Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Russ Baker

Members
  • Content count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Russ Baker

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,692 profile views
  1. Obama Fights JFK Records Release

    >Are any documents specifically being sought out of those that remain classified?< Yes. All of them.
  2. How much money has GHW Bush stolen over time?

    Because of the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” principle; they have/had a habit of making false/far fetched/unreliable claims. Both made all sorts of claims based on nothing but supposed confidential sources. This is questionable when it comes from a MSM journalist who often has an editor who is aware of the source's true identity and cite other evidence but very questionable when it comes from obscure sources. Skolnick spread all sorts of BS regarding the Dorothy Hunt crash and other incidents. Stich claimed to have tapes recorded by CIA agents of Rockefeller speaking to Hoover in which they implicated themselves and others in the JFK assassination. Supposedly he gave the tapes to Larry McDonald just before the congressman was killed in the KAL 007 shootdown, but never explained why he failed to make copies of the supposed tapes or gave them to a far-right outcast from another state. Too make a long story short this was pure BS. And apparently it was him who told Russ Baker that the 'other' “George Bush of the CIA” was a “coast and landing-beach analyst” when he said he was a “junior watch officer”. Nor do we have a rational explanation at to why more former agents confided in an obscure CT rather than journalists like Woodward or Hersh or even a more well known CT like Ruppert, why go through the risk if virtually no one will hear about what you nave say? I also don't trust former government agents or officials who milk their past service for much longer than they actually served, they tend to give good credible information at first but as with Shayler and Edmonds they almost inevitably start spouting nonsense after a while. I wouldn't be surprised if Stich's claims when he left the FAA in the 1960's were credible. The problem of people posting claims that certain things are BS is that they themselves may be guilty of ladling on more BS. For example, I don't know Stich and have never had any communication with him. He absolutely did NOT tell me anything about "the other George Bush" or about any subject, period. Beware of things that "apparently" or "supposedly" happened.
  3. As has been reported previously on this site, my investigative history of the Bush family, Family of Secrets, has four JFK assassination-related chapters -- scores of revelations, backed up by documents and interviews. Clearly, many of those posting comments here are not familiar with that material.
  4. Strength and weakness of “Family of Secrets”

    ....if they are not right wingers, would you consider them to be neutral, "centrists", politically? In John's case, I attributed his opinion, here, http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0#entry169520 as resulting from his inability, as a non-American, to completely understand the depths those republicans will go to to alter the history. I believe it is as important, or even more to them as it was to GHW Bush and Reagan to keep up the pretense that Vietnam was a "noble war." I recall reading a post or two of yours where you stated that you were once comfortable living a largely politically unaware life where you just happened to be squarely situated among politically active folks who were to the right of center right...or words to that effect. You experienced an epiphany of sorts, and moved to the left of those circles, but you just posted what I assume to mean is the idea that the writing of Colodny and Rosen has influence on your opinion as to whether or not Nixon was a "victim." I wrote about Colodny in the post I posted a link to, above. Rosen voluntarily works for the republican propaganda outlet, Fox news. I don't see them as credible authors about Watergate events. They have background and motive to distort, and I think they've done that. If you've studied the Jack Abramoff network and activities to the extent I have, I think you would get an understanding that these republican "operatives" are extremely committed ideologically and have long and strong bonds. Rove and Abramoff came out of the "College Republicans" organization. Rove hired, just after the Florida coup put GW Bush in office in Jan., 2001, Abramoff's personal assistant, Susan Ralston, and installed her in an office, for the next seven years, just three doors down from Bush's west wing office. Just one example, of many. I'd be happy to discuss any example that Baker, Colodny, or Rosen writes about, that you want to raise. I think I am someone who is center left, if being center left amounts to having a strong skepticism towards our "one party with two right wings" political system, and of the fact that the press is compromised by the elite of our political system "owning the owners" of the major news media. Upton Sinclair exposed this fact in 1919 to 1921, and experienced it first hand in California during the summer of 1934. If the most influential authorities behind the idea that Nixon was a victim are Colodny and Rosen, it seems to me that this idea is not as compelling as one would expect. Colodny's premise tends to make John Dean out to be playing the "left wing" part that Oswald was cast in for the Kennedy assassination. Too pat, IMO...what you would expect to come from the investigative "journalism" offerings of right wing political extemists. Sir, I know for a fact that your characterization of Len Colodny as a conservative or Republican is way off base. And, obviously, if you had read my book "Family of Secrets" or my work over the years for such publications as The Nation, you would know that I cannot be characterized that way either. Of the four of us who have brought out parts of the new Watergate narrative, including Jim Hougan of "Secret Agenda", who wrote for the liberal Harper's magazine, only Rosen would be identified as a conservative. More importantly, to try and judge the research results of open-minded, serious researchers by slapping an ideological label on them is to do them a disservice.
  5. I have not had the opportunity to look extensively into the nature of the Crowley-Bush relationship. However, I take everything that former high-ranking Agency people with a grain of salt. Often, what they reveal is a case of what in tradecraft is called a "limited hangout," in which they provide nominally accurate revelations as cover for even more disturbing and important facts. I cannot believe that people like Crowley could talk to journalists as he did without some kind of approval. So, yes, it is certainly possible that he was being essentially truthful in revealing some kind of operational connection with George HW Bush while not revealing the true extent of it. In any case, I would be interested in hearing directly (not via bulletin board) from anyone who has documents or other information pertaining to this relationship. I can be contacted via this site or at www.familyofsecrets.com .
  6. His call establishes two pieces of information in confidential government files: that he was in Tyler, Texas, around the time of the assassination, but also that he was going out of his way to be helpful to assassination investigators (though as we can see, he was not actually being helpful at all, and his call was nothing but a red herring.) One needs to consider all of the peculiar Bush connections to the circle around Oswald, to the CIA at that time, to people in the motorcade, to the fact that Bush himself was in Dallas that day, as documented in multiple chapters in Family of Secrets. Certainly, any thorough investigation could have potentially uncovered those connections, and so it would not be surprising that his peculiar "confidential call" to the FBI would demonstrate, should it be necessary and should the document ever see the light of day, that he was interested only in doing the right thing. Wait a minute. We have the Big Picture down pretty good. But what about the peculiar details? Who was James Milton Parrott. What do we know about him besides him leaving the US Air Force for psychological reasons, enrolling at U. Houston, enlisting in the "Young Republicans," who today would be considered a terrorist organization considering all the dirty tricks that have been committed by their adhearants, and threatening the life of the President more than once, on the record, and calling attention to himself by picketing Dean Rusk when he visited the Rice Hotel, and stimulating Bush to call the FBI to warn them about this guy - some say he did this before the assassination - and today is said to be a Republican Leader in Harris County? I mean, who is James M. Parrott? Was he really a GOP Dirty Trickster who Bush dropped a dime on? Is he related to Thomas Parrott, the assistant to MacNamara and Gen. Taylor, who sat in on all the Cuban Coordinating Committee meetings that formed government policy on covert operations against Cuba? But it's not nothing. And if he is on record as saying, after the assassintion took place, that he was going to Dallas on 11/22/63 and would be staying that night at the Sheritan, then he is not at Dealey Plaza and that is not him in photos standing in front of the TSBD. Is that right? BK I researched that, and found no apparent connection between James Parrott and Thomas Parrott. As for Bush's statement that he was going to Dallas, I address the particulars of that in Family of Secrets--suggest you check it out. On the photo at the TSBD, it is impossible to say with certainty. Thanks Russ, Will do. BK Oh, And Russ, Did you get a make on the guy who gave a 11/22/63 alibi for Parrott? Kearnsky? Reynolds - 233 Red Ripple Road? Said he stopped by to visit Parrott at his house that afternoon. Thanks, BK Bill, I devote an entire chapter of Family of Secrets to this issue, with an exclusive interview with Kearney Reynolds. I must say that I am a little surprised by how many people on this forum like to ask questions of authors but don't want to spring for a copy of the book itself! We cannot do this sort of very difficult and time-consuming research if the very people who are most interested in the topic will not support our work.
  7. His call establishes two pieces of information in confidential government files: that he was in Tyler, Texas, around the time of the assassination, but also that he was going out of his way to be helpful to assassination investigators (though as we can see, he was not actually being helpful at all, and his call was nothing but a red herring.) One needs to consider all of the peculiar Bush connections to the circle around Oswald, to the CIA at that time, to people in the motorcade, to the fact that Bush himself was in Dallas that day, as documented in multiple chapters in Family of Secrets. Certainly, any thorough investigation could have potentially uncovered those connections, and so it would not be surprising that his peculiar "confidential call" to the FBI would demonstrate, should it be necessary and should the document ever see the light of day, that he was interested only in doing the right thing. Wait a minute. We have the Big Picture down pretty good. But what about the peculiar details? Who was James Milton Parrott. What do we know about him besides him leaving the US Air Force for psychological reasons, enrolling at U. Houston, enlisting in the "Young Republicans," who today would be considered a terrorist organization considering all the dirty tricks that have been committed by their adhearants, and threatening the life of the President more than once, on the record, and calling attention to himself by picketing Dean Rusk when he visited the Rice Hotel, and stimulating Bush to call the FBI to warn them about this guy - some say he did this before the assassination - and today is said to be a Republican Leader in Harris County? I mean, who is James M. Parrott? Was he really a GOP Dirty Trickster who Bush dropped a dime on? Is he related to Thomas Parrott, the assistant to MacNamara and Gen. Taylor, who sat in on all the Cuban Coordinating Committee meetings that formed government policy on covert operations against Cuba? But it's not nothing. And if he is on record as saying, after the assassintion took place, that he was going to Dallas on 11/22/63 and would be staying that night at the Sheritan, then he is not at Dealey Plaza and that is not him in photos standing in front of the TSBD. Is that right? BK I researched that, and found no apparent connection between James Parrott and Thomas Parrott. As for Bush's statement that he was going to Dallas, I address the particulars of that in Family of Secrets--suggest you check it out. On the photo at the TSBD, it is impossible to say with certainty.
  8. His call establishes two pieces of information in confidential government files: that he was in Tyler, Texas, around the time of the assassination, but also that he was going out of his way to be helpful to assassination investigators (though as we can see, he was not actually being helpful at all, and his call was nothing but a red herring.) One needs to consider all of the peculiar Bush connections to the circle around Oswald, to the CIA at that time, to people in the motorcade, to the fact that Bush himself was in Dallas that day, as documented in multiple chapters in Family of Secrets. Certainly, any thorough investigation could have potentially uncovered those connections, and so it would not be surprising that his peculiar "confidential call" to the FBI would demonstrate, should it be necessary and should the document ever see the light of day, that he was interested only in doing the right thing.
  9. I would be interested in receiving more information about Oltmans “trying to obtain audiences with prominent American politicians to warn them of various threats from communists and national liberation movements”. Of course, I did not mean that Oltmans’ left-wing journalist was “pro-communist”. Radicals in the 1960s and 1970s often took a liberation socialist position and were often very critical of communist regimes such as the Soviet Union. What interests me about Oltmans (De Mohrenschildt) claims against H. L. Hunt and the oil industry was that they mirrored what was said by Joachim Joesten (Oswald, Assassin or Fall Guy? and Thomas G. Buchanan (Who Killed Kennedy?) Both these books were published in 1964. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKjoesten.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbuchananT.htm As a result of these books being published the intelligence services engaged on a smear campaign against both these authors as being “communist agents”. We now know because of declassified documents that Mark Lane was also targeted in this way. In Plausible Denial (1991): More than a decade after the assassination, when I won a lawsuit against various police and spy organizations in the United States district court in Washington, D.C., pursuant to the order of the court, I received many long-suppressed documents. Among them was a top-secret CIA report. It stated that the CIA was deeply troubled by my work in questioning the conclusions of the Warren Report and that polls that had been taken revealed that almost half of the American people believed as I did. The report stated, "Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results." This "trend of opinion," the CIA said, "is a matter of concern" to "our organization." To counter developing opinion within the United States, the CIA suggested that steps be taken. It should be emphasized, the CIA said, that "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. The purpose of the CIA secret document was apparent. In this instance, there was no need for incisive analysis. The CIA report stated "The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for 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." The commission had been chosen in such a fashion so that it might subsequently be asserted that those who questioned its finding, by comparing the known facts to the false conclusions offered by the commission, might be said to be subversive. Who were these people who wished to throw suspicion upon the leaders of the land? The CIA report listed them as Mark Lane, Joachim Joesten, as well as a French writer, Leo Sauvage. Most of the criticism was directed at me. The CIA directed that this matter be discussed with "liaison and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)," instructing these persons "that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition." The CIA continued: "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." The CIA was quite specific about the means that should be employed to prevent criticism of the report: "Employ propaganda assets to answer 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 passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) 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 Edward Jay Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher Knebel article and Spectator piece for background." According to the CIA, my book, Rush to Judgment, was "much more difficult to answer as a whole." The agency document did not list any errors in the book. Just in case the book reviewers did not get the point, the CIA offered specific language that they might incorporate into their critiques. "Reviewers" of the 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." Among those who criticized Rush to Judgment and other books along lines similar to those suggested by the CIA were the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and, especially, Walter Cronkite and CBS. Among those who did not march in lockstep with the intelligence agencies' effort to destroy the First Amendment were the Houston Post; Norman Mailer, who reviewed Rush to Judgment in the United States and Len Deighton, who reviewed it in London. The question persists, in view of the elaborate and illegal program undertaken by the CIA to malign American citizens and to discourage publishers from printing dissents from the Warren Commission Report, as to the motivation for these efforts. Again, we turn to the CIA dispatch: "Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation." Yes, the CIA was directly involved and it did make its contribution to the investigation. What else the CIA did to constitute its "direct" involvement in the assassination was left unsaid by the authors of its report. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKlaneM.htm Is it possible that Oltmans is a victim of this same CIA smear campaign? Thanks, John. That material sent a chill down my spine. I've noticed that same approach of discrediting in at least one major media review of my book. In any case, as relates to Oltmans: as I said, I am not convinced of who/what he was. As I note in Family of Secrets, Oltmans was traveling to Dallas to speak to right-wing women's group auxiliaries, and that began BEFORE the assassination. That means he was in circles of interest at a sensitive moment. If he were simply a left-wing journalist, and an obscure foreign one at that, why were these groups eager to have him of all people come to Dallas in the months and years prior to the assassination in that city? At a minimum, such facts must be addressed before concluding that he was "smeared" for trying to tell the truth. There are many other curiosities about him--and people trying to get to the bottom of the JFK matter who dealt directly with him found him secretive, sometimes hostile, often incoherent. I certainly would not lump him in with Mark Lane or any of the others. Also, if you read his testimony to the House investigators, he can't seem to successfully utter a declarative statement that firmly establishes much of anything. If he was simply a journalist trying to get to the bottom of things, he was the Inspector Clouseau of journalists. Having said that, he may simply have been some combination of seemingly incompatible elements, values and loyalties, and a bit eccentric.
  10. John, I must respectfully disagree with your statement that Oltmans reflected a consistent left-wing position. I found numerous instances in which he was trying to obtain audiences with prominent American politicians to warn them of various threats from communists and national liberation movements. He was indeed all over the map. I find Oltmans an enormously contradictory character, almost as deep and operationally conflicted as de Mohrenschildt himself. The de Mohrenschildt "confessions" to Oltmans must be considered in the context of Oltmans' own murky identity and motives, and Oltmans' claims to the authorities were often inconsistent and surprisingly vague and inarticulate for someone who claimed to be serious journalist. Given the time and resources, I will be glad to publish more on this topic. btw, readers who wish to support ongoing investigative efforts can become sustainers of the Real News Project, at www.whowhatwhy.com , a nonprofit, noncommercial reporting site that will, we expect, generate reporting on many topics that urgently cry out for careful investigative inquiry.
  11. John, I hadn't planned to send President Obama a book. I figure he's pretty busy right now. However, Family of Secrets was reviewed on Page 3 of Washington Post Book World, and it is in pretty much every bookstore in DC. I would hope someone might slip him a copy. On classified documents, I would urge President Obama to seriously question the entire system of classifying documents, and consider declassifying the vast bulk of historical documents of all kinds, including those relating to the Bush family. The most savvy insiders I know consider the classification system to be more about protecting certain people than the longterm interests of the country. I do support classifying documents that contain current or recent information of genuine sensitivity, especially concerning technologies, sources and methods. But that covers a very small percentage of the total paperwork, and with anything that is more than a few years old, I think the burden of proof should be on the person who wants to withhold the information to make their case before a tough judge. Regarding the Bushes, I do wonder if there are not more documents out there that would shed light on Prescott Bush's precise activiites in overseeing sensitive covert operations as a senator, and on George HW Bush's activities in the 1950s and 60s as addressed in Family of Secrets.
  12. Tom, the Conrad Hilton material is of interest to me. Hope we can talk more about this--directly, perhaps--as soon as things slow down a bit on the book front.
  13. Tom, It sounds as if you have lots of important information about this subject, but very little of it relates to the title of Mr. Baker's book about the forces that put the Bush Dynasty in the White House. Why did you, in framing your question, fail to mention that Henry Crown's company was involved in dredging work in the Philippines and in the Caribbean preparing one of the islands to be a casino resort? I would submit that everyone has a different take on these facts, but, having written articles myself, know that publishers and editors are always cutting out anything that doesn't relate to the specific topic. My interest in Henry Crown as head of the Materials Service Corp. in Chicago is whether he may have been involved in mining or recovery of strategic minerals that would have necessitated security clearance. It has been discussed in other circles that he was used in the Philippines to recover Japanese gold that was then laundered through gambling casinos somehow which I don't pretend to understand. In addition, and I would ask Mr. Baker to comment on this: Did you find in your research any common threads to mining operations and covert intelligence operations, and if so, do you think that is significant in understanding the real purpose of, for example, the CIA? A somewhat overlooked point of reference that should be mentioned is Conrad Hilton's book Be My Guest. First published by Prentice Hall Press in 1957, there was an additional printing under Fireside/Simon & Schuster. Of course his son is Barron Hilton. His book is filled with the names of the rich and famous and other assorted oddities...... Among them Colonel Henry Crown millionaire head of Material Services Corporation. page 208. Henry L. Hollis, the dignified elderly trustee for the Palmer estate. page 209 Billy Friedman George W. Loudermilk Shearn Moody R.L. Thornton Albert Bacon Fall Ira Casteel Major Powers Ruth Bush C.P. Smith Will Keleher L.M. Drown Elizabeth Keller "I also began studying Palmer House history." page 214 Lady Nancy Astor among others....... Once married to Zsa Zsa Gabor "Just after Zsa Zsa and I separated I bought the Dayton Biltmore in Dayton, Ohio." "For all my boasting, at the very crucial moment I found myself a million dollars short. I called Henry on the phone. "I need a million dolllars quick."........ ........"I'll let you have it Connie, just tell Hugo Anderson at the First National that I said to let you have the million." That was a great moment. page 213 page 233 has a section that reads..."Both the State Department and the Department of Commerce suggested that the Hilton organization could make a substantial contribution to the government program of Foreign Aid by establishing American operated hotels in important world cities."
  14. Peter, VF.com has now modified that "dartboard", which is really a kind of schematic, to note that it originated with Family of Secrets. We were of course very pleased that Vanity Fair proposed that we develop some kind of book graphic for their site, and I commissioned it from Linda Eckstein, a very talented information designer who spent years working for Fortune. You can "visit" the graphic, and much of the press coverage on Family of Secrets, by regularly visiting our site, www.familyofsecrets.com
  15. Linda, I did indeed find remarkable information on ties between mineral extraction enterprises, not just in the United States but around the world, and covert operations. I do get into that subject in Family of Secrets, and include a lot of new material, but I have a great deal more that could easily fill a second or third book. The general notion that companies seeking precious metals, fuels, and the like would be concerned about influencing government decisions is hardly shocking or new. Fine books like Thy Will Be Done, by my friends Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett, explore certain aspects of that. One of the important discussions we are not having in this country is whether the interests of these companies are one and the same as those of the American people, and whether we want our public and publicly-funded security services functioning in part as a kind of private army on behalf of extractors. Tom, It sounds as if you have lots of important information about this subject, but very little of it relates to the title of Mr. Baker's book about the forces that put the Bush Dynasty in the White House. Why did you, in framing your question, fail to mention that Henry Crown's company was involved in dredging work in the Philippines and in the Caribbean preparing one of the islands to be a casino resort? I would submit that everyone has a different take on these facts, but, having written articles myself, know that publishers and editors are always cutting out anything that doesn't relate to the specific topic. My interest in Henry Crown as head of the Materials Service Corp. in Chicago is whether he may have been involved in mining or recovery of strategic minerals that would have necessitated security clearance. It has been discussed in other circles that he was used in the Philippines to recover Japanese gold that was then laundered through gambling casinos somehow which I don't pretend to understand. In addition, and I would ask Mr. Baker to comment on this: Did you find in your research any common threads to mining operations and covert intelligence operations, and if so, do you think that is significant in understanding the real purpose of, for example, the CIA?
×