Interview with Martin Schotz

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Interview with Martin Schotz

Postby proldic » Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:34 pm

"History will not absolve us: an interview with Martin Schotz"<br><br>7/14/03<br><br>Dr. E. Martin Schotz is a 60 year-old child psychiatrist practicing at the South End Community Health Center in Boston. He is the author of the book “History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy” (Kurtz, Ulmer & Delucia; 1997), about which the magazine Catholic Peace Voice said “The conclusions are inescapable. The implications go to the very root of US dysfunction... [the author] has guided us to the ocean floor of our national psyche....” <br><br>Schotz simply points out the "elephant in the American living room": the assassination of the President was a conspiracy orchestrated by the most powerful organized force in the world, the entire American political establishment participated in a cover-up after the fact, and the motive was political heresy. <br><br>Kennedy, the consummate politician and god-child of the liberal wing of the establishment, had begun to see the writing on the wall. He was slowly beginning the heretical process of negotiating directly with the leadership of the Soviet Union, in a naive attempt to achieve some form of peaceful co-existence with the socialist world. <br><br>This ran counter to the intentions of the most powerful organized force in the world at the time: the leadership of the CIA, their backers in the American establishment, and their cohorts in the various international security services. All were unified in the belief in the necessity of destroying the Soviet Union before any "peace" would be made. <br><br>Schotz’s compelling path of documents, excerpts, and correspondences lead the reader to yet another inescapable conclusion: The continued existence of the American democratic-capitalist experiment has relied upon the mass denial of that "elephant" by most Americans for over 39 years. <br><br>Most importantly to Schotz, this denial has been due in large part to the influence of many of the leading voices of the liberal/leftist “opposition” such as Earl Warren, I.F. Stone, The Nation Magazine, and Noam Chomsky.<br><br>Considering the similarities between America’s reaction to the evidence coming to light now of high-level Bush government complicity in 9/11, and the country’s reaction to the evidence in the Kennedy assassination, Schotz’s book is more relevant than ever.<br> <br>With this knowledge in hand it is frustrating to see the same scenario being repeated. What can we believe? What got us to this point? How can we achieve justice and peace against these odds?<br><br>In his speech at the 1998 C.O.P.A. (Committee On Political Assassinations)1 conference entitled “The Waters of Knowledge vs. The Waters of Uncertainty”, Schotz laid out a vision of what might have been: <br><br>XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX<br><br>At the time of the assassination what would have happened if it had been acknowledged that the assassination had been a high level conspiracy of the US military intelligence apparatus? I suggest to you that if this truth had been acknowledged early on, our own CIA and military would have emerged as leading threats to freedom, democracy and peace here at home as well as throughout the world. <br><br>Such an awareness on the part of a significant portion of our public would have led to the fragmentation of our society, and to a level of domestic turmoil which would have disrupted America's international empire. <br><br>Think of the potential function of such truth in the context of the political movements of the 60's. In no way could the United States have prosecuted the Vietnam War under those circumstances. An enormous anti-militarist opposition would have thwarted much of what our military intelligence has perpetrated over the years in Latin America, and around the world.<br><br>XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX<br><br>?: You are currently working to free the “Cuban 5" jailed in the U.S. by Ashcroft’s Justice Department for the crime of monitoring ultra-right terrorist groups and their supporters in Florida such as Omega 7, Brothers to the Rescue, and the Cuban-American Foundation. This “Miami Mafia” of CIA-funded exile groups is responsible for documented acts of bombings, assassinations, and kidnapping against innocent civilians2. In this day and age of a “war on terror” do you believe the case is a telling example of “who is the terrorist”?<br><br>EMS: ...I first found out about the case during a trip I took to Cuba late last year to attend a conference studying how war is reported. There I learned how these Cubans living in Miami were railroaded and convicted of spying on these terrorist groups, trying to prevent terrorist acts, something the American government has been -- for years -- refusing to do with these groups. Unfortunately since 9/11 and Afghanistan and Iraq and all we haven’t been able to build much support -- we’re trying to connect with people who are interested (in working on the case). It really shows how the Bush administration isn’t really interested in fighting terrorism at all but in protecting criminals.3 <br><br>?: Didn’t these same right-wing Cuban exile terrorist groups act as foot soldiers in the political assassinations of the ‘60's? <br><br>EMS: From my point of view, the anti-Castro Cubans were kind of pawns in this process. I mean, there is evidence in terms of Jim Garrison’s4 work and others that the anti-Cuban groups were manipulated into acting by the C.I.A., and those sectors in the U.S. that were active in the anti-Cuban work. The C.I.A. and the “southern desk”5 were part of the pivot around which the assassination developed. Gaeton Fonzi6, in his book “The Last Investigation” (Thunder’s Mouth Press; 1993) comes as close as anyone to accurately naming names of those low-level people involved in the assassination.<br><br>?: Didn’t Fonzi interview George deMohrenschildt7 -- Oswald’s benefactor in Texas -- and then he (deMorhenschildt) was murdered? <br><br>EMS: Actually he was killed just before they were to meet. Fonzi had flown down to Florida and was all set to interview him and that’s when he was killed. One of the things Vince Salandria (a leading Warren Report critic and Schotz’s co-investigator) and I felt in terms of looking at the evidence was that built into the plot against Kennedy was a series of shenanigans, and these were manufactured to confuse the public. There was an attempt to build evidence of a Cuban plot, an anti-Cuban plot, a Mafia plot --<br><br>?: -- covering all the bases.<br><br>EMS: They were covering all the bases -- to give people a lot of options to distract them. And if you go to Castro’s speech two days after the assassination he was answering the thrust and direction of the assassination plot and describing the US press’ spreading of these false stories. Look, there’s no mystery to anyone looking at the physical evidence, at the situation. I think anyone who was to honestly look at the historical record can see this. And we have advanced enough to see that obviously the socialist world was not involved in the assassination plot -- in fact, Cuba and the Soviet Union had everything to gain by Kennedy being in office. And Kennedy was involved in what he thought were secret negotiations with the Cubans -- through William Attwood8 -- to normalize relations and to recognize Cuba in the U.N.<br><br>?: Possibly the beginning of the end of the cold war. Was this similar to the significance of the McCloy-Zorin agreement?<br><br>EMS: The McCloy-Zorin agreement was a very interesting document. The negotiations for it were actually started in the Eisenhower administration -- by the way John McCloy was on the Warren Commission. It represented a very important set of principles -- of total disarmament -- which the people in the peace movement have been trying to keep alive. And an awareness of that has been missing. I’ve felt all along that was one of several tip-offs to where his (Kennedy’s) thinking was at the time. <br><br>?: In your book you mention the sanitized record -- the transcripts of the numerous folks of whom we would like to know -- what their reactions were to this groundbreaking agreement? The censored record of what Dulles9 said, of (what) the military (said)...<br><br> <br>EMS: I think it’s important because it sets something out. It kind of outlines in some ways the notion that peace is not impossible, worldwide disarmament is possible, and these two leading states could take initiative in this direction. <br><br>Now, I don’t know whether at the time it was signed, which was fairly early in the Kennedy administration, how seriously it was being taken. But as events begin to unfold Kennedy really seems to go through a pretty significant transformation. <br><br>And I think one person worth checking out on this is the author Jim Douglas10... he deals with this and I think he takes this to the next step. Of all the people right now researching (the assassination) he is the best -- a really profound thinker, a pacifist who runs a Catholic Worker House in D.C., a correspondent with Archbishop Romero11. <br><br>He does a lot of social processing on moral theology and how it operates. And he’s able to take contemporary history and link it with certain very fundamental knowledge in regards to social morality, in a way that is very compelling. And he has a knack for interpreting the evidence. I’m really moved by what he’s finding, taking the facts of the conspiracy, the cover-up, the denial... and how he’s put it all together. <br><br>See, the thing was that the McCloy-Zorin agreement was important in a sort of abstract and intellectual way. But then what seems to happen is events move in a certain direction such that the document begins to actually take on some flesh. And the pivotal event is the Cuban Missile Crisis. And at that point Kennedy begins to move in a different direction, and is open to some of the things which I think that the Soviets might have been interested in.<br><br>?: Which is born out by Khrushchev’s letter to Castro12.<br><br>EMS: The Soviets all along had less of an interest in the nuclear arms race than the Americans, but since the American’s wanted to have a monopoly on nuclear weapons the Soviets weren’t going to let that happen and bought into the arms race.<br><br>?: In your book you bring up something I think whose significance cannot be overstated: (former President) Truman’s op-ed in the Washington Post thirty days after the assassination where he warns the nation against the C.I.A.’s overwhelming influence on American domestic affairs.13<br><br>EMS: Ray Marcus dug that up. That was amazing. And how it was almost completely expunged from the historical record. <br><br>?: In your book you mention Ray Marcus’ correspondence with RFK. And RFK’s complicity -- his silence. <br><br>EMS: He (Marcus) has self-published two volumes which represent compilations of his correspondence with individuals over the years. In that is his correspondence with RFK. <br><br>Once the assassination occurs, Robert Kennedy has a choice to make, and that choice is either to continue to play the political game as it’s being played out, or to essentially break with the game and talk to the American people about what’s happened. And if you think about him as a “responsible” politician, that just is not something that was in the cards. And I doubt that anyone that was around him at the time would urge him to do that because it would unleash political forces in the country which might be sort of non-controllable. <br><br>Put it this way: none of the people around the Kennedy family, even after Bobby was killed, have broken with this story.<br><br>?: What about Pierre Salinger14?<br><br>EMS: Not even Salinger. Salinger will say yes in correspondences, and vaguely hint at this or that, but never come out. There was only person in Kennedy’s coterie that came out - Mort Sahl, the humorist. He was a speechwriter for Kennedy. And he went on to become Jim Garrrison’s press secretary. He was the only one who went absolutely all the way. And he was blacklisted. He couldn’t work in Hollywood.<br><br>?: What about the fear -- the threats? ...didn’t Ted Kennedy barely survive a mysterious plane crash as well15?<br><br>EMS: In my view, the best way to protect yourself would have been to come out and speak about the truth, because once you’re talking about the truth, and saying what’s out there, they have less to gain by doing anything to you. <br><br>I think the Kennedy’s were playing a game that was very dangerous, which is they were hiding what had occurred from the American people. <br><br>By the way, in the Kennedy Library are the notes from a guy by the name of William Rodson, a very close confidant of the Kennedy family, who was supposed to make a trip to Moscow that had been planned prior to JFK’s assassination...after the assassination he planned to cancel his trip, but Bobby Kennedy prevailed on him to go ahead. <br><br>It’s been reported that he carried a message to one of the people they had known in Washington that had access to Khrushchev and that it was a message telling Khrushchev that the assassination was a high-level conspiracy of great political significance. <br><br>That we know from a memorandum that was prepared for Khrushchev...that was revealed in a book called “One Hell Of A Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy" (Norton; 1997). <br><br>I only make this point to say that at the same time that RFK was essentially preparing to cooperate with the story of the lone assassin that was being put out here and not challenging what was going on, he was telling Khrushchev there was a conspiracy.<br><br>?: And he was shot.<br><br>EMS: Not only was he shot -- the Kennedy family was holding on to the X-Rays and (autopsy) photographs - and at a certain point they handed them in to government -- and when they did that, Vince Salandria predicted that a deal had been made that Johnson would not run and that Bobby would run for president; and that it was a bad deal and he would be double-crossed and assassinated. He said all this. And there was this reporter called Joe McGuiness --<br><br>?: The same guy who wrote “Fatal Vision”?<br><br>EMS: Yeah, he was a reporter for the Enquirer, he heard the talk and he wrote an article in the Enquirer about this crazy guy, and how absurd what he was saying was. So McGuiness ended up documenting months in advance of the assassination Salandria’s prediction that this was going to happen.<br><br>?: At the end of your book you include a couple of short plays. Like the one in which you have John Kennedy and Allen Dulles meeting in heaven and having a “sit down” where Dulles eventually ends up convincing Kennedy that his assassination was the right thing for the country.<br><br>EMS: -- What I was doing there was trying to play with the idea of what we were just talking about – how the Kennedy family eventually comes over and cooperates. You know, once they can do something and then once it’s done, you are confronted with the fact of -- OK, what are you going to do about it? In other words -- “We shot the President. Do you want to expose us? Do you want to go without us?”. <br><br>The establishment is so wedded to it’s military that the military can do whatever it wants -- and once it’s done it, it’s not going to be exposed. What’s at stake, ultimately, is absolutely huge. The American people are witness today to this open militarist oligarchy.<br><br>?: Subjects in an imperial empire. You reveal this mass psychological pathos... on the part of the American people. It’s like people can believe the possibility of all truths, but remain so open-minded that they refuse simply to know the truth. How does this effect us -- progressive people -- the left -- in our ability to assess stuff like 9/11, Iraq, Iran-Contra? <br><br>EMS: First you have to see that there’s an establishment left. And I try to deal with that in the chapters about Chomsky and The Nation (Magazine). They have a feel for what is and what is not acceptable, what are the bounds beyond which you just don’t go, and maybe it’s that they have a sense of that, and maybe it’s that they are selected out, maybe they’re acceptable. Because their natural inclinations are to operate within certain bounds. I’m not saying, for instance, that Howard Zinn is being dishonest for refusing to look at the evidence --<br><br>?: Intellectually maybe.<br><br>EMS: Well yes, in an abstract sense, but he himself believes it’s not worth pursuing because he’s interested in politics.<br><br>?: In your book you quote extensively from Chomsky’s letters to show the role of the establishment’s left/liberal wing in the cover-up I've compiled over twenty years of writings on this (debate with Chomsky) -- I'm calling him a “gatekeeper”. After looking at the picture he’s drawn, mainly in (Chomsky’s) own words and writings, I couldn’t avoid the conclusion than this guy is acting as an agent of the government, if not a government agent. I mean, from the Kennedy assassination to -- even Iran-Contra -- and now again with 9/11, this guy has taken a leading role in dismissing, discrediting, and downplaying the existence of a high-level conspiracy in these affairs.<br><br>EMS: The problem is this -- Chomsky is carefully calculating what to say -- look -- I’m not pretending that what I’m writing is politically valuable or useful, except in the most long-term sense. You know what I mean? In the sense that truth -- truth is ultimately the real power.<br><br>?: I guess there is the concept that some of the folks in the 9/11 movement are sort of -- we try to make that link. We see the parallels between the Warren Commission, the reaction in the country, what’s going on now. We see the same players --<br><br>EMS: The current administration now -- many of them are linked to the assassination.<br><br>?: Right -- there’s been a bit of research to show that these Bush connections go back towards the Kennedy assassination period.<br><br>EMS: Listen, if their politics are the politics of truth, which may be the only politics that really count, ultimately -- because if we’re going to do anything other than truth -- then we’re getting into power and manipulation, and then we’re lost. Because they’ve got everything when it comes to power and manipulation.<br><br>I quote Conedera18... he was a priest in Guatemala who... was assassinated -- he headed up a massive investigation of the murders and disappearances (in Guatemala). And I quoted him as saying that basically truth and the commitment to truth is the really mature position:<br><br>XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX<br><br>The root of humanity's downfall and disgrace comes from the deliberate opposition to truth... <br>This reality that has been intentionally deformed in our country throughout thirty-six years of war against the people. To open ourselves to the truth and to bring ourselves face to face with our personal and collective reality is not an option that can be accepted or rejected. It is an undeniable requirement of all people and all societies that seek to humanize themselves and to be free...<br><br>Truth is the primary word, the serious and mature action that makes it possible for us to break the cycle of death and violence and open ourselves to a future of hope and light for all...<br><br>Discovering the truth is painful, but it is without a doubt a healthy and liberating action.<br><br>XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX<br><br>?: The current protests are really huge events... and self-interest is probably what’s drawing out more and more Americans -- the small businessmen, the soccer moms. You’re hearing about their fear of a “clash of civilizations” and I guess to a degree that’s a good side of it -- but really bringing that self-interest component into the study of the conspiracy behind the war is much harder. How do you see us best drawing that link -- which to me is so obvious? I mean -- even the 9/11 “blowback”19 theory that everyone is buying into seems to support that.<br><br>EMS: I think there’s a strong argument to be made for the fact that Bush is actually a danger to the American people and I think that argument is beginning to be surface in the media right now. It’s really part of this phony war on terrorism. They require terrorism. There are basing everything on their capacity to terrify the American people, and they (the American people) won’t look at what’s going on economically, they won’t look at how they’re being stolen from, how they’re being pitted against the rest of the world.<br><br>?: How do you see us confronting these “gatekeepers” who hold a lot of influence in our community, and how do we either bypass them or spur them to change?<br> <br>EMS: I don’t think we can spur them to change. They’re very sophisticated -- I think they’ve defined their role and the system is going to reward them for taking that position. <br><br>The problem of Chomsky is that -- he may or may not be a paid agent, but he basically -- he contributes, and he contains things. But I don’t think I have to worry about him. To tell you the truth, I think the ordinary citizens coming to this honestly, and without a lot of political sophistication, they don’t really care about Chomsky. <br><br>?: So is there an increasing irrelevance to the American left?<br><br>EMS: I don’t consider Chomsky and Zinn and these people to be the left. Because the media wants to define them as the left, the media wants to present them as our leaders. I don’t accept them.<br><br>?: Well they have been accepted, unfortunately, by a large section of the liberal-leftist community. I mean, the youths we deal with constantly have grown up on –I mean you even mention “the irony of his withering critique” (of U.S. imperialism) in the end of your book. Clearly, it’s not just an appointed role -- he’s legitimized himself consistently.<br><br>EMS: You know – I used to do a lot of work around the nuclear arms race. And people would say -- “why is there a nuclear arms race?”. And basically my response was -- “look -- everybody’s got a theory about why the nuclear arms race exists but the real reason there’s a nuclear arms race will be discovered in the process of destroying the nuclear arms race”. <br><br>Because in coming to grips with and battling against the nuclear arms race, all the forces that really have a stake will manifest themselves. I think we have to work for peace and I think we have to work for social justice. <br><br>And I think that in that quest this work is of value. Because it teaches us something about how our system operates... for instance -- the reason I put that Castro speech20 in the book is because as far as I’m concerned it’s a master classic in how to read the U.S. press. I mean, that speech should be studied by everyone who wants to say -- “well, how can I know what’s going on here?”. <br><br>Because you can know what’s going on. Castro -- in that speech -- shows you how, by understanding the overall political context and being able to reason and read between the lines of what is being said, you can understand events. <br><br>And all of this business of “we need to know secrets” and “they’re keeping secrets from us” -- I don’t think that’s the problem.<br><br>?: I notice that you spend some time talking about the review board (A.R.R.B. - Assassination Records Review Board21). And certainly you make a compelling case that that effort is somewhat futile...and doomed to failure.<br><br>EMS: When we saw the C.O.P.A. mission statement, what I said to Vince was “If they succeed, they’ll get everyone organized against us” (laughter) “because we’re going to be the only people that they’re not going to” -- I mean, you know, it was just so -- the idea that you’re going to organize the American people somehow around the assassination didn’t make sense to me.<br><br>?: And there’s the deeper issue of the – of (the theory of) people like Fletcher Prouty22 - the role of what you call the “Vietnam diversion”. At the same time you say that it’s real -- he (JFK) was pulling out -- but he didn’t -- you say it wasn’t the main reason.<br><br>EMS: I think that’s part of the phony debate, and Chomsky really jumped on that one. <br><br>?: And he even a book on it23. And this is where I think he reveals his priorities. I mean, to come out with this book --<br><br>EMS: The point is it was a phony discussion. So what they do is say -- “OK, we’re now going to debate whether Kennedy was killed for pulling out of Vietnam”. And everything else he was doing, in terms of negotiating with Krushchev, and negotiating recognition of Cuba, is just ignored! It’s much more radical than him pulling 1000 troops out of Vietnam.<br><br>?: You have another -- very funny play at the end of book with Albert Einstein and this King Malcolm W.E.B. Ali Sonrobe character... discussing -- it seemed to be this concept of – these different forms of gravity -- social and physical energy -- of man’s struggle -- <br><br>EMS: -- the thing there is I was using -- it’s kind of like Aristotelean concepts. What I was really talking about was -- in Aristotle’s book on the soul he defines the soul as “the form by which matter is alive”. And as new forms of life arise, qualitatively new species you have a different soul associated. <br><br>There’s a vegetable soul, a human soul, an animal soul -- as far as Aristotle is concerned. But actually Marx views our contemporary human affairs as almost a pre-history. And that human beings will not really come into their own until they are able to manifest a collectivity of spirit. What I was driving at in that dialogue was this notion that -- the world is moving in such a direction that the notion of the golden rule -- you know -- “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” -- is becoming a practical necessity. It’s not just a moral imperative.<br><br>?: That’s the true self-interest.<br><br>EMS: If you can realize what it is you’re involved in. Here’s the funny thing -- when I was working on the nuclear arms race everyone was saying -- “we don’t understand the Russians” -- but we didn’t understand ourselves. <br><br>We didn’t understand what our own government’s policy was. Of course we were buying everything that was being told us about the Russians. <br><br>But I didn’t see that as the primary problem. The primary problem is we were totally -- the American people were basically ignorant of their own government’s polices. You know -- “first strike”, all that kind of stuff. We do need to understand our own self-interest. <br><br>We need to understand what is being done in our name. The starting point is people who feel responsible for what’s going on. Gorky once said - “the world needs people who feel responsible for everything that’s happening in the world”.<br><br>?: You mention Harriet Beecher Stowe --<br><br>EMS: -- In one of her prefaces to Uncle Tom’s Cabin she describes -- and this is some years after the Civil War -- she describes what the abolitionist movement was like, what marginal people they were, and how they were discredited. It’s so interesting because I excerpted her quote, and in this thought I was talking about people in the assassination (research) community. <br> <br>?: That’s why your book is so appealing -- because of this clarity it brings to the subject -- and the overarching nature of the way you approach it. It seems to me you hit the nail on the head. <br><br>And I really think it has such a significance to what we’re dealing with now -- the (9/11) Citizen’s commission, and the process of denial acting on large parts of the leftist leadership. And I think when we learn those lessons we can confront this.<br><br>EMS: I wrote the book partly so I wouldn’t have to talk to people about the facts of the case again and again. <br><br>You know -- “you want to know? -- read this”, then if they have something to talk about then we’ll talk. ...actually it’s interesting – some people say they wanted to know, and then they read the book and came back to me and said -- “I don’t think I want to know”. <br><br>And I say “that’s OK”. Because you’re not wasting my time and I’m not wasting yours, and you found out, and you don’t want to know. So that’s OK -- you know -- that’s where it’s at. I’ll tell you what -- look at any of these guys (conspiracy researchers) -- look at them carefully -- and see if they create uncertainty. <br><br>The minute you have someone creating uncertainties you know they’re either witting or unwitting. And there’s very few that are not. <br><br>Phillip Berrigan24 read my book in jail in Maine. I went up there, and he really liked the book. We were talking about Chomsky -- Berrigan said: “it’s not too hard to take him past his depth”. <br><br>I think the ordinary guy in the street, who’s honest, and feels some sense of responsibility for what’s going on -- we’re really going to go far with him. <br><br>And I think the justice community -- whatever they call themselves -- is really, really important. People who are concerned about the conditions that people are living in all over the world, and can see that this military spending just means perpetual war, they’re going to organize to find a way to turn this around, and it looks like it’s going to be a worldwide movement. And that’s where I put my trust. <br><br>The leftist intellectuals -- I mean that’s fine -- if they want to go along with the movement -- I just don’t know that it’s going to be a leftist movement.<br><br>?: But we look to the left media to center our movement, to provide us with information on new revelations or current events. And when you go on to Common Dreams -- or most of the major leftist news sites -- you don’t hear any of this. In fact you get David Corn, or Michael Albert25 or somebody saying it’s wrong -- so once again we see a repeat of the same old game. <br><br>I was struck by what you said in your C.O.P.A. speech -- where you talk about what would have been different had we acknowledged the fact of a high-level conspiracy all the way back then -- what would have been different had we not had this leftist establishment -- filled with fear -- telling everyone to believe in the big lie (the Warren Report) -- that says it all – exactly why <br><br>I think it’s imperative for us to somehow “out” these people without damaging the left.<br><br>EMS: You won’t damage the left. The liberals will run from these truths. <br> <br> <br><br><br><br>FOOTNOTES:<br>1 From the C.O.P.A. mission statement: “In April, 1994, three national, non-profit organizations, the Assassination Archives Research Center, the Citizens for Truth About the Kennedy Assassination, and the Committee for an Open Archives, and members of the assassination research community formed the Coalition on Political Assassinations in Washington, DC. <br>The call for such a national organization, based in Washington, came from meetings held in Dallas, Texas on the 30th anniversary of the murder of John F. Kennedy. The Coalition is united in the belief that no lone assassin was responsible for the death of President Kennedy, that serious questions remain in the murders of Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, that the official investigations into these murders were flawed, and that all U.S. and foreign government records relating to these murders should be made public immediately. <br>The inability of past and present government agencies to resolve public doubts and distrust concerning these murders requires full disclosure and public scrutiny of the history and events surrounding them, and has led to the creation of the JFK Assassination Review Board (ARRB), a group of citizens responsible for locating, defining and facilitating release of these files, unless clear and convincing evidence of harm to current intelligence sources and methods, or harm to individuals outweighs the public right to access the information in all government files...the Governing and Advisory Boards of the Coalition include Cyril H. Wecht, MD, JD, Oliver Stone, Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D., John Newman, Ph.D., Gary Aguilar, MD, Michael Parenti, Ph. D., Walt Brown, Ph.D.,... and John Judge, among others.” <br>2 Including the murders of over 1,000 people in Cuba, the US, and abroad.<br>3 For more on the Cuban 5 go to www.antiterroristas.cu/<br>4 Jim Garrison, the focus of Oliver Stone’s Movie JFK, was the district attorney of New Orleans when he investigated the Kennedy assassination and unsuccessfully prosecuted Clay Shaw, a businessman connected to the CIA <br>5 The “southern desk” was a branch of the U.S. State Department in charge of South and Central America and the Caribbean basin.<br>6 Gaeton Fonzi was a staff investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (H.S.C.A.), and an investigator for Senator Richard Schweiker.<br>7 George deMorhenschildt was a close acquaintance and financial supporter of Lee Harvey Oswald after his return from the Soviet Union. He has been conclusively connected to right-wing groups and the U.S. intelligence community, and gave testimony to the Warren Commission <br>(www. AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/demohr-g.htm).">jfkassassination.net/russ...hr-g.htm).</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br>8 William Attwood was U.S. ambassador to Kenya in 1964.<br>9 Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by JFK, and then appointed as counsel to the Warren Commission investigating his murder.<br>10 For more information on Jim Douglas go to <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~jkelin1/letam.html">home.earthlink.net/~jkelin1/letam.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> and <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~jkelin1/jfk_mlk_911.html.">home.earthlink.net/~jkeli..._911.html.</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>11 Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated in 1981, while giving mass at the National Cathedral in San Salvador. His death has been linked directly to the US military intelligence establishment. <br>12 Russian president Nikita Khrushchev’s letter to Fidel Castro written January 31, 1963.<br>13 “U.S. Should Hold C.I.A. to Intelligence Role” - Washington Post a.m. edition (12/22/63), Los Angeles Times (1/24/75).<br>15 Pierre Salinger was JFK’s press secretary.<br>16 On 6/29/69, an airplane carrying three Democratic senators, including Ted Kennedy, crashed in Malden, Massachusetts, causing Kennedy to break his back. <br>18 Guatemalan Bishop Juan Jose Gerardi Conedera was assassinated in 1998, the day after presenting the findings of a massive investigation into tens of thousands of murders and disappearances in Guatemala, conducted with the training and support of the U.S. military- intelligence establishment<br>19 “Blowback” is a word first used by the C.I.A. to describe situations that occur when operatives or assets previously supported, funded, and/or trained by the C.I.A. and generally friendly to it’s interests later turn unfriendly and “blowback” by attacking or otherwise adversely affecting the U.S., U.S. interests, and/or it’s foreign or domestic policy. <br>20 “Concerning The Facts and Consequences Surrounding The Tragic Death of President Kennedy”- (Saturday p.m., 11/23/63) <br> <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Interview with Martin Schotz

Postby Dreams End » Mon Aug 22, 2005 1:57 pm

I hope this book is as good as this interview makes it look, because I just ordered it. Luckily found a used copy for not too much. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

pressure

Postby proldic » Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:12 pm

man I've got enough already <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

the interview

Postby robertdreed » Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:40 pm

What strikes me is that the actual act of assassination is alluded to only in passing. Perhaps the only germane data referred to is the allegation that Jackie Onassis and the Kennedy family possess autopsy photos and other material evidence that put the lie to the offical version of events, and that they're suppressing this evidence for reasons of their own ( presumably including self-preservation. )<br><br>That allegation makes the Kennedy family themselves part of the cover-up, albeit as unwanted participants. But in terms of adding to the evidence to debunk the Warren Commission, it still adds up to zero. <br><br>The vast majority of the content is devoted to after-the-fact speculation on what might have been if Kennedy had lived, and whether or not he was politically "progressive", destined to shake up the status quo of Cold War foreign policy, etc. <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: the interview

Postby Dreams End » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:53 am

Hmm...have you read the book? I didn't see a source for this interview, but I'm guessing the interviewer and audience for this article already accepted the Kennedy coverup perspective. I've got the book on the way, so I'll let you know if it deals more substantively with the assassination itself, but allusions in the interview cause me to think so. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: the interview

Postby robertdreed » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:40 am

The big question for me is: if the "top-level insider right-wing conspiracy" hypothesis is the correct one, who's in the cupola? <br><br>Hoover? Dulles? McCone? Lemnitzer? The Cabells? Banister? Howard Hunt? William F. Buckley? Arlen Specter? Lyndon Johnson? <br><br>For years, the best I've heard from the adherents of that particular conspiracy theory is that "They" did it. You know, "Them." <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: the interview

Postby Dreams End » Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:48 am

I'm no expert on the JFK assassination. That would take a data dump for sure. I'm looking forward to the book though, and I'll let you know how it is after I've read it.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: the interview

Postby Dreams End » Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:15 pm

Thought I'd bump this. You'd asked for my opinion of it and I thought it was well done. As I mentioned, I'd just been thinking about "gatekeepers" when I read this, so it was good timing as well. <br><br>I guess rdr has a point. It might need some tweaking depending on the intended audience. I think the book makes a "well, duh!" case about the assassination but if you were to put this interview out somewhere in front of people undecided about that, you might want to delve more (at this point, through some explanation of your own, since the interview is done) on the specifics he focuses on that convinced him of the conspiracy. I was most struck in the book by how QUICKLY a lot of this stuff emerged and how quickly the Oswald cover story was blown. <br><br>I'd also add, by way of explanation, how he did not rely on, nor did he need to, any research beyond the Warren commission's own documents as well as mainstream press reports. <br><br>I think the interview reads fine now for an audience of folks who've pretty much accepted that there was a conspiracy and are curious about how "they" got away with it .and the left gatekeeper angle is one that is an eye opener. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

.

Postby proldic » Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:17 pm

thanks DE <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Interview with Martin Schotz

Postby MinM » Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:38 pm

proldic » Mon Aug 22, 2005 12:34 pm wrote:"History will not absolve us: an interview with Martin Schotz"...

There was only person in Kennedy’s coterie that came out - Mort Sahl, the humorist. He was a speechwriter for Kennedy. And he went on to become Jim Garrrison’s press secretary. He was the only one who went absolutely all the way. And he was blacklisted. He couldn’t work in Hollywood...

Image @MortSahl: @naomirwolf is afraid Snowden is a double agent. I know all about double agents--I was on Jim Garrison's staff.

@MortSahl:VIDEO: Appearance on The Steve Allen Show in 1960. The U2 spying incident and cover-up http://youtu.be/_sRjrsK7RQo


@MortSahl: Video, 1974- On the Watergate Hearings: http://youtu.be/9FAaGuJZNnA


@MortSahl: @DSuess Ellsberg isn't clean. His job was to present papers that would blame the war on the Army instead of the C.I.A., that started it.

@MortSahl: We are in trouble because our government is scared, our newsmen are scared, and our comedians are scared.

https://twitter.com/mortsahlsays
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3286
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Assassinations and Suspicious Deaths

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests