Nathaniel Heidenheimer

How did Doctor G. become a Nurse. What are the origins of this tinkering? Or is Weldon wrong? Also how does the posse feel about Weldon's disputing that the limo was cordoned off? http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black561b.mp3

Dito. You are one of the three most interesting posters on the Forum IMO.

"In late November (1940) he [Drew Pearson] prepared for Rockefeller a confidential memorandum on American diplomats in South America. The memo went down the list of prinfipal envoys, country by country , with Pearson offering pithy comments about each man. (Ambassador to Medico Josephus Daniels was "too kindly to be effective and rather difficult to work with "; John Muccio, first secretary in Peru, was a "hard drinker and all that goes with it"; Claude Bowers, ambassador to Chile, "doesn't work any too hard at the job but is one of the best of the political appointees") It was the sort of inside information to which Washington newcomers rarely had access. The possession of such a memo showed just how far from "collegiate" Rockefeller really was. "-- Carry Reich, The Life of Nelson A. Rockefeller, p. 194 ______ I found this meeting btw Pearson and Nelson interesting, given it was just as he was about to assume huge responsibilities over Latin American intelligence in 1940. Rockefeller was working closely with Nitze and Forrestal at this time. Having recently read some of Drew Pearson's Diaries from the 1949 50 period, I was not very impressed. His observations seem much less frank or brave than the diaries of Schlessinger. Reich implies that the ties between Pearson and Rockefeller lasted for a long time. I find this interesting from the perspective of Nelson Rockefeller's background in Latin America during WWII and the JFK Assassination.

"Look, here's the deal. The New York Times newspaper and their "other media interests" reach MILLIONS of "everyday" folk each day. They reach millions of people who are not well versed in this subject, but who are VERY interested in it. By viewing this film, these uninitiated folk might be exposed to this information for the VERY FIRST TIME. This film is not primarily for researchers, it is for public consumption! THAT IS THE ONLY "CONTEXT" WORTH CONSIDERING! Now, in that context, his performance is weak. Very damn weak." I strongly agree with this assessment. Tink's performance was another snickers bar thrown to those who want to dismiss the whole thing. He may well be cooking more nutritious fare. But how many will even get the change to smell it. We need to wake up to the communications verities. Those who work to dismiss when millions are watching and then claim to still be researchers before an audience of 22 ... well they have much to answer when our communications environment has become so moated and mined. Thompson knows damn well proponents of the historical fact of conspiracy are not given a second on Wide audience media. He chose to take the slingshot from David and give it to Goliath. He chose glibness before a corrupt lens over opportunity.

Wow look at the comments the NYT chose to highlight and put at the top of the list, so more people will see them. ALL OF THEM ARE PRO-GLIB DIMISSAL!!!! "and only six minutes"!! Now look at the other comments and how much more like clicks they got. Thanks again Tink. You may have worked for decades on this. You have become a de facto Six Minute Man for the Times view of the assassination. Enough to swell the celluloid of Creel... or C.D. Jackson.

"Revilo P. Oliver Berkeley, California November 22nd, 2011 6:11 am Indeed. This begins to point up what I think is the key to the Kennedy assassination as an overall phenomenon, which is that its senseless ultimacy created a void in the collective psyche that attracts, like a vacuum, whatever the spectator brings to it. The only explanation that can encompass the bewildering, chaotic riot of conflicting theories and the obsessive sadness of their promulgators is that we are here presented with the profoundly unsatisfactory truth of our own individual and collective mortality." Top comment the NYT is putting out right now. Wow. Just look at the special bees attracted to Tink's honey. Millions will see Thompson's dismissal-mechanism. maybee ten thousand will see his new book. It does not matter if he formally renounces CT or not. Its the number of eyeballs that counts. We need soldiers, as Lisa Pease said in a recent interview. Sewage like this just undid tons of work.

------- The NYT taking some conspiracy research "out of context" Please!!!!!!!!!! When was the last time ANYTHING was in context about JFK in the censor of record? Sorry this excuse would not fly for a thirty year old.

Thompson has done so much so fast to provide another reason for millions to dismiss the JFK assassination. I have spent a lot of time trying to spread awareness among the ZILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO KNOW NOTHING BUT THE HISTORY CHANNEL SEWAGE, a task which so many experts deem beneath them. With the dismissal-ticket Thompson just provided in the NYT its as if all the entry ramps for newbies have been bombed. Thompson'a next book-- if it is in fact pro-conspiracy-- will not have one millionth of the effect of his glib eminance-fleece of those who have been working so hard to democratize awareness of our real political structure. I am so pissed, and I don't care if he has been working on this case since 1953. What is more important to you Professor, your own celebrity or Truth. I hope you will not object to the capital T, although it is vulgar in the NYT. The unmagical bullets didn't. Just their NYT narrators.

This death is an allegation. I will wait for the trial.

Well said, Martin! Hmmm, no that last one was difficult to figure out.. -------------- One need not convert this into Soren Keirkegard's book Thompson/Fetzer. Whenever a polarity is drawn SO SHARPLY it protests too much and it is best to stay as far away from personalities as possible. Very likely there are key elements of truth in both and we are being set up with false opposites to fragment audiences. Such is the logic of disinformation, and I am not here suggesting that either Professor need be a conscious agent of disinformation for this to be the case. Even if Prof. Fetzer never existed I just do not get how one can fail recognize Prof. Thompson's complicity in an exercise he must have known was designed as One More Exercise In Official Media's Dismissal of the JFK Assassination.

Why would Tink go on The NYT and participate in a film that had only one de facto outcome: to turn all people who have concluded that there was a conspiracy in the death of JFK into babies thrown out with more NYT evian bathwater? He may well be coming out with a new book "proving" his version of a conspiracy. He knows it will never be reviewed in the NYT. He knows he will never be invited back with any of his pro-conspiracy views? Why does he agree to roll such loaded dice, when they are only playing into the NYT and Corporate Media "One and Done" strategy? By One and Done, I mean the new strategy of denial adopted by the NYT and The Nation, and other left-gatekeeping publications. Offer special denial fare to the educated middle class. Go into just one of millions of points of dispute, dismiss it as ridiculous, and then, KNOWING THAT THE TARGETED AUDIENCE PROBABLY IS NOT AWARE OF THE OTHER 999,000 facts of the case, use that disputed point to either 1) dismiss the whole assassination as loony tunes and low class knowledge [knowing that social status is often more important than proof] OR 2) allow that point to be the only one discussed and thus providing a note from a Tweedy Doctor for the educated middle class to ignore the whole vulgar test of the Assassination itself? Why participate in a such a FOX film if one is an advocate of free range chickens? You can later claim to discover the truth but what will it matter if you have here provided an excuse for tens of millions to avoid looking at it. The assassination is not merely a matter of truths discovered. It is a matter of audience. Winnowed here, and in other places blown up for huge numbers only to be driven over a cliff. You could have dropped in a few facts for further reference perfessor. Like maybe cause a few people to read about C.D. Jackson, whose 18 hole sandtrap we have been left playing since 1963. You decided to participate in a film that was pure dismissal. Why? I ask this question without having read most of what Mr. Fetzer has written. To me this question stands entirely independent of the Fetzer Thomson dispute, of which I barely can follow anyways on account of posses frighten me.

Interesting that, when the NYT finally begins to cede some ground, that rare earth is the ground that is the most tenuous and divisive of the pro-conspirarcy advocates. Who could ask for anything more?

Another bucket of BS that maybe two million will see. Meanwhile the people who really know the case and want the truth out do nothing to reach young people and a new audience. They just keep on posting to other experts. This is why we are losing folks.

the importance of Left Gatekeeping in the JFK assassination. Have just been informed by a Knowledgable Citizen that Robert Stone [Oswald's CIA Ghost-Host] has made another film, this one airing on National Geriatric scheduled for Nov. 22. JFK was taking very significant steps to end the Cold War. Who would have been most interested in this, the right or the left? Hence my myopia: were it shared more widely I could maybe chill out more on this left-gatekeeping angle. Everyone needs to go on the offensive against Stone by pointing out his hackmanship in Oswald's Ghost. Interest will be there given the tiniest steps towards projecting this stuff where more people will see it. How often do you see a documentary that actually DISCOURAGES interest in its subject matter? > PBS Oswald's Ghost How often do you see documentary that so openly announces its target audience as "the left" > PBS Oswald's Ghost How often do you see a documentary that so openly uses documented CIA assets as the main talking heads> PBS Oswald's Ghost With a Ghost like this, Who needs the CIA? With a PBS like this, who needs FOX There is very very very very good reason why the most important lies about JFK are aimed at the left. There. I hope that will suffice as a downpayment on my repetitiveness.

"After reading a pre-galley copy of JFK and Vietnam, Daniel Ellsberg called (author John) Newman one night very excitedly. Ellsberg had worked with Lansdale and knew him extremely well. He said, "This is the first time I've ever thought that (Gen. Edward) Lansdale might have been involved in the assassination." Ellsberg based this on Lansdale being removed from Vietnam planning and moved to Operation Mongoose.81 By February 1963 Lansdale had no position in Cuban policy and was focusing on Latin America. He was traveling to countries like Bolivia and elsewhere. The U.S. had a lot of personnel in South America under Kennedy. And a lot of them ended up going to Vietnam. According to Newman there is a blind spot as to exactly what they were doing and how many people the U.S. had in Latin America.82 "I can tell you," Newman said, "that in the collateral research that I did, names that I came across, I found a correlation between -- I don't say this is definitive but I got a lot of hits -- the same names of the guys that were running around in Latin America, particularly in Cuban policy, end up in the Far East Division. Very strange coincidence. There were three -- it wasn't just one -- there were several. A neat nexus between the Southeast Asian guys and Cuban guys." ---------- The fact that Lansdale "had no position" on Cuba policy in 1963 should, perhaps, be taken with salt. The positions were becoming more and more ambiguous each day, as the CIA and white house were on various pages at different times. Reassignments could be corrected in Mexico City? " A neat nexus between the Southeast Asian guys and Cuban guys." One person who would seem to meet this criteria is Desmond Fitzgerald. Given his other activities during 1963 I have found it interesting that he made the SE Asia Cuba Switch around the same time as Lansdale. Is he among the group being alluded to here, or did you mean more overtly triggery citizenry?

People need to go on Amazon NOW and type truth in the comments to the reviews . Also they need to type their own reviews. Once again people who know everything are sticking to typing to the choir. MEANWHILE 96 lane highways are jammed with newbies who hear only the jello brained filled with passionate MathewsDensity. Type em where they are. Include product links to great books like JFK and the Unspeakable. Judo the mass media. Other evolving bumper stickers. Amazon won't let me comment because they say I have committed an Amazonian sin, but they wont tell me what it is. So please do this everyone now. Get new readers. That is what matters most.

Tom's point about the change in the way LSD was perceived is very important, and is born out by the book called Storming Heaven: The Social History of LSD. Some may have a wish to protect JFK from the stigma of the associations of LSD that were propagated from 1966 on. These are simply not the associations that accompanied the drug in 1963. Now, can we expect today's Corporate Media to respect these distinctions if this book makes waves? Of course not. Does that mean we should let that distract us from other questions of what actually happened in 1963? Of course not. I am sensitive to all the trembling earth there is out there in the Okefenokee swamp of JFK disinfo. There is tons of stuff out there planted as banana peel so the cameras can run only in the slipping. So I am far from saying we should lead with the Mary Pinchot Meyer, until much more research is done. But I guess I don't understand how some are so quick to dismiss this. I mean lets just focus on the Ben Bradlee and Angleton aspects of the story for a minute. Are they on the same page in so far as how they tell the story? If they are, then how can this not be a story, even if both are lying? I mean this is the editor of Watergate. It would seem that one way or another there is some There here. I mean even if you think both are cooperating to cover something else up?

John, unfortunately that is not a solution. Politics is not about what one person thinks. It is about the common denominator of shared knowledge or beliefs that exist among many people. So for me to just seek the truth about JFK FOR MYSELF ALONE only allows the lies of gatekeepers and disinformationists to triumph to an even greater extent, and soon, the only people who think that JFK was not a rabid Cold Warrior will be 87 or 86d. by the bouncer nicknamed death.

It does not matter anymore who is president. That is what the JFK Assassination is trying to teach. You can't play both sides of the coin on this one folks. And if you have been paying any attention at all to the Democratic party since June 5th, 1968, you realize that they are merely a very useful tool for managing dissent via fragmentation.

Having an idiot like Chris Mathews on the what-is-now-falsely-perceived-as-left-liberal part of the political spectrum is even worse than having a blathering idiot like O"Reilly on the Right. The government does not care if only 2% believe its foundation lies like those around JFK. THEY ARE FAR MORE CONCERNED WITH WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF THE OTHER 97% are getting closer to a single coherent counter-narrative. Hence MSNBC: the quicker counter-narative scrambler

This article by Larry Stern of the Washington Post is from Jan 3, 1963. US AGENCIES SOUNDED ON PATENT POLICY MOVES. A White House scientific task force has quietly circulated among Government agencies a proposal designed to rationalize conflicting Federal patent policies. The proposal,drafted by the staff of presdential science adviser Jerome B Wiesner, is still secret, and a spokesman for the Wiesner group declined to discuss the report on the ground that it remains only a "staff recommendation" But the staff paper , which has been under study by executive agencies for more than a year, could affect the disposition to private contractors of many millions of dollars worth of patent rights on inventions developed with taxpayers funds. The controversy that the Wiesner group hoped to resolve is this: How far should the Government go in granting exclusive patent rights to contractors for inventions stemming from Government financed research and development contracts? The issue has been hotly disputed in Congress, industry and within the executive agencies. Until now Wiesner's office and the agencies have kept heavy secrecy wraps on reactions tot he new proposal as well as on the report itself. It was learned yesterday, however, the the Departments of Justice and Health , Education and Welfare privately objected to Wiesner's office that the White House staff proposal does not put enough stress on public rights to patents. Forme Secretary of Health Education and Welfare Abraham A. Ribicoff, in a letter to the Wiesner group, gave this reaction to its proposals: "If there is any single criticism of the draft statement that I would make it would be that it lacks a forthright statement of what the public interest is or requires on inventions deriving from Government support..." "At the outset, it should be pointed out that the Statement of Policy Considerations seems to be unduly wighted in the direction of a consideration of the interest of industry in the entire matter. It would seem more appropriate for the emphasis in this sort of statement be cast more heavily upon the rights of the public to inventions derived from activities supported or paid for by public funds" Assistant Attorney General Nicholas deB.Katzenbach also registered objections to the proposed patent revisions. He noted that some agencies, such as the Atomic Energy Commission, as a matter of law do not sign away exclusive rights to contractors at the time services are contracted for. He warned the White House group against trying to reverse such policies "by Executive action." Katzenbach added:"... this department is on record with COngress as opposed to any legislative solution of this problem which would grant exclusive rights to contractors when the contract is made. We have not been persuaded that this position is unsound." The Defense Department, which currently has the Governments's biggest research budget at $5 billion this year, is the most liberal Federal agency in its dealings with contractors. With few exceptions, it turns over to its contractors exclusive rights to inventions developed with Pentagon dollars. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is now trying to change its patent procedures, which were established by Congress, and bring itself more in line with Defense policy. At present NASA is obliged to keep title to inventions stemming from research it and the taxpayer finance

Land Reform is one area in which The Alliance For Progress changed after LBJ chose former ambassador to Mexico Thomas Mann to head the organization founded by JFK. One of the places where we see the difference is in Brazil. At this time the states in the North of Brazil were where the greatest poverty was. There were a variety of different organizations there pressing land reform. Some of them were affiliated with the Catholic Church, and one of these was not explicitly rightist in orientation. Others were not religious, but Marxist organizations did not have an easy time of it. As in Cuba, JFK thought that land reform and political liberalization was possible, even in this social structure without a big middle class. He saw some degree of land reform as part of the campaign against communism. Most writers on the topic agree that the Alliance For Progress did not meet with much success in the North of Brazil. However, even before the assassination the CIA had begun making some policies with the Governors of Brazil, behind the back of President Goulart. Many key players here were affiliated with Nelson Rockefeller, either from his days as head of the CIAA during WWII, or from later academic affiliations with The Rockefeller Foundation. After the Assassination, Thomas Mann took a very different attitude towards land reform. He supported the Coup d'etat in Brazil of 1964, which was aided by the CIA. This coup involved playing some of the cards the CIA had developed in Brazil behind the back of Presidents Goulart and Kennedy. Thomas Mann's policies involved closer relations with the Governors of Brazil and the development of Western Brazil for massive mining and cattle raising projects. The economic nationalism that had still characterized the Goulart government was now completely gone. The new Military government of Brazil had a much more open attitude to direct US investment. Land reform of any kind was seen as almost inherently communist. Land reform in Brazil is one more area of the world where the policy changes between the JFK's administration and that of LBJ were significant. IMO the differences between JFK and LBJ were the most significant of any other pair of US administrations other than those between the administrations of Hoover and FDR.

The following was part of a series of articles that Laurence Stern wrote for the Washington Post in the Spring of 1963 on foreign lobbyists operating in the US. Sen. William Fulbright was leading a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee into the activities of these lobbyists, many of whom were skirting 1938 legislation regarding how foreign lobbyists should be registered and regulated by the US legislature. BELLOW I WILL TYPE THE PARAGRAPHS THAT STOOD OUT AS MOST INTERESTING ----- EX-GENERAL, LOBBYIST FOR BONN, TESTIFIES AT CLOSED HEARING BY LAURENCE STERN MAY 15, 1963. A retired Army major general whose public relations firm was paid at least 400,000 in the past two years by a mysterious group of West German industrialists was the subject yesterday of a secret Senate lobbying hearing. Julius W. Klein, the West German lobbyist, testified at an all-day session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but chairman J. William Fulbright (D-Ark) declined to comment on the nature of the questioning. However, according to Justice Department records Klein was hired by the group of industrialists shorty before the scheduled Eisenhower-Krushchev summit in 1960. His mission, he reported to Justice, was to promote "the cause of West Germany in the summit conference," He was also to conduct a campaign to unite in the United States to inform the American people of the "serious problems facing Germany if there should be any compromise with the Soviets" Official records indicate that Klein spent more than $300,000 to "advise" influential Congressman, business leaders and and press media in the United States. The money came from the West German group. Kelin declined a request by the Justice Department to identity his foreign principals. He told US authorities that the Frankfurter Bank of Frankfurt, Germany, in which the group set up a special fund, "could not and would not under any circumstances be able to furnish a list of contributors" ... His firm, he said, also "advises important German private visitors in the United States as to how to best interpret the Soviet threat to the Federal Republic of West Germany and Western cause to the American people." Klein, a former newspaperman, Jewish veterans group leader, and one-time Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from Illinois, is well known on Capital Hill. In 1954 he made a fact-finding mission to Europe for a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee. Last fall when he was criticized in a German newspaper,Klein was promptly defended on the Senate floor by Sen. Edward V. Long (D-Mo.) as a "distinguished soldier and one of our leading citizens." Klein's firm, Julius Klein Public Relations Inc., has received more than $200,000 in fees from property owners seeking to recover German assets seized by the United States during World War II, according to official records. ---- A couple of things came to mind in reading this. 1) the encounter JFK has with Nitze during the Excom meetings during the CMC. One of the tensest moments of the CMC this involved Nitze's seeking the authorization for NATO to respond to potential USSSR attacks on Western Europe without prior consultation with JFK. 2) Have we since learned who these businessmen, Congressmen and press media in the US who worked with Klein actually were? 3) Does anyone know anything else about his 1954 visit to Europe? Any other names of interest associated with this visit? 4.) What about the Frankfurter Bank. Any other information on intelligence ties re this bank?

JUST RAN ACROSS THIS ARTICLE. NOTE IT WAS AFTER the American University Speech. And look at the level of security. Geez if this is what you call home field advantage makes you wonder if General Walker wasn't the Gipper!! [some kind of contrast with the Big D!] NOTE ESPECIALLY:"Costigan said his officers would use binoculars to monitor rooftops along the route of the presidential motorcade. He said an unspecified number of police officers would be armed with handguns, rifles and submachine guns - an exceptional measure in a country with a largely unarmed police force - to engage any would-be sniper." How do these numbers compare with those on duty in Dallas, a town where Liberal Democrats had recently had a different kind of enthusiastic reception? The documents indicated that 6,404 police officers were on duty the night Kennedy arrived and that 2,690 lined the U.S. president's route from Dublin airport to the Phoenix Park mansion of Irish President Eamon de Valera. RELAND Death threats preceded JFK's '63 visit Police documents newly declassified By Shawn Pogatchnik / The Associated Press December 29, 2006 SHARE THIS Email Comments (0) Print 0 President John F. Kennedy was the subject of three separate death threats during his visit to Ireland in 1963, according to newly declassified police documents released today. The documents released by the Irish Justice Department said the police received two anonymous telephoned warnings in the weeks before the arrival of the United States's first Irish Catholic president. A third threat went to the newsroom of the Irish Independent newspaper. Kennedy's June 26 to 29 visit went ahead trouble free as he was greeted by adoring crowds in Dublin, Cork, Galway and at his family homestead in County Wexford, in southeast Ireland. He was assassinated in Dallas five months later. One threat claimed a sniper would target Kennedy as his motorcade traveled from Dublin Airport to the residence of the Irish president at the start of his visit. The second warned a bomb at Shannon Airport, in southwest Ireland, would detonate as Air Force One was about to depart. According to the documents, the third threat, phoned to the newspaper, indicated that Kennedy would be attacked at Dublin Airport, although the method wasn't specified. The documents detailed police security concerns - and also reflected officials' desire to impress U.S. visitors and onlookers in Britain, Ireland's colonial master until 1922. In a letter, Commissioner Daniel Costigan, the commander of Ireland's national police force in 1963, described the Kennedy tour as "the most important visit to this country since the establishment of the state, with worldwide publicity. British journalists are likely to be ready to criticize any fault in arrangements." He wrote that although unlikely, "we cannot overlook the possibility" of an assassination attempt. Costigan said his officers would use binoculars to monitor rooftops along the route of the presidential motorcade. He said an unspecified number of police officers would be armed with handguns, rifles and submachine guns - an exceptional measure in a country with a largely unarmed police force - to engage any would-be sniper. The documents indicated that 6,404 police officers were on duty the night Kennedy arrived and that 2,690 lined the U.S. president's route from Dublin airport to the Phoenix Park mansion of Irish President Eamon de Valera.

JFK was not the first president to wonder if the CIA understood that it was supposed to be under control of the President, especially after Allen Dulles and Nelson Rockefeller established liaison relationships between the Agency and other federal bureaucracies in the mid 1950s. What was different about Dallas was that this conflict was clear as day for billions to see and keep on teaching silently. But new careers were made hanging juries off TV, and upwardly mobile Americans learned to walk with Siberia freeze-dried inside them.