Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Josephs

Members Who Can Delete Locked Attachments
  • Posts

    6,150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Josephs

  1. We all have limits Ben. When an individual member has so lost sight of the topic and conversation we all are left wondering how someone with that level of intelligence is doing what they're doing - in obvious parrot-style. 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. Reread the thread. Read what Leslie wrote, and read what GD does, post after post, and then tell me what he and you are doing does not resemble this: 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Leslie offered the names of the people who performed the analysis. She explains the situation, repeatedly, but you and GD seem to be on some crusade to create proof of something which has already been dated correctly... Only thing left is for knowledgable people to analyze and discuss the book written and the context of the notes. BTW, GD can also try and acquire the report himself... the information has been offered. REPEATEDLY. He chose to die on this hill. Why does your buddy not like to address any single question put to him but is more than willing to ask the same question 50 times in the same thread and get indignant? You don't call him out for anything - even though the answers stares him in the face? He seems to like to copy>paste other's posts and then use boiler plate tactics to dig in, like a tick, in some attempt to invoke authority. 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. Start at page 1 and reread the thread Ben. It is so sad that with the wealth of knowledge the members here have that GD didn't have the sense or the consideration to back away from his losing battle and let people discuss the notes and their meaning without his constant whining about things he can't see or understand. When a voice of reason arrives and states his case eloquently, And here is where GD launches into tactics... by telling us, incorrectly, what another poster is saying/meaning which creates a new FALSE NARRATIVE of the situation. The simple logic of his argument is so poor as to be comical... but ahead he pushes keeping people from having a productive discussion. And you cheer. Be specific Ben... it's important. Which JFKA "docs/artifacts" immediately come to mind ? Furthermore, the fact you conclude they are "monkeyed" with means what to you? There is nothing to be learned from the who, what, where and why of the fraud? OCHOA added incriminating notes to the FM logs in Mexico before sending them to the FBI - "to help out" he said. Before I mentioned him OCHOA was a ghost not mentioned in any MX discussion. OCHOA provided the fraudulent tourist visa cards. The forged Hotel Registry. And from this you conclude there is nothing to learn? Judy Baker... authentic? How would you know one way or the other Ben? I know cause I proved it with items no one considered before and which Fetzer took as "authentic" when it was an obvious and blatant l-i-e. But it reveals so much about the situation. Separate from the physical characteristics, how would YOU like to know this is authentic? IOW what does the authentic "seal of approval" look like to you - accepting the physical elements have been proven? The HSCA handwriting expert's reports - do you take that as authentic and valid - what about truthful? why or why not? Do I ask too many question and have too many expectations that you will address these items, probably. But as long as you maybe think about some of these example, go look at some of these example, maybe you'd have a better appreciation for what AUTHENTIC means in this case. One of only a few cases in history where non-governmentally affiliated witness testimony is more important than the steaming pile of horse manure the government investigations calls authentic physical evidence. And it seem everyone but GD is aware of this distinction, while you defend him.... Sorry if my approach bothers you when my patience finally wears thin due to someone's inability to accept the reality of a situation while making it his mission to illustrate how much of an expert he is and keep people from having serious discourse on an important subject. Acerbic: "sharp and forthright". I'll take that as a compliment The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. -Albert Einstein
  2. No one here can understand why GD avoids answering any question about authenticity covering the entire JFKA body of evidence and decided to die on this hill. Nice back-handed insult Ben. So you're saying a large group of people familiar with the documents could probably work together to uncover if there are any CONTEXTUAL problems with the notes, since we already have verification the physical properties are authentic. I wonder where we can find a group of people like that? Right @Greg Doudna ? It would have been nice if our own government did a real investigation... But wait! The entire thing was a cover-up to implicate a "Patsy". We've all talked about an invisible entity which operates to maintain balance in the world for the "owners" - here we have a potential glimpse into such an entity and instead of doing a little research, doing a little work, we get a handful of whiners who don't seem to actually understand authenticity in the first place. When - in your mind then - did "authentic" ever equate to "true" ? Do you not see the problem with Authenticity specific to this case. Veciana was part of the entire process... Veciana was trying to shift the blame from Military Intel to the CIA - on purpose (which was the case in many, many areas of the case... @Steve Thomas work on the Lt. Colonels is masterful - and the docs in CONTEXT help to verify. How does that relate to LaFitte beyond your personal speculations? So we are back to whether Lafitte and the players in the notes and the events in the notes can be CONTEXTUALLY VERIFIED, regardless of the authenticity. The autopsy photos we see may be authentic... but they're a lie. Where anyone gets the idea I have not repeatedly said we, as a group, need to verify the context... for as I've seen first hand in the evidence, authenticity is virtually impossible for third party work until you find areas which conflict with the know history, or elements within their stories are provably false. Q for you Ben... you think Judy Baker is "authentic"?
  3. I know exactly what you're doing Greg. It's shameful, self-centered and childish. And you still have not answered a single one of my questions... In psychology that's deflection In reality it just means you're full of ##-it
  4. @Greg Doudna 4 times in the same post Greg. And explained to you in previous posts repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly... Gets annoying, doesn't it? It's a good thing I'm aware of the means available for forum-sliding and disruption huh? Are you doing this by accident or is this something you've practiced? thing is you're an intelligent guy... you seem to know exactly what you're doing Recognize any of these? 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact. 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. So who you gonna contact first Greg? Aginsky or Thorne?
  5. Wow, appears you've really lost your perspective on this thread Greg. Who exactly are you trying to impress? Please point to anywhere I said or implied any of this by asking you about your obvious inconsistencies related to JFK evidence authentication. Do you always answer questions with more questions? State your position on these topics... then you can ask your strangely made up questions based on your fertile imagination which you seem to use to fill in the blanks for your incredibly poor comprehension of what people write. The Zfilm's lack of authenticity doesn't seem to get the same level of passion. You satisfied with the film's authenticity at this point, or not? Why? Where was your indignation over authenticity when 10,000 new documents hit the public stage? Where is your indignation over authenticity related to all the other physical items of evidence? Given we've already authenticated the physical aspects of the book, (yes, we all know you completely missed that presentation and continue to do so) What aspect of the context would prove to you it was inauthentic? Given the same assumption, what would prove it authentic? - to you of course Have you been able to refute anything in those notes yet on a factual basis? Have you even tried? Your whining, post after post, is incredibly tiresome and awfully revealing of your inability to understand what you're told and move on. The patience Leslie has offered you with reply after reply is WAY more than anyone else would do for you here. If it turns out to not be authentic, so be it. You repeating your position ad nauseam changes nothing here, you get that right? Better hi-res scans will not change anything either, you get that right? Is it you simply can't let it go? You've appointed yourself "Authenticity Cop"? But only for this item of evidence... The job of the JFK community in this instance is CONTEXTUAL VERIFICATION. How about, Stop inventing people's positions and then try to hold their feet to the fire for some kind of answer to the made up position YOU invented. Akin to "do you still beat your wife". Having to take the time to unravel your terrible assumptions only wastes resources better served elsewhere. Do you make it a practice to whine like this in the rest of your life. or do you save it only for us here?
  6. I ask you the same question... where is all this indignation for the 2017-2023 documents released? Where is the cry for authentication of the most important evidence in the case? The hypocrisy of these requests is mind-bogging, as if a high res images will allow you to better understand the context. How about giving us an example of how authenticity would be dis-proven from a better version of these notes. How would you know if Angleton knew LaFitte or vice versa - as just one example. In reverse, what what convince you it was authentic simply because the notes were larger and clearer? What say you...? @Greg Doudna ? @Benjamin Cole
  7. I'm curious Greg, Do you approach all the JFK evidence like this? How much authentication of documentation have you partaken in over your years involved? Simply because something is "authentic" does not mean it is factual - FBI reports about Oswald on a bus to Mexico, or that he bought a rifle.... are all "authentic" but complete cr-ap. It does not bother you the Zfilm has never been "authenticated" with Zavada's sleight of hand revealed for what it was? Why do we not hear you screaming about what is accepted as THE definitive representation of the government's position about the assassination? Why again is it when the CIA releases documents they are used to prove points but never considered "inauthentic" until much later, when CONTEXTUAL VERIFICATION is finally done? The Hunt letter comes to mind, or the Nov 8th typewriter letter... The physical characteristics have been found authentic for 1963. Easily faked though, right? So far, have you been able to refute anything contextually within the notes? Your "If..then" offering is kind of weak as well. A willful forger is so confident their work will not be found out, they are usually willingly handing over materials for examination... part of the forger's jollies. (if you can speculate, so can I) So far, the reasons you've offered for the forgery have not panned out for you, the idea it's a fraud is easily dismissed... deeming something "authentic" does not establish factual integrity. So how about trying the "factual integrity" course for a little while and move on already. How much whining about the same exact thing can one man do?
  8. Yeah, another trite comeback you're so fond of offering. Ben.. it appears to me you're not even in the same book, let alone on the same page. That's what we're doing here Ben. Tell us Ben. And how was it uncovered?
  9. Thanks Ben. Contextual verification. I'm aware that documents are created for dis-information all the time. Just like blimps are made to appear like aircraft that aren't there on radar screens. In regular docs of the case, in many cases you find references to the doc in other documents as well as pre/post action reports related to what was said in the doc. In this case, all we really have is information in the form of the notes on certain days. Contextual verification. If you don't know the stories, the docs and the obscure - as well as read the book - how can you hope to know what it being "authenticated" means? Easy, research. Have you been thru all 30,000 docs released since 2017? Many, many have no date, no related info... nothing. You have the internet, access to MFF and all the new records... you combing thru to share found nuggets of potential wisdom or you just waiting for others to do the work and tell you what's what. How would you know THEY are authentic? would you even care?
  10. Ben, we have an independent panel of experts right here. If we can't offer a coherent reason for it to be a fraud in the first place, there's a problem, no? So let's ask you... did they try and authenticate this note written by Hoover basically proving he was aware the CIA transcripts of calls were only so much CIA "double dealing". and hmmm, FRENCH espionage activities in the USA? Why aren't you screaming about any of the thousands of notes, and documents which supposedly prove one thing or another. What about the docs below - real or frauds? when I introduced them into the narrative after digging and finding them in the new release, I didn't hear any huge backlash or call for authentication as I was proving yet another false narrative. You really need to know better than this Ben. Asking what you are 60 times in the same thread is a bit cumbersome, no? All you want is something maybe not possible or even done with 99% of the evidence. I mean what comes to your mind as JFK evidence of a revelation which needed authentication? Sibert/O'Neil report? How about the freaking Zapruder film? do you realize that hasn't even been authenticated? So no Ben, you can't just feign innocence and claim all you want is a 100% guarantee. Read the book, pick a team and get into the game... or just wait patiently while some of us interested in actually testing the merits of the notes, do our work. We promise to let you know how it turns out
  11. Yes, Elsworth was onto John Masen - who he said resembled Oswald. Masen bought and sold 6.5 cal ammo fitting the Carcano
  12. No doubt! How in the world can anyone talk with any authority or believability without first reading the work being discussed? @Benjamin Cole You must have read up on CASTER before you started talking about him, writing about him, No? Don't you think it a bit ingenuous? I deal with the same thing about Harvey and Lee all the time. Read the flipping book before you comment. I read it, reviewed every footnote's source and talked to the author about the book for 2 years. Which is why at this point all I can say is to begin comparing what the Lafitte notes say, with what we currently know about the assassination - and read the book. Ben, you know I know my docs. The notes talk about Oswald in Mexico with Thomas Eli Davis Jr at a hotel 20 miles south of the Cuban/Russian compound. I proved the evidence about Oswald in Mexico - at those compounds or at that hotel - is bogus. He wasn't at those locations. But he could have been in and out of Mexico in the week when literally no one has any idea where he is... Sept 27th thru Oct 3rd. So I was right, and it does not conflict with what the notes say. I'm also very interested in the rifle as I've written and spoken extensively on the topic. I've yet to read in COUP where the rifle comes from, or who may have put it in the TSBD. "yes I ok I DPD" The first people in the TSBD are Elsworth and the rest of his ATF group... then it's Gerald Hill of the DPD, Mooney, Boone and Weitzman are all sheriffs. If someone from the DPD planted it, when and who? btw - this is from the Italian manifest of Feldsott's purchase. That's supposed to be C 2766. It's not. Point is, how can you effectively discuss the details of a complicated book, without actually reading the book?
  13. FWIW... Cravath, Swaine and Moore was also where Roswell Gilpatrick was a partner - who was Asst Sec of Defense under McNamara. On August 24, 1963, Gilpatric, in his capacity as Acting Secretary of Defense during McNamara’s absence, signed off on a cable which encouraged Diem’s removal. On November 1, Diem and his brother were murdered as a result of a coup, which left the South Vietnamese government even more insecure. In November 1962, the Pentagon announced that General Dynamics had won the contract for the new tactical fighter experimental (TFX) plane, despite the military’s preference for the designs submitted by Boeing. Senator Henry Jackson (D-WA), unhappy that Seattle-based Boeing failed to win the contract, persuaded Permanent Investigations Subcommittee Chairman John McClellan (D-AR) to probe the award. When the subcommittee discovered the fact that General Dynamics had been a client of Gilpatric’s law firm, it summoned the Deputy Secretary to Capitol Hill to explain the possible conflict of interest. Secretary McNamara vociferously defended his Deputy and issued a statement expressing full confidence in Gilpatric and affirming his “integrity and devotion to public service.” The Justice Department investigation subsequently exonerated Gilpatric of any “legal or ethical conflict of interest” since he had left the law firm partnership to join the Defense Department, had only received payment for services rendered before he resigned, and had never held any General Dynamics stock. On November 21, 1963, the subcommittee rendered a 5-4 vote of confidence in the Deputy. This is pathetic. Don't mention the almost 3 months the man has been without protection... and what if requests really only take 14 days? Next they'll say he's actually a transgendered Ethel reincarnated. Only in America
  14. Well then all my fault for reading your question as offered, and not seeing the above question being asked in what you posted. My apology for jumping to conclusion (been that kind of day Ben, truly sorry, I shouldn't be posting when I feel like this) FWIW I am not convinced it says DUUM. The third letter looks like it could be a "w", and the first letter looks a bit like a "P" than the other "D"'s on the page... but what do I know at this point. I'm still trying to figure it out. Nor do I see any connection to Caster's rifles. Maybe Leslie can explain what she meant. Question I have is who put the rifle on the 6th floor, and when. Yates' story?
  15. Oh FFS. I gave you direct links... read his testimony, read the few pages of docs... how in the world can you come here and not even do the minimum amount of prep?
  16. Then add in the story of Ralph Yates, also from Nov 20th if memory serves, and also relates to someone appearing to bring a rifle (in a paper bag )into the TSBD. Someone hitchhiking, claiming to be Oswald and asking about Ruby and shooting the President from a window. I don't expect everyone to know everything... with the world literally at our fingertips, there is no excuse for not getting a bit prepared for the conversation you wish to be having here, or to find out who we are talking about and in what context. Sorry to be coming down on you specifically - but you do this a lot Ben. You have a singular approach, with a "let's agree to disagree" fallback position yet you seem unwilling to familiarize yourself with the material before you stick to your guns with a conclusion based more on feelings and opinions rather than history and context.
  17. Really Ben? You honestly cannot Google "WARREN CASTER" and look the darn thing up yourself? Take you 5 minutes and then you do some reading. You can probably search right here on the site and get your answers. Why is it so hard for members to simply look it up for themselves instead of hoping someone spoon feeds it to them so they can then argue about it as if they knew what they were saying to begin with. https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Caster.pdf https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/Documents/Detail/dallas-texas-witnesses/704948 https://gregwagnersite.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/rst-fbi-112463.pdf https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57694#relPageId=57&search="warren_caster" Sorry - forgot the spoon
  18. Leslie... Can you look again and see maybe it actually says DruM, as in where the rifle would be hidden until needed to be planted? Oil "DRUMS" were used as garbage cans among other things. Nothing for D.U.U.M. comes to mind. But we're at the right place to elicit some help...
  19. https://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corporation/dp/0914153277 Not sure how many of you are aware of this: IBM and the Holocaust is the award-winning, New York Times bestselling shocker--a million copies in print--detailing IBM's conscious co-planning and co-organizing of the Holocaust for the Nazis, all micromanaged by its president Thomas J Watson from New York and Paris. ..... Edwin Black's monumental research exposes how IBM and its subsidiaries helped create enabling technologies for the Nazis, step-by-step, from the identification and cataloging programs of the 1930s to the selections of the 1940s. "it's not personal, it's only business" https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ibm-and-quot-death-s-calculator-quot-2
  20. Which is it Greg? Forgery or a Fraud. One suggests it was written by someone other than Lafitte for the purpose - I believe you called it out - of making some sort of profit, or compensation for such an amazing artifact. Considering the artifact is not in the ownership possession of the people who wrote the book, the only one potentially making a profit from someone actually paying for it - would be his wife Renee who has had the book for decades. Hank's book or not, that artifact would have been considerably more valuable in 1964, 1978, 1992 or 1997. You seem to think it may have been written post 2012.. when I was under the impression the physical characteristics do indeed support a contemporaneous 1963 writing throughout the year. Even so, your evidentiary arguments for a post 2012 creation are tautological. Skorzeny's papers are not an indictment of the validity of Lafitte simply because Ganis' book does not mention him from his examination of a slice of Skorzeny's document history. The ongoing lack of Joannides' mention is a prime example. You think we'll find reference to Joannides in JJA's papers? Dulles? Barnes? Phillips? Doesn't mean they did not interact, plot, implement, discuss... whatever. Documents, like the space telescope, only show us a tiny sliver of the observable "Universe". What is not seen over here, may very. well be where we've never looked. It doesn't appear to me that "money" for the artifact was the motivation for its release. I've seen nothing to suggest the datebook is for sale. The other reason for a modern day forgery in our case might be pure dis-information - "The Hitler Diary" comes to mind. Fair? This document is: 179-40006-10049 and is a copy from the Blunt collection which basically proves WC lawyer Slawson - who went to Mexico but was snowed by the same people who perpetrated the fraud - seems more concerned the CIA might not like what they write about the "Oswald/Duran calls" than what really happened. Would you consider this decent evidence there was something very wrong with the calls/transcripts from the 27th-1st? "we must go FURTHER towards 'fudging' the contents of these calls". Go FURTHER?? Eliminate "Odessa" from the first set of calls on the 27th (and the fact the call was in Spanish and not Russia, which Oswald did not speak) which leaves us only the most incriminating and specific identification of Oswald. "should be eliminated" - and these are the lawyers ffs. The other - fraud - suggests Lafitte wrote it but not when you claim and based on information he knew or made up to connect people and events which are not actually connected culminating in the 11/22 assassination. It being contemporaneous has no bearing on the potential for Lafitte's fraud. Fair? I say, can the narrative it suggests be proven by other means, by other evidence - or lack there of? I am not past seeing this as a fraud Greg, your post simply makes little sense and offers speculation as conclusion It sure would be nice if you started your Speculative "FACTS" with: "I have not seen any evidence...., or I cannot make the connection between...." for as I show above... evidence you've not seen is without a doubt much more voluminous than that which you have. Same for me Greg and I've probably seen scores more documents re: JFK than you have and in places you've never bothered to look. Finally - stay with one or other subject... are we talking about Lafitte on your Lafitte notebook thread, or the books Hank previously published - There are other sources for documents than "online" - and even those which are online are not necessarily complete... as I once again showed in the document above
  21. How exactly does discovery of documents 50-60-80 years later create a pre-post date for the information found in either man's possession? Consider Skorzeny's papers do not make reference to Lafitte for good reason - Skorzeny, being the great intelligence officer he was, is not the same as Lafitte or White in his note taking and steers clear of implicating key players in his circle. Let's supposed the Lafitte datebook is never found. The activities of Lafitte and others named may never be known since as you say, he is not mentioned in Ganis' book and therefore was probably not in the papers Ganis purchased at auction. @Greg Doudna are you of a mind that Ganis had secured every document the man every generated? That it was not remotely possible papers that sensitive and related to Lafitte were destroyed or are sequestered elsewhere and never seen. One man's public body of work needn't address what you want, simply because you want it. How does that have any bearing on notes written in 1963 and not discovered until the mid-2010's which now do include a connection between the two men at the very least. If both sets of papers are authentic, there is no conflict related to when Skorzeny is "introduced" into the JFK web... Lafitte was recounting the activities contemporaneously. You are aware that the archives has released documents, NEW documents which had not been seen in 60+ years. You are aware there are private collections of documents copied from NARA which do not appear anywhere online? You are aware that Oswald's diary was examined and determined to have been written in only a few sittings, so even in 1963 they were able to tell this was not contemporaneously written, one would think they'd be better at it 60 years later. How can you conclude Skorzeny references were added circa 2010 simply because you and I were not aware of Skorzeny and his role? or that Skorzeny maintains Lafitte's anonymity ? or that Lafitte name Skorzeny among all the other players contemporaneously? Nothing you've offered precludes mention by Lafitte of Skorzeny in 1963 in a notebook which appears to loosely illustrate some of the activities which took place leading up to 11/22. You are aware you can read reams of official JFK documents not mentioning Joannides involvement in the JFK assassination and cannot read one outlining his direct involvement - yet somehow we know based on who, where and when he was that there is a strong indication his fingerprints are all over portions of the assassination and/or the cover-up at the very least. But because the docs had not yet surfaced we have to conclude any NEW docs with Joannides mentioned are frauds? . I must not fully understand your argument then Greg. That's simply not true Greg, so why do you keep repeating it? In 1984 Mae Brussel wrote: you CAN read between the lines, right? In 1952 Otto Skorzeny, who had been released from American custody in 1947, moved to Madrid. He created what is known as the International Fascista. The CIA and the Gehlen BND dispatched him to "trouble spots." On his payroll were former SS agents, French OAS terrorists and secret police from Portugal's PDID. PDID are the same initials as the Los Angeles police intelligence unit, Public Disorder Intelligence Division. The California PDID was exposed on May 24, 1983 as spying on law abiding citizens at an expense of $100,000, utilizing a computerized dossier system bought by the late Representative Larry McDonald's "Western Goals." (McDonald was a national leader of the John Birch Society, which was exceedingly active in Dallas preceding the Kennedy assassination. Western Goals has offices in Germany run by Eugene Wigner that feed data to the Gehlen BND.) On the board of Western Goals are such Cold Warriors as Edward Teller, Admiral Thomas Moorer and Dr. Hans Senholt, once a Luftwaffe pilot. SS Colonel Skorzeny's CIA agents participated in terror campaigns waged by Operation 40 in Guatemala, Brazil and Argentina. Skorzeny was also in charge of the Paladin mercenaries, whose cover, M.C. Inc., was a Madrid export-import firm. Dr. Gerhard Hartmut von Schubert, [formerly] of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda ministry, was M.C. operating manager. The nerve center for Skorzeny's operations was in Albufera, Spain. It was lodged in the same building as the Spanish intelligence agency SCOE under Colonel Eduardo Blanco and was also an office of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. The Albufera building was the kind of intelligence nest that was duplicated in New Orleans in 1963. That summer Lee Harvey Oswald handed out pro-Castro literature stamped with the address 544 Camp Street, a commercial building. This was a blunder, because Oswald actually was under the control of an anti-Castro operation headquartered there. His controller, W. Guy Banister, was connected with military intelligence, the CIA and a section of the World Anti-Communist League that had been set up by Willoughby and his Far Pacific intelligence unit in Taiwan. In The Great Heroin Coup, Henrik Kruger disclosed that the International Fascist was "not only the first step toward fulfilling the dream of Skorzeny, but also of his close friends in Madrid, exile Jose Lopez Rega, Juan Peron's grey eminence, and prince Justo Valerio Borghese, the Italian fascist money man who had been rescued from execution at the hands of the World War II Italian resistance by future CIA counterintelligence whiz James J. Angleton." A subcommittee on international operations of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prepared a report "Latin America: Murder, Inc." that is still classified. The title repeated Lyndon Johnson's remark, three months before he died, "We were running a Murder, Inc. in the Caribbean." The report concluded: "The United States had joint operations between Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay. The joint operations were known as Operation Condor. These are special teams used to carry out 'sanctions,' the killing of enemies." Jack Anderson gave a few details in his column "Operation Condor, An Unholy Alliance" August 3, 1979: "Assassination teams are centered in Chile. This international consortium is located in Colonia Dignidad, Chile. Founded by nazis from Hitler's SS, headed by Franz Pfeiffer Richter, Adolf Hitler's 1000-year Reich may not have perished. Children are cut up in front of their parents, suspects are asphyxiated in piles of excrement or rotated to death over barbecue pits." Not that anyone has ever seen... You are aware there are still thousands of unseen documents.. pretty sweeping statement for someone with such a narrow focus. Generalized blanket statements do little for credibility Greg. So what? We have a photo of a mystery man and STILL have no idea who he really is... Why does one spy-asset mentioning Skorzeny, in context, automatically require Skorzeny to expose Lafitte if all he was doing for the assassination was coordination and Skorzeny was not in the habit of writing or mentioning these deep cover assets? Two different men Greg. Universal rules needn't apply, and your speculations should not be presented as "Prima facia" anything: "based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise". I've shown here the process of "proving otherwise" to you as others here have, yet you appear to only turn a deaf ear and power forward. Aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know
  22. @Benjamin Cole I'd highly recommend this book for a glimpse into what helped shape events over the past 100 years... It is written by friendlies so we do not see an indictment of their actions but a celebration... they are not placed in the worst of light but the best... FWIW https://www.amazon.com/Wise-Men-Friends-World-They/dp/1476728828 The Wise Men shares the stories of Averell Harriman, the freewheeling diplomat and Roosevelt’s special envoy to Churchill and Stalin; Dean Acheson, the secretary of state who was more responsible for the Truman Doctrine than Truman and for the Marshall Plan than General Marshall; George Kennan, self-cast outsider and intellectual darling of the Washington elite; Robert Lovett, assistant secretary of war, undersecretary of state, and secretary of defense throughout the formative years of the Cold War; John McCloy, one of the nation’s most influential private citizens; and Charles Bohlen, adroit diplomat and ambassador to the Soviet Union. PAX Americana Ben - Nazi's: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And these were the most brutal and organized "Commie-fighters" on the planet.
×
×
  • Create New...