Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

JFK Assassination
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 46, 47, 48  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Part Two

In Part One, Carl Bernstein’s "The CIA and the Media," we saw that there was no ambiguity: the means of communication, the ruling-class method by which information is provided, the corporate media are a propaganda arm of the CIA.

This was preceded by a very important article by Harrison Salisbury, “Gentlemen Killers of the CIA” in the May 1975 issue of Penthouse Magazine. Salisbury makes clear his role of meeting with Allen Dulles and other CIA officials and the imparting of information. Bernstein’s article (Part One of this series) goes more into detail about the role of reporters as covert agents.

In Joan Mellen’s A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK’s Assassination, and the Case that Should Have Changed History, she documents the disinformation campaign against Jim Garrison that had been orchestrated by Robert Kennedy and the FBI. This disinformation campaign about the critics of the official fiction of the JFK assassination is continuing to this day with attacks on A Farewell to Justice and the publication of Ultimate Sacrifice by Lamar Waldren and Tom Hartman, published by Carolyn Graff, publisher of many JFK assassination books, a campaign getting much press attention and obscuring, hiding, and transforming the role of the CIA in the JFK assassination.

In the Watergate case, Carl Bernstein was fed a lot of information by covert source “Deep Throat.” As Mellen documents, he was one of the primary people trying to destroy the reputation of Jim Garrison and hide the work he was doing in revealing the role of the CIA in the assassination. She writes, “The decades-long campaign to silence Jim Garrison included the participation even of Deep Throat himself. Hardly interested in the truth, as those who laud him for providing guidance to Bob Woodward would suggest, on the matter of the JFK assassination, he is revealed in documents to have been an open enemy of free inquiry, no less than a convicted felon specializing in FBI black bag jobs. W. Mark Phelps was among those in the government attempting to sabotage Jim Garrison’s investigation. An FBI document of March 2, 1967, the day after Jim Garrison arrested Clay Shaw, has an investigator named H.L. Edwards reporting to Phelps on scurrilous rumors that might be employed to undermine Garrison and his investigation.”

The equivalent of Walter Cronkite of CBS was Harrison J. Salisbury of the NY Times. Chief foreign correspondent, winner of the Pulitzer Prize, he was considered an impeccable ruling-class figure of great journalistic esteem. He approached the Bertrand Russell Foundation with regard to US mainstream journalists gaining access to Hanoi at the time of the saturation bombing there. The Foundation had been asked by the Vietnamese to clear those journalists who we estimated could provide some kind of indication of what the Foundation was documenting in the War Crimes Tribunal at the time. There were a number of meetings with Salisbury and it was clear that, reflecting that the ruling class was traumatized by their defeat in Viet Nam, they were looking for a way out. What emerged out of all of this was “The Gentlemen Killers of the CIA,” which was an absolutely extraordinary document in almost every respect. Not only does Harrison Salisbury detail that described above, he describes the relationships with Allen Dulles and the people at the CIA, the dinners at the posh clubs, the furnishings and the elegant service and the waiters, and he says, “The real face of the CIA is the man with the angle iron, the enforcer, neither the tweedy man nor the organization man wields the angle iron or the silence revolver himself. The enforcer is hired help, for the most part in the Mafia. There is a difference: the Mafia enforcer is killing for profit, he is trying to establish a monopoly for the family; the CIA men who use these people, those in the tweeds or grey flannels, have been convinced that they are acting in their own national and class interests, the old red, white, and blue but the bottom line at the CIA is blackmail, the squeeze, and the necessary killer. The CIA men feel no remorse over the killing of Premier Mossadegh of Iran or of Che Guevara. In the first place, these are targets; in the second place, the killing is done by those they instruct.” This is an extraordinary document and it goes to the very issue of the Kennedy Assassination itself to which Harrison Salisbury alludes in many respects.

In a CIA document revealed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, CIA Instructions to Media Assets, April 1, 1967, Document 1035-960, marked “Psych” for “psychological operations,” in the Dept. of CS, or clandestine services, also known as the “dirty tricks” department. It was discovered in 1977, year of the Bernstein article for Rolling Stone.

Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
CIA Document #1035-960

RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination.

Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Part Three

Although the foregoing CIA Instructions to Media Assets was written in 1967, it reflects what is going on today, 40 years later. It instructs its assets to label critics and people who have exposed evidence of the role of the Central Intelligence Agency as instruments and dupes of the KGB. This is the precise fashion in which CIA Director Richard Helms, speaking to the US Senate, specified that Paese Sera, the Italian newspaper, was an instrument of KGB propaganda, in direct relation to instructions about attacking those who are exposing their role in the assassination of Kennedy.

From the foregoing, let’s take a look at
“4e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.”

This has been debunked over and over in A Farewell to Justice in which author Joan Mellen shows Oswald’s relation to not just one but three intelligence agencies: the FBI, CIA, and US Customs. Let’s look at how today, the counterattack by the CIA, using media assets, book reviews, features, and actual books are putting out the disinformation that this is generated deliberately by Communist propagandists, and that there is false information and attacking the veracity and credibility of the critics of the official fiction. We’ll take a look at some of these reviews.

In 1967, the Italian newspaper, Paese Sera, which is a daily with a large circulation, a paper of the independent left but not of the Communist Party (it would have every right to be but it wasn’t), it was not Unita, it was roughly the equivalent in Italian political terms of The Nation magazine ironically enough. Paese Sera was concerned about something that was preoccupying the entire broad left and intelligentsia in Italy, namely the known collaboration of military and intelligence services, notably that apparatus of Mussolini that was alive and well in those services with the CIA pursuant to a putsch or a military coup in Italy, as had in fact unfolded in Greece.

Paese Sera launched an extensive 6-month investigation that Ralph Schoenman, Director of the Who Killed Kennedy Committee, and Executive Director of the Bertrand Russell Foundation, was involved with that uncovered proprietary organizations of the CIA collaborating with the military and intelligence services in Italy. Specifically, something called Centro Mondiale Commerciale, (CMC) or World Trade Mart, and another industrial exposition called Permanent Industrial Expositions, or PERMINDEX. The documentation that flowed from this investigative work led to the expulsion of these organizations from Italy. They then set up business in South Africa. Beyond that, one of its key directors was a man named Clay Shaw, a director of PERMINDEX and CMC.

Clay Shaw, persona non grata now in Italy, goes back to New Orleans and the International Trade Mart. In 1967, Ralph Schoenman took these articles and the investigative work of George Oconti and others in Paese Sera. They translated it and sent it to Jim Garrison, then District Attorney of New Orleans. Garrison had already proceeded with his investigation of Clay Shaw and his role in the CIA prior to receiving the Paese Sera material. That was based upon his discovery of the relationship with Clay Shaw, Oswald, and the nexus of the planning for the assassination of Kennedy located at 531 Kemp St. in New Orleans which was the other side of 531 Lafayette Street, the catty-corner entrances to the offices of Guy Bannister. Bannister had been the Director of the FBI, a CIA operative, deeply involved with Oswald, Ruby, Clay Shaw, and a CIA pilot named David Ferrie.

A Farewell to Justice, which took up the investigation of Garrison, taking it far beyond where Garrison was able to go in his lifetime, not only establishes the organizing role in the assassination of these CIA figures but with the documents and interviews with 1200 witnesses, makes indisputable the evidence, the witness testimony about the very architecture of the Kennedy assassination itself.

Immediately upon the exposure of this material, a campaign was launched in coordination with Richard Helms and the CIA to label this information as disinformation supplied by the KGB, the secret services of the Soviet state. Paese Sera was called simply a conduit for the KGB.

Max Holland is on the editorial board of The Nation magazine. He proceeds to write a series of articles in Wilson Quarterly and various New Orleans publications and on the internet in which he sets forth the thesis that Jim Garrison and the investigation of the role of the CIA in the assassination of Kennedy are responsible for the loss of faith in government, for the entire radicalization of the 60’s, the disillusionment of an entire generation in the bona fides of their government by imputing to the CIA responsibility for the assassination of Kennedy. In this series of documents, he asserts this was KGB propaganda, Garrison was a paranoid and a dupe, and the entire architecture of the assassination was disinformation from the KGB. That theme is continued today in a series of unrelenting attacks on A Farewell to Justice orchestrated by Max Holland and a clone of his, Mel Ayton, based in Britain, who regurgitate the Big Lie about the KGB.

Ayton puts himself forward as an expert on the Kennedy assassination as author of books such as Questions of Conspiracy that he published after a conversation with Arlen Specter, although nobody ever heard of this guy and now he comes forward as an “expert.” His bio says he provides expertise on the Kennedys to the BBC, leading one to wonder about the scholarship of BBC programming.

Mel Ayton uses the tactic of accept a fabrication and then compound that fabrication. And the original fabrication is what he calls Max Holland’s debunking of the Italian newspaper story (referring to Paese Sera), and the Max Holland article is the lie that linked the CIA to the Kennedy assassination.

As seen earlier in "Instructions to Media Assets," a prime CIA tactic against bringing out the truth about the Kennedy assassination is to say that the criticisms of the official fiction are generated by the KGB, as Max Holland does who is on the Editorial Board of The Nation magazine and writes for the CIA.

He applies these tactics today, particularly in relation to Joan Mellen’s A Farewell to Justice and to Paese Sera. Holland, who is published on the CIA’s website, says that the criticisms of the Warren Report are being generated by Communist propagandists, or KGB.

In Joan Mellen’s A Farewell to Justice, she meticulously exposes the function and role of Max Holland. In the Wilson Quarterly Spring 2001, Holland hangs all responsibility for “America’s loss of faith in public institutions on Jim Garrison.”

Holland continues: “Shaw’s terrible miscarriage of justice trial had immense consequences for the political culture of the US. Of all of the legacies of the 1960’s, none has been more unambiguously negative in the American public’s corrosive cynicism toward the federal government. Though that attitude is commonly traced to the disillusioning experiences of VietNam and Watergate, its genesis actually lies in the aftermath of the JFK assassination, before antiwar protests were common. Dissatisfaction with the official verdict that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone brought into a widespread conviction that the federal government was incompetent or suppressing the truth, a fiendishly clever operation of the Russian KGB, a clever conspiracy successful in seducing the public because of the gullibility of a vainglorious dupe, Jim Garrison. The KGB slipped a bogus story into a crypto-Communist newspaper Paese Sera,” and the beat goes on with Max Holland.

Of course, it has been established that Jim Garrison had already begun the prosecution of Clay Shaw prior to the Paese Sera material. What the Paese Sera investigation unfolded is nothing less than Operation Gladio and P2, the 40-year clandestine murder and terror campaign, including the kidnapping and murder of Aldo Moro, the bombing of the Bologna train station in 1984, and all of the various killings and terror operations imputed to the Red Brigades and the left which were all in fact the CIA’s own doing. Operation Gladio is not particular to Italy, it is generalized throughout Europe. There is book after book now as well as a series in The Guardian that has confirmed and corroborated this. The Italian Parliament has corroborated this. This heart and soul of CIA destabilization and terror apparatus operation internal to Italy, THAT is what Paese Sera was concerned with and uncovering and investigating. The Kennedy assassination was the last thing on their minds.

What came out of their investigations fortuitously was the cover organizations for those operations in Italy that turn out to be part of PERMINDEX. PERMINDEX and Centro Mondiale Comerciale are linked not only to the murder of JFK but, as the Paese Sera series reveals, it embraced as well the CIA plots to assassinate Charles DeGaulle.

One of the points about Richard Helms, the CIA Director (who was convicted of perjury after he lied about the overthrow and murder of Salvador Allende in Chile), that Max Holland on behalf of the CIA attempts to assert is that it is Paese Sera that was responsible for the fiction about the role of the CIA in the plots to assassinate Charles DeGaulle.

Holland is referring to Richard Helms’ testimony before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee on June 2, 1961.

Documentation about the role of PERMINDEX in the plans to assassinate Charles DeGaulle, the collusion and the meetings between Gen. Shaul (sp?) and Jacques Chinstelle (sp?) of the OAS in Algeria and the CIA, the plans to remove Charles DeGaulle (in essence, to assassinate him) were documented by French intelligence and published by L’Express magazine in France. Here is a particular irony about Mr. Holland: The Nation magazine in the U.S. exhaustively exposed the CIA’s attempts to assassinate Charles DeGaulle and PERMINDEX’s involvement in these very operations. It was Paese Sera that picked up on this from the publications in France and related it to what was taking place in Italy at the time. To this very minute this is relevant because the internet is now flooded with Max Holland and his associate Mel Ayton’s unbridled attacks on Joan Mellen as a disinformation dupe, spreading Communist propaganda and advertising the paranoid Jim Garrison’s investigation into the role of the CIA in the Kennedy killing.


Last edited by bacasper on Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:47 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Part Four

Also in the Mel Ayton review is something that goes back to the Carl Bernstein’s “The CIA and The Media” article (Part 1). In the NY Times of Dec. 11, 2005 was an important article by Jeff Gerth, “Military’s Information War Is Vast and Often Secretive” which discussed the campaign of the Pentagon, another intelligence agency, to create media throughout Iraq and Afghanistan and is a model for what the intelligence agencies have been doing throughout the world and in the US, too. Part of the Ayton article is this statement: “Branding authors who reject JFK conspiracy theories as CIA assets is Mellen’s favorite smear tactic in the book. It’s a common tool used by JFK conspiracy writers. It’s also McCathyite in nature.”

Don Bohning, a former Miami Herald reporter and author of The Castro Obsession, is incensed with references made by Mellen that he was a CIA-sponsored reporter. Bohning said in emails he “never took a cent from the CIA.” He acknowledges therefore his relationship with the CIA. He was also outraged with the implication, along with the terms “writer asset” and “utilized,” in his email of March 10, 2005 to author Joan Mellen. “Top editors at the Herald were well aware and approved of my contacts with the CIA during the 1960’s.”

It is very interesting to look at the CIA file of Donald Dean Bohning, who is without a doubt, one of the primary CIA assets. As Mellen writes, “CIA-linked Bohning was the Latin American editor for the Miami Herald and, as shown in these documents, was a top-level CIA informant with the code name AM Carbon-3. He worked at the Miami Herald, according to the CIA, since 1959 and became Latin American editor in March 1967.”

This is not only in Mellen’s book. Mellen and we at Taking Aim Radio have in our hands the very CIA documents designated as “Secret” dated June 14, 1968 that designate Donald Dean Bohning as AM Carbon-3. That is AM Carbon-3 who is not just a CIA operative in Miami but he is doing undercover operations for the CIA. He has Covert Security Approval. Here is one example: One of the investigators for Jim Garrison in attempting to establish the architecture of the JFK assassination was Carl McNabb. He went under the name of Jim Rose. Rose went to Miami to see Donald Dean Bohning on Aug. 21, 1967. He was engaged in an investigation for Jim Garrison at the time tracking down none other than Rolando Mas Ferrer, the Battista torturer who evidence showed was one of the shooters in the Kennedy assassination. Without going into all the particulars about Jim Rose’s investigation, when he approached Bohning he gave his name as Winston Smith on March 28, 1968. Immediately a full report is provided to the CIA, and we have the CIA documents by Bohning not only on what Winston Smith/Jim Rose/Carl McNabb was investigating but on what to do about the investigation and how to stop the investigation with references to some of the figures who had to be matters of concern. Col. L. Robert Castor met with Jack Ruby and Perrin in Dallas. All of the particulars of the investigation into the apparatus that was engaged in the actual shooting of Kennedy that we were on track in uncovering that Carl McNabb/Jim Rose was zoning in on for Jim Garrison at the time, and Boning gives not only a heads up to the CIA but an operational plan for stopping it. Mellen has documented this in the book as part of the extraordinary, revelatory material that shows the role of the CIA in the murder of John F. Kennedy. It also particularly shows the role of media in servicing the CIA’s operations.

Right at this moment as you are reading this we have Mel Ayton and Max Holland on the attack accusing Joan Mellen of slandering Boning, accusing all of us of inventing this when we have the documents in hand. They are “smoking gun” documents. Remember, Bohning acknowledges that he was an asset for the CIA. Whether or not he took money form the CIA or was paid by the Miami Herald is not the issue. This is a man who was working with the CIA and moreover, he lets us know that the top editors of the Miami Herald were aware of and approved of his work with the CIA, the man who was the Latin American editor for the Miami Herald in the late 1960’s. He was working with JMWave which was one of the operations for the assassination of Castro. This is the murder apparatus in which these media assets are fully in bed.

Another form of disinformation is revealed in a review written on amazon.com by Andrew Johnson, of California, USA, of A Farewell to Justice called “A Farewell to Scholarship.” A form of disinformation is to put out a piece of false information as truth while accusing an author of falsifying, or fabricating, their scholarship. Andrew Johnson is a pseudonym, a cohort of the Max Holland/Mel Ayton group. (By the way, Mel Ayton works with Front Page, the vehicle of David Horowitz, who is just to the right of Genghis Khan.) David Horowitz was brought to London. He was a research director for the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation. He was a “red diaper” baby. He wrote Free World Colossus. For him the sun shone out of a particular aperture of Stalin’s anatomy. Since he is now in his apostasy, he equates socialism with that Stalinist regime. He did it at the time; he does it now, except now he does it for the CIA band of disinformation specialists.

What do they do? They zero in on A Farewell to Justice and engage in the same character assassination of Joan Mellen that they undertook and continue to do with Jim Garrison. From Andrew Johnson’s review on Amazon.com:

“It would take a book of equal length to list the inaccuracies and errors Mellen has made but, just as a random example, let us take her contention on p. 236 that James Kirkwood, the author of American Grotesque and who covered the Shaw trial for Playboy magazine, drove to Clinton, La, with Hugh Aynesworth and William Gurvitch.”

(James Kirkwood who wrote American Grotesque, which was an attack on Jim Garrison, and Hugh Aynesworth, a reporter for Newsweek and Dallas Morning News, are media assets themselves. They were engaged in threatening the witnesses, attempting to bribe them, of making clear to them that they would suffer a very severe fate unless they recanted their testimony. They were instruments for the destruction of the investigation and for the role of the Agency in covering its tracks.)

Let’s return to the quotation bearing upon Joan Mellen’s investigation in Clinton, La of the presence there of Clay Shaw, Lee Harvey Oswald, and David Ferrie, the CIA pilot. This is dynamite what she has unfolded here. You have the conspirators together in the planning of the assassination and the full meaning of what they were doing is laid out in the book.

“Hugh Aynesworth and William Gurvich in an attempt to interview (and bribe) a number of Garrison's prospective witnesses. When one finally finds the source for this contention in her endnotes (which is helpfully referenced as being on "p. 235"), one discovers that the origin for this incident is taken from Kirkwood's book itself. If a quick cross-check is made with American Grotesque, the reader will soon discover that Kirkwood makes no such claim at all. He clearly states that "Hugh Aynesworth of Newsweek told me a story that casts some doubt on these Country Folk," and then quotes a lengthy written account, made by Aynesworth and given to him ... Mellen has clearly mis-read or mis-represented this account as Kirkwood's own.”

The article goes on to accuse Mellen of fiction posing as fact because, he states, Kirkwood never went to Clinton and his book establishes that he never went to Clinton, Kirkwood was never in Clinton, LA according to the representations of this Andrew Johnson.

Here is the book American Grotesque by James Kirkwood, p. 220:

“I asked Bill Gurvitch to go with me [this is to Clinton]. 2/3 of the names on the list were unknown to Gurvitch. In other words, they had come forth more than five months after the hearing of Clay Shaw. Gurvitch and I drove to Clinton, La. in his car following the visit with the top Louisiana State Police official in Baton Rouge.”

On p. 222, the same confirmation:

“Not only was Kirkwood, we went to see Cory Collins, leader of an effort to register African-Americans to vote in the teeth of the Klan’s threats and destruction of the civil rights movement in Clinton, La.”

Cory Collins was one of the witnesses of the presence of Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald and Ferrie together in Clinton at the time. In their meeting and attempts to put Oswald into a mental hospital, albeit as an employee, where he could later be presented a nut case as part of the planning of the assassination itself. That was how they would get him in, but as the Director Frank Silva made clear to Mellen, that was Step One.

“A deputy took us to his house and barged right in and sat down in the living room as Collins’ father Emmett looked at the three of us with fear in his eyes. He goes into the particulars of how they sought to intimidate these witnesses.”

“Snowball” Collins as they called the father of Cory Collins was in fact a man with jet-black hair. He never had white hair. Leaving aside the disinformation that is replete in these CIA accounts, the gravamen of this is as follows: this all-out attack on Joan Mellen currently on amazon.com continues

“Ms. Mellen's overall fiction-posing-as-fact is symptomatic of the type of error that occurs on almost every page of the book. Careless and stupid errors and presumptions that a serious and objective historian or biographer could never make.”

This is the paradigm of what the CIA set out as to what is to be done with media critics of the Kennedy Assassination.


Sources: 1. “Gentlemen Killers of the CIA,” by Harrison Salisbury, Penthouse Magazine, May 1975
2. www.takingaimradio.com Audio Archive
3. CIA Document 1035-960 at www.mainbase.org/FOIA/jfk01.html or www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html
4. http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1597970484/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt_sr_1?%5Fencoding=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar


Last edited by bacasper on Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:31 am; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Manner of Speaking



Joined: 09 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 4:29 pm    Post subject: Re: JFK Assassination Reply with quote

bacasper wrote:
Several people have suggested that there be a single thread for all the JFK asassination posts. Hopefully, this can be it.


Although I doubt this will be the last thread started on the JFK assassination, I applaud and appreciate your effort. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:16 pm    Post subject: Re: JFK Assassination Reply with quote

Manner of Speaking wrote:
bacasper wrote:
Several people have suggested that there be a single thread for all the JFK asassination posts. Hopefully, this can be it.


Although I doubt this will be the last thread started on the JFK assassination, I applaud and appreciate your effort. Very Happy

Thank you. Now if you can help keep the spammers in their place maybe it'll work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
regicide



Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:44 am    Post subject: Re: JFK Assassination Reply with quote

bacasper wrote:
Manner of Speaking wrote:
bacasper wrote:
Several people have suggested that there be a single thread for all the JFK asassination posts. Hopefully, this can be it.


Although I doubt this will be the last thread started on the JFK assassination, I applaud and appreciate your effort. Very Happy

Thank you. Now if you can help keep the spammers in their place maybe it'll work.



Some people say; " what is the point of this, Jack is dead and gone. This is a 45 year old case" and so on. I believe there is a reason to finally bringing this case out in the open with a fair judicial hearing. As you know, it has never got one. The Grand Jury Project would be heard in a federal court either in Dallas or Washington and would provide once and for all, a fair hearing of the matter where witnesses and documents would be compelled, under penalty of law, to come forward in the matter.

Introduction

If there is ever any resolution to the political assassinations and civil rights murders of the 50s and 60s, Federal grand juries are likely to play a central role in these investigations, just as they did in the investigation of the assassination on Embassy Row, Medgar Evers, the Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

This article explains how grand juries can be used in these types of investigations. It also seeks to demystify the grand jury, the least understood and most secretive component of the American justice system. And it outlines some of the challenges involved in conducting such an investigation.

Why use a grand jury? Why can’t federal agents just conduct the investigation?

Federal grand juries do two things: They investigate to determine if federal crimes have been committed; and they indict, or bring criminal charges against, those whom the grand jury believes committed federal crimes. To indict, the grand jurors must have probable cause to believe the persons indicted did violate federal criminal law.

Grand juries offer prosecutors several advantages in conducting a criminal investigation, especially a high-profile, factually complicated investigation. For one thing, grand juries operate in secret; this not only gives prosecutors the ability to shield the evidence they are gathering from disclosure to the press and others, it can also encourage people to cooperate with a grand jury. Unless a witness reveals that he or she testified before a federal grand jury, no one ever needs to know that occurred, and since the transcripts of grand jury testimony are secret, no one will know what the witness said. This can be an advantage in an investigation, such as an investigation into political assassination, organized crime or terrorism, where witnesses may be afraid of retaliation if they cooperate with investigators.

Grand juries also give prosecutors the power to subpoena witnesses and evidence from around the country and, in some circumstances, from other countries, as well. If federal agents want to interview someone, the person can refuse to speak to them; this is true even if the person is arrested as a material witness, because persons who are arrested can invoke the Miranda rights to silence and to an attorney. The U.S. Supreme Court has held, however, that the Miranda rights are not available to witnesses subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury. Unlike someone being interrogated by federal agents, a grand jury witness not only has not right to silence or counsel, he or she is required to answer questions posed by the prosecutor working with the grand jury and by the grand jurors. A grand jury witness can refuse to answer if he or she can invoke the Fifth Amendment as to a question, but the privilege must be claimed as to each question and the prosecutor can challenge a witness' ability to invoke the privilege.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8326&hl=
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Part II of How to Create an Angry American begins with a demonstration of how Bush and Rumsfeld lied to get us into Iraq, then traces things back to the founding of the Federal Reserve all the way up through 9/11 and the CFR. I am posting about it here because there is a good JFK autopsy photo at 9:05, and they give one explanation for the assassination: JFK planned a return to gold-backed money.

You can skip the few minutes of deformed baby photos before that. That was a bit OTT, but overall a good message.

They even refer to the Titanic. Does anyone know of any evidence to support that the sinking of it was intentional?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the interests of keeping this topic confined to one thread and in turn keeping this thread relevant I offer the following contribution:

Just recd Harvard University Press's recent-publications catalog. It lists David Kaiser, The Road to Dallas: the Assassination of John F. Kennedy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008), in its opening pp.

Harvard markets this book as the first account produced by a professional historian, thoroughly based on archival evidence and declassified documents, and peer reviewed and approved. Any discussion on this event will certainly have to confront Kaiser's scholarship and findings, which seem to present a strong circumstantial case re: the Cuban exile community and the mafia.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
regicide



Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Who is JFK Conspiracy "Skeptic" John McAdams?

By Alex Constantine

The highly-visible (on the net) John McAdams is convinced that Oswald shot Kennedy - there is no evidence on earth or the wide universe that can dissuade him ... it must be Oswald ... only Oswald ... Oswald alone ... Oswald, Oswald, Oswald ...

JFK / The Kennedy Assassination Home Page - "Run by Peter Fokes and John McAdams is the place to go — Take a look at John McAdams' picks of the best resources on other Kennedy ... "

mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
•••••••
From Covert Action Information Bulletin (I have no date on it): "CIA-funded research, whether overt or covert, is under way in North American universities in epidemic proportions....With the financial support of the Agency, the Fund for International Social and Economic Education, headed by Harvard's assistant dean of the graduate school of arts and sciences, underwrote a series of labor- and union-related projects geared toward developing nations. CIA research monies have surfaced at Cornell's [Blakey's alma mater] School of Industrial Labor Relations, in Stanford's engineering department, at Harvard in prodigious amounts and at Michigan's Institute for Social Research."
••••••••
Letter from Lisa Pease:

" ... Remember that McAdams was a representative of ICPSR - a sub-institute under the Univ. of Mich. ISR. Also - John McAdams' dean was the one running that program. McA got his Ph.D. not at the KSG, but at the
graduate school of arts and sciences.

"Ever meet William Kline, McA?

"Quoting some more:

"'As recently as 1987, Harvard University agreed to take on a $1.2 million
study in conjunction with the Agency to study probelms in intelligence
assessment and foreign policy, using the Phillippines as a model. The CIA
analysts in charge of that study was William Kline.

"'The CIA and academia have an almost fully cooperative relationship:
trading information and resources and supporting each other in the face
of hostility.

"'Very rarely do university adminstrators and professors resist working
with government agencies like the CIA, and when they do the Agency takes
great offense.

"'The Agency vehemently objects to any attempt to block its efforts to 'tap
the wisdom of academia.' If restrictions are placed on its activities, the CIA finds some way to work around them.

"Although Harvard and a few other universities have expressed some resistance to the academic arm of the Agency (Harvard is still one of the
CIA's most loyal and active academic supporters), most university
administrators have no problems with the CIA. ...

"The struggle against the Central Intelligence Agency and university
militarism in general will not be carried out by those who run our
universities. It will be carried out by the students, faculty and
community members who are not entrenched in CIA business and who do care about the truth and about acting on it."

Smile
--
Lisa Pease
Posted by Alex Constantine at Tuesday, May 27, 2008


Last edited by regicide on Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:35 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gopher



Joined: 04 Jun 2005

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

regicide wrote:
Nonsense. Peer reviewed and approved means government approved.


I thought you might be interested to know about the book; a professional historian has made a contribution to this particular debate (noteworthy, as most professional historians will not touch it). I was not expecting this as a response. I do not even know how to respond to something as cynical and dark and hateful as this.

And I will not get into a debate with you on the merits of this book that centers on what people have written at Amazon.com. Either read the book or do not. Either way, best of luck.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I must say that, as a general rule, I usually respect "peer-reviewed." I haven't read this book but am interested.

If what the reviewer says about the book claiming Oswald was a duped patsy, it may well offer additional documented insights.

Regi, have you read the book? Are you sure you are not dismissing it out of hand because of its messenger here, Gopher?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Manner of Speaking



Joined: 09 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bacasper wrote:
I must say that, as a general rule, I usually respect "peer-reviewed." I haven't read this book but am interested.

Regi, have you read the book? Are you sure you are not dismissing it out of hand because of its messenger here, Gopher?


Indeed. Dismissing anything and everything "peer reviewed" as "government approved" means instantly dealing yourself out of all relevance. It's not moving the goalposts...it's removing them altogether.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
regicide



Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Critique of John McAdams
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Critique of John McAdams by Jeff Orr - 02/08/00

I would have to say that John McAdams either has mental problems, or is a conscious and deliberate agent of dis-information. Perhaps he is both, but no one could be as familiar with the facts as he seems to be and still advocate such a position. I would like to explain my experience with Mr. John McAdams, and try to let that experience speak to the reputation of this person.

I wish that I had copies of the posts that I put up at his newsgroup location. If I am able to get a copy of that I will be glad to furnish it as proof. I didn't know that the JFK assassination newsgroup that I was posting on was affiliated to the McAdams website, until after my posts were removed and I was blocked from making any further posts. I am not a serious researcher but I have looked very closely into the JFK assassination and I put a post on that newsgroup. The subject of the post was the question "Where was George Bush on the day Kennedy was assassinated. My post explained that the day following the assassination Bush had met with J Edgar Hoover to discuss JFK's murder, and that those in Dallas that day included Frank Sturgis, Howard Hunt, and Jack Ruby. I also made a post about the motivation for Jack Ruby to kill Oswald. The subject of that post was speculation that Oswald was probably meant to die in the theater, and that Ruby had to act in this way because the plotters intended Oswald to be the dead "patsy" following the assassination.

McAdams sarcastically responded to the posts with a speed that arouses suspicion. Because who has time to sit by a computer and watch the posts as they come in? He claimed that there was no evidence to support anything I said in the Bush post. I can't remember what he said about the Ruby post. He could do no more than to refute every reference by claiming that the info and the sources were phony or false. He ended by saying that what I had offered were only "factiods". So I coolly responded with the complete info and the sources, still thinking that this information was probably unknown to him, and that he would take the info seriously when I gave him the references and more background on them. There was nothing hostile or rude in my response only good solid sources for the claims I made; yet the post was removed within minutes. I had tried to post it at a second JFK assassination newsgroup and found that it wouldn't accept my post. I tried to re-post at the site that had briefly contained my reply to McAdams, but found that the site was blocking my posts just as the other site was. I can't say for sure, but I am fairly sure he is the person who has censored my posts.

Here we have a chap who has a tremendous amount of time on his hands to promote a fiction about the assassination of JFK through websites, newsgroups, and no telling what other means. Whether he is a paid dis-information specialist, or unpaid, he is definitely promoting information that is knowingly false to him. His opinions cannot stand in a debate with an informed person. He cannot help but contradict himself in defending his untenable position. He is not trying to seek the truth whatever it may be, he is trying to promote myths that exonerate those who are implicated by evidence in the assassination of their own leader, a United States President named John F. Kennedy. He is out to discredit people who are putting the logical conclusions together from the irrefutable evidence. Whatever his reasons are for trying to continue the cover-up of the JFK assassination, I don't have any appreciation of them.


Jeff Orr


Last edited by regicide on Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:39 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

regicide wrote:
Duped patsy who killed JFK, Bacasper.

The Warren Report and it's Single Bullet Theory is false, therefore, Oswald did not kill Kennedy.

Therefore, any book that is written on the assumption Oswald did it can not be true.



It is a simple matter of logic.

Having been the patsy only means he was a convenient scapegoat. I don't think it necessarily says anything about whether he actually pulled any triggers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
regicide



Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States

PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:52 am    Post subject: Hilary Clinton and the cover up of the JFK Assassination Reply with quote

The Kennedy assassination would have been solved years ago if cover up artists like John McAdams did not aggressively promote the Warren Report Fraud.

Where does John McAdams get the time and the money to attack every single person who does not accept the Warren Report Fraud? Needless to say, McAdams is the frontman of the cabal which is assigned the task of continuing to cover up the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The following recent post in a newsgroup, illustrates the repugnant tactics that these aggressive goons practice.


By the Critics
January 19, 2002


It is absolutely astounding that John McAdams thinks that he has the power to discredit everybody who does not endorse the Warren Report Fraud. This is probably one of the most deluded people in the entire United States of America.

We call John McAdams and his cronies ignorant thugs because it is simply not possible to legitimately oppose the simple truths they deliberately target. Amazingly, most people clearly understand the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone, yet McAdams & Company have somehow managed to make their views the dominant voice on the Internet. Can anybody figure out the amount of money and the resources required, to make every typical majority view appear to be just another myth that John McAdams miraculously debunks?

Most people who have followed the work that McAdams publishes cannot avoid the conclusion that John McAdams is evidently the head of a CIA-funded think tank that is supposed to cover up the truth about the Kennedy assassination, and while that may be difficult to conclusively prove in an age of extreme secrecy, it doesn't really matter. Clearly, if we assume that McAdams is not a deliberate propagandist, 'certified crackpot' is the only apt description to describe people of his ilke, and anybody who has reviewed his work cannot avoid the observations of people like Debra Hartman, who posted the following observations about John McAdams on 10 October 2000:

In many ways, John McAdams is a product of the times -- a symptom, not the disease. The disease is the corruption of the American educational system. It has become more and more difficult in recent times to tell the truth in America; nowhere is that more true than in America's schools, colleges and universities. There are many theories on when this began and why it happened. Whatever the cause, the point is it has happened, and the progess of a McAdams through the American educational system (both public and private) to a teaching position at a university is a cautionary tale of the new dark age we have entered in America.

McAdams has neither the educational preparation nor the ability for such a position -- his language skills are abysmal; his analytical skills non-existent. Not only has he done no research whatsoever on the historical question he pretends to study, he has no knowledge of even the basics of a research methodology. Thus, McAdams himself argues against long established historical facts; on the other hand, he is incapable of doing the research necessary to either confirm or dispute such facts.

In the academy, once a work is published in a fact-checked or peer-reviewed venue in any discipline, long established practice is this: Those who would challenge such published information must do a complete and thorough review -- whether the case involves historical research, scientific study, or a mathematical proof.

On this newsgroup [alt.conspiracy.jfk] and on the website of Marquette University, McAdams commits daily academic fraud. He pretends that evidence for a corpus of facts drawn from HSCA records, most of which has been available in print for at least six years, has never been provided. Instead, he argues with knowing deceit that there are no documents to support a major story appearing in the heavily fact-checked Washington Post (and later, in the seminal book on the JFK assassination, Oswald Talked). An interesting charge, if true; but of course it's not. The professor at the distinguished university is an academic crackpot, and sadly, a fraud on the public -- a base propagandist in scholar's robes.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a huge disconnect between people like Professor John McAdams, who attack our websites, and you, the public, who send us letters which are intelligent and informative. We have received letters of thanks and encouragement from people from all around the world. We thank each and every one of you here, and we are forever surprised by the depth of the knowledge you demonstrate in your letters to us. To our surprise, and we say that because we are an outfit without an advertising budget, we have received thousands of letters since 1998, and we publish the latest one today [it is February 6 2002 and we are evidently on a dry spell -keep your letters coming ! ! !] -you are clearly far more knowledgeable than the people who attack us.



To: jfkawards@yahoo.com
Subject: Enjoyed your site
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 08:26:06 -0600

Hello,



I was just searching around on the internet when I stumbled across your site. I enjoyed the pictures of "Billy Nolan Lovelady" standing in front of the TSBD doorway. Too bad you do not have pictures of some of the many shirts Lovelady claimed he wore that day. (He couldn't even keep that story straight). The remarkable thing, if one is to believe the Warren Commission and Lovelady's story is another overlooked question. "Why was Loveday dressed like Oswald to begin with"? Typical of the entire case.

One more thing that I have never heard anyone discuss is this:

I believe the purpose of the Tippet murder was a very pivitol point in catching Oswald.

(1) The original plan was to kill Oswald at 10th and Patten. Jack Ruby, so boldly killing Oswald in front of millions of people demonstrated that those in the "know" did not want Oswald in police custody that Friday afternoon. That plan did not work out.

(2) Tippet might have or might not have known everything but he was at Tenth and Patton at a time when Oswald could have been walking by. How neatly the case would have ended if a heroic policeman would have killed Oswald there. I believe Oswald never showed, and another man or two killed Tippet. Tippet probably never knew about such a backup plan in case Oswald did not show. Witnesses describe men other than Oswald standing near Tippet immediately after he was shot. I believe another man was used here to be seen running away from the Tippet murder site towards where Oswald was eventually caught.

I write this about the Tippet murder because if the event never happened at all, how would the police explain being in that part of the city that day, so far from the TSBD? If Oswald would not die at Tenth and Patton, at least the police could explain their motive for being in that area with Tippet being murdered in the street. Since Tippet was not going to be the hero, his death could fuel a greater public outrage against Lee Oswald. Who was it that said, "I knew we had the man who shot the President because he just shot Officer Tippet".

Anyway, great site. I really enjoyed seeing and reading what you have.



Take care,


Lewis


Last edited by regicide on Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:46 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 46, 47, 48  Next
Page 1 of 48

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International