrote that the Commission was trying to embarrass his agency. The story remained hidden.

When the New York Times story broke the story a decade later, Warren Commission assistant counsel David Belin said that it was “horrible” that the Commission was not informed about the FBI’s actions.

Legal implications in 2015
Since the failure to obtain RFK’s permission to plant bugs in Marina’s home has been revealed for the first time, the argument can now be made that the FBI cannot claim reasonable belief of compliance with the law prior to the 1972 court decision that court approval is required in order to use hidden microphones.

The statute of limitations only begins to run in a setting where a reasonable person would learn about it. Media publication is considered to be such a setting.

The time to sue on the telephone tap would have begun with publication of the Times story in 1975, and the statute of limitations has long since run on that subject.

The time to sue on the bugging of Marina’s home, however, has arguably just begun with the publication of this story revealing RFK’s failure to provide permission.

Dick Russell has written about how Marina has expressed interested about filing suit to try to take effective action in reaching resolution in the JFK case. I wonder if she is still interested?

My legal opinion is that Marina Oswald – and maybe even her two children, who resided with her at the time – are now free to file a lawsuit against the FBI and certain officials for the planting of the bugs.

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #844698
06/05/15 10:29 AM
06/05/15 10:29 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
A
abc123 Offline
Underboss
abc123  Offline
A
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
http://www.rtl.fr/actu/international/ken...card-7767111282

Former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing going public that Ford admitted to him that the Warren Commission knew there was an organized plot.

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #844781
06/05/15 08:43 PM
06/05/15 08:43 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 884
Hudson County NJ
D
DB Offline
Underboss
DB  Offline
D
Underboss
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 884
Hudson County NJ
What some people must do to remain credible IMO is stop blaming the entire CIA organization which is entirely false IMO and there are agents on record who have stated they tried to verify the rumor / chatter and save the presidents life but rather a handful of rogue CIA officers in the or were in the anti Cuba Mongoose division . Specifically men such as David Morales , David Atlee Phillips , Tony Sforza , Bill Harvey and a handful of mob contacts like Martino ( he confessed his role ) and Roselli . Then you have guys like Allen Dulles , Ed Landsdale and others that are highly suspected but no admission of guilt or smoking gun evidence, however there is a ton of circumstancial evidence , especially Dulles ( head of the commission as the cover up was a more difficult task then the murder itself ).

It's extremely important people read about the Chicago assassination plot just 2 + weeks earlier where the secret service was tipped off by a man that only identified himself as "Lee" and thwarted the plot , however this was intensely covered up , to the point of jailing a SS agent that tried to communicate this plot to the Warren Commission, but instead the day after he arrived in DC to tell his story he was framed for fraud and jailed and shut up for a long time and this was a great man and SS agent by the name of Arthur Bolden - first black SS agent ever just trying to do his job but had his life ruined . When you read this , its crystal clear the plan mirrored the Dallas plot , all the way down to the lone nut who was arrested and like LHO was x military , from the same damn secret U2 Japan CIA base and which they could label as not mentally stable . Unfortunately for the plotters , 2 of the 4 Cubans assassins were caught after being under constant surveillance , and were arrested with high power rifles , a copy of the motorcade route and their expected location in a high building with clear shot angles and views where JFK was to be murdered during his motorcade route . To this day the government, who actually arrested at least 2 of the operational cuban men have IDs of these men ( unless of course the evidence was destroyed ), but miracularisly the case was quickly buried , contained and everyone was told to never speak about it again . I really hope when all records are released in 2017, the identities of these 2 Cuban men are made known as that would be a huge break for the case . Now we know why during the JFK document act , the SS destroyed advance team security details in the trips leading up to Dallas for comparison sake . Chicago is likely a big reason for this and luckily it does not appear Chicago LE was as corruptavle as Dallas LE when it came to the JFK assassination.

The Chicago story , or plot shows the murder had more men and parts then just LHO (ironic huh how the Chicago tipster name was Lee - maybe this is partly why he was chosen ?). It boggles my mind that nobody discusses the Chicago plot and the police actually arrested 2 of the would be assassins , in terms of evidence it doesn't get much bigger than that as then you can begin tracking people , their movements and contacts back ( like HSCA investigator Hardaway did with the Castro did it sources back to CIA propaganda expert David Atlee Phillips ) , but hardly many Americans know about this entire episode , but rightly so as its cover up what was as important as the Dallas cover up as it would have exposed that the assassination was a conspiracy given the multiple cities and people , in essence JFK was being hunted which to me is a terrible terrible thought .

Anyway maybe it's just me but this was not an organization hit , this was a hit by expiernced CIA assassination men , anti Castro Cuban shooters and of course some big money men for finance ( likely Hunt from Hunt Oil and client Murtchison- Dallas Cowboys owner and in sure a few more , what should be investigated is the stock trading of some of these big guys right before the murder as I'm sure that has some revealing info . The big ? Is were LBJ and / or Hoover involved in the pre plot , or strictly the cover up but clearly they were involved and were damn straight vital to the lone not theory coverup , without them you can't get away with it without their actions . Also of note Dallas was clearly the better place for the hit as the CIA director of plans , Richard Bissel , was fired along with Dulles after it was determined they lied to JFK about the bay of pigs and the local Cubans support ( or rather non support ), Bissel brother was the mayor of Dallas at the time and thus could better control Dallas LE and prosecutors and as important not fight back when JFK body was illegally moved from Dallas to prevent a non planner controlled autopsy that would of confirmed the shots from the front of JFK witnessed by over 40 Dallas hospital workers ( mainly their top medical people that deal with death by firearms . Is it also horrific to me that the 2 MD autopsy doctors selected had NO firearm / combat autopsy experience , lol .

It's almost comical to me to people who have actually studied the governments ( most released in the 90s that were NEVER supposed to see the light of day ) still believe the WC actual story , which btw our own govt in 1978 disagreed with and claimed it was "a probable conspiracy".

Very intriguing will be the Church Commitee documents still sealed for national security reasons that was set up to investigate CIA wrong doings ( there were way too many , basically they were a mob killing leaders at home and foreign with no accountability ) as Richard Schweiket publicly said many times CIA finger prints were all over the JFK hit. I understand and support protecting some crucial intelligence sources and activities but when it comes to the murder of our president , exceptions can be made , and were in the 1990s and that's why now it's clear LHO had ingelligence assets all over him going all the way back to his secret U2 radio frequency work at most secret foreign base in Jaoan given the U2 recon activity over Russia . LHO work was crucial and when he defected it was a major exposure area for the U.S. And only a few months later the Russians actually shot one down ( no direct proof LHO info contributed to this but my guess is it would have been to estaish LHO bona fides allowing him more access ( T the end of the day he was able to get a decent read on how far the Russians were behind the U.S. In the field of plastics .

Even more incredible was this traitor was loaned over $1,000 to come back to the U.S., was greeted immediately by a travel diplomat ( CIA unofficial cover ) and struck immediate friendships within the Dallas Russian community who were anti communist lol ( the exact opposite of the people a communist would spend time with ) . The individuals and 2 in particular were of course his handlers and later confirmed in 1978 ( so much for the WC finding that the CIA had zero contact with LHO, despite his actions of trea that should of resulted in an immediate sentence of death . If it weren't for the JFK movie the as plotters probably would have put them in the clear but those documents released showed this murder was clearly a conspiracy with the CIA at a minimum following and / using LHO by the highest levels of the CIA ( Jesse James Angleton at a minimum- his group sole mission was to " spy on spies" basically confirming LHO was some sort of intelligence asset but the CIA would not comment further on this .

Let's hope the 2017 data dump has even more damning evidence that completely refuted the warren commission .
I give Obama a fat F in helping solve this crime so that the country could put it behind us and possibly serve as a platform where just maybe citizens start trusting our govt again , something this crime and watergate hasn't allowed to happen

Anyway this is a great thread for those few of us , lol to share ideas on a topic we obviously care very much about , the unsolved murder of an anti war president by individuals in his own government .

Last edited by DB; 06/06/15 04:33 AM.
Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #844803
06/06/15 08:41 AM
06/06/15 08:41 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
A
abc123 Offline
Underboss
abc123  Offline
A
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146


DB,

When Lee Harvey Oswald went to the Soviet Union in 1959, he had been sent as one of a number of men who were part of a false defector program, men who claimed to want to defect to the Soviet Union but who were sent by the US Government to spy on the Soviets.

DB, In the field of plastics that would be the Other Defector Robert E. Webster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Edward_Webster

DB, David Atlee Phillips.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKphillips.htm

In 1976 Antonio Veciana was interviewed by Gaeton Fonzi of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Veciani, the founder of the anti-Castro organization, Alpha 66, told the committee about his relationship with his Central Intelligence Agency contact, Maurice Bishop. He claimed that in August, 1963, he saw Bishop and Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas. Veciana admitted that Bishop had organized and funded the Alpha 66 attacks on the Soviet ships docked in Cuba in 1963.

Antonio Veciana explained the policy: "It was my case officer, Maurice Bishop, who had the idea to attack the Soviet ships. The intention was to cause trouble between Kennedy and Russia. Bishop believed that Kennedy and Khrushchev had made a secret agreement that the USA would do nothing more to help in the fight against Castro. Bishop felt - he told me many times - that President Kennedy was a man without experience surrounded by a group of young men who were also inexperienced with mistaken ideas on how to manage this country. He said you had to put Kennedy against the wall in order to force him to make decisions that would remove Castro's regime."

Richard Schweiker, a member of the committee, speculated that Bishop was David Atlee Phillips. Schweiker asked his researcher, Gaeton Fonzi, to investigate this issue. Fonzi arranged for Veciana and Phillips to be introduced at a meeting of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers in Reston. Phillips denied knowing Veciana. After the meeting Veciana told Schweiker that Phillips was not the man known to him as Bishop.



Gaeton Fonzi was unconvinced by this evidence. He found it difficult to believe Phillips would not have known the leader of Alpha 66. Especially as Phillips had been in charge of covert action in Cuba when Alpha 66 was established. Other information also emerged to undermine Phillips. CIA agent, Ron Crozier, who worked in Cuba during this period, claimed that Phillips sometimes used the code name, Maurice Bishop.

Phillips testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations on 25th April, 1978. He denied he ever used the name Maurice Bishop. He also insisted that he had never met Antonio Veciana.

Phillips published his autobiography, The Night Watch: 25 Years of Peculiar Service, in 1977. The following year he published Carlos Contract, a novel that dealt with political assassins. Phillips also wrote The Great Texas Murder Trials: A Compelling Account of the Sensational T. Cullen Davis Case (1979).

According to Larry Hancock, the author of Someone Would Have Talked, just before his death Phillips told Kevin Walsh, an investigator with the House Select Committee on Assassinations: "My final take on the assassination is there was a conspiracy, likely including American intelligence officers." (Some books wrongly quote Phillips as saying: "My private opinion is that JFK was done in by a conspiracy, likely including rogue American intelligence people.")

David Atlee Phillips died of cancer on 7th July, 1988. He left behind an unpublished manuscript. The novel is about a CIA officer who lived in Mexico City. In the novel the character states: "I was one of those officers who handled Lee Harvey Oswald... We gave him the mission of killing Fidel Castro in Cuba... I don't know why he killed Kennedy. But I do know he used precisely the plan we had devised against Castro. Thus the CIA did not anticipate the president's assassination, but it was responsible for it. I share that guilt."

In January 2004, E. Howard Hunt gave a taped interview with his son, Saint John Hunt, claiming that Lyndon Baines Johnson was the instigator of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and that it was organised by Phillips, Cord Meyer, Frank Sturgis and David Sanchez Morales.

DB Antonio Veciana.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKveciana.htm

Alpha 66 anti-Castro group.

He told the committee about his relationship with Maurice Bishop. He also claimed that in August, 1963, he saw Bishop and Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas. Veciana admitted that Bishop and the Central Intelligence Agency had organized and funded the Alpha 66 attacks on the Soviet ships docked in Cuba in 1963.

Veciana explained the policy: "It was my case officer, Maurice Bishop, who had the idea to attack the Soviet ships. The intention was to cause trouble between Kennedy and Russia. Bishop believed that Kennedy and Khrushchev had made a secret agreement that the USA would do nothing more to help in the fight against Castro. Bishop felt - he told me many times - that President Kennedy was a man without experience surrounded by a group of young men who were also inexperienced with mistaken ideas on how to manage this country. He said you had to put Kennedy against the wall in order to force him to make decisions that would remove Castro's regime.

Maurice Bishop...was David Atlee Phillips.

http://www.ctka.net/2013/veciana.html

When he first confirmed that David Atlee Phillips was the CIA contact known as "Maurice Bishop," Cuban exile leader Antonio Veciana did so tacitly. But Veciana's meaning was so clear, and his guile so transparent, there was no doubt; both he and House Select Committee investigator Gaeton Fonzi began laughing.


Now, decades later, Veciana has explicitly stated that Phillips (right) was indeed Bishop, and that he did indeed see Phillips with Lee Harvey Oswald in September 1963 – thus formally linking a high ranking CIA officer with the JFK assassination.

Veciana's admission came in a written statement issued November 22, 2013, the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination. In a letter to Fonzi's widow Marie, Veciana, the elderly, former leader of Alpha 66, said, "Maurice Bishop, my CIA contact agent was David Atlee Phillips. Phillips or Bishop was the man I saw with Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas on September 1963.

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #845135
06/08/15 08:58 AM
06/08/15 08:58 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
A
abc123 Offline
Underboss
abc123  Offline
A
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVZnP3GnIUo

JFK Assassination Three Part Interview With Parkland Hospital Dr Robert McClelland

Re: JFK [Re: DB] #845183
06/08/15 03:05 PM
06/08/15 03:05 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
H
ht2 Offline
Capo
ht2  Offline
H
Capo
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
Originally Posted By: DB
Bissel brother was the mayor of Dallas at the time and thus could better control Dallas LE and prosecutors and as important not fight back when JFK body was illegally moved from Dallas to prevent a non planner controlled autopsy that would of confirmed the shots from the front of JFK witnessed by over 40 Dallas hospital workers ( mainly their top medical people that deal with death by firearms . Is it also horrific to me that the 2 MD autopsy doctors selected had NO firearm / combat autopsy experience , lol .


The brother of Dallas mayor was Cabell not Bissell, who also lost his job after Bay of pigs. I don't think Bissell had anything to do with it since he left in 1962. The difference between observations made by Parkland Hospital doctors and Bethesda Naval hospital pathologists is very puzzling.

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #845203
06/08/15 07:37 PM
06/08/15 07:37 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 884
Hudson County NJ
D
DB Offline
Underboss
DB  Offline
D
Underboss
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 884
Hudson County NJ
Your absolutely right , I meant cabell , not Bissel , mixed em up and I think he had nothing to do wit this hit

Dulles is a tougher one to remove as a key possible planner that gave the nod to his operational guys like Landsdale who was basically stil run by Dulles despite his firing , Landsdale is one of the few people - he ran mongoose - that had the direct access to resources that could pull this off like he did on the Phillipnes . Basically a mock track 2 that was really the Kennedy hit IMO

Actually after the declassifocatio of the MD doctors testimony in the 90s , revealed that while the HSCA said there was substantial difference of opinion between Dal and MD doxtors , we now know about 40 Md autopsy type people agreed with the Dallas doctors opinion that the throat wound was a point of entry and JFK had a huge gap in the back of his head likely meaning shots in front the- likely temple .the lead autopsy man burned his notes just like the Dallas police interrogation for over 24 hours was never taken. LHO had to die as he was very likely to be acquired at trial , he passed a rifle residue test

Most eye witnesses agreed with both teams observations

JFK hit was probable one of a few w no motive ( rember LHO wanted to be someone and remembered per the WC yet he denied being the assassin in his last breath

The HSCA basically lied to the people and never thought the documents would see the light of days like other intelligence operatives think which is why it of what people speculated was proven quite accurate in the 90s JFK act .

LHO was watched very closely by U.S. And Russia ingelligence ( claiming they never did ) which is another huge lies told by the CIA and FBI that they had no interest or involvement in it .

Abc yes I knew that stuff as in quite a history buff

Now after all that the 2 telling quotes after the hit was Jackie explaining why she kept that dress on - to show what " THEY" did to Jaxk and the day after the hit a call by Hoover to LBJ that was illegally not logged in , we finally got the conversation transcript where JFK asked " we're THEY shooting at me "

JFK had nagging feeling someone in the military intelligence would hit him - I.e. His comment to his brother after the missle crises - told his brother it was a good day to the theaters - an obvious reference to Lincoln when Bobby replied he would join him too . We so now know JFK felt a motary coup was very possible if Russia didn't back down within hours . He was no dummy and knew what was up , but like a real american did it anyway , Andy fortunately for the plotters have him a legacy of pretty much greatness . Tell me how many presidents turned down 3 wars in 3 years ( Laos , Vietnam , Cuba and you can probably include Russia in that group as if invaded Cuba during the crises , 40 tactical field nuclear weapons that the CIA knew nothing about were headed for Miami DC and NY. Possibly a lot of people on this board could have been a casualty but he was the only person in his cabinet that said no repeatedly to a constant press for war . Really wish we had another president like him , just look at the billet holes in his ha key and shirt and see if they lined up with tuenWC, In fact Getal Fors in 1997 was caught in a WC document by saying he wears shot at the base of the neck , when it clear he was shot 5 inches below the throat , he had to lie to mKe manic bullet theory at least plausible which was a bad an error as one can make - not gross negligence but closer to criminality and obstruction of justice .

Regardless some in the CIA and other intelligences aged a brilliant cover up until today which I think they never would of thought . Even ray Rocca , Jesse James Angleton right hand that said on record he felt Clay shaw would be convicted - another lied that said he had no involvement in the CIA - an issue that resulted in Richard helms being guilty of perjury as shaw history goes far back , even to the OSS . His role no clue except maybe used possibly bad a handler ( he called an New Orelans Attorney to rep LHO . He was on a powerboard that the Italians kicked out of Italy as they viewed it as a CIA front , so perhaps he was used as an international finance type guy as well to find activities in operation Mongoose . My guess is also the planning was done in Mexico City which is why I believe NSA documents rather than CIA could have a borderline smoke my
Fun, to date no one has really asked and thus rarely any NSA documents have reviews - 32 I think , probably more tho . That group picked up everything and when Harvey was forced to Rome I'm sure they heard something .
And don't forget just like the extremely covered up Chicago plot , the FBI was tipped off that a right wing para military group was going to try and assassinate JFK in Dallas ( yet no additional security was added and in fact it was reduced substantially ) , that's a huge piece of circumstantial evidence that nobody called Hoover. That investigation probably ranks as top 3-5 worst for a white man victim.

Thanks a lot HT , your comments very well appreciated , keep em coming lol

Last edited by DB; 06/08/15 07:40 PM.
Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #845293
06/09/15 06:37 PM
06/09/15 06:37 PM
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
H
ht2 Offline
Capo
ht2  Offline
H
Capo
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 368
Originally Posted By: DB

Dulles is a tougher one to remove as a key possible planner that gave the nod to his operational guys like Landsdale who was basically stil run by Dulles despite his firing

I've never read that anywhere..where did you read that? Prouty's claim about Dealey plaza photo resembling him from behind is overreach IMO.

Dulles liked to compare LHO with John Wilkes Booth and said they were similar in that they both acted alone. When it was pointed out that Booth was part of a conspiracy, Dulles' response was that Booth, for the most part, acted alone..lol. Dulles chose to be buried in same cemetery as Booth. Was he trying to tell us something or is this just another coincidence?


Originally Posted By: DB

The HSCA basically lied to the people and never thought the documents would see the light of days like other intelligence operatives think which is why it of what people speculated was proven quite accurate in the 90s JFK act .

I agree, they basically swept the autopsy discrepancies under the rug. The fact that Blakey tried to lock up documents for 50 years, until 2029, looked suspicious. It took a Republican President Bush to finally pass the JFK act.

Last edited by ht2; 06/09/15 06:37 PM.
Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #845298
06/09/15 08:12 PM
06/09/15 08:12 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 884
Hudson County NJ
D
DB Offline
Underboss
DB  Offline
D
Underboss
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 884
Hudson County NJ
Jesus everything I wrote was just erased for no reason

But basically Dulles ran Ed who ran JWAVE who were likely the operational guys
Not too mention basically invented the executive action plan

Dulles duped the 3 dissenting WC members who wanted on record they had serious doubts about the magic bulley theory where on the last meeting day they wanted their dissent formally part of the WC record , Dulles fired the stenographer , places his secretary in the room who the WC members thought was the stenographer and this their descent was never part of the official record

Plus when Truman planned to put an op Ed on the paper on the exactly 1 month after the assassination that the CIA was out of control , it was Dulles that despartly tried to stop him ( Truman created the CIA and didn't choose that date for no reason(

I don't know if Dulles was a high level planner but my opinion is he was given his background and control but he certainly played a big role in the cover up . I think several new books will begin to focus on him

The guy was a creep , doing shit loads of business and financing with the Nazis

Pouty made great points about those tramps , how they were just actors , part of the throw off background , and just look at how non chalent they were treated by the policemen while a man looking like Ed from 2 sources that knew him very well walked passed them . There were only 2 policeman who could care less about watching the tramps and walking them to the wrong building .

This hit was no joke , very well planned

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #845349
06/10/15 12:50 AM
06/10/15 12:50 AM
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,021
far, northwest
Binnie_Coll Offline
Underboss
Binnie_Coll  Offline
Underboss
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,021
far, northwest
after kennedy was assassinated, the CIA, FBI, joint chiefs all had the corrupt puppet they all wanted. [ Lyndon Johnson]

was he involved in the killing of the president? there is no actual proof of his helping plan it, however, he was involved in the cover-up up to his eyes.

and who in the world benifited more from the death of JFK than Lyndon Johnson................ just saying.



" watch what you say around this guy, he's got a big mouth" sam giancana to an outfit soldier about frank Sinatra. [ from the book "my way"
Re: JFK [Re: Binnie_Coll] #845367
06/10/15 08:51 AM
06/10/15 08:51 AM
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 441
M
mickey2 Offline
Capo
mickey2  Offline
M
Capo
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 441
Originally Posted By: Binnie_Coll
after kennedy was assassinated, the CIA, FBI, joint chiefs all had the corrupt puppet they all wanted. [ Lyndon Johnson]

was he involved in the killing of the president? there is no actual proof of his helping plan it, however, he was involved in the cover-up up to his eyes.

and who in the world benifited more from the death of JFK than Lyndon Johnson................ just saying.


read roger stones book, "the man who killed kennedy" - a compelling indictment of lbj in my mind.

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #845516
06/11/15 12:55 AM
06/11/15 12:55 AM
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,021
far, northwest
Binnie_Coll Offline
Underboss
Binnie_Coll  Offline
Underboss
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 3,021
far, northwest
yes, I just received today, "the hidden history of the JFK assassination" by lamar Waldron. I have read " LBJ the mastermind behind the JFK assassination"

I will order the book you suggested. thanks.



" watch what you say around this guy, he's got a big mouth" sam giancana to an outfit soldier about frank Sinatra. [ from the book "my way"
Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #852020
07/19/15 02:20 PM
07/19/15 02:20 PM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
A
abc123 Offline
Underboss
abc123  Offline
A
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
http://www.ctka.net/2015/JimDMexicoCity/Introduction.html

A Preface to Mexico City.

"A big dud." – Vincent Bugliosi, referring to the "Lopez Report"

Aside from a few willfully blind efforts - like Bugliosi's - to downplay the significance and implications of Oswald's alleged trip to Mexico City between September 26 and October 2, 19631, or - like Philip Shenon's - to revive the hoary (and purposely fabricated) tale, promoted by David Phillips' assets in the aftermath of the assassination, that Castro either indirectly or directly encouraged or even recruited him there,2 over the past two decades we have witnessed the emergence of something like a consensus among a number of JFK assassination critics that the Mexico City affair may hold one – if not the – key to a domestic plot which violently removed the 35th President from office.

Increased awareness of the importance of the events surrounding this visit may be illustrated by a simple example: the index entry in Jim Marrs' compendium of assassination research, Crossfire, which first appeared in 1989, and then was revised and updated for the 50th anniversary. Because the book aims at inclusiveness and covers a great deal of ground, the relative amount of space it gives to a topic could serve as a barometer for what is "in the air", both back then and today. In the former edition, about 4 pages are devoted to Oswald in Mexico; in the latter, however, the number of pages containing references to or discussion of this topic has grown to approximately 18. (Both editions are roughly equal in their total number of pages – a little over 600).3

Without a doubt, this heightened interest is due to the ARRB releases of the HSCA hearings, and in particular, of the two most revealing documents regarding Mexico City, the Lopez Report and the Slawson-Coleman report. As the two essays by Jim DiEugenio featured here demonstrate, the Warren Commission's superficial "investigation" (if one can even call it that) allowed itself to be spoon-fed by the FBI and CIA, while with the House Select Committee, the CIA immediately locked down access to their files once it was realized that the two young law students, Ed Lopez and Dan Hardway, were on the scent of an elaborate Agency subterfuge. The Lopez Report was first published in a substantially redacted form, and redactions persist even in the 2003 re-issue;4 nevertheless, its appearance was responsible for instigating closer examination of what the Oswald visit was really all about. Regardless of what one ultimately thinks today about Oswald's supposed stay in Mexico City, one can neither ignore the Hardway and Lopez findings (we all owe them a debt of gratitude for the work they did), nor accept any longer at face value the rather fatuous story proffered to the public by the Warren Report that Oswald went there to obtain passage to the Soviet Union through Cuba.


"There's something malodorous in Mexico." – Jim Garrison

As with a number of other elements in the official "case" against Oswald (like his possession of the Mannlicher-Carcano), the first generation critics did not question this trip or its motives, even though the story hardly made sense. It was Jim Garrison, as DiEugenio points out, who first looked askance at the so-called evidence for Oswald's activities there.5 Between the Shaw trial and the HSCA (which finally deposed Cuban Embassy personnel like Silvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue, as well as key CIA personnel involved in the handling of information flowing out of Mexico City Station, i.e., David Atlee Phillips and Anne Goodpasture), whatever scrutiny was given to this story can more or less be said to derive from Garrison's original suspicions. (A curious example of this occurs in the 1973 film Executive Action: when the plotters who have picked out Oswald to use as patsy discover that he will be going to Mexico City, they conclude that he is also being handled by others, something they deem will be useful after the fact; so the general sense that this trip was not Oswald's initiative seems to have bubbled up from NODA into the Dalton Trumbo / Mark Lane script.)

Manifold uncertainties arise concerning this episode in the assassination narrative, including if, exactly how, and when Oswald traveled there and back and which (if any) phone calls and visits to the Cuban and Soviet consular services he actually made; further questions pertain to the disposition of surveillance technology and protocols (and who precisely was responsible for them), the absence of any photo of Oswald and the identity of the figures in photos (such as the famous "Mystery Man") purportedly of Oswald, the provenance and fate of the telephone wiretap recordings, the identity of the speakers on these recordings, which languages – Spanish or Russian – the callers spoke and their relative fluency in them, how many transcripts of these recordings were actually made and whether the ones we have were redacted or even forged, the handling of internal memoranda and cable traffic, conflicting reports of Oswald's physical appearance, statements and actions, how he putatively procured his visa photos, and reports of encounters with him apart from those by diplomatic employees or officials. It is not our purpose in this introductory note to provide an exhaustive review of the incongruities and contradictions presented by the extant documents and testimony, nor of how these have been variously addressed;6 much of this material finds ample treatment in the two essays which follow. What can be stated here, however, is that, in this reader's opinion, the known facts in their totality point most strongly in the direction of what has recently been coined by John Newman as a "dark operation" – meaning one deliberately hidden inside another7 – a viewpoint persuasively suggested by DiEugenio in his careful sifting of the details comprising this incident.
In this connection, I would mention two startling disclosures made by Hardway and Lopez. First, that they had prepared indictments of both Phillips and Goodpasture because of their repeated perjuries under oath to the HSCA. In the studies which follow, Jim spells out these lies, albeit he did not know at the time that Dan and Ed wanted the two CIA officers indicted. Second, that the CIA deliberately kept Dan and Ed away from Mexico City student leader Oscar Contreras. Contreras, like several others, was another witness who asserted that the man he met and who said he was Oswald was not the Oswald who was shot in Dallas. Would it not be rather logical to deduce from these two items of information that Phillips and Goodpasture knew Oswald did not visit either the Cuban or Soviet embassy, that they knew this before the assassination, and that they did what they could to ensure this was not revealed prior to November 22, 1963?

"But I will tell you this, that when the record comes out, we will find that there was never a photograph taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. We will find out that Lee Harvey Oswald never visited, let me put it, that is a categorical statement, there, there, we will find out there is no evidence, first of all no proof of that. Second there is no evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Soviet embassy."

– David Phillips, as quoted by Mark Lane8

Especially disturbing, in fact, is the question of how these very probable impersonations of Oswald fit into the larger scheme of things we might infer about this operation. Indeed, the physical presence of an imposter at the embassy compounds (not just on the phone taps) raises a troublesome issue, one which Anthony Summers actually voiced three decades ago in an early edition of Conspiracy:

"It might have been undesirable, after the assassination, to reveal what some CIA 'dirty tricks' department was up to – against Fair Play for Cuba or simply against Castro's Cuba. Yet there the rationalization ends. If Oswald was part of a covert operation against Havana's interests, he could surely have been sent into the Communist embassies himself." [emphasis added]9
To inflect slightly differently what Summers is driving at here: if it turns out that the biographical Lee Harvey Oswald – the 24-year-old "expatriate" ex-Marine who from all appearances was indeed involved in an anti-FPCC provocation in New Orleans only a few weeks prior – was not the person who showed up claiming to be him and making a scene at the Cuban/Soviet embassies/consulates, then one needs to provide some rationale for the use of an imposter in one instance but not the other; conjectures which might explain this are perhaps not all that straightforward, but they nonetheless will have a crucial bearing on any understanding of what happened or was meant to happen. This is why "Oswald's" presence and precise whereabouts in Mexico City continue to be of considerable consequence, despite attempts by some analyses to neutralize them and focus only on the paper trail (a trail which is itself plagued by questions of authenticity and manipulation). To date, the most comprehensive review of whether Oswald entered and exited Mexico the way the Commission claimed is given in Harvey & Lee, and as the reader will see, DiEugenio's 2013 essay builds on John Armstrong's work as one component in his larger endeavor to advance our understanding of the Mexico City escapade.10


DiEugenio's essays on this subject are not the product of isolated undertakings. As with much of what he writes, context – both thematic and historical – guides and shapes the labor. The excerpted chapter from Destiny Betrayed (2012), which has been amplified and revised with material from David Joseph’s six-part series on the subject (see n. 10), must be read as part of a larger argument vindicating both Garrison's investigative work and his intuitions concerning the motive for the crime. The second essay, originally intended as a chapter of Reclaiming Parkland, is squarely aimed at rebutting the view propounded in both the text and notes of Reclaiming History, and treats Mexico City in tandem with another telltale indicator of conspiracy, the foiled Chicago plot of November 2 (brought to light in 1975 by Edwin Black). I hope that our readers will find these two pieces cogent and illuminating; they deserve to take their place among the very best studies of this enigmatic tale of intrigue, deception and political treachery.


– Albert L. Rossi

Mexico City and Langley (2012)

Chicago and Mexico City (2013)

Last edited by abc123; 07/19/15 02:21 PM.
Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #852022
07/19/15 02:24 PM
07/19/15 02:24 PM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
A
abc123 Offline
Underboss
abc123  Offline
A
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
Bill Harvey: ‘Phoney 201 [file] … all documents therein forged and backdated’

Should have phoney 201 in RI [Records Integration] to backstop this, all documents therein forged & backdated. Should look like a CE file …. Cover: planning should include provision for blaming Sovs or Czechs in case of blow.”
— Excerpt from “Project ZRRIFLE” notes, created in December 1960, by Bill Harvey, the CIA officer in charge of this assassinations project.


A 201 file, also known as a “personality” file, is a standard CIA record. So Harvey is proposing that the agency’s own internal records be doctored.

Harvey’s comment also shows that falsely implicating communists in assassinations perpetrated by the CIA was not a conspiracy theorist’s delusion. It was a tactic recommended by one of the CIA’s most formidable operators.

See the House Select Committee Assassinations writeup on ZRRIFLE.


http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?
docId=109661#relPageId=2&tab=page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_King_Harvey


Last edited by abc123; 07/19/15 02:26 PM.
Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #852208
07/20/15 03:30 PM
07/20/15 03:30 PM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
A
abc123 Offline
Underboss
abc123  Offline
A
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
http://www.ctka.net/2014/JFKForeignPolicy.html

Introduction to JFK’s Foreign Policy: A Motive for Murder

By James DiEugenio.

In a little over a year, I have spoken at four conferences. These were, in order: Cyril Wecht’s Passing the Torch conference in Pittsburgh in October of 2013; JFK Lancer’s 50th Anniversary conference on the death of JFK, in Dallas in November of 2013; Jim Lesar’s AARC conference in Washington on the 50th Anniversary of the Warren Commission in September of 2014; and Lancer’s Dallas conference on the 50th anniversary of the Commission in November of 2014.

At all four of these meetings, I decided to address an issue that was new and original. Yet, it should not have been so, not by a long shot. The subject I chose was President Kennedy’s foreign policy outside of Vietnam and Cuba. I noted that, up until now, most Kennedy assassination books treat Kennedy’s foreign policy as if it consisted of only discussions and reviews of Cuba and Vietnam. In fact, I myself was guilty of this in the first edition of Destiny Betrayed. My only plea is ignorance due to a then incomplete database of information. I have now come to conclude that this view of Kennedy is solipsistic. It is artificially foreshortened by the narrow viewpoint of those in the research community. And that is bad.

Why? Because this is not the way Kennedy himself viewed his foreign policy, at least judging by the time spent on various issues—and there were many different topics he addressed—or how important he considered diverse areas of the globe. Kennedy had initiated significant and revolutionary policy forays in disparate parts of the world from 1961 to 1963. It’s just that we have not discovered them.

Note that I have written “from 1961 to 1963”. Like many others, I have long admired Jim Douglass’ book JFK and the Unspeakable. But in the paperback edition of the book, it features as its selling tag, “A Cold Warrior Turns.” Today, I also think that this is a myth. John Kennedy’s unorthodox and pioneering foreign policy was pretty much formed before he entered the White House. And it goes back to Saigon in 1951 and his meeting with State Department official Edmund Gullion. Incredibly, no author in the JFK assassination field ever mentioned Gullion’s name until Douglass did. Yet, after viewing these presentations, the reader will see that perhaps no other single person had the influence Gullion did on Kennedy’s foreign policy. In a very real sense, one can argue today that it was the impact of Gullion’s ideas on young Kennedy that ultimately caused his assassination.

These presentations are both empirically based. That is, they are not tainted or colored by hero worship or nostalgia. They are grounded in new facts that have been covered up for much too long. In fact, after doing this research, I came to the conclusion that there were two cover-ups enacted upon Kennedy’s death. The first was about the circumstances of his murder. That one, as Vince Salandria noted, was designed to fall apart, leaving us with a phony debate played out between the Establishment and a small, informed minority. The second cover-up was about who Kennedy actually was. This cover-up was supposed to hold forever. And, as it happens, it held for about fifty years. But recent research by authors like Robert Rakove and Philip Muehlenbeck, taking their cue from Richard Mahoney’s landmark book, JFK: Ordeal in Africa, have shown that Kennedy was not a moderate liberal in the world of foreign policy. Far from it. When studied in its context—that is, what preceded it and what followed it—Kennedy’s foreign policy was clearly the most farsighted, visionary, and progressive since Franklin Roosevelt. And in the seventy years since FDR’s death, there is no one even in a close second place.

This is why the cover-up in this area had to be so tightly held, to the point it was institutionalized. So history became nothing but politics. Authors like Robert Dallek, Richard Reeves, and Herbert Parmet, among others, were doing the bidding of the Establishment. Which is why their deliberately censored versions of Kennedy were promoted in the press and why they got interviewed on TV. It also explains why the whole School of Scandal industry, led by people like David Heymann, prospered. It was all deliberate camouflage. As the generals, in that fine film Z, said about the liberal leader they had just murdered, Let us knock the halo off his head.

But there had to be a reason for such a monstrous exercise to take hold. And indeed there was. I try to present here the reasons behind its almost maniacal practice. An area I have singled out for special attention was the Middle East. Many liberal bystanders ask: Why is the JFK case relevant today? Well, because the mess in the Middle East now dominates both our foreign policy and the headlines, much as the Cold War did several decades ago. And the roots of the current situation lie in Kennedy’s death, whereupon President Johnson began the long process which reversed his predecessor’s policy there. I demonstrate how and why this was done, and why it was kept such a secret.

It is a literal shame this story is only coming to light today. John Kennedy was not just a good president. Nor was he just a promising president. He had all the perceptions and instincts to be a truly great president.

That is why, in my view, he was murdered. And why the dual cover-ups ensued. There is little doubt, considering all this new evidence, that the world would be a much different and better place today had he lived. Moreover, by only chasing Vietnam and Cuba, to the neglect of everything else, we have missed the bigger picture. For Kennedy’s approach in those two areas of conflict is only an extension of a larger gestalt view of the world, one that had been formed many years prior to his becoming president.

That we all missed so much for so long shows just how thoroughly and deliberately it had been concealed.

JFK's Foreign Policy: A Motive for Murder (2013 version)

JFK's Foreign Policy: A Motive for Murder (2014 version)

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #865556
11/04/15 07:50 AM
11/04/15 07:50 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
A
abc123 Offline
Underboss
abc123  Offline
A
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/27/checkmate-on-the-devils-chessboard/

Checkmate on ‘The Devil’s Chessboard’
October 27, 2015

Exclusive: Since the end of World War II, what some call the “deep state” has taken hold of the American Republic, stripping the citizens of meaningful control over national security issues, with CIA Director Allen Dulles playing a key early role, according to David Talbot’s new biography reviewed by Lisa Pease.

By Lisa Pease

David Talbot’s new book The Devil’s Chessboard is an anecdotal biography of not just Allen Dulles but of the national security establishment that he helped create. Talbot gave himself the monumental task of summing up a 25-year slice of important history.

Because Talbot has a keen eye for both the absurd and the darkly humorous, he managed to make the disturbing history of that period not only eminently readable but engaging and at times downright entertaining.

CIA Director Allen Dulles
CIA Director Allen Dulles
I have consumed dozens of books on Allen Dulles, the CIA and Cold War history, yet I was still surprised by numerous revelations in Talbot’s book. He often covers well-known episodes through a less well-known set of incidents and characters.

Talbot writes about the ratlines (escape routes from Europe to Latin America for Nazis), but in the context of one particularly Machiavellian character. He writes about Lee Harvey Oswald from the point of view of one of his friends who sold him down the river to the Warren Commission, likely at the behest of the CIA, a friend who later ostensibly committed suicide just as a member of the House Select Committee on Assassinations was about to interview him. Talbot talks about the CIA’s mind-control programs in the context of Allen Dulles submitting his own son to those horrors.

Talbot and his research associate Karen Croft, to whom he dedicated his book, have found all sorts of nuggets in Allen Dulles’s papers, his appointment calendar, oral histories, and other less-used sources. In addition, Talbot infuses his book with anecdotes from interviews he personally conducted. While I found some points I could nitpick in various episodes, overall this is a worthy addition and a much-needed perspective that elucidates how we came to have two governments: the elected one and the one that doesn’t answer to the elected one.

Talbot’s presentation is not linear but episodic, jumping back and forth like a checker on the chessboard in his title to keep subjects thematically together. Doing this allows him to introduce the character of Allen Dulles quickly, by showing him handing over a World War I girlfriend, “a young Czech patriot,” to British agents who suspected her of being an enemy spy, after which, Talbot tells us, she “disappeared forever.”

Talbot demonstrates that Dulles always found a way to do what he wanted, regardless of what he had been asked to do, even from his entry into the World War II’s Office of Strategic Services, the CIA’s forerunner. OSS chief William “Wild Bill” Donovan had tried to assign Dulles to London to exploit Dulles’s cozy relationships with high-net-worth individuals like the Rockefellers whom Dulles served as a lawyer at Sullivan and Cromwell. But Dulles instead got himself assigned to Bern, Switzerland, at the near center of Europe and a financial Mecca for secret bank accounts.

Allen Dulles’s older brother John Foster Dulles had funneled “massive U.S. investments” into Germany post-World War I that flowed back to the U.S. as war loans were paid off. Both Dulles brothers enabled the Nazis financially and socially, with John Foster Dulles at one point defending the character of a Nazi lobbyist who threw a party in New York City to celebrate a Nazi victory in France.

Sparing the Nazis

Talbot makes the case that Allen Dulles was all but a “Double Agent” for the Nazis during World War II. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew how close Dulles was to the Germans but thought Dulles, as an American, would do the President’s bidding, serving as a lure for high-profile Nazis so they could be identified and neutralized.

In pursuing victory, FDR pushed for an unconditional surrender, but Dulles had other plans. He told an agent of SS leader Heinrich Himmler that the Allies’ declaration of the need for unconditional surrender was “merely a piece of paper to be scrapped without further ado if Germany would sue for peace.”

Roosevelt had assigned Dulles to support Project Safehaven, a program to identify and confiscate Nazi assets stashed in neutral countries. But instead Dulles, aided by his friend Tom McKittrick, the head of the Bank for International Settlements, sought to protect his German client’s accounts.

Insubordination to presidents was a running theme in Dulles’s life. But the younger Dulles brother did not yet have the power he would command later in life, so FDR’s policies won out over Dulles’s covert challenges.

Money and the power that money enabled, not ideology, was the predominant motivator for Dulles and his ilk. As Talbot noted, “It is not widely recognized that the Nazi reign of terror was, in a fundamental way, a lucrative racket — an extensive criminal enterprise set up to loot the wealth of Jewish victims and exploit their labor.”

Dulles did not appear to have a problem with the decimation of the Jews. Instead, Dulles believed the real enemy were the Communists, who had the potential to shift the balance of financial power. So Dulles found natural camaraderie with the Nazi elite, who also viewed the Soviets as their biggest threat. Dulles ignored or downplayed the reports he was receiving from escapees and journalists regarding the burning of human beings in concentration camps.

Dulles’s declassified communications showed little regard for the killing of the Jews and much more interest in psychological warfare tricks, “such as distributing counterfeit stamps behind enemy lines depicting Hitler’s profile as a death’s skull, and other cloak-and-dagger antics,” Talbot tells us.

When one reporter took a detailed report of what was happening to Dulles, the journalist said Dulles was “profoundly shocked” and thought action should be taken immediately. Yet Dulles had been receiving similar reports for more than two years and had done nothing about it, and he did next to nothing with this report as well.

Dulles wasn’t the only one keeping the atrocities from being reported, of course. First, the Nazis operated in as much secrecy as possible, so credible reports were hard to come by. But even when they came, many others in government, such as Secretary of State Cordell Hull, turned a blind eye. Hull was one of those who advised President Roosevelt not to allow the St. Louis, a ship of German Jewish refugees, to dock at an American port and who had blocked an important, detailed, first-hand account of what was going on in the camps from reaching the President.

In Italy, Dulles pursued his own secret peace agreement, which he dubbed Operation Sunrise, which flew in the face of FDR’s stated policies. And while Dulles presented himself to people as a personal representative of FDR, the absurdity of that was not lost on some of Dulles’s targets.

Launching the Cold War

During the Nuremberg trials, again, Dulles took the side opposite of what FDR had wanted, the meting out of stern justice for such egregious crimes. Where Roosevelt and other Allied leaders saw war criminals, Dulles saw potential spies to be rescued.

Talbot devotes several chapters to Dulles’s cooperation with and protection of the Nazis. One chapter is devoted to Dulles’s bringing the “Gehlen organization” into the fold of U.S. intelligence, with dubious results.

And, Talbot describes how James Angleton appeared to have blackmailed his way into his position of Chief of Counterintelligence by promising not to expose Dulles’s hiding of Nazi funds. That would explain how Angleton rose to such a key position despite his dubious fitness for the job. The paranoid Angleton ruined the lives of many intelligence officers whom he suspected falsely of being foreign spies, while missing the fact that his good friend in British intelligence, Kim Philby, was a Soviet double-agent. But Allen Dulles was ever Angleton’s protector.

Due to the scope of the topics covered, Talbot is necessarily unable to go in great depth into any of them. His coverage of the Hiss case feels superficial to one who has read a great deal on the subject. For example, Talbot speculates that Alger Hiss, a senior State Department official accused of spying for the Soviets, didn’t want to recognize Whittaker Chambers, the chief witness against him, because the two had perhaps engaged in a homosexual liaison.

While that may be true, I’ve always found Hiss’s own reasons compelling: Chambers had gone by another name when he had first known him; it had been many years since they had met; and Chambers’s weight had changed dramatically. That seems to better explain why Hiss claimed he didn’t know Chambers until he had a face-to-face meeting with him. Then, he recognized his long-ago tenant.

Talbot sprinkles a little sexual innuendo throughout the book. Personally, I find that takes away from the telling of history because anyone can say anything about someone else when the person is no longer alive to dispute it. In most cases, these suspicions are neither provable nor relevant. Fortunately, these are minimal interruptions to the overall tale.

Talbot makes a compelling argument that a lot of the abuses of the intelligence apparatus that we are dealing with now had their genesis under Allen Dulles’s version of the CIA. He traces the notion that the CIA is “above the law” and unanswerable to oversight to the McCarthy hearings, where Dulles earned the undying loyalty of the CIA by refusing to turn over Sen. Joe McCarthy’s targets for questioning.

McCarthy was clearly overreaching in his pursuit of suspected Communists and homosexuals – as alleged national security threats – but there should have been another way to deal with that than by claiming the CIA was above the law. That single act of defiance, perhaps more than anything else, paved the way to the egregious CIA abuses that have occurred in the years since, including the illegal wiretapping of elected officials, opening them up to blackmail.

In another part of the book, Talbot details the rise of Nixon under, in part, Dulles’s sponsorship. Most of us know that Nixon received illegal campaign donations when he was running for president. But Nixon also shook down those who wanted him to run for Congress, claiming he couldn’t afford to live on the salary of a Congressman and that he’d need supplementary income if he were to run. These are the kinds of juicy details Talbot’s book provides in spades.

As CIA Director

President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Dulles as the fifth CIA director – and the first civilian director – in 1953, but, as Talbot makes clear, Dulles overrode some of Eisenhower’s wishes by collaborating with his brother, John Foster Dulles, who was Secretary of State. By and large, Eisenhower was okay with letting the Dulles brothers run U.S. overt and covert foreign policy as they helped shape the worsening Cold War.

Their hard-line anti-communism and sympathy for colonialism included organizing coups in Iran in 1953 and in Guatemala in 1954 and blocking a political settlement of the Vietnam conflict that would have involved elections leading to the likely victory of Ho Chi Minh. (John Foster Dulles died in 1959. The international airport outside Washington D.C. is named in his honor.)

One chapter focuses on the killing of “dangerous ideas” in the form of a lecturer at Columbia University, Jesús Galíndéz. He and compatriots had fought in the Spanish Civil War and fled to the Dominican Republic, only to find that they had “left Franco’s frying pan and landed in Trujillo’s fire.” Galíndéz later escaped the Dominican Republic for America and wrote a damning 750-page essay called “The Era of Trujillo,” as his PhD thesis.

Talbot reveals the role of CIA operative Robert Maheu and ex-FBI agent John Frank in the kidnapping of Galíndéz and his delivery to Trujillo, who tortured him, boiled him alive and fed him to the sharks. With the help of Dulles’s CIA, Galíndéz died in 1956.

Talbot also argues that the CIA was “too modest” when it claimed it was not responsible for the death of Congolese independence leader Patrice Lumumba who was assassinated just days before John Kennedy was inaugurated in 1961. The CIA basically handed Lumumba over to the people who killed him, making the Agency, at the very least, strong accessories to the plot, and hardly the failed-plot-bystanders, the story that CIA officials sold to the Church Committee.

Though Eisenhower had given the Dulles brothers a long leash for their foreign policy schemes, President John F. Kennedy had different ideas. As president, he wanted to run his own foreign policy, and this deeply rankled Allen Dulles. However, in his first months in office, Kennedy acquiesced to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April 1961. Furious that he let the CIA sell him on the scheme that was hatched under Eisenhower, Kennedy vowed to rein in the freewheeling CIA.

Dulles hadn’t had to answer to anyone for a long time. But his sloppy Bay of Pigs operation cost him all credibility with Kennedy, who took the high road publicly, refusing to blame the CIA outright. But in private, he made it clear the Agency was not to be trusted and that he wanted to shatter it into a million pieces. The enmity between the pair grew.

Allen Dulles also defied Kennedy’s wishes when the President promoted an opening to the Left in Italy. Under Dulles, the CIA continued working against those same forces while supporting the Right as the spy agency and its predecessor, the OSS, had done since World War II.

Attorney General Robert Kennedy was so suspicious of Dulles’s secret reach that – after the Bay of Pigs fiasco – he found Dulles’s sister working in the State Department and had her fired. President Kennedy ousted Dulles in November 1961, replacing him with John McCone.

But Dulles did not go quietly into the cold night, as Talbot tells it, but ran, essentially, a government in exile from his home on the Potomac. Talbot details some of the comings and goings and how Dulles may have used his own book tour to help plan and plot the assassination of President Kennedy.

The JFK Assassination

Toward the end of the book, Talbot focuses nearly as much on President Kennedy and the plot to assassinate him as he does on Allen Dulles, with mixed results. While Talbot has the facts right in the broad strokes, if not all the small details, his focus was, in my opinion, a tad misplaced in spots. For example, he appears to believe E. Howard Hunt’s deathbed “confession,” which many in the research community do not.

Hunt, a career intelligence officer who became infamous as a leader of Nixon’s Watergate burglary team, implicated President Lyndon B. Johnson in the plot to kill Kennedy, which has never made sense to me. If LBJ was so ruthless that he killed his way to the presidency, why did he decide not to run again in 1968? Historically, when people have killed their way to the throne, they do not voluntarily abdicate it.

And Hunt’s “confession” seemed motivated more by the goal of leaving his family a little money after his death than by a desire to tell the truth. Indeed, even Talbot is puzzled at things Hunt appears not to know that he would necessarily have known had he been privy to the inner workings of the plot.

Clearly, Talbot focuses on Hunt because of Hunt’s well-documented long-term friendship with Dulles. And, I do believe, from my own research, that Hunt was likely in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, presumably as paymaster, his usual role in operations, based in large part on the fuller evidence from which Talbot created his abbreviated summary on that point. But I’m not persuaded, by this presentation or my other research, that Hunt knew the details of the actual plot.

From my own 25-plus years of research into the documentary record of the Kennedy assassination, I have come to believe it more likely that Richard Helms, James Angleton and David Atlee Phillips were the top plotters, not Dulles. But, to Talbot’s point, all of these men were beholden, at different levels, to Dulles; in fact, Angleton carried Dulles’s ashes at his funeral in 1969.

David Atlee Phillips gained power in the CIA because of his successful operations during the 1954 overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala under Dulles. Helms was apparently insulated from the Bay of Pigs disaster in April 1961, perhaps by Dulles to keep a loyal person at the upper echelon of the CIA.

Given the hostility between Dulles and Kennedy, it remains a historical anomaly that Dulles managed to finagle his way onto the official investigation of Kennedy’s assassination. In that position, Allen Dulles was more responsible than anyone for the deliberate obfuscations of the Warren Commission. Dulles spent more minutes working for the commission than any other member. I agree with Talbot that the body should more appropriately have been named “the Dulles Commission.”

Talbot repudiated the recently resurfaced canard that Robert Kennedy had asked LBJ to appoint Dulles to the commission, a point lawyer and former House Select Committee investigator Dan Hardway has also recently made in detail recently with additional evidence. (See Section VIII in Hardway’s article “Thank you, Phil Shenon.”)

Dulles really did have ties to the family of Ruth and Michael Paine, the couple that housed the Oswalds in the months before the assassination. And Dulles really did monitor New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison’s case against Clay Shaw through the man Garrison had hired to provide “security,” Gordon Novel.

One of the most interesting people Talbot examined in the latter part of his book was JFK adviser and historian Arthur Schlesinger, who apparently had a distaste for Dulles and the CIA’s actions professionally while maintaining a personal and even warm relationship with Dulles – though Schlesinger came to question that friendship in later years.

One of Talbot’s chapters, “I can’t look and I won’t look,” is named for something Schlesinger said when confronted with evidence of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Here was a man so wedded to his circle that he did not want to believe someone he knew and admired could be responsible for such a heinous crime.

Toward the end of his life, Schlesinger reflected on his “truce” and friendship with Dulles’s protégé Richard Helms and later CIA Director William Casey. Talbot quoted Schlesinger as saying, “I did wonder at one’s [meaning his own] capacity to continue liking people who have been involved in wicked things. … Is this deplorable weakness? Or commendable tolerance?”

The same must be asked of the public’s tolerance of secret operations that run counter to the principles of democracy in an open society. Is it commendable to tolerate assassinations and the darker deeds in the name of preserving the republic, or, more accurately, protecting the holdings of corporate leaders in the republic, or is it our weakness, as citizens of a democratic republic, that we have not raised our voices in protest of a secret, parallel government that has and no doubt will continue to pursue an independent path, out of control of our democracy?

That is the question that Talbot’s book asks between the lines. The Devil’s Chessboard gives us essential information to ponder before we make our answer.

Lisa Pease is a writer who has examined issues ranging from the Kennedy assassination to voting irregularities in recent U.S. elections.

Re: JFK [Re: EastHarlemItal] #865557
11/04/15 07:54 AM
11/04/15 07:54 AM
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146
A
abc123 Offline
Underboss
abc123  Offline
A
Underboss
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,146


David Talbot on Black Op Radio.

Published on Oct 28, 2015
David Talbot discusses his book "The Devil's Chessboard"
Host Len Osanic with Jim DiEugenio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3eOE5POjlM

Page 7 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Moderated by  Don Cardi, J Geoff, SC, Turnbull 

Powered by UBB.threads™