John Simkin Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 I have posted a question on Don Bohning's Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1642082812 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 If the official version of John Kennedy's assassination were true, there wouldn't be any need for monitoring or attacking people who didn't believe it. Bump. And I will be bumping this again, as if doing so were my idea of original research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 I have posted a question on Don Bohning's Facebook page:http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1642082812 John would you mind posting this question here as I have a feeling I might remained undubbed by the dispenser of the WAVEY-gravey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 I have posted the article here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14262 Feel free to add your comments on the article. I will use these points in my reply to the journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Plumlee Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Tosh, a I recall, the main person attacking you was Gerry Hemming. My take on Gerry was that he liked attention but wanted to protect HIS friends in the anti-Castro movement, while casting suspicion on others. Are you now asserting that Gerry was attacking you on behalf of the CIA? I'm just trying to understand. NO Pat! I have never said that or implied that. I have always said GPH was in no way associated or involved in any CIA activities. I have said he applied for employment with the CIA and was turned down. I have said he was a convicted felon a drug runner... I was attacked by Hemming and a host of others on this forum. I have said and posted that "No Name Key" was never associated in any way with the CIA... I was attacked by many. I said that Operation 40 was a Cuban matter and was controlled from WAVE STATION (Miami) and not JM/WAVE... I again was attacked by members of this forum..... The picture in Berry and the Boys I said was a phony that Gross and Felix were not the ones said in the photo.... It was said Frank Sturges was the person of who I was in that photo.. again I had to defend myself (alone) I could go on and on... Many times I asked and even pleaded with Simkin to correct the record... It appeared to me if I did not agree with some, then I was a dis information expert operating for the CIA.... When I posted documentation that would be in conflict with others theories I was told on open forum that I had doctored the information... I tried many times with long bouts of answering post only to be condemed for my like of education of the English and spelling mistakes and the information although disjointed nwas not looked into because it would conflict with the Norm... My house was broken into and my computers were stolen when on a trip and I was reported dead on this forum and I was accused of faking my own death when I was out of the USA for two months. Remarks were made after I "returned from the Dead"... sounds like something Plumlee would do...". I was cursed out and called a xxxx and a BULLSxxTER and when I used the word AXX I was threaten to be kicked loff the forum for using bad language, but it was OK to be called a xxxx. and to be cursed down with the likes of Hemming, Vernon, and a few others not worth mentioning... not meaning that the previous two were. No Pat there are many reasons why I no longer talk to or post on this Forum... It seems to me I was to support things even when I knew they were wrong, because they were the so called, "Experts"... but even this means nothing now and its a waste of time and typing... some on this forum will go on and on and on with the same ole that goes nowhere year after year.. tickling eachothers hears and enteraining eachothers egos... but it will be without me. I have always respected your work and your input, as well as a few others that are still around this joint... but I am sorry to say this is not the place for me. Nor is the JFK mess. I care less what some on this forum thinks of me and my background and the mistakes I have made in these past years. But to the best of my ability I have always told what I feel inside as being the truth..., and too, I have always said I do not know all and it would only be speculations on my part to answer... but there are some FACTS that I damn well know and they will perhaps go to the grave with me.. you take care..., and I do wish you the very best... Tosh Plumlee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 You're a national treasure, Tosh. Thank you...and good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I think that now that you've got their attention, try to engage them in a dialog. John should correct the items that Bohning points out are incorrect, quote him in some of the corrections (ie. Porter Goss), and ask him to answer some of the questions posted by the students and teachers of this forum. There is a wealth of knowledge that we could tap from somebody like Bohning, who can get Porter Goss to talk to him on the telephone about his work at JMWAVE. I have a few good questions for both Bohning and Goss. Bill Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I think that now that you've got their attention, try to engage them in a dialog. John should correct the items that Bohning points out are incorrect, quote him in some of the corrections (ie. Porter Goss), and ask him to answer some of the questions posted by the students and teachers of this forum. There is a wealth of knowledge that we could tap from somebody like Bohning, who can get Porter Goss to talk to him on the telephone about his work at JMWAVE. I have a few good questions for both Bohning and Goss. Bill Kelly http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=807257 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=414916 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 Good luck, Tosh. I think we all understand your frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 I have posted a question on Don Bohning's Facebook page:http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1642082812 John would you mind posting this question here as I have a feeling I might remained undubbed by the dispenser of the WAVEY-gravey. This is what I said on his wall: In the latest edition of “The Intelligencer: Journal of US Intelligence Studies” you have written an article where you have claimed: "While some websites are reliable and valuable research tools, others can be tendentious advocates for a point of view, twisting or ignoring information that does not support that point of view, twisting or ignoring information that does not support that point of view. One need look no further for the latter than two websites based in Great Britain, run by John Simkin, a former member of a militant leftwing organization, the politics of which are now rejected by the mainstream British Labor Party." I am aware that you come from a tradition of using newspapers to create McCarthyite smears on people you disagree with. Maybe you could let me know the name of this "militant leftwing organization" I was supposed to be a member of in the past. As far as I am aware he is not able to delete this question. I will add another about him being a CIA agent in a couple of days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=807257http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=414916 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=5 Thanks Bill. The CIA document dated 14th June, 1968, shows that Bohning was providing information concerning the Jim Garrison investigation. This included references to Rolando Masferrer and Winston Smith. Have you found any documents that states he was given the code-name AMCARBON-3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 I think that now that you've got their attention, try to engage them in a dialog. John should correct the items that Bohning points out are incorrect, quote him in some of the corrections (ie. Porter Goss), and ask him to answer some of the questions posted by the students and teachers of this forum. There is a wealth of knowledge that we could tap from somebody like Bohning, who can get Porter Goss to talk to him on the telephone about his work at JMWAVE. I have a few good questions for both Bohning and Goss. Bill Kelly http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=807257 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=414916 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=5 Thanks for posting those links, Bill..... Background on Bohning interaction with David Talbot: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=112933 http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=B...nG=Search+BooksA farewell to justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's assassination, and the case that ... - Page 253 by Joan Mellen - History - 2005 - 547 pages On July 31st, the DDP himself approved the use of Bohning in the CIA's Cuban operations. Bohning informed Esterline of Rose's visit on March 28, 1968. ... http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=807257 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=414916 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 I have posted a question on Don Bohning's Facebook page:http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1642082812 John would you mind posting this question here as I have a feeling I might remained undubbed by the dispenser of the WAVEY-gravey. This is what I said on his wall: In the latest edition of "The Intelligencer: Journal of US Intelligence Studies" you have written an article where you have claimed: "While some websites are reliable and valuable research tools, others can be tendentious advocates for a point of view, twisting or ignoring information that does not support that point of view, twisting or ignoring information that does not support that point of view. One need look no further for the latter than two websites based in Great Britain, run by John Simkin, a former member of a militant leftwing organization, the politics of which are now rejected by the mainstream British Labor Party." I am aware that you come from a tradition of using newspapers to create McCarthyite smears on people you disagree with. Maybe you could let me know the name of this "militant leftwing organization" I was supposed to be a member of in the past. As far as I am aware he is not able to delete this question. I will add another about him being a CIA agent in a couple of days. I'd suggest you do so [about his CIA asset past/present] as soon as possible. This Forum is closely monitored and they might block or remove as soon as posted your next post if you're not quick. I have just posted this: A CIA document dated 14th June, 1968, reveals that Don Bohning received his Provisional Covert Security Approval as a CIA confidential informant on August 21, 1967, then Covert Security Approval itself on November 14th “for use as a confidential informant with natural access to information about news companies and personalities.” (1) Another CIA document dated 14th June, 1968, shows that Bohning was providing information concerning the Jim Garrison investigation. This included references to Rolando Masferrer and Winston Smith. (2) On July 31st, the Deputy Director of Plans (DDP) approved the use of Bohning in the CIA's Cuban operations. He was given the code-name AMCARBON-3. (1) http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=807257 (2) http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted April 22, 2009 Share Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) Thanks Bill. The CIA document dated 14th June, 1968, shows that Bohning was providing information concerning the Jim Garrison investigation. This included references to Rolando Masferrer and Winston Smith. Have you found any documents that states he was given the code-name AMCARBON-3? http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/...hington_Decoded David Talbot's Reply to Bohning Review in Washington Decoded by David Talbot [Editor's note: this letter is David Talbot's reply to Don Bohning's review of Brothers: A Hidden History of the Kennedy Years . For more on the book, see the Unredacted interview with David Talbot.] In his Washington Decoded review of my book, Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, Don Bohning asserts that I take a “starry-eyed” view of the Kennedys. But Bohning comes to this conclusion because he has chosen to view this historical chapter through his own prism – that of his CIA sources. In the interests of full disclosure, Bohning – or Max Holland, editor of Washington Decoded – had a duty to reveal that Bohning was named in declassified CIA documents as one of the Miami journalists whom the CIA regarded as an agency asset in the 1960s. But neither Bohning, nor Holland in his editor’s note, disclosed this pertinent information. A CIA memo dated June 5, 1968 states that Bohning was known within the agency as AMCARBON 3 -- AMCARBON was the cryptonym that the CIA used to identify friendly reporters and editors who covered Cuba. (AMCARBON 1 was Bohning’s colleague at the Miami Herald, Latin America editor Al Burt.) According to the agency memo, which dealt with New Orleans prosecutor Jim Garrison’s investigation of the Kennedy assassination, Bohning passed along information about the Garrison probe to the CIA. A follow-up agency memo, dated June 14, revealed that “Bohning was granted a Provisional Security Approval on 21 August 1967 and a Covert Security Approval on 14 November 1967 for use as a confidential informant.” A declassified CIA memo dated March 19, 1964 explained that the CIA’s covert media campaign in Miami aimed “to work out a relationship with [south Florida] news media which would insure that they did not turn the publicity spotlight on those [CIA] activities in South Florida which might come to their attention...and give [the CIA’s Miami station] an outlet into the press which could be used for surfacing certain select propaganda items.” [editor's note: these AMCARBON memos detailing the Agency relationship with the Miami Herald and journalists Al Burt and Don Bohning were first written about by Joan Mellen in her 2005 book A Farewell to Justice.] ...and John, Please consider that Don Bohning devoted his career, and now his "essays" to opposing something that did not and does not exist in the US. He lives in a cocoon where he perceives a right of center political orientation as extreme left, because he and the US establishment were and are so far skewed to the right. The dirty little secret is that there probably was no need for the CIA to "plant" Bohning on the staff of a major South Florida newspaper. This is an accurate description of what passes for a "balanced" current events and politics discussion on the premiere sunday morning broadcast, hosted until recently by the late Tim Russert....the "journalist" who had his own "rule" that he did not disclose anything learned from a politician or other "news maker" than what he was given permission from his interviewee to disclose. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...ions/index.html....Consider yesterday's Meet the Press panel discussion of this issue involving David Gregory and five exceedingly typical Beltway insiders -- The Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein, Fortune's Nina Easton, Time's Rick Stengel, former GOP House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and former "moderate" Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. That's three ostensibly non-partisan journalists, a right-wing fanatic, and a New Republic/DLC Democrat from Tennessee whose career was built on proving how much he embraces GOP policies -- that's called "diversity of views" in Establishment Media World. Exactly as one would expect, they were all in full and complete agreement that there must be no investigations or prosecutions. There was not a syllable uttered that political officials should be treated the same as ordinary Americans when they got caught breaking the law.... The Washington DC press establishment, and nearly all of the major press in the US are so self controlled and deferential to "power", that media satirist Stephen Colbert can mock their job performance as he does here with Russert's successor, David Gregory, and at the 2006 annual press club dinner: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200.../david_gregory/....In other words, only a leftist ideologue thinks that the press should actually report when government statements are false and baseless. What a warped, leftist view of the media that is. Good, solid, reasonable, post-partisan moderates and objective journalists know that the real role of a journalist is simply to report accurately what government officials say and leave it at that. Colbert himself pointed that out in his 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner address, easily one of the best and most insightful American political speeches of the last decade: But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration? You know, fiction! To David Gregory, that's not satire. That's what he actually believes the role of the press is, which is certainly a significant reason why NBC gave him his new job (as Gregory himself put it during his dismissal of leftist ideologue Scott McClellan's complaints that the press was overly deferential to Bush: "I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you're a xxxx, and why are you doing this, that we didn't do our job. I respectfully disagree. It's not our role."). That's why, when Colbert mocked the press's behavior towards Bush and the Iraq War, Gregory nervously chucked again and said: "I think that's a misreading of the kind of questions that were asked" (indeed, Bush was undoubtedly cowering at the super-tough-and-adversarial questions Gregory asked of him at the White House Press Conference immediately preceding the invasion).. Edited April 22, 2009 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted April 22, 2009 Author Share Posted April 22, 2009 Thank you Tom for these important references to documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now