K/R

Mark Lane at the Duquesne conference described the political climate in 1960. He said the liberal Democrats "hated" JFK. They preferred Adlai Stevenson, Jr. to try a third time. JFK had a reputation for "negotiating" with the conservative Southern Democrats of racial hatred fame. According to Sen. Harris Wofford, Byron "Whizzer" White, then an attorney and football star in Colorado advised that they not use the term "Civil Rights" in the campaign. Sen. Lyndon Johnson suggested they use instead "Constitutional Rights." And they did. Later, of course, JFK put into action -- albeit cautiously, civil rights for ALL Americans.

Sid

How telling. Did you ever hear of Dan Hardway before today?

I also have yet to see a cogent argument from sid. It's not his thing.

According to the testimony of CIA officials, the first U.S. resort to assassination of a foreign leader was initiated in 1960, when Richard Bissell, in the belief he had the explicit backing of Allen Dulles, and at least the implicit approval of President Eisenhower, undertook to bring about the murder of Patrice Lumumba, prime minister of the newly independent Congo.

…Bissell was frustrated by the refusal, on moral grounds, of one trusted agent to participate in the killing. Believing that “murder corrupts,” Michael Mulroney, a senior officer, said, no to Bissell. He argued that if Lumumba had to be eliminated, the Congolese government or military should do it, which appears to be what happened (after CIA urging). To the Senate committee, Mulroney explained that on reflection he concluded, “We have too much of the ‘good German’ in us, in that we do something because the boss says it is okay.” His colleagues were “not essentially evil people. But you can do an awful lot of wrong in this.”

-- Harris Wofford, former United States Senator (D-Pennsylvania), “Of Kennedys and Kings: Making Sense of the Sixties” (pp. 390-391)

PS: Assassination is an act of war. I don't recall declaring war on Congo or Cuba or anyplace else it's been done in our name.

PPS. No shame in hitting Box Cars, anytime.

from the facts. It's not an easy thing to do and they risk looking foolish which is never a good thing to be, but you have to admit, when you are on the side of truth, things are a lot easier and you never have to look foolish, or cause anyone to wonder why you are acting so strangely.

That's why you don't see cogent arguments when facts are presented. Eg, how could anyone argue against the facts laid out in this OP? I'm so glad I don't have to try to do so.

There's always the alert button, and GD hosts like to lock "WOO" in GD.

3 more years and then someone can justify locking the rest of the story away for a while longer.

it takes a while. It must be very frustrating to think you took care of something so important by hiding it on an internet forum, only to see interest in the story GROW as time passes and more facts emerge. Seems like a pretty useless hobby to me, but then I am for exposing the truth no matter how inconvenient it may be to those who prefer to keep it hidden.

Actually it is human nature in a way to get even MORE interested in something when efforts are made to keep it hidden.

Thanks for sharing Octafish

Last edited Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:00 PM - Edit history (1)

60 posts and I figured you out.

Edit: and now you're gone. Again.

Sid

Last edited Wed Dec 18, 2013, 11:44 AM - Edit history (1)

Here's the one that really shows where that one stands:

Fukushima, Plutonium, CIA, and the BFEE: Deep Doo-Doo Four Ways to Doomsday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=794278

I make no claims for the content -- though being in the Guardian gives it more credibility than if it were on some random conspiracy theory site.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/nov/20/usa.features11

Three years ago, I started writing a screenplay about the assassination of Robert Kennedy, caught up in a strange tale of second guns and "Manchurian candidates" (as the movie termed brainwashed assassins). As I researched the case, I uncovered new video and photographic evidence suggesting that three senior CIA operatives were behind the killing. I did not buy the official ending that Sirhan acted alone, and started dipping into the nether-world of "assassination research", crossing paths with David Sanchez Morales, a fearsome Yaqui Indian.

Morales was a legendary figure in CIA covert operations. According to close associate Tom Clines, if you saw Morales walking down the street in a Latin American capital, you knew a coup was about to happen. When the subject of the Kennedys came up in a late-night session with friends in 1973, Morales launched into a tirade that finished: "I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard." From this line grew my odyssey into the spook world of the 60s and the secrets behind the death of Bobby Kennedy.

Working from a Cuban photograph of Morales from 1959, I viewed news coverage of the assassination to see if I could spot the man the Cubans called El Gordo - The Fat One. Fifteen minutes in, there he was, standing at the back of the ballroom, in the moments between the end of Kennedy's speech and the shooting. ... Ayers' response was instant. He was 95% sure that the first figure was Morales and equally sure that the other man was Gordon Campbell, who worked alongside Morales at JM-Wave in 1963 and was Ayers' case officer shortly before the JFK assassination.. . . .

Trawling through microfilm of the police investigation, I found further photographs of Campbell with a third figure, standing centre-stage in the Ambassador hotel hours before the shooting. He looked Greek, and I suspected he might be George Joannides, chief of psychological warfare operations at JM-Wave. Joannides was called out of retirement in 1978 to act as the CIA liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) investigating the death of John F Kennedy.

...They said their follow up on the story determined it definitely was not Morales, Campbell or Joannides at the Ambassador Hotel that awful night. They re-iterated their 2006 report: The BBC's Flawed RFK Story. Others -- people who did not present at the conference -- however, say it was them.

I don't know. I do want to know more about it.

What I know: Morley and Talbot are tops in every way.

What I took away: Applying the best in photoanalytical technology may reveal new information. Improvements in technology may even yield a definite answer.

The Joannides story is most complicated. Here's an excellent overview from International Business Times -- of all places:

The documentary record shows CIA obstruction regarding Joannides, from the Warren Commission, to the HSCA, to the ARRB to then-WaPo reporter Jefferson Morley.

The reason all of this still matters half a century later should be obvious: Justice demands the Truth.

CIA station chief during Oswald's ostensible visit.

you know....this guy:



And this is where I have my first complaint about the book. Goodpasture is a most fascinating character. And Morley interviewed her for two days in 2005. (See page 305) Either he does not find her very intriguing, or he took most everything she said at face value. John Newman, Ed Lopez, Dan Hardway, Lisa Pease and myself disagree. Lopez and Hardway -- under the supervision of Mike Goldsmith -- wrote the absolutely excellent Mexico City Report for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Now Goodpasture was supposed to be working for and under Winston Scott in Mexico City. When the Mexico City Report -- sometimes called the Lopez Report -- was first declassified by the Assassination Records Review Board, I interviewed Lopez at his home in Rochester, New York. Since this was the first time I had seen the woman's name repeatedly emphasized, I asked Lopez who she was. Surprisingly, he said that "She worked for Phillips when he got stationed down there ... she handled all his projects for him." (Emphasis added.)

When I asked Ed what Phillips was doing there, he said, "He had some bullshit title, but he was in charge of almost all the Cuban operations from there at the time." He then expanded on this by saying that since Phillips was constantly traveling from Washington to JM/Wave in Miami and to Mexico City, Goodpasture was the officer who guided his operations emanating from Mexico in his absence.

In and of itself, this is extraordinarily interesting. It would make her a front tier figure in any book on the Kennedy assassination that focuses on both Mexico City and Phillips. Which this book does. But there is even more to the woman

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/morley.html

Scott's son had tried for years to get the manuscript his father wrote, after his death.
Curiously, his stepmother was talked into giving it to the CIA (the day after Winston Scott's death), by, guess who? James Angleton. Sound creepily familiar?

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-03-27/news/ls-51612_1_michael-scottx

...James Di Eugenio reviews all the authors (pro-conspiracy or pro-Oswald-did-it) the same way: scrupulously.

In Morley's defense, he wrote what he believed he could prove at the time he wrote it (ca. 2007). Others thought Ms. Goodpasture's story indicated more. Here are some links (thanks to Magda Hassan of DeepPolitics forum):



Lots of good stuff from Bill Simpich on Magda Hassan's DPF thread, as well.

As for Mr. Angleton, Mrs. Scott and Win Scott's manuscript, it reminds me of the time certain people were in search of the diary written by the late Mrs. Mary Pinchot Meyer.

murder, by an apparent patsy (!), who was later either acquitted or whose conviction was reversed on appeal.

btw, have you seen the highly fictionalized movie version of her death, as seen through the eyes of a lovestruck teenager?

An American Affair


funny how all the Coincidence Nuts never have much to say when the deep politics aspects of the story are brought into play. that's where the likes of mcadams/posner/bugliosi have trouble refuting all the DOCumented evidence of Oswald's connection to organized crime and various and sundry intelligence agencies, including the FBI.

here's an interesting thread at IMDB about the movie (focusing on a post by an assassination researcher), followed by a mention of Pat Buchanan's run-in with a CIA agent regarding Meyer's murder:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0899138/board/nest/143998063?ref_=tt_bd_1

thanks again for all you do. perhaps some day, despite all the efforts to keep the veil drawn, we'll find out the true role of the likes of the Dulles boys, Hoover, Helms, and their successors who continue to keep the American people as ignorant as they'd like them to be.

Now.....is when we dance!

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Reply_From_a_Conspiracy_Believer

if you haven't read this, you really should. he just eviscerates Arlen Specter's defense of the single bullet fantasy.

read his interview with him, in which Specter, captain of the Yale debate team, is reduced to a stammering buffoon, while trying to reconcile the position of the the back/throat wounds on our president's body with the location of the bullet holes in his shirt. it would be very amusing material, were it not the subject the destruction of US democracy at the hands of monsters.

....Was Specter saying there was no inconsistency between the Commission’s location of the wound and the holes in the clothing?

Specter’s exact response, including his hesitancies, as recorded: “No, not at all. That gave us a lot of concern. First time we lined up the shirt...after all, we lined up the shirt....and the hole in the shirt is right about, right about the knot of the tie, came right about here in a slit in the front....”

But, I asked, where in the back did it hit Kennedy?

“Well, the back hole, when the shirt is laid down, comes....aah....well, I forget exactly where it came, but it certainly wasn’t higher, enough higher to...aah....understand the....aah....the angle of decline which....”

Was it lower? Was it lower in the slit in the front?

“Well, I think that....that if you took the shirt without allowing for its being pulled up, that it would either have been in line or somewhat lower.”

Somewhat lower?

“Perhaps. I....I don’t want to say because I don’t really remember....”

Fonzi follows up with a discussion of the mysterious Maurice Bishop, of whom it's thought by many to be David Atlee Phillips, and who Bugliosi contends never existed.

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

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

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

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

.......................................

Octafish, have you brought this up? I haven't read everything you've put up in this thread, much less the other ones in the last month or so.

Why hasn't this gotten wide play?

talk about a smoking gun.......

...And DU is where I learned the news. The last two months have been like no time in my life. Time and circumstances have forced me to focus on the Duquesne thing, pretty much to the exclusion of other important news. Veciana naming David Atlee Phillips as the same Maurice Bishop in the company of Oswald should be on page 1 of the The New York Times, but that would upset the status quo of the those who have most profited over the past 50 years.

Remember the when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his sister, Rory Kennedy, told Charlie Rose that their father considered the Warren Commission report "shoddy workmanship" and that he suspected a conspiracy involving the CIA-Mafia assassination program? That was almost completely ignored by the nation's news media, proof to me of the corrupt nature of Corporate McPravda.

What I also hate to write: Many, if not most, of the editors and reporters working today have no idea about any of the players from Nov. 22, 1963. Apart from President John F. Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, they only know "that little communist," Lee Harvey Oswald. A few may have heard of Jack Ruby. "Veciana? Isn't that an airliner?" For them -- and especially for DUers and all those who want to learn:


Octafish to attend JFK assassination conference. Do you think JFK still matters?

JFK Conference: Amazing Day of Information and Connecting with Good People

After JFK Conference, when I got home, I felt like RFK.

JFK Conference: Bill Kelly introduced new evidence - adding Air Force One tape recordings

JFK Conference: Rex Bradford detailed the historic importance of the Church Committee

JFK Conference: Lisa Pease Discussed the Real Harm of Corrupt Soft Power

JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963

JFK Conference: Mark Lane Addressed the Secret Government’s Role in the Assassination

JFK Conference: David Talbot named Allen Dulles as 'the Chairman of the Board of the Assassination'

JFK Conference: Dan Hardway Detailed how CIA Obstructed HSCA Investigation

Noah's Ark - Nov. 22, 1963

JFK Remembered: Dan Rather and James Swanson talk at The Henry Ford

Seven Days in May -- tonight on TCM

Machine Gun Mouth



PS: Thanks for all you do, Gabi Hayes. No many people know what Hieronymus Bosch was really talking about.

which one of them is Sid......

been staying away from this and other politics for awhile. terminally depressing. that's why the sprockets dance above

being off for two wks at Xmas may test resolve on this, though, starting with monster Phillips/Bishop

btw, did bugliosi really represent Phillips toward the end of his life?

must check on that

and did OReilly actually think nobody would catch that huge stinker about his presence at dM's doorstep?

by Gaeton Fonzi

Vincent Bugliosi must be exhausted. He not only churned out more than 1600 pages of tautologically strained contentions to support his book’s pretentious title, Reclaiming History, he must be weary from wrestling with the multitude of distortions and twisted conclusions he was forced to make to support his primary assertion.

His primary assertion? Swallow that mouthful of Dr. Pepper before you read this: “...it has been established beyond all doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy.”

Fearful of endowing his abhorrent duplicity with any hint of legitimacy, I hesitate to take the time and effort to respond to all the ungrounded contentions he makes about my role as a federal investigator in the case and about certain areas of evidence with which I was involved. There are, however, two very significant segments of the investigation that Bugliosi, with clever distortion and selected omission of facts, defiles truth and history. And having cited as a source my own book, The Last Investigation, he had to be well aware of its documented adherence to the historical facts. (Former U.S. Senator Richard Schweiker graciously provided a jacket blurb citing the book for exactly that : “A rarity among Kennedy assassination books, (it) does not indulge in sensational or bizarre conspiracy theories.”)

One key contention that Bugliosi repeatedly makes is that my approach to the investigation was biased because, before I was hired by the HSCA, I “had long been a conspiracy theorist.” Bugliosi uses the term “conspiracy theorist” with the same poisonous implication that Joe McCarthy used when he stigmatized anyone who defied him as a “Communist sympathizer.” In my case, Bugliosi was forced to characterize my viewpoint as anything but objective in order to distort the validity of certain evidence I had discovered – evidence that knocked hell out of his and the Warren Commission’s crucial single bullet theory and the branding of Oswald as the lone assassin.

[font color="blue"]Bugliosi is wrong. I was never a “conspiracy theorist.” I went from an agnostic to a conspiracy believer. [/font color]Like millions of Americans and almost all journalists whose Fourth Estate responsibility mandates that they maintain a critical oversight of our Government, I didn’t question the Warren Report when it was published. Didn’t even read it. Its assertions and conclusions came to me from the daily press and the national news networks. And the most respected and nationally influential newspapers – including The New York Times – editorially praised the Report and instantly endorsed its conclusions. This despite the fact that the 26-volumes of evidence which the Commission claimed backed its critical conclusions weren’t available to the press until more than two months after the release of the Report.

SNIP...

When Veciana first revealed the existence of a Maurice Bishop, the Church Committee was in the midst of probing the CIA’s unauthorized activities. In reaction, David Atlee Phillips had “retired” from the Agency to form the Retired Intelligence Officers Association to defend the Agency from unfavorable public criticism. He had gotten some press notice, including a brief article with his photo in People magazine. I wasn’t aware of that when I was questioning Veciana about “Bishop,” nor had I ever heard of Phillips. After exhausting our short list of possible CIA agents who had worked anti-Castro activities, showing Veciana as many photos as we could get, we decided to have him work with a police artist to develop a sketch of Bishop. When Senator Schweiker saw the sketch, he said the face looked familiar. Perhaps, Schweiker guessed, he was one of the string of CIA agents called to testify before the Church Committee in secret sessions. That evening he recalled the name of one of the agents who strikingly resembled the sketch of Bishop. His name, Schweiker remembered, was David Atlee Phillips.

CONTINUED...

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Reply_From_a_Conspiracy_Believer

PS: Thanks for the heads-up about Mr. Bugliosi and Mr. Phillips crossing paths. While the assassination may be 50 years old, there is no statute of limitations on murder or treason despite what the stone of madness makes one think.

Last edited Sun Dec 15, 2013, 12:09 PM - Edit history (1)

And the Anniversary is over.

Reminds me of a song;
http://www.freechannel.org/lessons_of_history.mp3

Picking up from where left off in OP:

...Interestingly enough, in preparing for this presentation – I've got to tell you about this one – I was looking – I spent a lot of time getting ready for this by looking to see if such a file ever existed. I never found it, but I did find this other file that was written in March 29, 1967, which was right around the same time that Roselli was being debriefed a few weeks after the article first appeared. It's a memo – a one-page memo about the “Johnny Matter” or the “John Case.” It's from Howard Osborn the Director of Security, which is where I got into this in the first place, which was Bill Harvey's security files. It's a memorandum for the record. It's a CYA memo.

This one of the documents that amazes me that it ever saw the light of day. And in this memo, Mr. Osborne notes that he was approached by the (CIA) Inspector General, who was trying to locate William Harvey. Mr. Osborne then asked the IG why he needed to locate him? The IG told him that the (CIA) director, Richard Helms had quote had instructed him to investigate any and all aspects of the Johnny Case. The director of security, referring to the person whom he said knew the most about it, and promised that he -- the DOS -- would give him quote all documentation held by me. But the memo doesn't end there. The IG left and the DOS reports that he immediately went to see Richard Helms. He told Helms about the IG visit. He notes that he quote, and I'm going to quote the memo here, he told him that I assumed I had his approval to take this action, since I considered myself currently under his admonition to bury this material. He said that he was glad that I had checked with him and that he fully approved my action.

It seems that the White House, Congress and Drew Pearson are digging into the allegation that the agency played a role in an attempt to assassinate Castro. And he wants to be in a position to state that his inspector general has investigated the matter thoroughly. What wonderfully masterful, bureaucratic, ambiguous phrasing.

What was it that the director of central intelligence, Richard Helms, fully approved? Was it the DOS agreement to turn over materials to the IG, which had not happened yet, or the DOS's burying of the materials that he had previously been admonished to do by Helms? And, along the same lines, we have to note that the director of security did note in the report that Helms had wanted the matter investigated fully. What he wanted, was quote to be in a position to say that his inspector general had investigated the matter thoroughly.

I also found it interesting that according to this memo that one of the members of the IG team that was doing this investigation was none other than the HSCA minder, Scott Breckenridge, who constantly assured us that the CIA had thoroughly searched their records and responded to our requests and cooperated with our investigation. And they had done so thoroughly.

I confronted David Phillips in an interview on Aug. 24, 1978, not long after Barney Hidalgo and John McCone statement of having remembered Bishop.

(David Atlee Phillips) was extremely agitated about a line of questioning that I did on the source of all the disinformation – on the sources of all the disinformation after the assassination. And the fact that I could track them all back to being either current or past agents that he had used, assets that he had used. But, he was forced to admit that many of his sources were not only former assets, but that he had managed in prior years, in the early 60s, but they were also assets that he was personally managing in the fall of 1963.

He was asked, and could not explain, why that information came from anti-Castro Cuban groups and individuals pointing to the Cuban connections all seemed to come from his assets that he had handled personally. He acknowledged that was the case. He also acknowledged that back-channel communication methods existed between Mexico City headquarters and Miami, but our information and access was cut off and we were running out time and we were unable to pursue that inquiry further.

(David Atlee Phillips) seemed to be shaking – at one point he had three cigarettes lit simultaneously – during that part of the investigation, conducted by me, Charles Burke, and Gaeton Fonzi. I did all the questioning. The other two helped us to take notes. He had three cigarettes lit at one point

And the one question that I would love to have an answer to that I’ve never been able to settle in my mind was whether David Phillips was actually that nervous, or rather that was all staged for our benefit. With David Phillips, you'll never know because he was that good – he was that good of an actor...

PS: Thank you, johnnyreb. Yours is quite a number, truth.

Dan Hardway recalled how he and Gaeton Fonzi called on a retired CIA officer at his home in Florida. The investigators showed the man their credentials. He to tossed them back and said:

Which is a very Cheney thing to say.

Last edited Wed Dec 18, 2013, 09:27 PM - Edit history (1)

as told in Fonzi's "The Last Investigation"

just how many other COINCIDENCES will it take to shake the faith of the easily led?

ha....this is funny, in a way, because it clearly highlights what a baldfaced liar Bill OReilly is. I found this while looking up deMohrenschildt's unusual death. Turns out he worked for Fonzi for awhile, and claimed to be AT deM's house at the instant of his alleged suicide!


O’Reilly spins the story with third person modesty in Killing Kennedy (p. 300), calling himself “the reporter.” He wrote that he

“traced de Mohrenschildt to Palm Beach, Florida and travelled there to confront him. At the time de Mohrenschildt had been called to testify before a congressional committee looking into the events of November 1963. As the reporter knocked on the door of de Mohrenschildt’s daughter’s home, he heard the shotgun blast that marked the suicide of the Russian, assuring that his relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald would never be fully understood.

By the way, that reporter’s name is Bill O’Reilly.”

It’s a vivid story and well told. It’s also mostly imaginary. In fact, the reporter named Bill O’Reilly was in Dallas, Texas, on that day....

read on:

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/reporters-tape-exposes-bill-oreillys-jfk-fib/

Sid

If you don't like the thread, move on. There's nothing in it outside SOP.

Just because you want to shut down discusion of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy doesn't mean other people aren't interested in learning.

HERE!

K&R

2003 Release: Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City ("Lopez Report&quot

The "thirteenth appendix" to the HSCA Report on the JFK assassination is a staff report entitled "Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City." This report describes what the Committee learned about Lee Oswald's trip to Mexico City less than two months prior to the assassination. Questions it grapples with include why the CIA was apparently unable to obtain a photo of Oswald from any of its photographic surveillance stations (and instead produced a photo of a "Mystery Man" who was clearly not Oswald), whether Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, and what credibility to attach to any of the indications and allegations of Communist conspiracy emanating from that city.

The so-called "Lopez Report," written by staffers Dan Hardway and Edwin Lopez, had a number of redactions removed in 2003. These included "CIA A" (Daniel Flores aka Luis Aparacio), "CIA B" (Thomas Keenan), "CIA F" (Robert Zambernardi), LICHANT/1's true name (Manuel Carvillo), and the previously blacked-out crypts ZRSOLO and ZRJOINT. It also revealed the name of a Mexico City CIA Chief of Station, Larry Sternfield. Many redactions remain.

The Lopez Report is a good starting place for grappling with some of the many mysteries of the Mexico City affair. Newly released files have provided new information not present in this report. The LBJ taped phone conversations for instance, include startling corroboration for the claim that audio intercepts of an Oswald impersonator were listened to by FBI agents in Dallas while Oswald was in custody. Declassified testimony of David Phillips, the Tarasoff couple who translated the tapes for the CIA, and others illuminate some areas and deepen the mystery in others.

CONTINUED...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_lopezrpt_2003.htm

PS: Sinclair Lewis was prescient, another coincidence, we're told.

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301001h.html

Why people are obstructionists to information about the murder of President Kennedy baffles me. Over Thanksgiving Dinner in Dallas in 1963, I was a 15-year old listener, and not one member of my extended family at that table believed that the murder was anything other than a conspiracy. AND, the FBI or CIA were the main suspects, from the get-go because Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union, returned, and no one seemed to have heard of him before. It was questionable when the police and FBI claimed to have solved the murder to the exclusion of any others, but then when Oswald was gunned down in the police station .... who could think it was anything but conspiracy? Most of the statements made by the police, district attorney, and Ruby's lawyers turned out to be flimsy attempts to explain something with nothing.

The Tuesday after the assassination, it was business as usual. Case closed. LONG before the Warren Commission had any "report."

It was an amazing event -- not just because of the anniversary or anything like that -- it was information from people who've sacrificed careers, status, and much, much more in order to learn and tell the truth about WHY President Kennedy was killed. Each day it becomes clearer and clearer WHO benefited from his murder. Here's what Hardway sounded like (after the intro from Len Osanic):

The Heinz History Center hosted a special event, "The JFK Assassination and the Media: A Panel Discussion." The panel included Russ Baker, IMO one of the best people, in terms of journalistic abilities, researching and writing on this subject. Baker agreed with the other panelists who said reporting and writing anything but "Oswald-did-it" was a career killer. He also said that the worst form of censorship, however, is self-censorship.

For those interested, here are the OPs -- including the current one -- I have started on the Duquesne Conference -- and two related events here in Detroitland -- over the last few weeks:

Octafish to attend JFK assassination conference. Do you think JFK still matters?

JFK Conference: Amazing Day of Information and Connecting with Good People

After JFK Conference, when I got home, I felt like RFK.

JFK Conference: Bill Kelly introduced new evidence - adding Air Force One tape recordings

JFK Conference: Rex Bradford detailed the historic importance of the Church Committee

JFK Conference: Lisa Pease Discussed the Real Harm of Corrupt Soft Power

JFK Conference: James DiEugenio made clear how Foreign Policy changed after November 22, 1963

JFK Conference: Mark Lane Addressed the Secret Government’s Role in the Assassination

JFK Conference: David Talbot named Allen Dulles as 'the Chairman of the Board of the Assassination'

JFK Conference: Dan Hardway Detailed how CIA Obstructed HSCA Investigation

Noah's Ark - Nov. 22, 1963

JFK Remembered: Dan Rather and James Swanson talk at The Henry Ford

Seven Days in May -- tonight on TCM

Machine Gun Mouth

Thank you for sharing your memories of that time, Zen Democrat. On Tuesday after the assassination of President Kennedy really was "business as usual." Today, 50 years later, we still see in Washington and Wall Street and anyplace where the green is worshipped: "Money trumps peace."

http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/the+fifth+estate/ID/2420011205/

The USA would be a different place if ABCNNBCBSFakeNoiseNutworks had The Fifth Estate of their own.

Nice to see the forum nannies get overruled.

JFK’S WAR WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT: WHY KENNEDY WAS ASSASSINATED

Part 7

by Douglas Horne
Nov. 22, 2013

EXCERPT...

The new President, Lyndon Baines Johnson, made his intentions clear to aide Bill Moyers after meeting with Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara, George Ball, McGeorge Bundy, and Henry Cabot Lodge on November 24, 1963, two days after JFK’s assassination. According to three respected journalists — Tom Wicker, Stanley Karnow, and David Halberstam — LBJ told his VIP audience that day: “I’m not going to lose Vietnam. I am not going to be the President who saw Southeast Asia go the way China went.”

In an article LBJ aide Bill Moyers authored himself called “Flashbacks,” in the February 10, 1975 edition of Newsweek, Moyers quoted LBJ as making the following statements immediately after his meeting with the power structure on November 24th:

…they’ll think with Kennedy dead we’ve lost heart…they’ll think we’re yellow and we don’t mean what we say…The fellas in the Kremlin. They’ll be taking the measure of us. They’ll be wondering just how far they can go…I’m going to give the fellas out there the money they want. This crowd today says a hundred or so million will make the difference. I told them they got it — more if they need it. I told them I’m not going to let Vietnam go the way of China….

According to Stanley Karnow, author of Vietnam:

At a White House reception on Christmas Eve 1963 … he [LBJ] told the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Just get me elected, and then you can have your war.”

History shows that while JFK was disguising his true intent to withdraw from South Vietnam by pretending to believe in the domino theory and by publicly opposing a precipitate withdrawal, Lyndon Johnson — the new President — painted himself as the peace candidate in 1964 and successfully tarred Barry Goldwater, his opponent in the 1964 election, as a warmonger — even though LBJ’s firm intention, from the weekend of the assassination, was to escalate in Vietnam. The irony of this situation is stunning, and profoundly depressing.

The actions and decisions of individual leaders can, and often do, make a difference. The tale above about Vietnam is a cautionary one for those who disparage, and tend to deny, the influence of great men on the course of history. After all, isn’t this why we have elections? History is more than some abstract amalgam of economic and political forces forcing mankind down irrevocable paths of action. We have elections, and care about them so much at the time, because we recognize that key decisions, made by national leaders on important issues, can powerfully affect the course of history.

CONTINUED...

SOURCE: http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/jfks-war-with-the-national-security-establishment-why-kennedy-was-assassinated-part-7/

7-part article begins here: http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/jfks-war-against-the-national-security-establishment/

Thanks for grokking, SixString. The wheels fell of democracy 50 years ago. although we wouldn't know it from the Corporate McPravda, today, as George W Bush said: "Money trumps peace."

I appreciate the research and effort you bring to DU.

What facts are known about some of the individuals and operations that came out of the OSS and became part of the CIA after its foundation in 1947?
Let's take a peek at the Mexican and Southern Cone region. E. Howard Hunt set up the CIA's Mexico Station after WWII, he was its Station Chief for awhile. Many say that E. Howard Hunt was Acting Mexico Station Chief during the meeting in Mexico City discussed upthread. Enough for now about the late Mr. Hunt, except that he was very active in the region of Mexico and the Southern Cone (where many former Nazis were being relocated to battle the former USSR and communism with the full aid of the CIA).

C. Tracy Barnes was OSS, he is a prime player in any discussion about why the CIA would stonewall the HSCA. His Wikipedia entry is very slim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracy_Barnes
Barnes was CIA Chief of Station in London during the mid-late 50's-his Spartacus Schoolnet is a bit more informative.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbarnesT.htm
Barnes recruited Richard Case Nagell when Barnes was working CIA Domestic Operations.
Dick Russell wrote a book about Nagell "The Man Who Know Too Much", James DiEugenio reviewed that book and added some further information.
Richard Case Nagell: The Most Important Witness Pt.2
http://www.ctka.net/reviews/russell_review_2.html

Well it's a well established fact that the CIA was assassinating leaders, and that Fidel Castro was a prime target, and that the CIA was negotiating with OC to do the deed (especially with the Chicago, New Orleans and Miami "families&quot .

It's also a fact that the Warren Commission was loaded with CIA members starting with Allen Dulles and people like John J. McCloy (who had an "intelligence" career largely protecting/recruiting Nazis). Enough about Dulles and McCloy. Lets get back to Tracy Barnes.
The Federation of American Scientists have some interesting papers written by Barnes and others active in "influencing" Cuban history.
Cuba, 1961-1962
http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/policy/docs/frusX/91_105.html

Of course the Mary Ferrell Foundation is also a woderful resource for those that love the truth.
The CIA and the JFK Assassination index
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php?The_CIA_and_the_JFK_Assassination

One final link to this contribution to this thread, my friend-it's about the guy that became an executive at Bell Aviation-and sure sold a lot of helicopters for them--and one of the little guys at Bell that just happened to have been introduced to the Oswald's by Mr. deMohrenschildt (nobody could possibly make this stuff up-no wonder some folks do get waylaid by CT, which was a specialty of Tracy Barnes when he worked in what later became PSY-OP's).
1963, A few connections
Gen. Walter Dornberger, Michael and Ruth Paine
http://www.ctrl.org/essay2/NCTJFKA.html

K&R.

For some reason, the tee vee doesn't talk about any of what you've brought up.

For those still interested in learning things that may not be on television, not even on C-SPIN or in the history texts:

Southern Cone = CONDOR and Cocaine Inc

JFK's 1,037 day administration was a radical departure from that which came before and after -- formed by the Brown Brothers Harriman, Sullivan & Cromwell brand of warmongering, uh, statesmanship.



Each of those CONDOR nations also happened to be places where many NAZI war criminals found refuge after World War II. What a coincidence.



Zo. Unlike Herr General Dornberger, who helped get the Saturn V etc off der ground mit Mr. , some "ex"-NAZIs did their work in secret.

Then, there's this, which NEVER gets mentioned on tee vee, not even the Hitler Channel:



Here's a fact curiously missing from American history and any mention of the Warren Commission: Two of its members were directly responsible for the rise of post-war fascism. Allen Dulles, as a top official of the OSS and CIA, incorporated NAZI war criminals into the CIA from its founding. John McCloy, as High Commissioner for Germany, allowed Klaus Barbie and who-knows-who-else to escape justice. Of course, both men were also barons of Wall Street and Beltway Insiders, at the heart of the military industrial complex. We all can see what that means for the United States today.

those seeking truth. They recently got a hearing against the CIA hanging on to documents long sought about the Bay of Pigs disaster.
The documents and articles in the Latin America section aren't seen on the flatscreens here either. The link below is but one example of what tptb still deny.
OPERATION CONDOR ON TRIAL: LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ON LATIN AMERICAN RENDITION AND ASSASSINATION PROGRAM OPEN IN BUENOS ARIES (The National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book 416)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB416

So here's another kick, this one in memory of Jean Hill.

Last edited Sat Dec 21, 2013, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)

From Ramparts, PDF of William Turner's startling report of what happened way back when...

http://64.62.200.70/PERIODICAL/PDF/Ramparts-1968jan/45-72/

There is no statute of limitations on murder, and there should be no limitation on discussing it here -- especially the murder of a president, and even moreso a Democratic president, fer Pete's sake.

The very fact that the House, a branch of the US government itself, saw fit to investigate this (let alone the fact that its findings showed good reason to question the official story) should be enough to take it out of the realm of CT.

No court ever tried and found anyone guilty in the murder of JFK, so that makes it an open cold case, and it makes the government's theory of what happened no more credible than any other theory. There will never be any accounting for this murder except the one each person makes in their own judgment and conscience. And this was not a petty crime by any means but one at the very highest level which concerns every US citizen, especially those of us of the Democratic persuasion.

For the same reason, I don't think discussion of 9/11 should be limited either. Both are glaringly horrendous examples of letting laughably ludicrous cover stories replace justice at the highest level, and both led us into phony wars by the way. That seems plenty of reason to me, to discuss it as long we want on a Democratic discussion board and in public.

People who want to smear others simply for being interested and pursuing these subjects on their own, are encouraging the most insidious kind of civic apathy, and more of the same cover stories in the future. In case no one's noticed, each time the perpetrators get away with one of these murders-of-state, they get bolder. What's next, a "whoopsie" nuke on a major city, with accompanying stupid cover story? In other words, how high does the price we pay have to get before people wake up and stop joining in the chorus of voices squelching any truth that is found?

Former FBI man William Turner on Jim Garrison, from 1967, before anyone ever heard of NSAM 263:

Peter Dale Scott, who was called to testify before the HSCA, has written on the parallels:



As for those who say there's nothing new to learn since the Warren and 911 commissions issued their reports:

Have they tried or are they merely repeating what they've heard or been told?

Thank you for still believing this is a democracy and acting on your RIGHT to know the truth, Waiting For Everyman. A free country is worth the, uh, bother.

I'm glad it's unlocked. Rec.

Each had their unique perspective and experiences, but the common denominator is any variance from the Oswald-did-it-alone will not be tolerated, on-air, in-print or in the newsroom, a position that has become more hardened with the passing years, despite the growing body of evidence to the contrary.

Only the US government wields the power to shape the national media coverage, as it did in the run up to the illegal, immoral, unnecessary and disastrous wars based on lies in Afghanistan and Iraq. The pattern has become familiar and obvious since the phony Gulf of Tonkin Incident helped lie America into war with Vietnam. While the media told us these wars were to protect the USA, they really have served only to enrich a small number of individuals and corporations and to cower and control the majority, "the masses."

Thankfully, DU enables the free flow of news, information and analysis. That is the cornerstone of democracy. Truth, in the form of the ideals and ideas expressed in the Constitution, is the foundation of our republic.

Even if all the power elite groups weren't in on the actual assassination, they agree on the cover up, and they sure control the overwhelming majority of mass media venues.

I'm not on DU every day, but I was still wondering why I missed an OP this important.

I don't know what discussion went in to the unlock, but I'm glad it happened. The other o.p.s by Octa on the subject are worth reading, check out the links he posted in 2 subthreads on this o.p.

Here's his message in his own words:

Thank you for knowing what's at stake is democracy, Raksha.

What the fuck does that statement have to do with anything?

Why the condescension?

Is that all you have to say about what Dan Hardway said or about the Duquesne conference?

Going by what you wrote, you added nothing -- besides exposing your character, such as it is.

Thanks for the thread, Octafish.