John Prados book on CIA: Oswald done it plus keyword hijack

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

To study the basics of misdirection just look at all the haystack around JFK's murder-
John Prados has a new book out called 'Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA.'

After reading a couple of good pages on the beginning of the Psychological Strategy Board I went straight to page 320 where Prados wrote 'and then Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy.'

Urgh. Another cover-up artist? Too bad. I enjoyed reading his book on William Colby.

There's a parade of Magic Bullet disinfo headed for next year's anniversaries of the CIA murders of JFK and RFK. Get in line, Prados. Mark Fuhrman and Vincent Bugliosi are in front of you.

But Prados also mentions on page 323 an "agency logistics wizard named Jim Garrison."

Uh, who? Never heard of him but Prados paints him for us as having a "gutteral laugh."

Prados then covers his butt after this blatant keyword hijacking by using an asterisk on 'Garrison ' to footnote his comment "Not to be confused with DA Jim Garrison who acquired fame pursuing tendrils of the alleged plots against John F. Kennedy."

So Prados has his poison cake and eats it too, a keyword hijacking of "Garrison" PLUS negative framing on the hijacked target.

The book jacket has approval blurbs from James "bin Laden dunnit" Bamsford and Thomas Powers. That alerted me to the probable big lie on the Hit That Must Stay Covered. Plus Prados credits funding for his book to...the Gerald Ford Library! lol.



Plus I found a 1993 VHS tape of a 1981 Paul Newman/Sally Field movie called 'Absence of Malice' that is a MIRROR of DA Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw for conspiring to murder JFK.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081974/

Taglines for
Absence of Malice (1981)

Suppose you picked up this morning's newspaper and your life was a front page headline... And everything they said was accurate... But none of it was true.

The D.A., Feds and the police set her up to write the story that explodes his world. Now he's going to write the book on getting even.

Yeah, that sounds mighty familiar, doesn't it? Poor Clay Shaw.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations wrapped up in 1979, the same year that a movie farce based on Richard Condon's novel called 'Winter Kills' made a comedy out of the JFK murder conspiracy.
[url]http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?_r=2&title1
=Winter%20Kills%20(Movie)&title2=&reviewer=JANET%20MASLIN&pdate
=19790518&v_id=&oref=slogin&oref=slogin[/url]

N.Y. TIMES REVIEW

Movie: 'Winter Kills,' a Serio-Comedy:Spring Fever Time

By JANET MASLIN
Published: May 18, 1979[/b
]
"WINTER Kills," which opens today at Cinema 2 and a number of other theaters, has been advertised with the slogan "Something funny is happening in 'Winter Kills.' Take it seriously!" [b]You don't see desperation like this every day, nor do you happen upon movies this likable, this ridiculous, or this impossible to describe. "Winter Kills" isn't exactly a comedy, but it's funny. And it isn't exactly serious, but it takes on the serious business of the Kennedy assassination. That's why other ads for the film have been comparing it to "Dr. Strange-love" and "M*A*S*H." They don't do the trick, either.

This isn't a social satire—it's more like a movie with spring fever. It doesn't make a bit of sense, but it's fast and handsome and entertaining, bursting with a crazy vitality all its own. Sitting back and watching it doesn't seem the proper response, somehow. Chasing it with a butterfly net might be closer to the mark.

Aside on CIA author Richard Condon and Nazis-
Condon is the CIA misdirection author who wrote 'The Manchurian Candidate' in 1959 and a 1964 Nazi novel appropriately titled 'An Infinity of Mirrors' precisely when Auschwitz trials were happening in West Germany from 1963-1965. What a surprise, a documentary on those Auschwitz trials of Nazis living only in Germany is on the shelf of my video store right now!

Those trials made the CIA very nervous since old Nazis like Klaus Barbie were still operating as US assets and the CIA had been holding its breath ever since the Mossad scooped up Adolph Eichmann the day after Gary Powers' sabotaged U2 jet came down over the USSR on May 1, 1960. The Operation Mockingbird press barely covered the trials. After the Soviets tried in absentia a Nazi war criminal hiding out in upstate New York in 1965 the executives at CBS/CIA gave us the funny Nazis of 'Hogan's Heroes' starting the week of Thanksgiving and including an appearance on Bob Hope's Christmas TV special.

The double whammy of post-Cuban missile crisis nuclear panic and plotting old Nazis was turned into a joke by Stanley Kubrick's 1964 movie 'Dr. Strangelove.'
Moving on.

The HSCA Chief Counsel, Robert Blakey, put out a book in 1981 called 'The Plot to Kill the President' which is probably why the decoy Paul Newman movie got made for 1981 release. Blakey whitewashed lots but had to admit that Oswald was seen in the town of Clinton (um, nevermind) in the company of David Ferrie and even...Clay Shaw. Too many credible witnesses to deny that one.

Hey, there's a Denzel Washington movie released on 11/22/06 and new on my video store shelf called 'Deja Vu' where the plot keywords are-
>New Orleans
>Ferry
Well, how about that?! Ah, another Jerry Brukheimer movie. Psy-ops.
See if you can read this plot synopsis without seeing mirrors and keywords from the JFK conspiracy-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deja_Vu_(film)

Moving on.
So Paul Newman was cast as an innocent Clay Shaw figure in 'Absence of Malice' in the same way and for the same reason that Robert Redford was cast as a 'good guy CIA agent' in the 1975 movie 'Three Days of the Condor,' to mirror and misdirect with a decoy fictionalization of suppressed information. This tactic is evident more and more from the Vietnam War years to today.

Oliver Stone's JFK movie was out in December 1991 and whipped up renewed interest in the JKF murder for all of 1992 which is probably why the 1993 VHS version of the 1981 decoy movie was released.

Stone was advised by Lt. Col. L. Fletcher Prouty who identified CIA black ops specialists in Dealey Plaza photos like General Edward Lansdale and Lucien Conein.
Only eleven 'Fletch' novels were written to keyword hijack "Fletcher" along with four movies, one of them currently in production. Chevy Chase made the first three 'Fletch' movies with the first two in 1983 and 1985 being mirrors of IranContra cocaine and weapons smuggling.
Chevy Chase's father is/was involved in CIA-controlled publishing of fiction.

(How long before Professor Pan posts that I "have no proof" and that this is all just "confirmation bias?"...1...2....3....)

[professorpan]

To study the basics of misdirection just look at all the haystack around JFK's murder-
John Prados has a new book out called 'Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA.'

After reading a couple of good pages on the beginning of the Psychological Strategy Board I went straight to page 320 where Prados wrote 'and then Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy.'

Urgh. Another cover-up artist? Too bad. I enjoyed reading his book on William Colby.

There's a parade of Magic Bullet disinfo headed for next year's anniversaries of the CIA murders of JFK and RFK. Get in line, Prados. Mark Fuhrman and Vincent Bugliosi are in front of you.

But Prados also mentions on page 323 an "agency logistics wizard named Jim Garrison."

Uh, who? Never heard of him but Prados paints him for us as having a "gutteral laugh."

Prados then covers his butt after this blatant keyword hijacking by using an asterisk on 'Garrison ' to footnote his comment "Not to be confused with DA Jim Garrison who acquired fame pursuing tendrils of the alleged plots against John F. Kennedy."

So Prados has his poison cake and eats it too, a keyword hijacking of "Garrison" PLUS negative framing on the hijacked target.

That is so wacky I don't even know where to begin....

First, just because someone believes that Oswald did it does not make him a "cover-up artist." Can you imagine -- and I'm sure you can, because your imaginative faculties are what lead you on these verbal wild goose chases -- that a human being might *believe* the official story?

Nah, that's preposterous.

And you're saying that Prados mentions a Jim Garrison, then points out -- with an asterisk -- that it's not THE Jim Garrison.... and that constitutes a hijacking?!

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Pan, Prados has been studying and writing about CIA for decades now.

That he would dismiss Dealey Plaza with a throwaway line that 'Oswald dunnit' is not credible. Not for one second.
( Uh, do YOU suscribe to the Magic Bullet Lone Gunman, Pan? You think this is a "matter of opinion where people just disagree," do you? )

And I clearly stated how Prados both hijacked Garrison AND minimized him as a footnote with negative framing at the same time - "acquired fame, alleged conspiracies."

Now that might be tooooo complex for you even though you keep saying you've studied psy-ops. (See, this is doing two disinfo things at once. That's twice as bad as doing one disinfo thing. That's the math. Your welcome.)

Ah, according to the excellent namebase.org, Prados is a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, the PR group formed by uber-spook David Atlee Phillips back when Philip Agee and Victor Marchetti were outing Langley's American Gestapo.

http://www.namebase.org/main2/John-Prados.html

PRADOS JOHN

* Assn. Former Intelligence Officers. Membership Directory. 1996
* CIA. Studies in Intelligence: Website Index. 2006 (49, 71)
* Moyar,M. Phoenix and the Birds of Prey. 1997 (277)
* New York Times 2003-01-20 (C1)
* Olmsted,K. Challenging the Secret Government. 1996 (178)
* Pisani,S. The CIA and the Marshall Plan. 1991 (7)
* Richelson,J. Sword and Shield. 1986 (243)

Here Prados shrugs off both 9/11 and Dealey Plaza as unsolvable (just like your buddy with the teapot), complete with a Clint Eastwood movie reference to start and end.
Imagine that, using a movie to pursuade. Well, I never! lol--

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/08/911_conspiracies_and_cons.php

9/11 Conspiracies And Cons
John Prados
September 08, 2006

In the movie "Line of Fire," actor Clint Eastwood, playing a Secret Service agent who had been on John Kennedy’s security detail when that president was assassinated, sits in a bar over his scotch and laments how he has heard all the conspiracy theories. The Eastwood character is torn up, tortured by the thought that he could have done something, anything, to have saved President Kennedy in Dallas.

And there were so many conspiracies: it was the CIA, it was the Cubans, it was a secret cabal of Kennedy opponents; there was one gunman, there were many; the shot came from the Texas Book Depository, it came from the Grassy Knoll. Kennedy assassination conspiracies abound—just ask Oliver Stone. Memories of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 have assumed a similar texture, perhaps because Americans feel there must have been a way to prevent them.

So many conspiracies, so little time....
....
My problems with the conspiracy theories are different. One is a question of focus, the other more political. In terms of focus, the 9/11 Truth Movement has largely steered clear of such outlandish attributions as the Elders of Zion, and they do aim properly at the Bush administration. But the theories largely postulate that the Bush White House either made 9/11 happen, or this president knew all about what impended and let 9/11 happen. Neither is likely in my view.
....
There’s a job to be done in getting the Bush administration to behave in a legal, responsible fashion. All this effort devoted to finding the truth of 9/11 might contribute to that, except that the questions are too minute. Arguing the kinetic energy of a Boeing 767 hitting the Trade Center with a given fuel load, the structural integrity of the building itself, or the actual time of impact on Pennsylvania soil of United Airlines Flight 93 does not trace complicity into the Oval Office. Even finding that the Pentagon really was hit by a missile and not an airplane, or that Flight 93 was actually shot down, would not necessarily implicate the White House or prove the grand conspiracy theory.
.....
The exercise ends up looking at the past, not the present or future. Like Clint Eastwood, Americans will have heard all the theories and be left sitting at the bar. And believe it or not, at the end of the day the events of 9/11 may be just a paragraph in the story of a presidency that crippled this great nation.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Well, well. No suprise.

John Prados is this morning on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! program discussing the old news in the 'Family Jewels' dump.

Prados is a gate-keeper. The big ones are off his table - JFK/MLK/RFK/9.11

Amy Goodman's latest book has 10 pages (p. 90-99) on Operation Mockingbird, just a recap of Carl Bernstein's 1977 expose.

But neither Goodman nor Prados are mentioning the cover-up of Mockingbird on page 5 of the FJ dump. It ain't hard to find.

ON EDIT: ARGH! 26 MINUTES INTO PRADOS' INTERVIEW AMY ASKS WHAT "PROJECT MOCKINGBIRD' WAS. PRADOS REPEATS THE LIE IN THE FJ DUMP THAT IT WAS TWO MONTHS OF SURVEILLACE ON TWO JOURNOS!
AND AMY GOODMAN LETS HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LIARS LIARS LIARS.

[professorpan]

( Uh, do YOU suscribe to the Magic Bullet Lone Gunman, Pan? You think this is a "matter of opinion where people just disagree," do you? )

No, I don't subscribe to that nonsense. You can, and will, continue to paint me as some kind of arch-skeptic, but you know that's bogus. And anyone who has followed my postings, here and elsewhere, will know your characterizations are silly and inaccurate. So really, enough is enough.

And I really, really wish you would stop beating around the bush and just tell me, once and for all, what you think I am. But honesty is not your style, is it?

[zuestorz]

John Prados was a respected designer of military strategy games during the 80's when that hobby enjoyed some popularity. This was a time before the computerisation of military sims revolutionized that paper based hobby.

His views about modern political events might appeal to an uninquisitive conservative audience but they don't possess any particular authority that I am aware of. In fact, given the organizational link sketched above, his views would appear to emanate from a position that can only be fatally biased as far as objectivity goes.

[brownzeroed]

Zuestroz said:

John Prados was a respected designer of military strategy games during the 80's when that hobby enjoyed some popularity. This was a time before the computerisation of military sims revolutionized that paper based hobby.

His views about modern political events might appeal to an uninquisitive conservative audience but they don't possess any particular authority that I am aware of.

If this is the same John Prados that used to design games for Avalon Hill I think your a bit off the mark.
I will now reveal my nerdly credentials.
I met that John Prados at a GENCON back in the early Nineties and he's far from a conservative. In fact our conversation, short as it was, was primarily about the rise of fascism in this country and the dangers of the militant Christian right within the armed forces.

No offense, and this not directed at anyone in particular, but the phrase "Gate Keeper' is far too abused on this board. It's very easy for us to shoot off opinions in a small and relatively meaningless forum. But when someone is actually in the public discussion and stands to muster some influence, you can't just throw out accusations that seem plausible but cannot be substantiated as an absolute fact. Libel suits are no joke. And reputation is everything. Jim Garrison, himself, was destroyed by a few very slight tactical gaffes that were completely blow out of proportion. But they stuck. He was ruined. It isn't right. It isn't fair. But that's the way it is.

[zuestorz]

Zuestroz said:

John Prados was a respected designer of military strategy games during the 80's when that hobby enjoyed some popularity. This was a time before the computerisation of military sims revolutionized that paper based hobby.

His views about modern political events might appeal to an uninquisitive conservative audience but they don't possess any particular authority that I am aware of.

If this is the same John Prados that used to design games for Avalon Hill I think your a bit off the mark.
I will now reveal my nerdly credentials.
I met that John Prados at a GENCON back in the early Nineties and he's far from a conservative. In fact our conversation, short as it was, was primarily about the rise of fascism in this country and the dangers of the militant Christian right within the armed forces.

No offense, and this not directed at anyone in particular, but the phrase "Gate Keeper' is far too abused on this board. It's very easy for us to shoot off opinions in a small and relatively meaningless forum. But when someone is actually in the public discussion and stands to muster some influence, you can't just throw out accusations that seem plausible but cannot be substantiated as an absolute fact. Libel suits are no joke. And reputation is everything. Jim Garrison, himself, was destroyed by a few very slight tactical gaffes that were completely blow out of proportion. But they stuck. He was ruined. It isn't right. It isn't fair. But that's the way it is.

Huh?
I don't think there's much to support a libel suit in anything I've written, even in the hyper-litiguous landscape of public opinion that is modern America.

Jim Garrison himself? His case seems to have been sabotaged from the inside rather than being ruined by any tactical gaffes he himself may have made. I don't actually subscribe to the Kevin Costner superstar version of Garrison that Stone has packaged for the publics consumption BTW.

[brownzeroed]

Zuestroz:

That second bit wasn't a response to you, lol. I was talking about people calling folks like Amy Goodman and John Prados gatekeepers. Separate subject.

This:

But when someone is actually in the public discussion and stands to muster some influence, you can't just throw out accusations that seem plausible but cannot be substantiated as an absolute fact. Libel suits are no joke. And reputation is everything. Jim Garrison, himself, was destroyed by a few very slight tactical gaffes that were completely blow out of proportion. But they stuck. He was ruined. It isn't right. It isn't fair. But that's the way it is.

was in reference to why they (Goodman and Prados) don't just shoot their mouth off about subjects that have not been substantiated as an absolute fact. Professional journalist cannot due that.

Did you really think I was threatening to sue you? Try reading the whole post before jumping to conclusions.
Also, I think letting your investigation be infiltrated would qualify as a tactical gaffe.

[zuestorz]

. . .
Did you really think I was threatening to sue you? Try reading the whole post before jumping to conclusions.
Also, I think letting your investigation be infiltrated would qualify as a tactical gaffe.

No I didn't think you were threatening to sue me.

So Garrison let his investigation be infiltrated? I don't think so.

[brownzeroed]

Zuestroz:

No I didn't think you were threatening to sue me.

Then why did you say this?:

I don't think there's much to support a libel suit in anything I've written, even in the hyper-litiguous landscape of public opinion that is modern America.

Then you muddied the discussion w/ this:

So Garrison let his investigation be infiltrated? I don't think so.

Are we arguing facts or semantics?
Well, as much I like meaningless circular arguments, I'm content with you resting easily within your pathological and self-serving prophecy. Good luck to you.