Kirk Ross

Coincidentally, Trump seems to be thinking about that comparison. Trump reflects on impeachment: 'I think of Nixon more than anybody else' Interesting question, though.

If you're talking about "Coup in Dallas: Who Killed JFK and Why", I got an email from Amazon yesterday that it's been bumped again. The email says the new date is not available, but if I follow the provided link it claims 5/26/2020 is the release date.

Interesting. You make some curious statements. If the score is 0 to 3, to what or to whom do you attribute that success? What is the third one? I'm assuming Mueller and Impeachment are two. What is or was Biden's "usefulness as Trump's 'victim'"?

There was a typo in the link. http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/the_critics/feinman/Between_the_signal/Preface.html should be http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Feinman/Between_the_signal/Preface.html or http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Feinman/Between_the_signal/

You are not the first to speculate on the possible connection between Oswald and Estabrooks. H. P. Albarelli, Jr speculates without much/any proof about a connection between them in "A Secret Order". Estabrooks is in the index along with other characters well known in this context.

What makes you think he has "pals" in the CIA? In his testimony (he could have lied, but he was sworn) he seems to suggest that he was set up from the beginning. Probably by the FBI, but who really knows. Do you discount his testimony? Do you feel you have a more reliable source of information? What's your take on his testimony if you have read it?

Yeah, it raises more questions than it answers. Why include her name (she could have logged out and entered it without attribution) ? Why such a personal review? Considering her situation, why review it at all? Doesn't she have more compelling issues to attend to? If it's not her, it's pretty weak trolling, so why do that? But I think the name and format indicate that Amazon has verified it to some degree. This general subject is a question factory unlike any I've seen for some time.

She was spotted there reading "The Book of Honor : The Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives" https://www.amazon.com/Book-Honor-Secret-Deaths-Operatives/dp/0385495412 a review from yesterday: G. Maxwell 5.0 out of 5 stars A comforting read after a personal tragedy August 15, 2019 Format: Kindle Edition A good friend of mine died recently under very tragic circumstances. Some of us saw it coming for quite a while but it was still a huge shock when it finally happened. I picked up this book at the advice of a friend and absolutely couldn't put it down. I'd read it walking the dog, getting fast food, or even just lounging around the house. It helped me realized that my friend really believed in something, and that giving your life for the CIA, NSA, FBI, Mossad, or other intelligence agency is truly a higher calling and not something to mourn. A wholehearted recommendation.

Directly? Are you saying there is a connection besides the daughter of Robert Maxwell being involved? Also, I wouldn't say that the Promis Affair "was a predominate 'conspiracy theory' in the 1990s". Maybe in some circles. Certainly not with the MSM. You're standing by that?

FWIW, he wrote at least one book about it https://www.amazon.com/CIA-Doctors-Violations-American-Psychiatrists/dp/0976550806 Seems odd that he would be accused of doing the same thing he was exposing.

Am I the only one that would love to read the last version of his unpublished manuscript? I can do my own editing.

If you copy the image URLs directly into your browser https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9713&d=1554420176 https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9714&d=1554420227 you are prompted for a login. Only (some?) users logged in to deeppoliticsforum.com are authorized access to these URLs/images.

Doug Collins (dougcollins.house.gov) hosts the transcripts to the congressional testimony of Baker, Priestap, the Ohr's, Strzok, Page, and Papadopoulos on the general subject being discussed here. Has anyone posting on this thread read them? They seem relevant to this discussion and yet I don't recall seeing a single reference to them. I find this thread interesting/entertaining and would like to hear what some of you think of the testimony.

In a remarkable coincidence he and his family were planning to sail from New York to Le Havre 9/17/59. By coincidence I mean I think LHO is believed to have arrived there 10/8. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=114904#relPageId=2&tab=page

If you haven't already, you might be interested in reviewing the source of the information. https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/when-usbs-fly-recent-research-supports-forensicators-controversial-theory/

Am I missing something? As I read through some of the ongoing discussions I'm having a hard time reconciling the arguments about the photos and xrays in light of the above posting which seems to be corroborated by the information below. Has something turned up since this that convincingly shows the pictures and xrays are the ones originally taken? I searched google using "regis blahut jfk site:educationforum.ipbhost.com" and I don't see anything that would counter it. I mean, I know this doesn't prove that they were tampered with, but it doesn't exactly give them a clean bill of health, either. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32269709.pdf and this from the Washington Post House Probing CIA 'Babysitter' Who Rifled Files on JFK By George Lardner Jr. June 28, 1979 The House Intelligence Committee has started an investigation of a CIA officer's snooping last year in the offices of another congressional committee. Members of the Intelligence Committee, which was oversight authority over the CIA, were informed of the inquiry last week by Chairman Edward Boland (D-Mass.). Committee staffers had already interviewed the CIA's director of security, Robert Gambino, about the incident following a report in The Washington Post. The Post, quoting informed sources, reported that the most sensitive files of the House Assassinations Committee had been rifled last summer and fingerprints on them traced to a CIA liason officer assigned to the committee. The assignment, it has since been learned, was made under a CIA program code-named "MH/Child," which sources described as encompassing a variety of so-called "babysitting" chores. The agency dismissed the liaison oofficer in question, Regis T. Blahut, last August and then dropped the matter. In a memo to all CIA employes last week, CIA Director Stansfield Turner took the position that Blahut had "acted alone and out of curiosity." Since then, the CIA has also been insisting that Blahut, who had been employed by the agency's Office of Security, did not rifle the Assassinations Committee's files and did not even enter the safe where the files were kept. However, the agency has refused to say what it thinks did happen, beyond describing it as - in the words of CIA spokesman Herbert Hetu - "something dumb." According to informed sources, the incident took place one afternoon last July after an Assassinations Committee staffer had started inspecting some of the materials in a combination safe reserved for physical evidence of the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy. Sources said he took what he wanted and left the room. According to one version, he left the safe door closed but unlocked; according to another, the safe door might have been left slightly ajar. In any case, sources said, when he returned, he found a book of Kennedy autopsy photos inside the safe in obvious disarray. Blahut's fingerprints were found on the inside door or the safe. They were also found on one of the gruesome authopsy photos, which had been taken out of its plastic case, sources said. The plastic case itself had been torn from its notebook binder. The CIA's Hetu, however, declares that Blahut "did not enter the safe to get the notebook."

deleted

Thanks, Shane. Great work! I still have a few chapters to go and it's already one of my favorite Watergate books.

What have you read that leads you to believe they were only sympathizers? That's a serious question; if it exists, I would like to read it. It seems to contradict what Mangold wrote (Cold Warrior, Chapter 9, The Sapphire Network). If what he wrote is correct, and his bias towards Angleton and Golitsyn was mostly negative, we are not talking about just sympathizers here, are we? They were purportedly at least passing NATO secrets to the KGB. Golitsyn is said to have claimed some NATO files had crossed his desk while he was there (he was able to recall their NATO filing number, if I remember correctly). And there were some much more serious allegations involving the top levels of government prior to that (p. 117). Has this all been de-bunked somewhere? Somewhere besides the publicly available internal CIA studies. How timely. I just bought "Topaz" last night out of interest in it's supposed connection to this subject.

No, it was "The Secret Team" that I was thinking of. Similar idea, though.

According to Hougan in "Secret Agenda" p. 92, it was a Dr. Gunn that they met with. He with a unique skill set. This is in the chapter "Project Mudhen", which makes me dizzy every time I read it. Hunt claims it was Colson's idea and vice versa (p.93). But it, as in so many things in the Watergate and JFK story lines, all leads back to the Office of Security.

Not really. For some time I have been aware of his connection to the "Promis Affair" and Inslaw. But that context is later and is connected to (many) other conspiracies. I don't recall how he said he came across this case or Standorf, but I seem to remember it was an unusual coincidence. Now, he is coincidentally connected to another historical event involving national security much earlier. In my view, belief in coincidence is overrated. I'm thinking there is more to his background than is publicly available. How would it be possible for Cosalaro to establish this theory about Hunt in the early 70's? All this was top secret back then. I just pulled out "The Octopus", which I haven't read in years. According to that book all the Kennedy/Watergate/Cuba/Fidel was related to "The Octopus" (not that I'm convinced that the book is revealing "The Truth"", but it does make the connection itself). Trying to keep my CT's straight here. Didn't Fletcher Prouty introduce the metaphor of the octopus?

In May of last year Mr. Caddy had posted these links: to which I had responded: "Very interesting. But what's the connection to Watergate?" I got no response. But here you have made a connection. I never imagined there could be a connection between Casolaro and Watergate. To find a connection here is quite surprising. Isn't there documentation of Hunt and Liddy meeting in a restaurant with a CIA doctor to discuss how to deal with Anderson's leaks? So Hunt was conspiring to eliminate the leaker he was feeding? How does that make sense? If taken at face value, how does this alter what were the assumed motivations of all involved?

Well, I don't know for sure about Lansdale, but Hougan ties both Hunt and McCord to "Second Naval Guerilla" and Barker is mentioned here: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32262517.pdf

In case you haven't already read it, Jim Hougan describes his very interesting background in chapter one of "Secret Agenda."