JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby smiths » Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:43 pm

my point wasn't that the secret service was solely responsible, but that certain aspects of the set up require inside work and coordination at a really critical level in the hierarchy of the State,
the mafia might have had its killers used, but it didn't organise the secret service stand down and it couldnt have coordinated the Warren Commision cover-up
in the same way that real terrorists might have been on aeroplanes in September 2011, but they didnt coordinate multiple war games and an air force stand down with the subsequent state organised cover-up
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby fruhmenschen » Fri Oct 25, 2013 12:36 am

Blather
http://www.blather.net/blather/2013/10/ ... three.html
October 25, 2013
Oswald and the CIA (part three)



Once again this blog turns to John Newman's Oswald and the CIA (2008 edition) for evidence from the vast depths of US government files. In this way, pre-assassination documents can throw light on Lee Harvey Oswald.

Oswald in New Orleans, April-September '63

Oswald left Dallas not long after the Walker shooting, and went back to his hometown, New Orleans. Once there, he wrote to Vincent Lee, the national director of the left-wing Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC), about setting up a New Orleans branch of the organization. But 'Lee lost interest in Oswald when he violated the bylaws of the FPCC by claiming charter status' for said branch (p.289). Oswald conducted the business of his rogue 'FPCC' under the name 'A. J. Hidell, Chapter President' (p.329), and on some of the literature he handed out (see photo), the address 544 Camp Street was used. This, as Newman says, 'deepens the mystery, for this was the location where Guy Banister and the Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC) maintained their offices' (p.289).

The CRC was the 'stable' coordinating 'core' of Cuban exiles (p.289), but following the Cuban Missile Crisis it had gone into disfavour with the Kennedy administration, because stirring up trouble in Cuba had now become a dangerous threat to world peace. All US government funding of the CRC ceased from 1 May '63. Guy Banister (1901-1964) was a naval intelligence, FBI and New Orleans Police Department veteran who was now running a private detective agency which undertook anti-communist activities and raised money for the New Orleans branch of the CRC. Fans of the film JFK will be disappointed to find out that the only evidence that Oswald was in any way associated with Banister or worked out of 544 Camp Street is the story told by Banister's secretary Delphine Roberts. He used the address, but we don't know for sure why. However, that he knew the eccentric anti-Castro activist and Banister associate David Ferrie (1918-1967) is beyond question, as they were in the same Civil Air Patrol unit before Oswald joined the Marines, and a photo has been unearthed of them together.

Ferrie Oswald small.jpg
(This photo is generally available on the internet, and I can no longer find which website added the helpful arrows.)

Another intriguing fact is that after the assassination the New Orleans FBI deleted a reference to 544 Camp Street in a message to the FBI director (pp.310, 593). A touchy subject?

During this New Orleans period, Oswald was making travel plans. On 24 June he applied for a passport, and on 1 July, 'Marina, reportedly at Oswald's request, wrote to the Soviet Embassy asking to return to the Soviet Union' (p.316). Oswald mentioned a plan to travel to the USSR on his passport application, but he did not mention any plan to travel to Cuba (the evidence for that is the application to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City).

As 'Hidell', Oswald had been handing out pro-Castro leaflets, but in August, Oswald started using his own name to try to infiltrate the anti-Castro Cuban revolutionaries, specifically the Cuban Student Directorate, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE). There was a CIA link here: the DRE retained covert CIA funding because its activity was propaganda, not military revolution. Oswald introduced himself to the New Orleans DRE delegate Carlos Bringuier (b.1934), saying that as an ex-Marine he wanted to train anti-Castro Cubans in guerrilla warfare. Bringuier declined this offer, and was then surprised, a few days later, to discover Oswald handing out pro-Castro FPCC literature on Canal Street. Something of a scuffle ensued, and Oswald, Bringuier and others were arrested.

Photo_hsca_mugbook_023_cbringuier.jpg
Carlos Bringuier

A strange twist to this is that in the jailhouse, Oswald asked to talk to the FBI, to 'supply information' to them about his FPCC activities (p.334). An FBI agent, John Quigley, who was familiar with Oswald's defection to the USSR, was sent along. Oswald told Quigley about how he'd heard of the New Orleans chapter of the FPCC, and then decided to join it. His FPCC card (member #33) was signed by the New Orleans 'Chapter President', A.J. Hidell (in handwriting Marina testified to the Warren Commission was hers) and Oswald told Quigley he'd 'never personally met Hidell' (p.335). Oswald was trying to convince Quigley that the New Orleans FPCC were a large, secret organization.

The upshot of the Canal Street arrest was a court appearance in which Oswald paid a fine, and he got to participate in a radio debate on WDSU. But during this debate about Cuban-American relations, Oswald was exposed as a former defector to the USSR and the 'damage was done... Oswald appeared compromised as a closet Communist and suspect tool of Moscow. His usefulness for any purpose in New Orleans, including pro-Castro leafleting, was finished' (p.345). Indeed, Oswald wound down his activities in New Orleans at this point. Marina and June went back to Irving, and Lee obtained a tourist permit for Mexico.

The Odio Incident, September '63

Newman has a take on the mysterious 'Odio Incident' which is sympathetic to Silvia Odio and paints it as more likely that Oswald, not an Oswald impostor, paid the woman a visit in Dallas in late September. This incident did not sit well with the Warren Commission's timeline, and certainly the meeting could not have taken place too close to 10am, 27 September, the hour Oswald's bus arrived in Mexico City. It could have taken place on 25 September, however.

sylvia-odio.jpg
Silvia Odio

Silvia Odio (26) was living with her sister Annie (17) in Dallas, and they were the daughters of Amador Odio, who was jailed in Cuba as the leader of Junta Revolucionaria Cubana (JURE) a left-wing anti-Castro group. The 'first version' of the Odio Incident is the one reported to the FBI by Silvia's social worker, Lucille Connell, who said that Silvia 'knew Lee Harvey Oswald, and that he had made some talks to small groups of Cuban refugees in Dallas in the past' (Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, p.118). Certainly in the context of Oswald trying to inflitrate Bringuier's DRE in New Orleans in August, and having being seen at a Dallas DRE meeting on 13 October (Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy, p.292), infiltrating JURE in Dallas as well is not outside the bounds of possibility. But the 'second version' of the Odio connection does not match with Connell's account, and this was Silvia's own version, given to the FBI and the Warren Commission. She said she met Oswald only once, when he visited her apartment with two Latin men, claiming to be members of JURE and working for the CRC. The first of these seemed to be the leader of the trio. He was tall, about 40, and gave his 'war name' as 'Leopoldo'; the second 'was shorter and wore glasses' and had the name 'Angelo' or 'Angel' (Summers p.296). The American man with them was introduced as 'Leon Oswald' and he 'stood quietly by, saying almost nothing at all. Like the others, he looked weary, rather unkempt, and had not shaved' (Summers pp.296-7). Leopoldo was looking for her help to raise funds for violent anti-Castro operations. Suspicious and unnerved, Silvia declined, and the men left.

JFKhallL2.jpg
Loran Eugene Hall: was he Leopoldo?

Two days later Leopoldo phoned her up and told her Oswald was 'an ex-Marine, and an expert marksman... He's kind of loco, kind of nuts. He could go either way. He could do anything - like getting underground in Cuba, like killing Castro. [He] says we Cubans don't have any guts. He says we should have shot President Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs. He says we should do something like that' (Summers p.297). Amador Odio corresponded with his daughters, and was very suspicious when he received a letter from Silvia about these men, whom he suspected were not JURE members. Then, Silvia was hospitalized with shock after the JFK assassination, when she saw who was arrested for it (she would blackout under stress - perhaps she had epilepsy?). Both Silvia and Annie recognized 'our' Lee Harvey Oswald as their 'Leon Oswald'.

Oswald having two associates is a bit inconvenient, and when the Warren Commission wrote to J. Edgar Hoover stating that 'It is a matter of some importance to the Commission that Mrs. Odio's allegations either be proved or disproved', the FBI managed to produce one Loran Eugene Hall. The version of the incident that the Warren Commission accepted was that 3 'soldiers of fortune involved with the Cuban exiles' were the ones who visited Silvia Odio: Hall (a gun runner), Larry Howard, and William Seymour (who according to Hall looked like Oswald).

larry-hancock dot com seymour oswald.jpg
Photo: larry-hancock.com

Howard and Seymour, however, denied they ever met Odio, and then Hall recanted his story, but the FBI and the Warren Commission kept this information from the public and ran with the convenient Hall version.

(Other theories that involve an Oswald impostor who is Seymour, or anyone else, would of course have to discredit both Silvia and Annie Odio.)

Oswald in Mexico, September-October '63

This blog has covered the issue of Oswald in Mexico as one big, confusing mystery, and Oswald and the CIA, more than any other book, has attempted to make sense of it all. In the process it becomes Newman's key to understanding the JFK assassination itself.

The first thing he wants you to know is that on 16 September the CIA sent an 'information report' to the FBI, saying that they were 'giving some consideration to countering the activities' of the FPCC 'in foreign countries' (p.351). Funny that a week later Oswald would show his FPCC card as part of his bona fides to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico!

newman.jpg

CIA reports on Oswald's FPCC activities were not stored in the CIA's intelligence file on Oswald, a file which was kept by the Special Investigations Group (SIG), the mole-hunters within CIA Counterintelligence (the possibility of a mole in the CIA having been raised in April '58 by Popov, prior to Oswald's defection; the SIG kept tabs on defectors thereafter). Rather, those Oswald-FPCC reports were going into a separate Counterintelligence operations file on the FPCC, where the abovementioned 'information report' could also be found. Furthermore, someone removed from the Oswald file the August '62 FBI report about interviewing Oswald following his return to the US, so the Mexico desk at CIA headquarters, who would not have an overview of different sections of Counterintelligence, would read cables coming from the Mexico CIA station about Oswald, and when given the Oswald file, would think that it had not been updated since May '62 and would not know anything about his activities since then (pp.619-621).

But that's back at HQ. Let's see how Newman makes sense of Oswald in Mexico City itself. Newman decides that the best guide to real events is to combine the transcripts of CIA surveillance at the Soviet Consulate (Embassy) in Mexico City (Lopez Report p.117); the statements about the sequence of events from Silvia Durán, secretary at the Cuban Consulate; and the written account of Oleg Nechiporenko, vice consul at the Soviet Embassy, whose book includes the accounts of vice consul Valery Kostikov and consul Pavel Yatskov.

oleg-nechiporenko-2010-7-11-10-33-2.jpg
Oleg Nechiporenko, years later.

The sequence of real events:

1. On the morning of Friday, 27 September, Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Cuban Consulate to request 'an in-transit visa for travel through Cuba to the Soviet Union', but he had no 'passport-style pictures of himself necessary for the visa' (p.356).

2. Oswald left and returned to the Consulate with photos. Silvia Durán 'filled out duplicate visa application forms for him and then explained he would have to get his Soviet visa before she could issues his Cuban visa' (p.357).

3. Oswald went to the Soviet Embassy and met Kostikov, then Nechiporenko, whom he told that the Soviet Embassy in Washington had turned him down for a visa. According to the rules, a visa application should be handled in the US but Nechiporenko said he'd make an exception. However, the papers would still have to be sent to Moscow and the reply from there would have to be sent to Oswald's permanent US address, and this process would take at least 4 months. Oswald got upset at this news, shouted 'This won't do for me!' and was escorted from the premises (p.358).

4. Oswald returned to the Cuban Consulate in the late afternoon. He claimed to Durán that the Soviets had said there'd be no problem with a visa. Durán decided to check, and phoned up the Soviets. Kostikov told her that they had not approved a visa for Oswald. The Cubans therefore could not help him, and he argued with the consul, Eusebio Azcue.

Photo_hsca_ex_437 azcue small.jpg
Eusebio Azcue.

5. On Saturday morning at the Soviet Embassy, Oswald tried to convince Yatskov to give him a visa, saying 'I am afraid... they'll kill me. Let me in' (p.361). He showed his revolver. Nechiporenko, Kostikov and Yatskov managed to calm him down, but he would not take the visa application forms they offered him, as if 4 months would be too late. Then he left.

Newman's account works as long as we set aside the issue of Azcue not identifying Oswald, and Durán saying he was short and blonde. But that's Newman's account of real events, and it goes up to 10.30am Saturday, 28 September. After that, 'Something amazing was about to happen to "reality" in Mexico City' (p.362).

The CIA telephone surveillance transcript of a call to the Soviet Embassy at 11.51am has 'Durán' putting an American on the line to them. He speaks in bad Russian and says he had visited the Soviet Embassy, now has 'his address' from the Cuban Consulate, and agrees to come to the Soviet Embassy now to 'leave' his 'address' with them. The transcriber of the tapped phone would go on to claim that the American speaker 'is identical with the man who would, in a telephone call three days later, state "My name is Oswald"' (p.364). Newman reasons that this is a Durán impostor, and an Oswald impostor who does not know what transpired between Yatskov and Oswald, and is 'trying to keep the conversation going' by talking about addresses, but does not realize that the real Oswald was not interested in visa application forms (which would involve address information), but immediate help from the Soviets. The mysterious circumstances under which this recording and the later 1 October recording went missing after the JFK assassination indicates a possible CIA or DFS operation to impersonate people in Mexico and phone up the Soviet Embassy.

JFKduranS.jpg
Silvia Durán

Reports of Oswald in Mexico went into the Oswald file in the CIA, which at that point had in it no documents dated later than May '62. The only people in the CIA who had access to both that file and the file containing information on Oswald's FPCC activities, i.e. 'all the pieces of the Oswald puzzle' (p.396), were the Counterintelligence SIG under Birch D. O'Neal and the Security Office under James McCord (later a Watergate burglar), and naturally the head of Counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton.

Jamesmccordmug.jpg
James McCord

The 8 October cable about Oswald from the Mexican CIA station to headquarters 'caused a lot of excitement' (p.400) according to Ann Egerter, who was in charge of Oswald's file at the SIG, because this ex-defector had met Kostikov, who was KGB. However, according to the CIA's story, prior to the JFK assassination no-one connected these events to the 'project TUMBLEWEED' file, which contained the information that Kostikov was an assassination expert (p.620). Strangely, on 10 October the CIA were happy to connect Oswald to the 'Mystery Man' in their cable (Lopez Report p.146) to the FBI, State Department and Navy about the 1 October surveillance transcript ('an American male, who identified himself as Lee Oswald, contacted the Soviet embassy in Mexico City inquiring whether the embassy had received any news concerning a telegram which had been sent to Washington'). The cable linked this 'Oswald' to the redefector Oswald, but at the same time endorsed the wrong description (the 35-year-old athletic) (pp.398-9). Meanwhile the CIA sent a cable to their own Mexico City station with an accurate description of the true Oswald. Ann Egerter signed off on both cables and told the HSCA 'she could not say why the description discrepancies occurred' (pp.400-401). The Counterintelligence 'releasing officer' for the cable to the FBI, State Department and Navy was Jane Roman (p.401) and on 4 October she had read, and signed that she had read, 'the latest FBI report on Oswald's FPCC activities in New Orleans'. With the knowledge from that report, she would have known the information in the cable about Oswald was false, and when interviewed by Newman for his book, she looked at both documents and said, 'I'm signing off on something that I know isn't true'. She states she wasn't 'in on' this 'tight control' of information, and that it was 'indicative of a keen interest in Oswald, held very closely on a need-to-know basis' (p.405).

Lee_Harvey_Oswald_being_shot_by_Jack_Ruby_as_Oswald_is_being_moved_by_police400.jpg

Newman points out that while Oswald was murdered, the other person who had been impersonated, Durán, was still alive. The day after the JFK assassination, the CIA station in Mexico City informed the Mexican authorities that she should be arrested, and as she was a Mexican citizen not a Cuban diplomat, they did just that. She told her interrogators Oswald never returned to the Consulate after the 27 September, but the Warren Commission, influenced by the CIA and the Mexican government, reported that 'confidential information' told them that he did, and Durán's 23 November statement was not accurately reported by the Warren Commission. Newman reasons that the CIA's fake Oswald 'transcripts were threatened by what she was saying' (p.409) and that was the motive behind CIA-Mexican pressure on the Warren Commission.

Incidentally, in her HSCA evidence, Durán explained why Oswald had her phone number in his address book: 'I used to do that to all the people, so they don't have to come and to bother me. So I used to give the telephone number and my name and say "give me a call next week to see if your visa arrived"' (p.411).

The main text of Newman's book finishes by noting how scandalous it is that the CIA had known in October that Oswald met with a KGB assassination expert and they didn't tip off other agencies (p.429). The FBI that same month took Oswald off their espionage watch list (p.630). Oswald may even have threatened to kill JFK if the 'Solo' story is to be believed. The CIA could protect operations and sources, etc., but it led to the death of a President.

hill and jackie SMALL.jpg

That's if Oswald was the assassin. Thirteen years later, in 2008, a new edition of Oswald and the CIA came out with an 'Epilogue', which casts a different light on the CIA's behaviour: what if Oswald was being manipulated by 'handlers'? After all, his tourist visa to Mexico was issued next in sequence to the visa of William Gaudet, who worked for the CIA.

'On the surface, Oswald's trip to Mexico City made no sense at all,' Newman writes. Oswald was doing and saying things 'that were not in his interest' (p.615). He could have been prosecuted for going to Cuba, while the State Department in the summer of '63 had already given him permission to travel to the USSR, which he could easily have done via Europe not Cuba.

Manipulators, in Newman's view, may have been trying to link Oswald to both Cuba and KGB assassination expert Kostikov. Oswald could not get a Cuban visa without getting a Soviet visa first, so it brought him into almost inevitable contact with Kostikov. This provides the motivation for the two fake phone calls: they were designed to be picked up by CIA surveillance, so that there would be a record that Oswald met Kostikov. In the second transcript, the 1 October one, both men were specifically named. Newman thinks the 1 October transcript (Lopez Report p. 78 and p.79 ), with its 'Lee Oswald' waiting for an 'answer from Washington' implies that the impostor knew the contents of the genuine Durán-Kostikov phone call of the afternoon of Friday 27 September (Kostikov to Durán: 'According to the letter that he showed from the Consulate in Washington, he wants to go to Russia to stay for a long time with his wife who is Russian. But we have received no answer from Washington'), which means the impostor was being informed by 'either a member of the CIA station or... someone... at the telephone tap center' (p.618).

kostikov.jpg
Valery Kostikov

The Oswald impostor made the Warren Commission possible. Evidence was placed 'into the CIA's records that, on 22 November, would link KGB assassinations to the murder of President Kennedy' and President Johnson, in a taped phone conversation with Senator Russell on 29 November, says he had to stop this 'from kicking us into a war that could kill forty million Americans in an hour' (p.618). That was Johnson's main task; he already knew the Oswald case was fishy. On 23 November, in another taped phone conversation, this time between Johnson and Hoover when the FBI heard the tapes recorded in Mexico, Hoover reported to Johnson that the recordings revealed, 'A second person was using Oswald's name' (p.632). Although we don't have the Mexico recordings today, the existence of the Oswald impostor is thus confirmed, and Hoover is on record internally in the FBI about being angry with the CIA over the fake Mexico City Oswald (p.635).

Apparently a tape containing the recordings, and surveillance photos of Oswald, were kept by CIA Mexico City station chief Win Scott: 'Angered by the cover story that the station had missed Oswald's visits to the Cuban Consulate, Scott kept the tape and the photos in his safe as insurance to prove they had known about it' (p.635). Scott, probably out of the loop on the imposture, did a voice comparison himself, by buying a copy of the WDSU radio debate with Oswald in New Orleans in August.

Win-Scott-cropped.jpg
Win Scott

Newman takes the view that any plot to kill Kennedy had this very handy 'WWIII pretext for a national security cover-up' (p.636), because Johnson couldn't risk an investigation into the JFK assassination that could start a nuclear war. The significance of Oswald in Mexico could not be understood by most people in CIA headquarters in October, because information about Oswald was stashed in different files, but after 22 November it all came together, including Kostikov's role as an assassination expert. A very small group of people had control of Oswald's file(s) from the time of his defection in '59. Newman sees only one person in particular who knew 'both the Cuban and Soviet parts of Oswald's story' and also had access to 'project TUMBLEWEED', the operation against Kostikov; the only man with power who could conceivably have done it all, planned the assassination, bifurcated Oswald's CIA file, stage-managed Mexican unreality beneath Win Scott's nose (using perhaps only one or two trusted agents), and then after the assassination pushed the 'international communist conspiracy theory' to scare Johnson into covering up any plot; the only man with the kind of manipulative ingenuity to conceive of such a dialectical cover-up; a paranoiac, yet one who could construct reality so that all his opponents are kept in a state of paranoia of their own; the man who emptied Win Scott's safe when he died; the head of CIA Counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton, about whom there shall be more, in the next entry of this blog.

Previously in this series:

Who Shot JFK?
The Kennedy Conspiracy
Reasonable Doubt (part one)
Reasonable Doubt (part two)
Who's Who in the JFK Assassination
Deep Politics and the Death of JFK
Deep Politics II: Oswald, Mexico, and Cuba (part one)
Deep Politics II: Oswald, Mexico, and Cuba (part two)
Oswald and the CIA (part one)
Oswald and the CIA (part two)
Marina and Ruth
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby H_C_E » Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:24 pm

smiths » Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:43 pm wrote:my point wasn't that the secret service was solely responsible, but that certain aspects of the set up require inside work and coordination at a really critical level in the hierarchy of the State,
the mafia might have had its killers used, but it didn't organise the secret service stand down and it couldnt have coordinated the Warren Commision cover-up
in the same way that real terrorists might have been on aeroplanes in September 2011, but they didnt coordinate multiple war games and an air force stand down with the subsequent state organised cover-up


Okay, and I think most agree with you more or less.

But I stand by what I've been saying. Nothing of any consequence will
ever happen with the JFK case (not that there an actual case in the legal
sense yet) as long as people remain distracted by the unprovable
fiddly bits.

We'll never know who the operatives were, who the shooters were,
exactly where the shots came from or how many, who planted what
evidence, if the Z film has been tampered with in a way that allows
any of this to be used for evidence in a court of law.

This thing needs to be taken to court, but that's not likely to happen.
Abdul, wax the beach with postal regret portions. Nevermind the o-ring leader he got not the cheese duster from the dachshund dimension or even pillow frighteners.
H_C_E
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Loud Pants
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby H_C_E » Fri Oct 25, 2013 2:30 pm

JackRiddler » Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:41 pm wrote:
It's not just crackpots who question the conventional wisdom that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he killed President John F. Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963.


But it is mostly careerists who would automatically give the status of "conventional wisdom" to an opinion that, though hegemonic in the discourse of polite society, is in the clear minority in both the U.S. and the world (among people over the age of 40, while those under 40 tend not to have any opinion). I mean, "conventional wisdom" is not a positive assessment in my book; but if the vast majority thinks otherwise, how the fuck is it conventional?


It's not about conventional wisdom so much as it is about memetics, changing perception and shining
light on truth in order to eliminate all reasonable doubt. Once the reasonable doubt is eliminated, then
it becomes possible to minimize, or perhaps even stop the obfuscation, so that when conversations or
debates occur one can say, "Well, Oswald was innocent of the crime he'd been charged with, and the
government and media outlets have been perpetrating a massive lie for fifty years."

Currently that conversation impossible to have unless you're preaching to the choir.
Abdul, wax the beach with postal regret portions. Nevermind the o-ring leader he got not the cheese duster from the dachshund dimension or even pillow frighteners.
H_C_E
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Loud Pants
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby Elihu » Fri Oct 25, 2013 5:39 pm

mms://srcwm.webcastcenter.com/src/src_102113.wma

wow. double double double double think. first segment is a tour deforce. mentions: angleton, dulles, harriman, poppy, zapata, cia, mob, elective war, single source contractors, fiat finance, media farce. it's so amusing and wrenching. segment over at 22:30 and "religious" (station format) vamping resumes ala "it's a violent world and the boogie men are "islamic" "tear-eeer-or-ist-tststststts". it's like man, are you so *%#@!@#$%^&* stupid that you did not hear what you just aired? you supposedly just heard the truth of what happened 50 years ago and you cannot deduce that you are now a dupe of the man? kneel down, lick his boots. a chicken s world we live in. nothing personal to people who think "republicans must be destroyed". wow....

http://www.swrc.com/ministry/schedule/schedule.html
scroll down to october 21 if the wma link doesn't work.
Elihu
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby Joao » Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:38 pm

In the service of topic hygiene, I'm responding here to a post by KeenInsight in the "Watch Noam Chomsky Set 9/11 Truther Straight" thread.

KeenInsight » Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:01 pm wrote:Here is what "chompsky" says about the JFK assassination:
If somebody could show that there was some general significance to the assassination, that it changed policy, or that there was some high–level involvement or whatever, then it would be an important historical event. Other than that it’s just like the killing of anyone else.

[...]

[B]ut there IS a rhyme and reason behind "events" in history. Hell, for 1,000 years nobody even knew that the Pharoah Ramses III was killed in a conspiracy by his son.

To be a devil's advocate, don't you see the complete historical triviality of a Ramses III conspiracy as affirming the potential irrelevance of the JFK assassination? I don't question that JFK was rather obviously a conspiracy, but I think Chomsky's point is very worthy of consideration. I'm inclined to see JFK as just as much of a bastard as any other US president. (Of course, this takes us into divining NSAM 263.)
Joao
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby smiths » Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:44 am

well that is incorrect and the book of the OP clearly explains the change of course it did engender,

quite simply US-Soviet rapprochment was going pretty well and the two leaders were working towards a general anullment of the insane Cold War,
JFK got shot, LBJ stepped up the pressure, and the next Russian leader, Brezhnev set about ramping up the Soviet military at the expense of Soviet society

again, Chomsky is a smart bloke, so surely he must be able to see the train of events there
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby Joao » Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:30 am

I appreciate your response and thoughts. Given that the Cuban Missile Crisis had us on the precipice of nuclear war only a year before Kennedy's death, and given also that it was JFK himself who started the war in Vietnam, however, I don't share your perspective on the status of US/USSR relations or agree that his goals were so benign. The ouster of Krushchev and the policies of Brezhnev are complex and subject to many possible interpretations and considerations.

I'm certainly interested in further evidence that JFK somehow wasn't a cold warrior, but I remain unconvinced. So maybe he didn't want a preemptive strike with acceptable American casualties, and I'm glad for that, but that and LSD trips with Mary Pinchot Meyer are hardly enough for me to stop considering him "just another ruling class bastard," as John Judge paraphrased Chomsky's take.

I haven't read the book from which this thread gets its title, only flipped through it. Have you? It smelled hagiographical to me, although of course I could have been mistaken.
Joao
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby Elihu » Sun Oct 27, 2013 10:10 am

people's tone deafness, shallowness and myopia never cease to amaze me. lick master's hand and cheer and cry while he stomps the &^$# out of the enemies of the state. this is after all, the best of all possible worlds.

Chomsky is a smart bloke, so surely he must be able to see the train of events there
there are tons of smart people full of erudition. the moment they cease to follow up the premise they become windbags. chomsky gets paid by the man to talk so notice how he starts off with ramses was assasinated and it didn't matter therefore jfk's killing doesn't matter. then all of a sudden (once the damage was done) it does matter: we had soviet rapproachment then johnson changed the course of history with nothing more than his chauvanism.

which leaves us with
numbskulls electing half-witted ignoramuses will probably do it in first
i don't know about you, but i get a little nauseous when i think of "leaders" being democratically selected on a popularity contest. they start inculcating us with the popularity motif the moment we enter the gov school. can we not see the logic of this state of affairs? if our opposite fellow citizens are the enemies of peace and justice, why are we waiting to commence the roundups, internments, re-educations, and liquidations?

wrong thinking is the problem? it's not plausible.

so to summarize, the successful jfk conspiracy was a coup de tat. it's somewhat unique to our history that it did not result in a fat military man in shades on a balcony demanding loyalty. bit it was a coup nonetheless. the woooo of it was the shock therapy the people needed to be bought off by the transition to full military mercantile authoritarian extortionate expropriating exploitation.

this is the trajectory of our nation and the world. when is it appropriate to let these facts slip from view? no amount of welfare checks doled out by the man will ever make it right. or accomplish any lasting good for that matter. it's a day by day deal now. we're all just waiting for the shoe to drop...
Elihu
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby Joao » Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:55 pm

Elihu, I'm interested in your response but I have read it several times and honestly am unable to parse what you're saying. With due respect, you appear to be conflating several different posters/authors into a strawman narrative. Please set me straight.

I think we're all in agreement on coup d'état. I'm interested in the "why it matters" question.

I recall a question on a communism discussion forum: "Why did the western Allies align against Germany in WWII, given that the whole lot were capitalist pigs who should've made a combined effort, instead, to eliminate the Soviets?" The answer, of course, is that shitbags also fight each other for dominance. The assassination of JFK seems similar to me, at least until I learn of compelling evidence otherwise.
Joao
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby fruhmenschen » Sun Oct 27, 2013 5:40 pm

see link for full story or google title

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57 ... ssination/


October 27, 2013 10:09 AM



New book reveals how much FBI, CIA knew about Oswald before Kennedy assassination



It has long been known that the Warren Commission, the blue ribbon panel of public officials appointed by former President Lyndon Johnson to investigate the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy, was flawed in ways that led to generations of conspiracy theories about what happened on Nov. 22, 1963. A forthcoming book from former New York Times reporter Philip Shenon digs into exactly what the commission got wrong, both by intentional concealment, or, in Shenon's view, extensive attempts by both the CIA and FBI to withhold just how much they knew about Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald in the weeks and months before he killed the president.

"In many ways, this book is an account of my discovery of how much of the truth about the Kennedy assassination has still not been told, and how much of the evidence about the president's murder was covered up or destroyed - shredded, incinerated, or erased - before it could reach the commission," Shenon writes in the prologue to A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination, which draws its title from the first sentence of the commission's report. "Senior officials at both the CIA and the FBI hid information from the panel, apparently in hopes of concealing just how much they had known about Lee Harvey Oswald and the threat that he posed."

Shenon was interviewed by Bob Schieffer on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday morning. He started the book in 2008, when one of the former staff lawyers from the commission contacted him to suggest he write a history of the Warren Commission like one he had just authored on the 9/11 Commission.

Much of the evidence Shenon includes in his book shows the amount of information about Oswald's time in Mexico that either never reached the Warren Commission investigators or was directly contradicted in reports by the CIA. One example is a June 1964 memo to the commission's lead investigator from J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI director at the time of Kennedy's assassination, in which Hoover wrote about a report from "our people in Mexico" that " [Oswald] stormed into the embassy, demanded the visa, and when it was refused to him, headed out saying, 'I'm going to kill Kennedy for this.'" (it was unclear to Hoover whether the embassy in question was the Cuban or Soviet embassy in Mexico City). The investigators told Shenon they were certain they had never seen the memo, which disappeared before it reached them and only turned up in the classified archives of the CIA years later.

Another previously unknown revelation in the book: Cuban dictator Fidel Castro submitted to questioning by the Warren Commission in a secret meeting with one of the commission's investigators, William Coleman, off the coast of Cuba.

Some of the FBI's other attempts to cover up their connections with Oswald have previously been revealed, such as the fact that Dallas-based FBI agent James Hosty had received and later destroyed a letter from Oswald protesting the FBI's questioning of Oswald's Russian-born wife, Marina. Under orders from his superior, Hosty destroyed the letter by ripping it into pieces, then flushing the pieces down the toilet at the Dallas FBI office, two days after the assassination when Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby.

Tom Johnson, a former press secretary to President Johnson who later became publisher of The Dallas Times Herald and The Los Angeles Times as well as a president of CNN, described Oswald's letter to the FBI as "a note threatening to blow up the Dallas office of the FBI, the building, if the agents did not cease trying to interview Oswald's wife Marina." Johnson confirmed the existence of the latter with former FBI director Clarence Kelley during his time at the Dallas Times Herald.

"The decision was made two days after the assassination to destroy this note. In truth, we'll never know exactly what was in that note, and its been described in different ways," Shenon told host Bob Schieffer. "The Warren Commission knew absolutely nothing about it.

Despite the intentional destruction of evidence, Kelley, who succeeded Hoover as the head of the agency, came to see Hosty as a victim when he later conducted a private search of the FBI's own files about the investigation. "He was convinced that if Hosty had been told everything that FBI headquarters knew about Oswald's Mexico trip, he would have alerted the Secret Service to the obvious threat that Oswald posed," Shenon writes. "The FBI, Kelley said, would have 'undoubtedly taken all necessary steps to neutralize Oswald.' And that was Kelley's larger conclusion - that President Kennedy's assassination could have been prevented, perhaps easily. "

Hosty's note from Oswald was one of the earliest pieces of evidence the commission might have examined that disappeared, but it was certainly not the only example. In the first chapter of the book, Shenon tells the story of how Navy pathologist James Humes threw his blood-stained notes from Kennedy's autopsy into the fire after he transcribed a fresh copy of the report. He said that he wanted to keep the documents from falling into the hands of "ghouls," and gave a similar rationale for ordering that the sheets that covered Kennedy's head wounds in Dallas be laundered during the autopsy.

The commission's investigators never even saw the photos and X-rays from the autopsy, which were in Robert Kennedy's custody at the Justice Department. The Kennedy family - and Earl Warren, the Chief Justice and chairman of the commission - decided to withhold the photos for fear that they would be leaked to the public and destroy the public image of Kennedy as a handsome young president instead of a crime victim with a gruesome bullet wound to his head.

"Repeatedly in the history of the Warren Commission you see the chief justice making decisions that were designed to protect the [Kennedy] legacy," Shenon said. The decision to block access to the autopsy photos caused "huge turmoil" among the commission's staff, he added.

Shenon also points to the CIA as having taken great steps to cover up their knowledge of Oswald's visit to Mexico City before the assassination. The book's prologue opens with the story of diplomat Charles William Thomas, a career State Department employee who uncovered details about Oswald's time in Mexico, including his affair with a Mexican woman who was a supporter of dictator Fidel Castro. The reports Thomas wrote to CIA Mexico City Station Chief Winston Scott with those details were ignored, as was the memo he sent to then-Secretary of State William P. Rogers when Thomas was forced out of the State Department in 1969. Thomas committed suicide in 1971.

"There is some evidence to suggest [Oswald] had a brief relationship with a young Mexican woman ho worked at the Cuban embassy in Mexico City," Shenon said on "Face the Nation." "The Warren Commission actually wanted to interview that woman but Chief Justice Warren made the decision she would not be interviewed because he said 'she was a communist and we don't interview communists.'"

A section of Scott's memoirs - which included details about the extent of the CIA's monitoring of Oswald in Mexico - was only declassified in the 1990s. The agency photographed Oswald outside of the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City, and recorded his phone calls while he was in Mexico, evidence that never reached the commission. Scott's memoirs also reveal that he thought there might have been a foreign conspiracy to kill Kennedy involving Oswald as a Communist agent, which contradicted what he told the Warren Commission.

"Scott told the Warren Commission that he did not believe there was a conspiracy, and apparently in his memoirs he says he exactly the opposite," Shenon said.
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby fruhmenschen » Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:58 pm

Barr McClellan emailed me to say his book about the JFK assassination will be out next month. You can watch Barr in this banned History Channel documentary THE GUILTY MEN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F-LY1HblmE
His son Scott McClellan was George W Bush’s Press Secretary
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby fruhmenschen » Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:37 pm

Ed Tatro just sent me a email to this news story.He is third man from the left. see link for full story
http://www.olneydailymail.com/article/2 ... e=printart
October 25. 2013 1:36PM
JFK experts convene in Olney
Edgar Tatro, third from left, speaks during an introductory reception held Thursday night at The Holiday for the JFK assassination conference,
PHOTO/ By Matt Courter
Edgar Tatro, third from left, speaks during an introductory reception held Thursday night at The Holiday for the JFK assassination conference, "Changing the Historical Reality of November 22, 1963," which will be held today and Saturday. The event will feature presentations from experts on the assassination.

A reception featuring participants in this weekend's conference on the assassination of President John Kennedy, "Changing the Historical Reality of November 22, 1963," was held Thursday night at The Holiday.

The panel of experts on the assassination, who at times gave detail-heavy previews of their scheduled Friday and Saturday presentations, included Douglas P. Horne, Edgar F. Tatro, Phillip F. Nelson, Dennis David, Rick Russo, Brian Edwards, Casey Quinlan and Judyth Vary Baker. Olney Central College instructor David Denton introduced the speakers.

Russo talked about his video presentation, "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt," saying it includes what he considers to be the most important footage, that of eyewitnesses, and gives people an opportunity to weigh its legitimacy against the official record.

Horne, who will present medical evidence, said he worked on the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s, which he said examined the record and forced government agencies to declassify certain documents. He said the ARRB was not allowed to re-investigate the case.

He said he will talk about the "extra credit work" they did, including 10 depositions of autopsy witnesses and participants, noting it "added significantly to the records of what happened the night of the autopsy.

Horne, who wrote a five-volume work on the ARRB's efforts, said there has been a medical coverup in the case. "As far as I'm concerned, it's been proven," he said.

He also thinks the Zapruder film has been altered. "I believe it's seriously compromised," he said, adding he planned to present evidence during his Friday presentation.

Nelson, who has written the book "LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination," and the upcoming "LBJ: From Mastermind to 'The Colossus'" spoke on what he sees as Lyndon Johnson's role in Kennedy's murder.

Nelson said that in his writing he has taken information from an assortment of other books, some of which he said are well-known, and "connected the dots and constructed a narrative that explains what I believe happened."

He said some may question his calling LBJ a mastermind. "He wasn't that brilliant, right?" he said.

But, Nelson said, Johnson had a talent for manipulation and the book makes the argument that he was highly involved in the assassination.

In addition to being involved in Kennedy's death, Nelson said there is "strong evidence" he was involved in the murders of 10-17 other people before the Kennedy assassination.

"LBJ was a deeply troubled man," Nelson said, stating that he was narcissistic, sociopathic and bi-polar.

Nelson believes Johnson essentially "willed his own death," after becoming so psychotic and depressed that he drank and smoked himself to death.

English teacher Tatro, who was animated as he discussed the case in his heavy Boston accent, said he was 16 years old when he started looking into the assassination.

He said when he saw Jack Ruby shoot Lee Harvey Oswald on television, "I jumped for joy because I thought justice had taken place.

His father had a more suspicious view, telling his son, "This whole thing smells."

Tatro has taught on the assassination and said the government and corporate media have painted conspiracy theorists as "nutcases."

"You will see we are not nutcases," he said of the panel's presentations.

He went on to talk at length about incidents surrounding the case, including being at the trial of Clay Shaw as a 21-year-old. He said a mistrial should have been called because the judge told the young Tatro his opinion on the case.

He said he was also in an episode called "The Guilty Men," part of a multi-part documentary that aired on The History Channel called "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." He said it was later pulled and can now only be seen on YouTube, which he saw as an egregious case of censorship.

David said he was a Navy Petty Officer, First Class and a medical student who was serving as Chief of the Day when Kennedy was brought in to the hospital after being shot.

He became visibly emotional when talking about the four bullet fragments that he said were taken from the President, which he said were too many for one bullet but not enough for two.

He said that autopsy pictures and slides he saw at the time indicated that the shot entered at the back of the skull.

The four bullet fragments he saw have never been made public, he said.

Casey Quinlan and Brian Edwards, who wrote "Beyond the Fence Line: The Eyewitness Account of Ed Hoffman and the Murder of President John F. Kennedy," said they will discuss Hoffman's account of the assassination.

"There is more to this story than probably any of us will ever know," Quinlan said.

Baker, who wrote a book about her involvement with Oswald titled, "Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald," said that after her presentation, "You're going to know who the real Oswald was."

She said coming forward with what she knows has cost her professionally and personally, but, at 70 years old, she feels compelled to share what she know while she said.

During a discussion of some of the threats, subtle and otherwise, the panel has received, Edwards said about the accounts they would be sharing, "At some point, coincidence and conspiracy come together."

Schedule

Friday, October 25, 2013

Dr. John D. Stull Performing Arts Center at OCC

12:00-12:40 p.m.

Introduction — David Denton

12:40-1:10 p.m.

Beyond the Fence Line: Eyewitness Ed Hoffman — Casey Quinlan and Brian Edwards

1:10-1:50 p.m.

Gunman on the Grassy Knoll South— Edgar F. Tatro

1:50-2:00 p.m.

Break

2:00-3:30 p.m.

Video 11/22/63 Beyond a Reasonable Doubt — Rick Russo

3:30-4:30 p.m.

Suspects and Motives — Edgar F. Tatro

4:30-4:45 p.m.

Questions

6:00-7:30 p.m.

Medical Evidence — Douglas P. Horne

7:30-7:40 p.m.

Break

7:40-9:00 p.m.

Zapruder Film — Douglas P. Horne

9:30 p.m.

Reception at Olney Elks Club, 311 S. Kitchell St. in Olney

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Dr. John D. Stull Performing Arts Center at OCC

10:00-11:00 a.m.

Jack Ruby and His Brother — Edgar F. Tatro

11:00 a.m.- 12:30 p.m.

The New Orleans Project: Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie, and Why Mary Sherman Had to Die — Judyth Vary Baker

12:30-1:00 p.m.

Lunch

1:00-1:30 p.m. The Secret Service-David Denton

1:30-3:00 p.m.

Behind the Scenes of the Making of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" — Rick Russo

3:00-3:30 p.m.

Early LIFE Magazine Coverage — James Wagenvoord

3:30-3:40 p.m.

Break

3:40-4:25 p.m.

CIA/Intelligence Complicity — David Denton

4:25-5:35 p.m.

LBJ — Phillip F. Nelson

5:40-6:40 p.m.

"Guilty Men" Film — Edgar F. Tatro and Rick Russo

6:40-7:20 p.m.
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby Elihu » Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:50 pm

kennedy was not going to fight lying cia wars

I think we're all in agreement on coup d'état. I'm interested in the "why it matters" question.


our legitimate leader was assassinated. his successor was installed by the conspirators. "the nation" our nation, down to the present hour, is dedicated to fighting lying cia wars. our current policy lacks legitimacy. our current leaders lack legitimacy. our current lifestyle lacks legitimacy. our current purpose (football) lacks legitimacy.
Elihu
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters

Postby NeonLX » Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:43 pm

Elihu » Tue Oct 29, 2013 11:50 am wrote:kennedy was not going to fight lying cia wars

our legitimate leader was assassinated. his successor was installed by the conspirators. "the nation" our nation, down to the present hour, is dedicated to fighting lying cia wars. our current policy lacks legitimacy. our current leaders lack legitimacy. our current lifestyle lacks legitimacy. our current purpose (football) lacks legitimacy.


Dang. Ya! I sure wish I could squeeze all of that onto a bumper sticker. :)

Then I'd have to find a car to place it upon.

I may extract this special nugget (with your permission, of course): "Our current purpose (football) lacks legitimacy". That rings a lot of bells.
America is a fucked society because there is no room for essential human dignity. Its all about what you have, not who you are.--Joe Hillshoist
User avatar
NeonLX
 
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Enemy Occupied Territory
Blog: View Blog (1)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests