Maurice Bishop = David Atlee Phillips

[Paul Brancato]

Of course you are aware that Hoover's empty words belie his endless persecution of the left, and of Civil rights leaders like MLK. And please don't misquote me. What I said was that there was far less distance between the radical right and your heroes Dulles and Hoover than you think. And I'm not hiding anything about my past or influences. 

[Paul Brancato]

This was simply misdirection on your part. Oswald's ties to Phillips demonstrate his ties to US Intel, something you keep trying to wriggle out of. 

[Michael Clark]

9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

So, you deny a Marxist orientation?   Hmm.   Yet you see no difference between the CIA and the Radical Right?   Something's being hidden here.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

You sound like the Grand Inquisitor, Paul. It's dark and ugly.

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎1‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 10:39 AM, Paul Brancato said:

This was simply misdirection on your part. Oswald's ties to Phillips demonstrate his ties to US Intel, something you keep trying to wriggle out of. 

Paul B.,

Surely you've heard of the fictional work written by CIA agent David Atlee Phillips, which he named, THE AMLASH LEGACY (1988).

This is a work of fiction, and yet in it the main character, who is a CIA agent,  makes a claim about Lee Harvey Oswald, as follows.  The CIA agent character was guiding Lee Harvey Oswald to disguise himself as a Communist and an FPCC officer in New Orleans, in order to infiltrate the Communists.  The purpose of this charade was to position Lee Harvey Oswald in Cuba, in order to assassinate Fidel Castro.

As David Atlee Phillips says in this fictional work, this fictional CIA agent even worked with Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City to try to obtain a visa, posing as an FPCC officer, to get into Cuba.  That visa application was still pending when --- as the fiction says -- somebody hijacked Lee Harvey Oswald from this plot to assassinate Fidel Castro into a surprise plot to assassinate JFK.

Through his fictional character, David Atlee Phillips expressed surprise that somebody would hijack Lee Harvey Oswald, but he was reportedly not surprised to learn that JFK was assassinated by exactly the same method that Oswald's team had trained to kill Fidel Castro, namely, a high-powered rifle from a high-building during an open car  motorcade.

Now -- I'm not wiggling out of anything here.  I accept the claims of Alpha 66 leader, Antonio Veciana, that he saw LHO in the company of Davi Atlee Phillips in Dallas in September 1963.  I consider that to be solid history.

Yet I believe we are on solid historical ground to regard their meeting in the context of the assassination of Fidel Castro -- not of JFK.   This is how I read the signs.  The fictional work by David Atlee Phillips, THE AMLASH LEGACY (1988), for me symbolizes a reflection of the true history of the era.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited January 20, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

15 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

You sound like the Grand Inquisitor, Paul. It's dark and ugly.

Michael,

I'm sorry you feel that way about it.  I do not regard Marxism as a dark and ugly thing.  Some of my best friends have been Marxists.  

Communism is something very different, however.  Lee Harvey Oswald himself was quick to point out the difference between Marxism and Communism.  LHO always said he was a Marxist, but always denied that he was a Communist.   We have him saying this on film.

Marxism has different nuances, also.  Some Marxists are not boneheads -- others may be.   It is possible, for example, to study Karl Marx as a preparatory to study Dialectics in general, or as an introduction to the Philosophy of GWF Hegel.  In other words, it's an intellectual pursuit. 

It would be very wrong -- and I think we agree here -- to try to start another McCarthyist purge in the USA.   Accusing Obama of Marxism was tried by Sarah Palin -- and that flopped.

Yet at the same time, the blanket accusations of the CIA, or Ruth Paine, or Allen Dulles, or LBJ, or J. Edgar Hoover -- as JFK killers -- has gone on for 50 years now, and it has failed miserably -- it is old and tired.  We need a new approach. 

Can we really omit a discussion of Marxism from a discussion of Lee Harvey Oswald?  Is that even possible in US History today?

If I was a teenage Marxist, I certainly wouldn't be ashamed of it.   It's part of Cold War History in the USA.  It remains relevant in the discussion, IMHO.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited January 20, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

On 1/17/2017 at 0:05 PM, Paul Trejo said:

 

In his 1988 manuscript, THE AMLASH LEGACY, David Atlee Phillips would say...

 

Phillips' unpublished manuscript is proof of NOTHING. NOTHING is verified, it never was published and it remains to be seen if ANY of it is true.

Yet you seem to take it as the Voice from Heaven, revealing all.

How do you KNOW that it's absolutely true?  Or is that just a leap of faith on your part?  This is The Education Forum. Educate us as to how you have PROVED Phillips' unpublished manuscript to be true. You say it's fiction, then in the next breath, you claim it's all true.  Are you sure you know WHAT you believe?

[Michael Clark]

57 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Phillips' unpublished manuscript is proof of NOTHING. NOTHING is verified, it never was published and it remains to be seen if ANY of it is true.

Yet you seem to take it as the Voice from Heaven, revealing all.

How do you KNOW that it's absolutely true?  Or is that just a leap of faith on your part?  This is The Education Forum. Educate us as to how you have PROVED Phillips' unpublished manuscript to be true. You say it's fiction, then in the next breath, you claim it's all true.  Are you sure you know WHAT you believe?

Agreed, Phillips was, foremost, a propaganda and disinformation guy. To use that story, a novel, in an effort to piece together the story that DAP is trying to hide is....... I don't know how to put it. I will say, Paul, that if it didn't work with your Walker-did-it CT, I would bet that you would not have used DAP's Amlash Legacy. It really has no place here. DAP never admitted to being Maurice Bishop, something that you admit. Why use his Novel.?

From Sparticus::

According to Larry Hancock, the author of Someone Would Have Talked, just before his death Phillips told Kevin Walsh, an investigator with the House Select Committee on Assassinations: "My final take on the assassination is there was a conspiracy, likely including American intelligence officers." (Some books wrongly quote Phillips as saying: "My private opinion is that JFK was done in by a conspiracy, likely including rogue American intelligence people.")

Jeff Morley also confirms Kevin Walsh's statement:

"I met Kevin a few times and liked him immediately for his frank and friendly style. He told me the remarkable story of how retired CIA officer David Atlee Phillips had confided to him his private view that JFK had been killed by a conspiracy “likely involving U.S. intelligence officers.”

http://jfkfacts.org/rip-kevin-walsh-catalyst-for-jfk-disclosure/#more-2258

 

Edited January 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

deleted. Duplicate

Edited January 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Phillips' unpublished manuscript is proof of NOTHING. NOTHING is verified, it never was published and it remains to be seen if ANY of it is true.

Yet you seem to take it as the Voice from Heaven, revealing all.

How do you KNOW that it's absolutely true?  Or is that just a leap of faith on your part?  This is The Education Forum. Educate us as to how you have PROVED Phillips' unpublished manuscript to be true. You say it's fiction, then in the next breath, you claim it's all true.  Are you sure you know WHAT you believe?

Mark,

You're overstating your case.  First and foremost, David Atlee Phillips' unpublished manuscript, THE AMLASH LEGACY (1988), was a work of fiction -- and that has already been stated.

Secondly, it is important that David Atlee Phillips was a genuine CIA agent, and he was known partly for his work on AMLASH.   Although it is a work of fiction, it is also the work of a CIA agent writing about something that he knew more about than the average fiction writer.

Thirdly, I certainly DON'T take it as a Voice from Heaven.  It is a CLUE.  It is an important clue, because it was written by a CIA Agent who knew a lot about AMLASH, and he is talking about it as somebody who knows what he's talking about.

Fourth, I have NEVER ever said that the contents of this work of fiction is "absolutely true," or even "partially true."   As I repeatedly said -- it is a work of FICTION.

Yet -- how many works of fiction are based on true stories?  How many works of fiction are rooted in autobiographical circumstances?  It is, after all, a fact that David Atlee Phillips did work on the AMLASH project, is it not?  

So -- I take it as a clue -- and even an IMPORTANT clue regarding Lee Harvey Oswald, because of those facts, and also because David Atlee Phillips, in THE AMLASH LEGACY (1988) speaks about Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans, in a Fake FPCC!  

It was Jim Garrison himself who revealed to the world that the FPCC in New Orleans with which Oswald actually worked was nothing more than a Fake there at 544 Camp Street.  So, David Atlee Phillips, to that degree, also agrees with Jim Garrison.  So there's that.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited January 21, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

19 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mark,

You're overstating your case.  First and foremost, David Atlee Phillips' unpublished manuscript, THE AMLASH LEGACY (1988), was a work of fiction -- and that has already been stated.

Secondly, it is important that David Atlee Phillips was a genuine CIA agent, and he was known partly for his work on AMLASH.   Although it is a work of fiction, it is also the work of a CIA agent writing about something that he knew more about than the average fiction writer.

Thirdly, I certainly DON'T take it as a Voice from Heaven.  It is a CLUE.  It is an important clue, because it was written by a CIA Agent who knew a lot about AMLASH, and he is talking about it as somebody who knows what he's talking about.

Fourth, I have NEVER ever said that the contents of this work of fiction is "absolutely true," or even "partially true."   As I repeatedly said -- it is a work of FICTION.

Yet -- how many works of fiction are based on true stories?  How many works of fiction are rooted in autobiographical circumstances?  It is, after all, a fact that David Atlee Phillips did work on the AMLASH project, is it not?  

So -- I take it as a clue -- and even an IMPORTANT clue regarding Lee Harvey Oswald, because of those facts, and also because David Atlee Phillips, in THE AMLASH LEGACY (1988) speaks about Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans, in a Fake FPCC!  

It was Jim Garrison himself who revealed to the world that the FPCC in New Orleans with which Oswald actually worked was nothing more than a Fake there at 544 Camp Street.  So, David Atlee Phillips, to that degree, also agrees with Jim Garrison.  So there's that.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

So you want to have it both ways.  It's fiction, but it's TRUE fiction, in your world.  That's the ONLY explanation that makes sense.  You acknowledge that it's fiction, but you believe it. 

That is the definition of "cognitive dissonance."

 

[Paul Brancato]

Paul Trejo - blah blah blah. A work of fiction from a CIA master propagandist. 

[Paul Trejo]

14 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

So you want to have it both ways.  It's fiction, but it's TRUE fiction, in your world.  That's the ONLY explanation that makes sense.  You acknowledge that it's fiction, but you believe it. 

That is the definition of "cognitive dissonance."

Mark,

So, what is your conclusion?  You don't believe that writers can include autobiographical situations in their works of fiction?   

Or is your conclusion really that you would prefer to believe that David Atlee Phillips was part of a CIA conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and you won't consider any other alternatives?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

33 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mark,

So, what is your conclusion?  You don't believe that writers can include autobiographical situations in their works of fiction?   

Or is your conclusion really that you would prefer to believe that David Atlee Phillips was part of a CIA conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and you won't consider any other alternatives?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I know that you did not address me, but I'll chime in.

You are posing an equivalence, and you pose it is a necessary equivalence. The first part is ridiculous because it's truth is a law of logic to bolster your argument.

Of course it is POSSIBLE that autobiographical situation CAN be imbedded in works of fiction.

It does not follow that DAP was part of any illegal domestic conspiracy.

It is also possible, and probable in most any case that fictions can and are imbedded in many purportedly factual autobiographies. Everyone is liable to and capable of believing their own BS and personal myth.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Paul Trejo]

7 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I know that you did not address me, but I'll chime in.

You are posing an equivalence, and you pose it is a necessary equivalence. The first part is ridiculous because it's truth is a law of logic to bolster your argument.

Of course it is POSSIBLE that autobiographical situation CAN be imbedded in works of fiction.

It does not follow that DAP was part of any illegal domestic conspiracy.

It is also possible, and probable in most any case that fictions can and are imbedded in many purportedly factual autobiography. Everyone is liable and capable of believing their own BS and personal myth.

Michael,

It's not an equivalence.   What I'm noting is the well-known FACT that many fiction writers commonly use autobiographical situations in their fiction.

It's certainly not a PROOF that this is what David Atlee Phillips was doing in his unpublished manuscript, The AMLASH Legacy (1988).  But it does open the possibility.   Phillips was factually involved in the CIA project called AMLASH.

On the contrary -- the CIA-did-it CTers here want to slam the door shut on that sheer possibility, because they prefer the fantasy that the CIA killed JFK, and they are uncomfortable with any alternative CT's.   That's how I see it.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

You demean yourself by referring to those that disagree with you CIA did it CT's, and calling their ideas fantasy, or their lack of 'proof' a failure on their part. You just keep repeating your insults and faulty logic for some bizarre reasons.