Jump to content
The Education Forum

Operation Mockingbird


John Simkin

Recommended Posts

There is a new biography of William Harvey by Bayard Stockton (Flawed Patriot: The Rise and Fall of CIA Legend Bill Harvey). Yesterday, CIA asset Don Bohning (AMCARBON-3) wrote a review for the Miami Herald:

It's hard to imagine even John le Carré or Eric Ambler, those masters of the espionage thriller, dreaming up a fictional character to match Bill Harvey, a real life, gun-toting, heavy drinking, onetime FBI agent turned Central Intelligence Agency operative. Nor could they have conjured up a better story line than Harvey's career in the CIA, where he oversaw construction of the Berlin Tunnel that monitored Soviet communications, exposed Kim Philby as a Moscow spy and directed ZRRifle, the CIA's political assassination program, euphemistically known as "executive action.''

There is no evidence that anyone was ever assassinated under the program, although Fidel Castro was among its prime targets. Harvey also headed Task Force W, the CIA's component of Operation Mongoose, Jack and Bobby Kennedy's post-Bay of Pigs program to unseat Castro.

Bayard Stockton's fascinating biography offers intrigue for a wide range of espionage and conspiracy buffs. A former CIA operative, he worked in Berlin under Harvey in the 1950s, before becoming Newsweek bureau chief in Bonn, then London and, eventually, a freelance foreign correspondent in Greece and the Middle East. He died in California last July after completing final revisions to the manuscript.

While the tale of the Berlin Tunnel is mesmerizing, South Floridians are likely to be most interested in the several chapters on Cuba, although they are among the weakest portions of the book, apparently because of the author's unfamiliarity with the subject. Still, there is far more to commend than criticize in this riveting account.

One of the more intriguing chapters recounts the 15-year relationship and friendship between Harvey and Johnny Rosselli, a mob figure recruited for two unsuccessful CIA assassination attempts against Castro. ''The intangible that brought the two closest together,'' writes Stockton, 'was their shared intense dislike of Bobby Kennedy. Bobby had betrayed the [Kennedy] family's debt to the Mafia in particularly vicious ways. Harvey, for his part, was appalled by the Kennedys' wholly unprofessional need to make Cuba a matter of personal revenge, regardless of the cost.''

Stockton notes that the Harvey-Rosselli relationship fueled speculation ''that Harvey was somehow involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.'' As with so many books written about that period, Flawed Patriot will provide additional fodder for the conspiracy crowd but certainly won't satisfy them. Stockton concludes that even after more than four decades "it must be said that as yet no convincing evidence suggests that the assassination was anything more sinister than what it appears to have been - a one-man hit on the president of the United States.''

Harvey, an Indiana-born iconoclast, never quite fit in with the Ivy Leaguers and other Northeasterners who dominated the early days of the CIA. With his penchant for martinis and firearms, his eventual downfall was inevitable. It came during the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis in a heated dispute with Bobby Kennedy over Harvey's dispatch of Cuban exile infiltration teams into Cuba. Harvey was subsequently exiled to Rome as CIA station chief, where his drinking problem worsened and forced his retirement, returning home to Indiana where he died in June 1976.

''Harvey's story sounds incongruous when stacked against the political figures who are identified with the latter-day CIA and also incongruous when America's enemies today are elusive members of cultures far different from the northern Europeans we faced in Bill's day,'' Stockton concludes. Harvey "was always a nonconformist to the max, and he paid for his noncomformity, but not until he had taught a lot of people a lot of things, some of which, it is alleged, are still being taught in obscure places.''

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/enter...ks/16147268.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 297
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

New heights of free market Stalinism were reached today by the NYT.

They wrote a very, very, very long article about Pinochet. It must have approached 4,000 words.

There was not a single sentence in the US role in the Coup d'etat. There was a dependent clause: in reference to the coup, they typed"which the US governemnt supported"

That was it.

This about a coup that simply would never have happened without the CIA. Then they mentioned a "period of instability" between 1970-73, while failing to mention that this was caused by a series of CIA destabalizing operations, including a national truckers' strike and the assassintion of general Schneider.

The Times has always censored the Chile story, but today the airbrush was blasting away as I have never ever seen it before. I have read almost virtually every article the Times has printed concerning Latin America since 1986.

What is to be done? If the US media is not deserving of credibility, what are you doing to lower it in the minds of your fellow citizens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New heights of free market Stalinism were reached today by the NYT.

They wrote a very, very, very long article about Pinochet. It must have approached 4,000 words.

There was not a single sentence in the US role in the Coup d'etat. There was a dependent clause: in reference to the coup, they typed"which the US governemnt supported"

That was it.

This about a coup that simply would never have happened without the CIA. Then they mentioned a "period of instability" between 1970-73, while failing to mention that this was caused by a series of CIA destabalizing operations, including a national truckers' strike and the assassintion of general Schneider.

The Times has always censored the Chile story, but today the airbrush was blasting away as I have never ever seen it before. I have read almost virtually every article the Times has printed concerning Latin America since 1986.

What is to be done? If the US media is not deserving of credibility, what are you doing to lower it in the minds of your fellow citizens?

What is more, the New York Times paid Google so that its page came first in a search for "Augusto Pinochet".

The unpaid number one is Wikipedia. My Spartacus page is at number six. I have given it a link from Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia entry also failed to mention the CIA involvement in the overthrow of Allende. I have therefore edited the Wikipedia page to say the following:

In 1970 Salvador Allende, the leader of the Chilean Socialist Party, was elected president. He therefore became the first Marxist in the world to gain power in a free democratic election. He attempted to build a socialist society but was opposed by business interests.

Allende's decide to take action to redistribute wealth and land in Chile. Wage increases of around 40 per cent were introduced. At the same time companies were not allowed to increase prices. The copper industry was nationalized. So also were the banks. Allende also restored diplomatic relations with Cuba, China and the German Democratic Republic.

The CIA arranged for Michael V. Townley to be sent to Chile under the alias of Kenneth W. Enyart. He was accompanied by Aldo Vera Serafin of the Secret Army Organization (SAO). Townley now came under the control of David Atlee Phillips who had been asked to lead a special task force assigned to remove Allende.

The CIA attempted to persuade Chile's Chief of Staff General Rene Schneider, to overthrow Allende. He refused and on 22nd October, 1970, his car was ambushed. Schneider drew a gun to defend himself, and was shot point-blank several times. He was rushed to hospital, but he died three days later. Military courts in Chile found that Schneider's death was caused by two military groups, one led by Roberto Viaux and the other by Camilo Valenzuela. It was claimed that the CIA was providing support for both groups.

Allende's attempts to build a socialist society was opposed by business interests. Later, Henry Kissinger admitted that in September 1970, President Richard Nixon ordered him to organize a coup against Allende's government. A CIA document written just after Allende was elected said: "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup" and "it is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG (United States government) and American hand be well hidden."

David Atlee Phillips set Michael V. Townley the task of organizing two paramilitary action groups Orden y Libertad (Order and Freedom) and Protecion Comunal y Soberania (Common Protection and Sovereignty). Townley also established an arson squad that started several fires in Santiago. Townley also mounted a smear campaign against General Carlos Prats, the head of the Chilean Army. Prats resigned on 21st August, 1973.

I have also inserted the following at a later stage in the Wikipedia biography:

The CIA gave Michael V. Townley the task was to deal with those dissents who had fled Chile after General Augusto Pinochet gained power. This included General Carlos Prats who was writing his memoirs in Argentina. Donald Freed argues in Death in Washington: The Murder of Orlando Letelier that: "On September 30, 1974, shortly after the first anniversary of the violent overthrow of the Allende government, Townley and a team of assassins murdered Carlos Prats and his wife in Buenos Aires. Their auto was exploded by a bomb."

Promoted to the rank of major by General Juan Manuel Contreras Townley made regular visits to the United States in 1975 to meet with Rolando Otero and other members of the White Hand group. In September 1975, Townley's death squad struck again. Former Chilean vice-president Bernardo Leighton and his wife were gunned down in Rome by local fascists working with DINA.

On 18th September, 1976, Orlando Letelier, who served as foreign minister under Salvador Allende, was traveling to work at the Institute of Policy Studies in Washington when a bomb was ignited under his car. Letelier and Ronni Moffitt, a 25 year old woman who was campaigning for democracy in Chile, both died of their injuries.

The director of the CIA, George H. W. Bush, was quickly told that DINA and several of his contract agents were involved in the assassination. However, he leaked a story to members of Operation Mockingbird that attempted to cover-up the role that the CIA and DINA had played in the killings. Jeremiah O'Leary in the Washington Star (8th October, 1976) wrote: "The right-wing Chilean junta had nothing to gain and everything to lose by the assassination of a peaceful and popular socialist leader." Newsweek added: "The CIA has concluded that the Chilean secret police was not involved." (11th October).

William F. Buckley also took part in this disinformation campaign and on 25th October wrote: "U.S. investigators think it unlikely that Chile would risk with an action of this kind the respect it has won with great difficulty during the past year in many Western countries, which before were hostile to its policies." According to Donald Freed Buckley had been providing disinformation for the Pinochet government since October 1974. He also unearthed information that William Buckley's brother, James Buckley, met with Michael V. Townley and Guillermo Novo in New York City just a week before Orlando Letelier was assassinated.

The FBI eventually became convinced that Michael V. Townley was organized the assassination of Orlando Letelier. In 1978 Chile agreed to extradite him to the United States. Townley confessed he had hired five anti-Castro Cubans exiles to booby-trap Letelier's car. Guillermo Novo, Ignacio Novo, Virgilio Paz Romero, Dionisio Suárez, and Alvin Ross Díaz were eventually indicted for the crime.

Townley agreed to provide evidence against these men in exchange for a deal that involved him pleading guilty to a single charge of conspiracy to commit murder and being given a ten-year sentence. His wife, Mariana Callejas also agreed to testify, in exchange for not being prosecuted.

On the 9th January, 1979, the trial of Guillermo Novo, Ignacio Novo and Alvin Ross Díaz began in Washington. General Pinochet refused to allow Virgilio Paz Romero and Dionisio Suárez, two DINA officers, to be extradited. All three were found guilty of murder. Guillermo Novo and Alvin Ross were sentenced to life imprisonment. Ignacio Novo received eighty years. Soon after the trial Michael Townley was freed under the Witness Protection Program.

It will be interesting to see how long it stays there.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDpinochet.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was one interesting reference to Pinochet and the CIA in the Boston Globe (12th December, 2006):

In America, the danger is not that too much is remembered of the Pinochet era but that too much of the American role in helping to foment those old horrors may be forgotten.

There is a deceptively comforting story line that sequesters the present from the past, disguising any continuity between the regime change produced in Chile on Sept. 11, 1973, and other American experiments of that nature. In that reassuring historical narrative, Pinochet was perhaps guilty of trampling on democratic niceties and of kidnapping, torturing, and killing socialists and Marxists , but he represented, after all, the lesser of two evils. The alternative evil was commonly depicted as Soviet influence, left-wing radicalism, the expropriation of private property, and falling pro-American dominoes across Latin America.

The former US ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick, who passed away three days before Pinochet, once propounded a theory to justify American backing for military dictatorships in Latin America. Her rationale rested upon a distinction between totalitarian states like those in the communist world and mere authoritarian regimes. The latter were supposed to be more tolerable because, in contrast to the communist states, they left open the possibility of eventually permitting a return to democracy. It was a theory that failed the test of time, as demonstrated by the nearly bloodless implosion of communism and the flowering of democracy in Poland, Hungary, and the former Czechoslovakia.

Reflecting the spirit of such Cold War notions, a CIA document from the month after Allende was elected president on Sept. 11, 1970, says, "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup" and "it is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG" - US government - "and American hand be well hidden." Whatever the details of US complicity in Pinochet's eventual seizure of power, Americans must not forget that their own democratic leaders share complicity in the disappearances, torture, and killings perpetrated after 1973 by their man in Chile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Eugene Meyer who was head of the Fed was the father of Katherine (Meyer) Graham. As I recall, Meyer owned the Times-Herald and bought the Washington Post, merged the two papers, and essentially turned them over to his daughter's husband Phil Graham after WW2 when Phil Graham returned from Air Force Intelligence with some of his cronies, including Russell Wiggins, Chalmers Roberts, and others. I worked at the Post for about five years in the 1960s during the JFK assassination and the Bobby Baker case. I understood that Phil Graham was snuffed, not a suicide. Assistant Managing Editor Larry Stern, with whom I worked, along with Les Whitten, was later snuffed while jogging on a beach at Martha's Vineyard, exactly the same MO as the snuffing of Norbert Schlei while jogging on the beach at Malibu -- the "beesting" on the bare leg, followed by the coronary. Similar to the compressed air gun attacks on the Bulgarian expat BBC employees, but using a fast acting seasnake venom on Schlei and Stern, while the Bulgarians were hit with the much slower acting enhanced Ricin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eugene Meyer who was head of the Fed was the father of Katherine (Meyer) Graham. As I recall, Meyer owned the Times-Herald and bought the Washington Post, merged the two papers, and essentially turned them over to his daughter's husband Phil Graham after WW2 when Phil Graham returned from Air Force Intelligence with some of his cronies, including Russell Wiggins, Chalmers Roberts, and others. I worked at the Post for about five years in the 1960s during the JFK assassination and the Bobby Baker case. I understood that Phil Graham was snuffed, not a suicide. Assistant Managing Editor Larry Stern, with whom I worked, along with Les Whitten, was later snuffed while jogging on a beach at Martha's Vineyard, exactly the same MO as the snuffing of Norbert Schlei while jogging on the beach at Malibu -- the "beesting" on the bare leg, followed by the coronary. Similar to the compressed air gun attacks on the Bulgarian expat BBC employees, but using a fast acting seasnake venom on Schlei and Stern, while the Bulgarians were hit with the much slower acting enhanced Ricin.

Do you know why Larry Stern was murdered?

Les Whitten also worked with Jack Anderson. What is your opinion of Anderson? He seemed to be very selective about his investigations. The LBJ tapes show that Anderson was willing to smear people like Don Reynolds who was trying to expose corruption in government. He also did the same thing to Owen Brewster when he was chairman of the Senate War Investigating Committee. Anderson was paid to do this my Howard Hughes. However, it was clear that he was also protecting other businessmen who made their fortunes from the war, including John McCone, who worked very closely with Tommy Concoran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walter Jenkins had been arrested repeatedly for soliciting, but other Washington Post police reporters new to the beat didn’t recognize his name or associate him with J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ, Bobby Baker, and Joe Alsop. So, it was only when the senior police reporter, who had been covering police headquarters for many years, spotted Jenkins’ name on a soliciting arrest that it hit the fan. The Washington Post did publish the story immediately, but only after Al Friendly and Russ Wiggins cleared the treatment of it with LBJ over the phone, as I described. Note also that Wiggins, Friendly, columnist Chalmers Roberts, and other senior Post management and staff had served in the same WW2 intelligence unit with Phil Graham, so when Graham took over management of the Washington Post from Kay Graham’s father, Eugene Meyer, you had a perfect example of Operation Mockingbird at work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have any information on why Phil Graham and Larry Stern were "snuffed"?

Larry was a close friend of mine, and became assistant managing editor of the WashPost. He was by far their star investigative reporter, and made a lot of enemies during the LTV scandal, the Bobby Baker scandal, and many others. He knew who had been involved in the JFK assassination. It was because he was totally straight (and a true champion of the underdog) that he was not chosen to become managing editor. Eventually, it was decided to get rid of him, so the Agency (or the Enterprise – meaning the privatized part of the Agency) had Larry shot with a compressed air rifle firing a tiny dart, the same method used on Schlei, and on many others. The choice of poisons varies, depending on the objective. This almost invisible dart has a much greater range than the jeweler’s watch bearing fired by the equivalent Soviet assassination weapon, used on the Bulgarian emigres. If you find this hard to believe, look closely at the snuffing of Dr. Richard Kelly in UK. As to Phil Graham, he was up to his ears in the manipulation of JFK in behalf of LBJ and the Robber Barons – as you’ve shown. Like several other big players, he began to go bonkers with the burden of what he had been involved in, was drinking heavily, whoring around so that Kay Graham was mightily pissed, and there were many of us at the WashPost who concluded that his purported suicide did not wash. It was an assisted suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I received my copy of E. Howard Hunt’s American Spy this morning. Much to my surprise he admits to the existence of Operation Mockingbird (I believe he is the first CIA operative to admit that this highly secret operation existed). He defines it as “a highly successful project with the objective of having direct influence over the American media”.

He also explains the role played by Frank Wisner and Cord Meyer in Operation Mockingbird. He also admits that the killing of Mary Pinchot Meyer was a “professional hit”.

Hunt admits that Henry Luce and Philip Graham played an important role in Operation Mockingbird. However, he rejects that they were in the pay of the CIA and acted in the way that they did because they were “extreme patriots who saw themselves as soldiers in America’s war against the spread of global Communism”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John

I just finished reading E. Howard Hunt's, American Spy. I was prepared to not like the book. Yet, I did like it. I believe he made a few errors, although most books do have errors. I also saw that he had evidently read some of the JFK Conspiracy type books. He seemed to have most of the facts as we know them. Even though I am not as confident in some of his own conclusions. Still how many other CIA persons have ever admitted a conspiracy at all?

He even tells who he believes was behind it all, although he also claims to not know who it was and that he had nothing whatsoever to do with any of it. He was quite aware of the accusations against him....which he felt was very hurtful. Although, I personally remain unconvinced.

He also told his version of the Watergate Caper, but I just don't know what is truth and what is not. He has Douglas Caddy working directly with the Mullin Co. and yet Douglas has said in another thread, this wasn't true.

It is not easy to know how truthful or untruthful that Howard was in this book. But I don't actually believe he was just a Patriot as he wants to claim. Still I feel that he did tell some truths and i did enjoy reading it.

________

Dixie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this reference to the key Opertation Mockingbird figure James Reston and his son James Reston Jr. in a footnote to a Jim Hougan article that connects Jonestown and the CIA. This article can be found on the CIA and religous Cults thread.

Apparently, with Mockingbird, its safe to go 'round Kool-aid- less! (although Hougan says it really was an off brand mix, not Kool-aid... perhaps at the discreet request of General Foods? :D )

---------- (footnote 62)

In this connection, an interesting coincidence concerns the presence of New York Times reporter James Reston at the Hilton. He was there to cover the Mikoyan visit, as well as the Soviet exhibition, and it seems fair to say that, in a literal sense, at least, he must have crossed paths with Jim Jones.

It is ironic, then, that nearly twenty years later, his son should one day write a book (Our Father Who Art In Hell) about the decline and fall of the Peoples Temple. And in that book, a peculiar story is told:

"In December, 1978, James Reston, Jr. (met) a journalist friend at the Park Hotel in Georgetown. The journalist announced ominously that he now knew the full story behind Jonestown. But he would not write it. He would not tell his editors he knew it. He would forget it and flee Guyana as soon as possible. He told Reston the name of his informant. "'He will contact you at your hotel. If you want it, you will get the full story. I have just heard it, and I've sent the man away. If I were you, I wouldn't take it either. It will make you the most celebrated writer in America, and you will die for it.'

"Reston felt a nervous laugh rising from his belly and controlled it."

Reston seems not to have pursued the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John

I just finished reading E. Howard Hunt's, American Spy. I was prepared to not like the book. Yet, I did like it. I believe he made a few errors, although most books do have errors. I also saw that he had evidently read some of the JFK Conspiracy type books. He seemed to have most of the facts as we know them. Even though I am not as confident in some of his own conclusions. Still how many other CIA persons have ever admitted a conspiracy at all?

He even tells who he believes was behind it all, although he also claims to not know who it was and that he had nothing whatsoever to do with any of it. He was quite aware of the accusations against him....which he felt was very hurtful. Although, I personally remain unconvinced.

He also told his version of the Watergate Caper, but I just don't know what is truth and what is not. He has Douglas Caddy working directly with the Mullin Co. and yet Douglas has said in another thread, this wasn't true.

It is not easy to know how truthful or untruthful that Howard was in this book. But I don't actually believe he was just a Patriot as he wants to claim. Still I feel that he did tell some truths and i did enjoy reading it.

________

Dixie

Hi DD,

How ya doin?

Agreed on all points.

Some of the apparent mistakes - I don't think are mistakes. Either meant to confuse, or maybe hidden truth. Ie. EHH twice mentions that Vechina met with Phillips and Oswald in MEXICO CITY - which is either a mistaken reference to the Dallas meeting in August, 1963, or refers to another meeting of the three in Mexico City. Or it's ment to confuse.

Just as Hunt removes his son St. John from the disposal of the Watergate typewriter, most likely to protect him, he probably did the same for others - like Phillips, Artime, et al.

Hunt says he read Nightwatch in prison while bunkmates with Sturgis, and was upset that DAPhillips wrongfully claimed he wined and dined some Guatemalans, and confronted DAP about the slight when they met for the last time. Yet he doesn't dispute the KNIGHT or BISHOP story.

He also defends his claim of not meeting Sturgis until 1970 when a charasmatic soldier of fortune named Hank Sturgis is a character in his 1949 pulp paperback novel Bimini Run.

Also remember that the book was previewed by the CIA Publications Review Board, who would have mentioned mistakes to the author if they didn't want him to be embarrased by such typos or basic mistakes.

The book deserves its own thread, though its Mockingbird revealations are probably more significant than his JFK stuff.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Oswald’s Ghost was shown on BBC television last week. On the surface it did appear to be a balanced documentary. For example, the people interviewed made comments that could be used by supporters and opponents of the Warren Commission. However, I believe the film was a strong defence of the official view that Oswald was the lone gunman.

Robert Stone was being honest when he said that his objective was “to explore the effect that conspiracy theories have had on the culture.” He also admitted that he did have a “point of view”. Of course, every artist as a point of view about the subject he is addressing. The expression of that point of view can take many forms. Stone’s style is very different from that of Vincent Bugliosi. That is why Stone’s film is far more dangerous than Bugliosi’s book.

One way that a documentary maker gives the impression of balance is to use an equal number of people being interviewed who appear to be providing evidence for both sides. For example, at different times in the film Josiah Thompson, Edward Epstein, Norman Mailer, Mark Lane, Tom Hayden, and Todd Gitlin said things that could be interpreted as supporting a conspiracy theory. On the other hand, Priscilla McMillan, Dan Rather, Hugh Aynesworth, and Robert Dallek appeared to be supporters of the Warren Commission.

As a conspiracy theorist, the only one I was comfortable with was Mark Lane. If Stone wanted to make a balanced film he would have included recent researchers who have written about the case such as Larry Hancock, Gerald McKnight, Lamar Waldron, David Talbot, Vincent Palamara, William Law, etc. They would have also used expert witnesses like Doug Horne and David W. Mantik. But this did not happen: instead they used authors who had written about the case a long time ago. There was a good reason for this. Stone’s main objective was to explain why the vast majority of Americans believe that Oswald was not a lone gunman. This is what Stone means when he says the objective of the film was “to explore the effect that conspiracy theories have had on the culture.” This is a major problem for filmmakers like Stone. The majority of those watching the film will believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. Therefore, the film has to begin with that stance. This is why the early part of the documentary features the testimony of authors who wrote early conspiracy books such as Rush to Judgement (1966), Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth (1966) and Six Seconds in Dallas (1967). This establishes the idea that the documentary maker is being fair to conspiracy theorists. It also explains why such a high percentage of the population doubt the conclusions of the Warren Commission.

It is also noticeable that there is little reference to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The fact that the HSCA also came up with a report that suggested that a conspiracy had taken place was highly inconvenient to the motives of Stone. The documentary then moves on to Oliver Stone’s JFK that it blames on the increase in the number of people who believed in a conspiracy during the late 1990s.

Robert Stone uses an old trick employed by professional boxers. They keep their best work until the end of the round. This is based on the idea that the judges take far more notice of the last minute than the previous two minutes.

In the last section of the documentary, Mark Lane drops out of the film. Josiah Thompson and Edward Epstein remain but only to say that they have lost interest in the case or to admit they have changed their mind about Oswald’s guilt. Tom Hayden and Todd Gitlin are used to highlight the political reasons why people wanted to believe in a conspiracy.

The final segment is devoted to Norman Mailer. He then attempts to explain the psychological and cultural reasons why people still believe that Oswald did not act alone. This is important as it reassures those who up to this point still believe in a conspiracy. Stone knows that the evidence alone will not move the viewer from being a CT to a LN. However, a carefully made film can persuade the viewer that their response has been emotional rather than intellectual.

The message of this section of the film has almost become a cliché of anti-conspiracy documentaries. It is as if they are working from guidelines produced by Operation Mockingbird. The message is that it is understandable that people still believe that the Warren Commission got it wrong as they find it impossible to grasp the fact that an insignificant person such as Oswald was able to kill a president, who is all powerful and well-protected, on his own. However, it is argued that in this case, this is just what did happen.

I fear that most of the people who watched “Oswald’s Ghost” would have ended up by being convinced by the Stone/Mailer thesis. Of course, films like this have no effect on those who know a great deal about the case. But these people are in a small minority. This film was not made for people like us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
This article is a Mockingbird Must! Contains great stuff on Fairfield Foundation and varied and sundry Foundations of Left-Gatekeeping! Its not realy about Cindy Sheehan, but about the fuction of The Nation.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/nati-j19.shtml

Nate,

Did you learn whether the relevant foundation is Fairfield or Farfield, or both?

Thanks,

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...