Priscilla L. Johnson

[David Andrews]

I recently saw Priscilla in a PBS special on J. Robert Oppenheimer, and she is a nasty, salacious old dirtbag, always slavering to tell you who was gay, who had an affair, what people's emotional problems were, etc. I wanted to rip her wig off and slap her with it. Slap PBS with it, too.

[Bernice Moore]

David ; if you go to 1.47 on this site, you may get a thrill..b

[David Andrews]

Thanks, Bernice. It's a perfect lineup of shills, including Epstein, and - sadly - the late, blackmailed Norman Mailer.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I recently saw Priscilla in a PBS special on J. Robert Oppenheimer, and she is a nasty, salacious old dirtbag, always slavering to tell you who was gay, who had an affair, what people's emotional problems were, etc. I wanted to rip her wig off and slap her with it. Slap PBS with it, too.

-----------

This is what I mean by going on offense. Right now we are just letting PBS get away with using CIA hacks. If we don't raise the cost nothing will happen. PBS and examples of media complicity are also a way that the assassination can be used wide-angle to show new audiences its continued relevance. Nothing shows media complicity better than the JFK assassination and that is why the new edition of Destiny Betrayed is so good.

[David Andrews]

http://www.pbs.org/w...nheimer/player/

It was a decent documentary, except for Priscilla dishing dirt with a lip=smacking fervor not seen outside of those True Crime reporters on Discovery ID and Court TV.

McMillan, Priscilla J. (2005). The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer: And the Birth of the Modern Arms Race. Viking Press: Viking. ISBN 0-670-03422-3.. [i am not recommending, just illustrating.]

PS - I forgot to mention, though some of you undoubtedly know, that Oppenheimer had two fateful national security run-ins with Boris Pash:

http://universityhon...e/Chevalier.htm

Edited December 7, 2012 by David Andrews

[Guest Tom Scully]

...........

Again let me repeat what I told Myra, based on the 14 years during which I knew Marina (I first met her in Jan 1981, when B.E. was published) and spoke to her often: you can ignore/discount those who subscribe to the false notion that "Marina is lying" or that "Marina made it up." She did neither. This was the reality, as presented to her by Lee--and with which she had to deal. She also poured her heart out to Priscilla McMillan, and that's why these same things appear in that book. (It was not McMillan's fault--is what I am saying).

I did a major amount of "listening and explaining" to Marina (over a period of many years) which was similar to "de-programming" someone who had been brought into a cult. That is why, when she sold the rights to her story to Wolper (around 1991 or so), she explained to the producers how important her our many conversations had been (and so they told me they wanted to make me a character in that movie!) Of course, the very brief conversations shown in the movie (which is the way screenwriters "condense" things) can not possibly capture the extent of the many conversations we had. One side note: The original philosophy of the program was that Marina had married a nut; but, with my encouragement (and Marina's obstinence) the project underwent a serious (and wonderful) reversal. As I recall, Marina stood her ground, drove Wolper senior (the original David L Wolper) nuts, and the result was neat. I consulted with Steve Bello quite a bit, and gave him valuable background information. Consequently, Fatal Deception is, I believe, probably the first nationally broadcast program with a sympathetic portrait of Oswald. That was thanks to the excellent screenwriting of Steve Bello, the sanction of producer Bernard Safronski, and the fine work of director Robert Dornheim.

As you may know (or perhaps you don't), Marina "went public" with her completely revised view of the Kennedy assassination, and the fact that she had changed her mind about Oswald's culpability, in 1988. At that time she was interviewed by Myrna Blythe, editor of the Ladies Home Journal, and the article marking Marina's "coming out" on the issue of LHO's innocence, can be found in the Nov 1988 issue of that magazine.

But. . back to the term "gaslighting".

Look it up. Read all about it.

Happy reading.

DSL

Your review of Livingston stands or falls on its own merits

Fine, and I agree.

But to say that there is no relationship between the two in a mutual protection racket is just ignorance.

Daniel, let me ask you something:

Do you have any real interest in this case outside of body hijacking or Z film alteration?

If you do, you sure do hide it well.

My review of LIvingstone was quite complete and expansive and fair. Each section was labeled with whatever rubric was applicable. But because I didn't do a hatchet job on him, like Janney did, you are not satisfied. RIght?

DId you read Kaleidoscope?

Did you read my book?

DiEugenio,

When you talk so disrespectfully to Dan Gallup, you really don't know who the heck you are dealing with.

Dan Gallup is a fine mathematician--who was close to the late Bernard Kenton, Ph.D. (in physics)-- one of my closest friends during the period Best Evidence was being researched and written (1976-1980). And, on the subject of who was involved, and when, I have to wonder: were you even interested in the Kennedy assassination, back then?

If you're going to write about me, then how about mentioning my book, which was published in 1981, and then by three more publishers since then, each time with a different Afterword? .................

...........................

Instead, your idea of "scholarship"--and your silly attempt to demonize me--is mentioning that I delivered a eulogy at Phelan's memorial service. You bet I did--I knew him since 1984, and I think I can speak to his character--and I say that while also stating that, when it came to the JFK case, I disagreed with Phelan on any number of matters. Unfortunately for you--and your band of true believers--Phelan had Garrison's number rather early on. Your sophomoric notion that because Phelan rented a house, and argued the "jet effect" to some reporters one evening, was the way the national media was "controlled" is juvenile, and childish. I used to argue the same points with him over lunch. Frankly, it doesn't pass my "So what?" test--yet for you, its somehow important and relevant. Part of the DiEugenio world view, I gather, about how the "national media" was "controlled." Oh pleez. . ..

.......................

DSL

4/28/13; 8 pm

Los Angeles, California

David,

I sincerely want to read your interpretation of this, and of what I think are the problems it raises, especially if you think she was voicing her belief. What do you think could have driven her to share such a thing, transcribed and on the record? Was this possibly a message intended for specific eyes? Priscilla was aware there would be only a narrow audience for it in the near term. Peter Whitmey recently told me Priscilla was asked by HSCA interviewer how much her advance was for writing "Marina and Lee," and Priscilla asked if the transcript would be made public

and then she declined to discuss the publishing deal with Harpers.

http://www.maryferre...30&relPageId=42

Edited April 29, 2013 by Tom Scully

[David Boylan]

Johnson as a CIA contact for ZRLIMNITE and ZREARTH.

 

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/2018/104-10119-10285.pdf

[Joseph McBride]

Peter R. Whitney writes in his 1999 article "Priscilla and Lee: Before and After the Assassination": Nevertheless, when the assassination did occur, Miss Johnson promptly retrieved her profile of Oswald from Sid Goldberg at NANA(88) and quickly redefined the subject of her report. One possible reason behind Miss Johnson's decision to change drastically the slant of her report was the fact that she was interviewed by two FBI agents, Darrel Currie and James Sullivan, on November 23, 1963. According to their report, which remained "classified" until November, 1977, "the purpose of the interview was to obtain information about Lee Harvey Oswald." It was also stated that "incidental thereto and without indicating possible Bureau interest in her as a suspect in the captioned case, she was advised that inasmuch as she is a potential witness, that biographical and background data on her would be advisable."(89) http://www.jfk-info.com/pjm-1.htm

 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Joseph McBride

[Joseph McBride]

I also read an FBI report that mentioned that they were investigating a brother of hers in connection with the case.

She has never been properly investigated.

Edited November 21, 2018 by Joseph McBride