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
James DiEugenio

JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald Part 6

Recommended Posts

To be clear, Jim, my point was not that the research community couldn't behave itself.  It can, and does most every anniversary. But there were 20 times as many news cameras in the plaza for the 50th than for any of the other anniversaries I've witnessed. And there's a certain element that is attracted to that, that is an embarrassment both to the city of Dallas and the bulk of the research community.

The closing down of the plaza was outrageous, IMO. But there's plenty of blame to be spread around, IMO. Almost as unsettling to me as the shutting down of the plaza was the fact dozens of news teams and news men were allowed into the plaza to cover the festivities, and not one of these news organizations came by the Lancer Conference just down the street, even though several of Kennedy's cousins were there as guests of honor. I mean, really, an historian reading some predictable words and a politician making a sales pitch for his city are more newsworthy than Kennedy's family attending and even speaking at a conference questioning the conclusions of the Warren Commission? Are you kidding me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Baer documentary was a continuance of the elaborate disinformation campaign centered about Mexico City to suggest that the assassination may have been the work of Castro and Cuban communists.  The series made for a dramatic introduction of information already well known to serious students of the crime, but appears brand new and startling ("recently declassified") as though a revelation out of the AARB.  Performed by a knowledgeable ex-CIA agent and an experienced investigator, one can see how less well-informed watchers would be swayed by the James Bond devices and tradecraft from an expert.  Some friends less familiar with the morass of confusion and fact surrounding JFK’s death who watched later expressed to me their conviction in what was presented; they found it all interesting and credible.  But they are being tantalized, seduced and swayed towards the original (1963) story line, the one PD Scott calls a Phase 1 story, the illusory Oswald-Soviet conspiracy. Scott wrote:

Privileged authors (e.g. Russo and Posner) continue to dominate the media with their dance between “Phase-One” and “Phase-Two” accounts of Oswald. With both books receiving positive reviews, it is hard for the American public to look behind this ballet of bestsellers, and discern the actual dynamics of case management. In succeeding years, the discredited “Phase-One” stories have been revived to manipulate public opinion (e.g. Phillip Shenon and the twist party).

Oswald in Mexico City is a topic hard enough to figure out ... spend a month reading Newman, Armstrong, Simpich, David Josephs.  It takes some serious concentration and patience in sorting through these managed stories, to see the obvious disinformation patterns.  PD Scott writes that these managed stories: "... fleeting and insubstantial though they are, were of central importance in determining the outcome of the assassination investigation".  In prescient fashion, he then describes the essence of this documentary, writing: "In succeeding years, the discredited 'Phase-One' (Cuban/Soviet conspiracy) stories have been revived to manipulate public opinion, even after the CIA and FBI had agreed on a 'Phase-Two' interpretation."  In the prophetic words of Vincent Salandria:

We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence.  That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long, and I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."

The documentary was quite a creative mix of fact and fiction, reminding me of Churchill’s quote that “truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies”.  What this reaffirms for me is that the Mexico City charade is indeed very close to the heart of the matter... the illusive truth.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gene - Great post. All true, so unfortunate and frustrating. I'll repeat something I've said many times. Somehow we need to find one or two major media personalities and persuade them to join this community of truth seekers. I say 'personalities' because that is unfortunately the way things work in the media. I would suggest Bill Maher, who stands firmly and cluelessly on the other side of this divide, but seems at least to have some courage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Paul.  I remain a student of the JFK murder, as its such a fascinating read with so many twists and turns.  I am an engineer and scientist by training and trade, but this subject has allowed me to dig deep into the back-stories behind our modern American history.  I have complied "papers" ... compilations of books, articles, threads on this Forum and other sources. These are not original, but they allow me to frame the facts and make some sense of it all.  The most recent was the Mexico City charade, and its an eye-opener (for me).  I recently did one on Clare Boothe Luce and William Pawley (both of whom deserve more scrutiny) as driving forces behind JFK's death. 

I have always found it difficult to explain to friends and family what really went down, and the truth behind the assassination (although I don't claim to know that in any certainty).  The people who killed JFK knew what they were doing, and how to cover their tracks and keep the larger (more legitimate) government at bay.  Those experts in disinformation (who continue today) are likely protecting their beloved Agencies continuance and reputation... how else does one explain the modern pattern of obfuscation? If I were a psychologist, I'd put a study together in why this story is so difficult to "sell" to most of the public, who have not done the due diligence required to unravel the stories.  I see the following barriers to "converting" or convincing the general public, celebrities, politicians or mainstream media who might otherwise take on the cause:

  • it takes patience and hard work to read/digest the enormous volume of work
  • many ask "if I could read just one book, what would it be?" That's a hard one, as no one author nails it definitively, although some like Hancock/Douglas get close
  • most don't want to think of their government as corrupt or other than "good guys in white hats"
  • the forces at play and the plotters were/are very skilled at discrediting legitimate research/researchers on the "trail of the assassins" (e.g. Garrison, et al)
  • its not popular to be railing at the "establishment" (now or then) and there's really nothing in it (i.e. embracing/sponsoring) for politicians today  
  • those who believe that there's simply more to the story tend to be punitively labeled and characterized as "CT'ers" (or worse) ... ridiculed or even reviled
  • with the passage of time, the trail gets cold and people lose interest; we now live in a 20-second sound bite society with no patience for digging below the surface

The more one reads, the less one admires any past Presidents or Statesman.  A reading of Talbot's "Devil's Chessboard" makes me feel that everything I ever read in history books is spun and varnished.  All these "leaders" seem corrupt or flawed in some aspect (with the exception of Jimmy Carter).  I find that since JFK, there are no more "heroes" to look up to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 0:50 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Found it.  Interesting story and perspective.  A bit of a skewed ending.

https://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Killing-the-First-Amendmen-by-Lori-Spencer-Assassination_Dallas_First-Amendment-Assembly_JFK-Assassination-131130-645.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ron. 

But although she mentions it, I don't remember any court hearing on this issue.  

John may have threatened that, but I don't recall any filing or legal proceeding in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I thought it was shameful what Bob Baer did with Duran on his silly program.

First, he finds two people by that name in Mexico City.  I am surprised there were only two in a city that size.  I thought there would be four or five.  I mean you are talking one of the five biggest cities in the world, right?  

But then, he assumes he finds her.  But that is never certain.  When this person refuses to talk to him he tries to say that somehow that is an indication of her guilt.  Which is nutty.  Especially after what that jerk Shenon did to her in his book. Shenon actually believed Elena Garro Paz and the Charles Thomas story about Oswald being a part of a Cuban plot.  He then tried to implicate Duran in that.

I have no doubt that if Baer had talked to Duran, that is the angle he would have pursued.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2017 at 0:10 PM, Gene Kelly said:

Thank you Paul.  I remain a student of the JFK murder, as its such a fascinating read with so many twists and turns.  I am an engineer and scientist by training and trade, but this subject has allowed me to dig deep into the back-stories behind our modern American history.  I have complied "papers" ... compilations of books, articles, threads on this Forum and other sources. These are not original, but they allow me to frame the facts and make some sense of it all.  The most recent was the Mexico City charade, and its an eye-opener (for me).  I recently did one on Clare Boothe Luce and William Pawley (both of whom deserve more scrutiny) as driving forces behind JFK's death. 

I have always found it difficult to explain to friends and family what really went down, and the truth behind the assassination (although I don't claim to know that in any certainty).  The people who killed JFK knew what they were doing, and how to cover their tracks and keep the larger (more legitimate) government at bay.  Those experts in disinformation (who continue today) are likely protecting their beloved Agencies continuance and reputation... how else does one explain the modern pattern of obfuscation? If I were a psychologist, I'd put a study together in why this story is so difficult to "sell" to most of the public, who have not done the due diligence required to unravel the stories.  I see the following barriers to "converting" or convincing the general public, celebrities, politicians or mainstream media who might otherwise take on the cause:

  • it takes patience and hard work to read/digest the enormous volume of work
  • many ask "if I could read just one book, what would it be?" That's a hard one, as no one author nails it definitively, although some like Hancock/Douglas get close
  • most don't want to think of their government as corrupt or other than "good guys in white hats"
  • the forces at play and the plotters were/are very skilled at discrediting legitimate research/researchers on the "trail of the assassins" (e.g. Garrison, et al)
  • its not popular to be railing at the "establishment" (now or then) and there's really nothing in it (i.e. embracing/sponsoring) for politicians today  
  • those who believe that there's simply more to the story tend to be punitively labeled and characterized as "CT'ers" (or worse) ... ridiculed or even reviled
  • with the passage of time, the trail gets cold and people lose interest; we now live in a 20-second sound bite society with no patience for digging below the surface

The more one reads, the less one admires any past Presidents or Statesman.  A reading of Talbot's "Devil's Chessboard" makes me feel that everything I ever read in history books is spun and varnished.  All these "leaders" seem corrupt or flawed in some aspect (with the exception of Jimmy Carter).  I find that since JFK, there are no more "heroes" to look up to.

Gene - Like you I am not a researcher (I'm a musician) but have read and studied this, and still do. I agree with all your points, most especially that most of our leaders are corrupt. I am not holding my breath waiting for the 2017 document reslease. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul:

IMO, that is what this series was about.  The upcoming document release.  It was to try and show that, "Hey, you know that 2 million pages of documents that almost no one reported about in the MSM, well I read them all.  Guess what, Oswald still did it, but Castro may have known about it and helped cover it up."

Therefore, if that is what 2 million pages said, then there must be nothing left in what is going to be declassified this fall.

Talk about fake news.  But see, the JFK case is in the area of deviance in the whole Hallin's Spheres concept.  Does not matter if its true.  It does not get reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim - I had never heard of Hallin's Spheres. Interesting. Do you think that media personalities have more chance than journalists of breaking through?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel Hallin was an historian who wrote a good book on the media and the Vietnam War.  He tried to answer the question: Did the news coverage actually help lose the war stateside?

He came to the conclusion that it did not.  In fact, there were many terrible but important stories that the press did not print on Vietnam.  

He concluded that the press worked within three non intersecting circles:

Sphere of consensus or the CW, usually established by an official source, and it is not always true: e.g. LBJ's version of the Tonkin Gulf, which was pretty much a big lie. Yet no one questioned it for years.

Sphere of certified debate: which is where the media sanctions two views of an event e.g. Nixon's invasion of Cambodia.

Sphere of deviance: this is where stories, even if they are true, just do not get printed.  For example, JFK and NSAM 263.

I think its a useful and accurate way to look at the media.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea being re-seeded by certain authors of Castro sponsoring or supporting the assassination is absurd.  No leader of a small country like Cuba would be in their right mind to allow themselves to be connected to such a provocation.  As others have written, the psychological war aspect of the Mexico City charade proves that the murder was not planned by Oswald, LBJ, the mafia or other entities … it limits the real suspects to those who were specifically trained in psychological operations that can be traced back to their source. HSCA investigator Daniel Hardaway compiled a list of over two dozen examples of those case studies of individuals who attempt to blame what happened at Dealey Plaza on Cuban Castro Communists, each one traced back to usually someone close to David Atlee Phillips. Peter Dale Scot, John Newman and others have summarized the psychological war aspect of the assassination as representing "a complex but understandable part of the plan that gives us a crack in the door of the covert operation that was designed to protect its actual sponsors". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gene - I would add that the links between MC operations and JMwave leads up the chain of command. It also leads back to Berlin where Shackley, Harvey, Morales spent considerable time in the '50's. I also think we don't know the whole story on MC even after all this time. PDScott, Newman and others have done revealing work, but there is more. What exactly was the DFS role (LITEMPO)? Nazar Haro? What of ties between Colonel Brandstetter (488th Army Reserve with Jack Crichton) and Philippe de Vosjoli, who was close to Angleton? The attempted murder of DeGaulle by French rightists appears to me to be the precursor to the JFK hit.  Does the link between Brandstetter and the Bronfman family (Seagrams) lead to Permindex? Yes, I still haven't given up on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul:

Putting JFK and the plotters aside for a moment, MC was quite a place of international intrigue in 1963.  if you're a spy, it seems like the new Berlin or the more exotic European cities where espionage was hot.  It seem that everyone was bugging or surveilling each other.  Lots of Cuban, Soviet and American spy games afoot. Communists competing for a foothold in central America.  In the midst of all that, we introduce Oswald(s) (or their impersonators) and sheep-dip a sensitive operation to remove the American president.  Mix in the Mexican DFS, Nicaraguan criminals and intelligence, American ex-patriates (and mercenaries), Cuban nationals, ex-Nazis ... what a milieu.  It would make for a good Agatha Christie movie.

Gene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would make a good movie, a sequel of sorts to JFK, a prequel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×