Nathaniel Heidenheimer

Please post this thread on sites with lots of left and or left liberals, so they will post it at the left. https://www.facebook.com/notes/nathaniel-heidenheimer/a-footnote-on-the-jfk-assassination-the-cia-collins-radio-and-the-1965-66-genoci/10151327934435203 Why Did Markus Raskin [once McGeorge Bundy's Top Advisor, later founder, IPS] call JFK and the Unspeakable "a soucrebook for many years to come"? Well let's just take one of the more than 2,OOO detailed and scholarly footnotes, #909 for Chapter 6 ------ 909. Ralph W. McGehee, Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CIA (New York: Sheridan Square, Publications, 1983), p.57. One sentence cited from article by Ralph W. McGehee, "Foreign Policy by Forgery: The CIA and the White Paper on El Salvador," The Nation (April 11, 1981), pp.423-34 (with deletions by the CIA). McGehee also noted in his Nation Article, as then cided in his book on pp.57-58: "Initially the Indonesian Army left the P.K.I. [Communist Party of Indonesia] alone, since it had not been involved in the coup attempt. {Eight sentences deleted here by the CIA.} Subsequently, however, INdonesian military leaders [seven rods deleted by the CIA] began a bloody extermination campaign. In mid-November 1965, General Suharto formally authorized the 'cleaning out' of the Indonesian Communist Party and established special teams to supervise the mass killing. Media fabrications played a key role in stirring up popular resentment against the P.K.I. Photographs of the bodies of the dead in generals [who had been killed in a failed coup]-- badly decomposed-- were featured in all the newspapers and on television. Stories accompanying the pictures falsely claimed that the generals had been castrated and their eyes gouged out by Communist women. This cynically manufactured campaign was designed to foment public anger against the Communists and set the stage for a massacre... To conceal its role in the massacre of those innocent people the C.I.A., in 1968, concocted a false account of what happened (later published by the Agency as a book, Indonesia--1965: The Coup that Backfired) ...At the same time that the Agency wrote the book, it also composed a secret study of what really happened. [One sentence deleted by the CIA.] The Agency was extremely proud of its successful [one word deleted by the CIA] and recommended it as a model for future operations [one half sentence deleted by the CIA]." FOR MORE ON THE CIA AND ITS COLLINS RADIO TIES IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION ITSELF AS WELL AS THE OPERATIONS OF THE 1965-66 INDONESIAN GENOCIDE LET US NOW TURN TO FOOTNOTE 912 OF CHAPTER 6, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE; WHY HE DIED AND WHY IT MATTERS BY JAMES W. DOUGLASS. FOOTNOTE 912 OF CHAPTER 6, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE: ON THE CIA'S COLLINS RADIO AND ITS TIES TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION AND THE INDONESIAN GENOCIDE OF 1.25 MILLION THAT WAS JUST ONE DIRECT RESULT OF THIS ASSASSINATION. 912 William Blum, Killing Hope: Us Military and CIA Interventions since World War II (Monroe, Me.: Common Courage Press, 19950, p.194. The CIA's support of the massacre in Indonesia [btw. 750,000 and 1.25 Million following CIA coup in 1965, N.H.] also included supplying communications systems from Collins Radio, its major contractor (whose employee Carl Mather, as we have seen, was linked through his automobile's license to a sighting of the second Oswald the afternoon of the assassination): "The supply of radios is perhaps the most telling detail {of U.S. logistical support to the bloodbath]. They served not only as field communications but also became an element of a broad, US intelligence-gathering operation constructed as the manhunt went forward. According to a former embassy official, the Central Intelligence Agency hastily provided the radios--state of the art Collins KWM-2s, high-frequency single-sideband transceivers, the highest-powered mobile unit available at that time to the civilian and commercial market." Kadane, "Letter to the Editor, New York Review Of Books (April 10, 1997)

FOOTNOTE 912 OF CHAPTER 6, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE: ON THE CIA'S COLLINS RADIO AND ITS TIES TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION AND THE INDONESIAN GENOCIDE OF 1.25 MILLION THAT WAS JUST ONE DIRECT RESULT OF THIS ASSASSINATION. 912 William Blum, Killing Hope: Us Military and CIA Interventions since World War II (Monroe, Me.: Common Courage Press, 19950, p.194. The CIA's support of the massacre in Indonesia [btw. 750,000 and 1.25 Million following CIA coup in 1965, N.H.] also included supplying communications systems from Collins Radio, its major contractor (whose employee Carl Mather, as we have seen, was linked through his automobile's license to a sighting of the second Oswald the afternoon of the assassination): "The supply of radios is perhaps the most telling detail {of U.S. logistical support to the bloodbath]. They served not only as field communications but also became an element of a broad, US intelligence-gathering operation constructed as the manhunt went forward. According to a former embassy official, the Central Intelligence Agency hastily provided the radios--state of the art Collins KWM-2s, high-frequency single-sideband transceivers, the highest-powered mobile unit available at that time to the civilian and commercial market." Kadane, "Letter to the Editor, New York Review Of Books (April 10, 1997) ------------------ LIttle HELP? I am trying to get JFK and the Unspeakable into more hands of the "the left" Why? This has been the group where most of the lies about JFK are aimed. Since this great book has not received any corporate attention, that means we do it or nobody. CAN PEOPLE PLEASE SPREAD THIS AROUND AND SHARE IT? It is critical that we focus ON THE WIDER POLICY IMPLICATIONS of the assassination with a mind towards how the disinformation works and towards whom the disinformation is aimed.

MKULTRA, Atichoke, Frank Olson. Paperclip. THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL BOOK THAT GOES TO THE CORE OF CIA HISTORY.http://www.amazon.com/Terrible-Mistake-Murder-Secret-Experiments/product-reviews/193629608X/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#RSFF9G63G1D6E H.P. Albarelli Author of A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and The CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments H.P. Albarelli on BOR tonight. Help spread word if possible. HIs book was great. Not enough people know about it. http://www.blackopradio.com/ Black Op Radio www.blackopradio.com

Paul the far right such as Birchers etc were no longer isolationists. Yes they railed against the UN and multi-latteralism but it was because of unilateral interventionism in Latin America and Asia and not for isolationism. I think you are misunderstanding the key 1950-56 period in which a fierce unilateral interventionism in the name of anti-communism triumphed over the Taft wing. As early as 46 47 with the Vandenberg conversion, the isolationist right was a thing of the past. The reason they might SEEM sometimes isolationist is, as you rightly point out, their fierce opposition to UN Eurocentric multi-latteralism. But that is not the same as isolationism. The new rightists wanted to intervene more freely without UN approval. These are the western interventionists of the China Lobby and other unilateral adventurists. We see this concern with "will the US still be able to act like Latin America is our back yard" already in the Senate Debates over the Versailles treaty and we see it most clearly -- in so far as the JFK assassination is concerned-- in Nelson Rockefeller's machinations around Argentina just before the San Francisco UN convention in 1945. Again this is unilateral interventionism not isolationism.

David, it would seem that many are, at least, majority-ears: "And finally, in case David Lifton has missed it: http://educationforu...ndpost&p=246254 " How about some answers? Your's in surplus humility-- Citizen Nate

JFK's genitals are getting 8,000,000% more press than the tactical nukes that would have hit US ships had they invaded Cuba, an event that would have caused WWIII. Fair and balanced for NBC, but why the replication here?

It boggles the mind that JFK researchers can lean back and praise billionaire media outlets who have suppressed every aspect of JFK truth or news that might generate interest and then gush with praise over the tons of billionaire- press coverage given to this story. Two weeks ago one of four surviving surgeons at Parkland spoke about his observations. Not a word in big media anywhere. And now people gush over these purveyors of coverup. Unbelievable. The Soviet Union could not create better propaganda for the coverup-- I mean looking at the total picture of what is excluded and what is included. And then researchers praise the accomplices of murder. Unbelieveable. If these are warriors for truth I would hate to see the opposition.

'Did it ever occur to you that the Secret Service agents could be completely truthful about JFK's rampant and well documented sexual promiscuity ... AND at the same time certain members of the Secret Service could have facilitated the JFK assassination? " ------ Yes, Robert i acknowledged that abstract possibility in my post 68, which you here distort. I am in no rush to judgement and don't know how anyone could be--given what we know about the Media history of JFK questions and issues. Is there a Ford among us here for guidance?

Someone who has read this book should write a review with LOTS OF PRODUCT LINKS in it for Amazon. Then the review WHICH WILL BE SEEN BY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE POSSIBLY, DEPENDING ON WHETHER WE CLICK BUTTONS can lead a healthy percentage of these otherwise only MSM readers to sources of deeper and or different flavored truth. Please write this soon so I can click a button on Amazon and thereby generate far more change than I would be by pulling a lever in a completely fake corporate election next November. I would do this, but I don't have time right now to read this profound and scholarly work. I will leave it to my betters like Brian Williams to mull over the oral footnotes. One could also inform citizens about certain web sites with articles about Rolling Bob Loomis, other CIA media amusement parks etc. If you build ramps they will click Shoeless Nate

-------Robert how do you factor into your reading this, that it is written by Seymour Hersh? I am not saying it is all true or all false, I am simply asking how you factor in the variable that this comes from a book written by Sir Seymour of Langley, a man who quotes top media spinners of Richard Helms as if they were Jesus?

my neo-Colonial bad. Here is the link http://www.truth-out.org/anniversaries-unhistory/1328369965

http://www.truth-out.org/anniversaries-unhistory/1328369965. This really MUST BE responded to. Will do so as soon as I get a chance. It is now impossible, in my view, to see Chomsky as anything other than willfully disinforming on JFK and Vietnam. This is beyond cherry picking and his sourcing is fresh as Pompeii.

"US isolationism on the one hand, and the duty of Global Empire " These foreign policy characteristics are too dichotomous as to capture the conflict between JFK and his killers. JFK was far from an isolationist. He just thought that third world nationalism and anti-imperialism need not be subsumed into ideas of monolithic communist conspiracy that were used to justify a more purely oil-banking- and military economy. This difference between JFK and his more Latin American and Asian oriented unilateralist opponents had its corresponding economic policies, in the lowering of tariffs, the extension of free-trade zones to include countries led by right wing dictatorships propped up by the CIA and the death of American industry in favor of a NAFTA, purely finance, oil and military based economy. The reason it was a coup is because permanent intelligence bureaucracies permanently replaced elected officials when it came to sovereignty. A couple of presidents may have been slow learners, but there is no longer any doubt.

"He then suggested that I apply for a job with his friend from college days, Robert Maheau, but I was leery of him. " ------- EBW BETWEEN the 1954ish troika of Nixon, Hoffa and Maheau on the one hand, and RFK on the other. Then immediately after the RFK assassination gets all of RFK's little helpers working for his new outfit and Intertel. In between he refuses his former client, Jimmy Hoffa, when Hoffa appealed to Williams to use some highly volatile dirt on RFK, if we are to believe Jim Hougan in his book Spooks. EBW BETWEEN 1954ish Phillip Graham, Frank Wisner and a young Ben Bradlee working for Wisner in manipulating the West European press for the CIA and Katherine Graham, later making it easier for Katherine to win by selling out his dead client. EBW BETWEEN Washington Post and The DNC in Watergate? EBW BETWEEN Bobby Baker and Johnson just when something needed to be between em. ---- EBW would seem to be good at turning the double play. Was he a middle infielder in addition to being on the Holy Cross Debating Team with Robert Maheau? Somehow he seems at the center of all the key developments in the rightward turn of the Democratic Party.

Wow what a great way of showing the relevance of the assassination to today's world of Plausible- Denial- Passenger - Presidency. Great idea Barry. Look forward to reading it. it is worth noting that the fundamental strategy of the fake-left is to CONFLATE the presidents role as plausible denier in chief (c. 1985) with the earlier period (1954- 11-22-63 or perhaps with Nixon's bad reading glasses, somewhat later) thus enabling the fiction that the National Security State was not actively undermining the expressed will of presidentS. Any new clarification of the role of the National Security State and President will be much welcome by this particular mover and shaker!

Paul, Your use of the phrase right-wing is problematic for me. For ME the suffix wing connotes more hard scrabble on the ground birch types probably funded from warehouses in Los Angeles. I agree that real change is slower and probably we agree that the rightward shift in the country that either "resulted from" the coup of 1963-- or which the Coup of 1963 was at lease a powerful symptom, which must be obfuscated in order to distract from more structural connections to the true structure of power -- was the result of forces that had little to do with the intentions of operators on the ground and their personal ideologies. I agree with those varied posters and writers who point to old New Deal tinged liberals who moved right after WWII. People like Tommy Corcoran, Eugene Meyer, Nelson Rockefeller, and sundry Graham crackers who were integrated with more liberal christmas trees in the classic Cold War bargain: leaving many of the New Deal domestic reforms in place, while increasingly supporting the transformation of the US into a garrison state. Problem was, as time passed this transformation was pregnant with a choice: would the US remain an industrial power, or did the emphasis on foreign intervention and the military industrial oil complex force the eventual fork in the road between Industrial Capitalism and Finance Capitalism. So if we are looking for the true source of this long term rightward shift in our country it is more fruitful to look at key liberals moving right higher up on the food chain. They are the ones best situated to maintain the drunk marriage between old ideals and new economies of death and censorship. And they are the ones who more likely to know how to fool their old allies among older left-liberals in the New Deal economic sense. Industrial Capitalism v. Finance Capitalism. That is the fork in the road that books like Battling Wall Street and Thy Will Be Done point us. And when it comes to this change shifts among democrats are more important than the permitted doings of bewhiskered Western sheriffs. Even those allowed on KTLA!

Pat thank you for your contextualizing statements. I am not a researcher, so please forgive these questions if they seem bovine. 1) do you mean to suggest that some of McClellan's statements DIRECTLY CONTRADICT each other? If so which quotations? 2) is there any evidence suggesting that McClellan's testimony to the WC may have been shaped by Secret Service pressure? 3) Is your suggestions of "memory problems" based on your stated discrepancies between day of v. WC statements, or based on your statement about his recollections of the drawing, or both? If it is based on his mistaken statement about the drawing, when was this statement made? 4) Daniel types "The question is , Pat, whether anything Dr. M said to the Rotarians contradicts his WC testimony which is quite explicit about where the damage to the head was:"the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted.... so that the parietal bone protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fratured along its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones ...in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral and some of the cerebelar tissue had been blasted out." (6WCH 33). do you maintain that this offers evidence of a shot from the front or a shot from the back? 5) you type "McClelland's report written on the day of the shooting. "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." Do you interpret these words as necessarily implying that the left temple was the exit wound rather than an entrance wound?

IMO people should be going wide angle with this article posting it into general audiences. Advocates of truth must put more chum in the wider sea for first timers. This is where The State is killing us!!

make that OMFG

WOW. Amazing comment about Perry. And from a horse's mouth. WOW.

"It’s also been documented that Bobby Kennedy bullied Lyndon Johnson into continuing the Vietnam war. According to Doris Kearns Goodwin (in “Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream”), Bobby insisted to LBJ that President Kennedy would have done everything in his power to keep Southeast Asia from falling to the Communists, and that it was therefore incumbent upon Johnson to honor his dead brother’s legacy"-- Does anyone know WHICH PART OF Kearns Goodwin's book this hack is referring to? I looked in the book at a bookstore and couldn't find it. I really want to see what she types and compare it to how this guy represents it. This guy needs to be called out. He is doing a lot of damage, IMO.

This is the same writer who wrote the single most vicious piece of garbage I have ever read in my life, which is this article that appeared in Counterpunch last June--- Joe McCarthy's Boy Wonder Bobby Kennedy Was No Hero By DAVID MACARAY June 27, 2011 www.counterpunch.org http://www.counterpu...ay06272011.html It’s a mystery why John F. Kennedy is still regarded as the family moderate—cautious, pragmatic, shrewd and calculating—while brother Bobby gets to be portrayed as the impetuous, left-leaning, idealistic humanitarian. It’s a mystery because even a cursory examination of history reveals that that wasn’t Bobby. For openers, Bobby Kennedy was about as “leftist” as Douglas MacArthur. In truth, he, like his brother John, was a shrieking anti-Communist. The Kennedys were not only Cold Warriors, they were fairly paranoid about it—confusing progressivism with Bolshevism—which is why they believed, ludicrously, that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Communist, and is why they (John as president and Bobby as Attorney General) had King’s telephone tapped. How much of an anti-Communist was Bobby Kennedy? Consider: During the early 1950s Bobby served as an aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy. Yes, that Joseph McCarthy. His witch-hunting senate committee ruined the careers of scores of Americans through the use of smears and innuendo. It’s a fact. Bobby (“Don’t get mad….get even”) Kennedy was Joe McCarthy’s boy. It was only after family patriarch, Joe Kennedy, advised his son to jump off the McCarthy bandwagon (alas, “Tail-Gunner Joe” had become an embarrassment, having degenerated into a clownish, alcoholic demagogue) that Bobby sought a new vocation. It was only after Papa Joe urged him to abandon Commie-hunting and focus on another bogy man that Bobby Kennedy decided to make America’s labor unions his next victim. Obviously, there were many corruption targets to choose from. He could have gone after Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, defense fraud, payola in the record industry, etc., but because Joe Kennedy had no ties, no loyalties, no connections of any kind to the working class—indeed, he held the common working man in contempt—organized labor became Bobby’s new whipping boy. Best to leave those well-groomed gentlemen in the three-piece suits alone, and go after the guys in the watchmen’s caps and mackinaws. As for Bobby’s celebrated social conscience, that’s another exaggeration. In his award-winning history of the CIA (“Legacy of Ashes”), Tim Weiner reports that it was Bobby himself who spearheaded the plan to murder Fidel Castro. It was Bobby Kennedy who not only initiated the assassination plot, but who—following one ignominious failure after another—flogged the hare-brained operation to keep it going. After all, he was the president’s brother. Who was going to tell him to back off? All those conspiracies—the exploding cigars, the LSD-laced coffee, the chemical additives to cause Fidel’s beard to fall out (!), bribing trusted Castro associates to poison him, hiring out-of-town Mafia hitmen to murder him outright—those were all sanctioned by Bobby. Based on documents released via FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), as well as material gleaned from numerous first-person interviews (“Legacy of Ashes” has 150 pages of notes), Weiner made the case that Bobby Kennedy was obsessed with killing Fidel Castro, that he ate, drank and breathed Castro assassination fantasies. It’s also been documented that Bobby Kennedy bullied Lyndon Johnson into continuing the Vietnam war. According to Doris Kearns Goodwin (in “Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream”), Bobby insisted to LBJ that President Kennedy would have done everything in his power to keep Southeast Asia from falling to the Communists, and that it was therefore incumbent upon Johnson to honor his dead brother’s legacy by not abandoning the war. He pressured LBJ to remain in Vietnam, arguing that pulling out would be the act of a coward and traitor. It was only after the Vietnam war had become toxically unpopular and been deemed unwinnable that Bobby, who was now seeking the 1968 presidential nomination, reversed his position and declared himself America’s “peace candidate,” harshly criticizing Johnson for his hawkishness. So much for Bobby’s principles….and so much for Brother John’s “legacy.” While Bobby Kennedy obviously had some good qualities, it’s a mistake to regard him as heroic—as a combination of Mahatma Gandhi, Cesar Chavez and Che Guevara. Bobby was no hero. He was a hardboiled player. If we insist on making comparisons, he was a combination of Lee Atwater, John Gotti and Henry Kissinger. David Macaray, a Los Angeles playwright, is the author of “It’s Never Been Easy: Essays on Modern Labor”. He served 9 terms as president of AWPPW Local 672. He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net ------- It is time we keep an eye out for this guy . He is clearly ready to take the place of Cockburn in lying to the left about JFK , RFK and the assassinations. This article is not cherry picking. It is some term for more selective than cherry picking that has not bee invented yet. Of course there are some facts there but still it is so out of context as to distort history even more than FOX does. Incredible garbage. He calls attention to his Union creds. Well guess what. In 1968 it was the huge national union leaders who stuck by Humph, but which way were the renegade union LOCALS going? When you have locals defying the machined national leadership ... certain people notice. And in the aberration-- the one national union leader who opposed the Vietnam war-- air traffic control towers notice.

"He dug repetition but this repetition was structurally necessary" There. I have finished My epitaph and am ready for puncturation. No seriously coma folks I am aware that I seem to ahem... emphasize.. the degree to which the WORST AND FAR AND AWAY MOST IMPORTANT [iN TERMS OF ITS EFFECT ON THE WHOLE FLOW OF COMMUNICATIONS ] disinformation about JFK and the CIA is aimed at the left but for RIGHTWARD reasons. Recently this point was highlighted for me once again while listening to an episode of Black Op Radio. There was a young man on who was making what sounds like an incredible doc on the Bay of Pigs. He emphasized the degree to which 99% of JFK documentaries are EITHER/OR in the words of Soren K's favorite tattooist. Either they are about the assassination, OR they are about JFK's policies. Nearly never that twain will meet between the same dust-jacket or on the same dvd. Only Disconnect would seem to be the mandate for keeping curiosities caged. It is THE LEFT who is the dangerous audience from the point of view of the CIA. I do not here mean the editors meant to control the left, which in the US is often conflated with the left. I mean by "the left" the fluidity of the population itself that might exist between left liberals and points further left. Not fixed positions but fluidity of the sort seen in the not-very-surprisingly-almost-never- written-about 1968 RFK campaign. The profound implications of JFK's inchoate detente on both liberals' and the lefts' understanding of the National Security State would make the wedge between the two much more difficult to maintain. You will notice how, especially since 1980 the so called "left" i.e. read allowed-to-be -published, is almost exclusively focussed on social history to the virtual exclusion of political history. You need both folks. It is the CONNECTION of policy with the reality of the assassination that makes the JFK assassination so dangerous for the National Security State that-- for all intents and purposes -- IS the US government right now. And the threat comes POTENTIALLY from a leftward direction. THAT is why the best and most important lies NEED to be aimed at left audiences. Recently I have finally come across a very very important article. Actually it is a chapter in a book by the former lead investigative journalist Fred Cook. It deals with how the Nation Magazine censored him on the JFK assassination. I am mining this article right now and I am finding it very very very interesting and I considered a fourth very. ------- Originally published in Fred J. Cook, Maverick: fifty Years of Investigative Reporting. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1984, pp. 273-282, 285-291. Reprinted by permission of the author. in HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US by E. Martin Schotz Wow. This article is the mustest reading since the debatable thumb.

Nathaniel, BFD. (Big Fledermaus Deal) --Tommy ---- Tom if you listen to the interviews that mistake falls into a pattern all of which seem to belittle the windshield research. I am currently using the Richard Dudman angle to provoke awareness on the web site of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, and am interested in the relative merits of each side of the windshield discourse. I am sorry for saying discourse. I have not taken sides on the windshield, because it can be unhealthy for insects and posters on this forum. I am merely trying to see what the consensus view of the windshield is. And whether that consensus is justified. As I said, the doc to nurse change might not be significant out of context, but in the context of the interview if fits a pattern. The reverse mistake is hard to imagine.

Weldon says that Barb and co made the mistake of calling her a nurse. Is this correct? Weldon never called her a nurse.