Nathaniel Heidenheimer

Anthony thanks for the note. I have posted info about it on ten big city daily web sites. Since it is published by U. of Cal. it could appeal to various tweedy people who are worried about being kicked out of the middle class if they read a 9/11 book. Here is a listing should you want to do some free-lance publicity. http://www.usnpl.com/

Peter Dale Scott, in his new book The Road to 9/11, mentions the ASC in an interesting context. First of all he says "the ASC united old-wealth oil and military corportions with new-wealth businesses n the South and the West, some of which incorporated investments from organized crime" (p. 18). Do we agree with this as a working definition? He also has this interesting paragraph: The overworld was clearly centered in Wall Street in the 1940s, and CIA was promarily designed there. With the postwar shifts of U.S. demographics and economic structure southward and westward, the overworld itself has shifted, becoming less defined by geography, than by the interrelated functions of the petroleum-industrial-financial complex. Cheyney's global oilfield services firm Halliburton, today a "bridge betwen the oil industry and the military-industrial complex" was nowhere near the Wall Street power center in the 1940's. This shift in the overworld led by 1968 to a polarizing debate over the Vietnam War. The expanding Military-Industiral -Complex, dedicated to winning that war at any cost, found itself increasingly opposed by elements of Wall Street (which at the time I labeled "the CIA-financial establishment') who feared the impact of the war's costs on the stability of the dollar. I agrue that Nixon's inability to satisfy either of the two polarized factions-- symbolized by the American Security Council and the Council on Foreign Relations-- was a major factor in the unprecedented and ultimately unresolved drama of Watergate. Does this strike anyone as a worthy framework for understanding Watergate? Also wondering if it jibes with Hougan's Secret Agenda and the other book called Silent Coup. Or whatever else this paragraph might provoke.

John and Joan: Do you believe that the CIA and/or Military Industiral Complex conspired to kill RFK? If so why do you think they felt the need to do so?

government- the National Security State as formalized in 1947-49 period Kennedy's Coup-- the failure to see how profound this change was, and the belief that some key aspects of the 1776 and 1787 survived this change. This does NOT imply an ignorance of 1947, nordoes it exclude its opportunistic use by the Kennedy's themselves. Rather it involved a misundertanding of the National Security State as a new organ of the state, as opposed to the brain, heart, or some other inoperable Kennedy metaphor of the state,i.e. THE ESSENCE OF THE STATE.

Paul, have you looked at Chapter 8 of Lost Crusader lately? Its worth giving a second look. There is definitely a lot of ammo in there against the argument that Kennedy-Lodge wanted the coup and the CIA didn't (It is put THAT CLEARLY in Legacy of Ashes, which is STILL in the top 40 at Amazon,sigh). He seems to imply that the CIA kept a second track open through Conein, and this was the real one. He SEEMS TO ME to imply that this Conein track was still used in November, although he seems a bit timid in saying so directly. That's my reading; its not the most clearly written, and I'm wondering if this might be deliberate fuzzyness, so as not to lose some invites. At any rate he seems to imply that Richardson was not the real player in August, and the station chief who replaced him was not the key CIA figure in November. No?

Another version of the story John posted from the Gurdian Note this one features a prosaic reference to the CIA and Buffie and Vampire Slayer. Is this an attempt to make is seem like harmless doodeling of a few CIA employees on lunchbreak? Vampire slayer at lunch to mix in with President Slayer at tea? Also note the author's quick statement that the CIA doodeling on Wikipedia did not seem to have much of a political agenda? Yet there is no example given. Would a young wired reported RECOGNIZE a CIA agenda in, say, a change made to a Wikipedia article on Iraq in 1958? Perhaps this reporter is protesting too much? http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights...08/wiki_tracker

The following is part of http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=3 the rest of which was posted by William Kelly on the Charles Ford thread. It suggests that Helms and Sam Halpern were far from objective sources of testimony in the plots that Joan Mellen mentions ----------------- AGENCY INFORMATION AGENCY : CIA RECORD NUMBER : 104-10303-10001 RECORDS SERIES : JFK AGENCY FILE NUMBER : CIA-OP DOCUMENT INFORMATION ORIGINATOR : CIA FROM : [No From] TO : [No To] TITLE : FILE ON FORD, CHARLES/RFK-MAFIA DATE : 01/01/0000 PAGES : 10 DOCUMENT TYPE : PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENTSUBJECTS : CLASSIFICATION : RESTRICTIONS : 1BDATE OF LAST REVIEW : 09/18/1998COMMENTS : JFK-M-03 : F6 : 1998.09.18.07:48:32:030120 : ARRBREQUEST.CIA - IR 13. CORRECTED TO 10 PAGES VICE 20 Date of interview Sept. 18, 1975 Mike Madigan SSC Staff reports that Mr Helms and Mr Halpern have testified that in response to a request by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, the assigned an officer to establish contacts with the underworld to look for possible contacts for use against Castro. Sam Halpern says the officer was Charles Ford who used the name Rocky Siscalini. .... 12. Mr. Robert Kelly expressed considerable interest in the organization of Task Force W. At one point he asked how many echelons there were between me and Mr. Helms. I told them that I reported to Bill Harvey; that my title was Special Assistant; that Mr Harvey reported to Mr Helms; That I frequently received assignment and reported to Sam Halpern; and that I occasionally undertook tasks for Bruce Cheever, Harvey's deputy, although these tasks were concerned with the workings of Task Force W and did not involve contacts with the Cubans. I was asked if there were any Special Assistant other than me in Task Force W and I replied that Mr Zogby, C/WH/4 prior to Mr Harvey's arrival on the scene had been retained as a member of Task Force W in an SA status. I said that there may well have been others because people would show up from time to time for short besides myself for short tours of duty for several months or so and then depart to carry on their work elsewhere, but that I could not recall anyone by name at this time

Let's hope not. I hope you're ready for her response Nathaniel, properly attired with asbestos goggles. Myra: No worries: Contact with NYC Public High School Administrators for 17 years has made my skin as thick as my spelling! AND FURTHERMORE.... 6. Joan you may have answered Talbot's argument about Charles Ford before, but if so it was lost in the name-calling; how do you respond to this from p. 123 of Brothers: On September 19, 1975, Ford worte a confidential memorandum for the CIA's internal record, detailing what he had told Church committee investigators when they came alling on him the day before. "The main,if not the only, point of concern to the [senate] investigators is whether I was directed to sally forth and initiate contact with members of the underworld in the U.S. and who directed me to do so," worte Ford. "once again, I explained that my job was broader than this by a long shot, and that I was never directed to take the intiative in establishing contacts with the underworld' Ford added that investigators were very interested in his meetings with Attorney General Kennedy, but he explained to them that these meetings focused on the efforts of a Cuban exile group to foment an anti-Castro uprising not on Mafia assassination plots. In my opinion Talbot's next sentence requires more support "(Ford was probably referring here to his September 1962 meetings with Kennedy to throw water on the quixotic plan to topple Castro without the CIA's involvement)". I see the Ford reference as just as likely referring to some type of 1963 AM-TRUNK-like operation, based on fomenting a coup inside Cuba; again I am not yet willing to dismiss ALL ELEMENTS of the AMWORLD scenario, even though I am far from convinced of the whole package as marketed by Thom Hartmann for Air America II. To me it is just difficult to imagine the Kennedy's fending off the right wing generals, and preparing for a presidentail campaign without some sort of bellicose OPTION (not definite plan) especially given the antagonism they had generated in the CIA and its Mockingbird media reguarding their Vietnam and Laos policy. Even if one finds evidence of the JFK's 1963 changes in foreign policy outlook convincing, as I do, I think such a SUDDEN shift --ie all carrot no stick-- combined with Vietnam, Laos and the Missile Test Treaty-- would have been viewed by JFK as politically inexpedient, especially going into an election year. Note that this does not exclude the possibilibty of an olive branch to Castro, which I am convinced was one of the two tracks. I need more convincing. Still the Ford document quoted by Talbot would seem to refute your version of Ford that supports Choirboy Helms. How do you address THIS SPECIFIC MEMORANDUM written by Ford? Perhaps it is in some way less trustworthy than the version of Ford we are offered by Helms and Halperin. If so please explain why, exactly.....

http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim070710.mp3"]http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim070710.mp3[/url] This is the 7/10 edition of Taking Aim with Raph Schoenman, Mya Schon, and guest Joan Mellen. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Joan-- I am at this point a perplexed fan. I read your Garrison book with great interest and spread word far and yon on net. But your recent interview on Takingaim radio left many many troubling questions. THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A BAD THING, AS TROUBLING QESTIONS ARE OFTEN ASSOCIATED WITH LEARNING--provided they are answered in a way that encourages further investigation, and not disintegration of discourse into adolescent name-calling. 1. You quote the Kissinger quoting Helms talking to Nixon in the 1975 White House. Then you rhetorically ask "why would they lie?" good question, but you don't sem at all interested in questioning the motivations of Halpern and Helms, or for that matter Kissinger. The fact that they are on WH tapes after Watergate means little, especially if one considers that Nixon is said to have referred to the assassination as "the bay of pigs thing" before watergate, for fear of alluding to it directly. Now AFTER WATERGATE? This was a strange confessional, and AT LEAST SOME consideration of the motives of choirboys, Helms,Halpern and Kissinger might have been discussed, in analyzing how this quote might be interpreted. It was taken at face value. Even if one assumes they spoke candidly, there is STILL THE PROBLEM OF HELM'S motivation. 2. You mention Ramsey Clark as if he was a guy who with nothing to lose in a free investigation of the Kennedy Assassination. Yet Larry Hancock shows Clark as being in on the CIA's get Gerrison investigations in 1967 The justice department under Clark" went so far as to actively support ClayShaws defense" and also Clark issued a special report, at Johnson's request,that legitimated the WC's version of the autopsy. Do you agree with the WC's version of the autopsy? If not how can you offer Clark as any less tinged than Sheridan in the media-job done on Garrison? 3. Larry Hancock writes of a massive effort to block the Garrison investigation that involved the CIA, the FBI, and the Justice Depratment: In addition, documents of the CIA and DOJ now prove that the Justice Depertment under Ramsey Clark and the the CIA both actively involved themselves in undermining the Garrison investigation. The Justice Department went so far as to actively support Clay Shaw's defense, and the CIA proactively took leal measures to ensure that CIA personnel would be blocked from offreing testimony. The FBI went so far ast to obtain presidential immunity from testimony for key personnel in New Orleans. (SWHT, 398) All this, and all you can mention in the effort to Sabbotage Garrison is Bobby kennedy and Sheridan? Even had there been no Bobby and no Sherridan, how would there have been a successful Garrison investigation, with this kind of presidential immunity given and also with the CIA giving itself immunity by the grace of Langley? Isn't this the reason -- that he had no control over the gov. institutions that would be needed to conduct a real investigation-- that Talbot gives as to why RFK helped sabbotage the the investigation. Given these institutional strictures, what is incorrect about this logic? What I found most disturbing was that THE ENTIRE HOUR was spent attacking Kennedy, and characterizing those who disagreed your analysis as naive liberals. I think this is a straw dog. I myself, had trouble with some of Talbot's glossing over negative aspects of Bobby, but you can't dismiss complicated questions about these covert cuban opperations, simply by raising 1,000 questions about Bobby Kennedy and ZERO questions about Helms, Angleton, Phillips, and Moore. It seems to me a fair question: who's charterization is more one-sided, Talbot's characterization of Sheridan, or your's of Clark, Helms and Halpern? On the radio program you claimed that Talbot "villified" Garrison. I found his depiction considerably more nuanced. I did not totally buy Talbot's depiction of Sheridan either. I need more information and argument that seeks to find the truth rather than protect egos. 4. You blame Bobby Kennedy alone for the illegal wiretaping of MLK. You do not even mention Hoover's name. Do you see Hoover as being a litteral subordinate of the the AG? Was he under other AG's? Burton Hersh descirbes the decision very differently in his recent book Bobby and J. Edgar. I am far frome arguing that Bobby bore no responsibility, but how you can ignore Hoover and his web of right wing and mainstream media contacts on this, plus the leverage he could exert on the Kennedy's with the sex scandalls COMES ACROSS as calculated brevity. Your not even mentioning of Hoover's name in connection with these wiretaps is certainly a new historiograhpical hic-up. 5. At the end of your program, you almost sound like you are giving the CIA a clean bill of health as far as today's history and its relation with Iraq. It seems you take the Bush -CIA spat at face value. I have no doubt that some within the CIA did find Iraq to be a bad gamble in 2002, but to take the Plame-Wilson affair at face value seems very naive. When you combine this with how little you attacked the CIA -- failing to mention on the hour show the CIA's pre-Kennedy assassination plans to kill Castro-- it is very curious indeed. I certainly did not remember your 2005 book as being ONLY attacking Bobby and ZERO questions raised about the credibility of the Agency? What happened? Seems like two different Joan Mellens.

Robert, thanks for starting a thread on this topic. I have another question related to J-S I've seen it mentioned that J-S mapped out U-2 photos from Cuba, the summer before the Missile Crisis.. Does anyone know the original source of this information? Is it from the WC? Do we have particular dates of the Cuban overflights that J-S handled during the time Oswald worked there? Also how was the security check done for LHO's employment at J-S? Any paperwork on this, or was it signed at a Magnolia slideshow?

Glad this is out on DVD. I have looked for it in DVD at local store twice in the last year, but they had it only on VHS. Also had opportunity to see The Parallax View again. This has really withstood the test of time! Its now being talked about by filmy people as a key movie of the entire decade-- which, considering the decade is saying a lot. The character actor who does the MKULTRA guy was outstanding. ANYONE WHO HASN'T SEEN IT, you are really missing a great movie. Especially rich for those interested in MKULTRA. I also recommend you see Medium Cool, which is a catagorical imperative-- or at least half of one-- for anyone on this forum!

One man particularly resolved to keep the true role of the Cao Dai and the Hoa Hao in the “NLF” campaign against Diem firmly under wraps was George A. Carver, Jr. The son of missionary parents later to spend much time in China, Carver was talent-spotted at Yale, and reportedly joined the CIA in 1953 (1). In the April 1965 edition of Foreign Affairs, he modestly set out to refashion Vietnamese history in the interests of CIA propaganda against Diem. Predictably, suppression of information was nine-tenths of the lie. The remaining tenth was pure euphemism: “The Cao Dai and the Hoa Hao have emerged from nearly a decade of political insignificance to play influential roles, particularly in the provinces where their adherents are concentrated” (2). In accordance with the Langley fashion of the time, Carver’s farrago insisted the CIA-backed “revolutions” targeting Diem were a) spontaneous; and undertaken by the most patriotic elements of the society. Foreign Affairs, on its “Contributors to this issue” page, described Carver as a “student of political theory and Asian affairs, with degrees from Yale and Oxford,” and a “former officer in the U.S. aid mission” (3) – a description as meaningful as characterising James Angleton as a keen angler with a penchant for orchids, and secreting hooch on riverbanks. Carver’s real career was much more interesting and sheds revealing light on two key aspects of post-Dallas CIA propaganda about who-did-what in Vietnam: the pretence that attempts on Diem’s life began and ended with Kennedy; and the CIA’s self-portrait as dutiful servant of White House policy in the Kennedy years. In July 1963, Carver had been named as one of two senior CIA officers – the other was Howard C. Elting – who had masterminded a hasty and unsuccessful military putsch against Diem. Carver had served as the case officer of the coup’s domestic political front-man, Dr. Phan Quang Dan (4). The date? 11/12 November 1960, within days of Kennedy’s election. If the CIA was indeed steadfast for Diem until Kennedy gave the green light in the autumn of 1963, its post-November 1960 treatment of Carver demonstrates it had a somewhat peculiar way of showing it. By the time of Dan’s trial – it was delayed by Diem and Nhu until such time as it seemed useful to expose an earlier set of CIA machinations, the better to reinforce allegations of current attempts – Carver “was assigned to CIA headquarters” where he served in Sherman Kent’s Office of National Estimates as “one of the analysts who could be called upon to write the first drafts of the National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs), as they were called.” In short, then, a position of considerable bureaucratic power. Prados assures us that though colleagues recalled his “passionate” desire to see Diem toppled, the tone of Carver’s crucial NIE (58-63) of February 1963, “drawn to measure progress in South Vietnam,” was “balanced.” Prados then rather ruins the effect by listing some of its most important conclusions: “At best Carver was saying…the Vietnam struggle would be protracted and difficult due to the many weaknesses of the Saigon regime, including poor morale and leadership, lack of trust, inadequate South Vietnamese intelligence, obvious penetration of the government by Viet Cong spies, and poor tactical use of available troops” (5). This was precisely the kind of boilerplate that was already forming the mainstay of the work of Halberstam, Sheehan et al; and much more dishonest than anything produced by Diem’s defenders in Washington in the same period. 1.John Prados. The Secret History of the Vietnam War (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1995), p.30. 2.George A. Carver, Jr., “The Real Revolution in South Viet Nam,” Foreign Affairs, April 1965, (Vol. 43, No.3), p.399. 3.Ibid., p.386. 4.Prados, op. cit., p.31. 5.Ibid., p.32. ----------- Paul, please expand on what you mean by more dishonest. Also are you suggesting that the CIA got some of their August-October 1963 coup people involved in another group to make it look like it was a Kennedy backed group? Any of these people overlap with the 1960 coup attempt group in your view?

I have a question about this page from a Wikipedia timeline of the Assassination: ---------------- Charges laid on the convicted assassin At 7:05 p.m. CST Lee Harvey Oswald was charged with "murder with malice" in the killing of police officer J.D. Tippit. At 11:36 p.m. CST Oswald was charged with the murder of President Kennedy [1] (there being no crime of "assassination" at that time). On November 24, 1963, in a memo J. Edgar Hoover wrote for the record, Hoover stated, "The thing I am most concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so that we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin." On November 24, 1963, at 11:21 am CST, Lee Harvey Oswald was shot and killed by local nightclub owner Jack Ruby, sparing Jackie Kennedy the ordeal of appearing at Oswald's trial. On a November 26, 1963 memo from Courtney Evans, the Assistant FBI Director (Mafia Section), to Assistant to the FBI Director, Alan Belmont, the F.B.I. Director J. Edgar Hoover hand-wrote in the memo's margin, "Just how long do you estimate it will take? It seems to me we have all the basic facts now." On December 9, 1963, only 17 days after the assassination, the FBI report was turned over to the Warren Commission theorizing that only three bullets were fired during the assassination; that the first shot hit Kennedy, the second shot hit Governor Connally, and the third shot hit Kennedy in the head, killing him. The FBI theorized that Lee Harvey Oswald fired all three shots. ------------ My question is what convicted assassin are they alluding to? Here is the page I am referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_t...y_assassination

The smearing is going on at record levels. A million people own 1-800-JFK-DESERVED-IT ... sorry.. I mean Tim Weiner's majisterial Registry of Slashe... Legacy of Ashes. The drug angle-- though not new (Symour did the Amphtimines big time with Sammy Halpern in '97) might signify a shift to LSD. You know what they say about journalists and Gateway Drugs. Wondering if this might be a response to David Talbot's opening the Mary Pinchot Meyer strory up to a wider audience, and also to the VERY INTERESTING new hints given by Peter Janney on the MPM thread.

Raymond : sorry. I think I fixed it try again. http://reopenjfkcase.interodent.com/index....36&Itemid=9

Did Bill O'Reilly's career get a little boost because he was onto something big in the Kennedy Assassination while working as a local TV reporter in Dallas? He certainly would not be the first reporter who's career got a bounce from the Magic Bullet! This article, is not just the same O'Reilly --JFK rumors. This time it is backed up by recently released CIA documents, that took a whole lot of prying. I am starting a new thread on this article because I think it could be a huge breakthrough, especially if more is learned about the relationship between J. Walton Moore and Charles Donald Ford. Hopefully this thread can remain focused on the implications of this article. ----------------------------------- Did you see my post on Michael Paine and ESP under "Coincidence or Conspiracy?" Thread? Indeed there is more on Moore. Attached is a link to Greg Parker's new web site Reopen JFK Case - with my article on THE O'REILLY FACTOR & THE JFK ASSASSINATION - J. Walton Moore and LHO. http://reopenjfkcase.interodent.com/index....36&Itemid=9 Is there a photo of Moore available? And many thanks to Robert Howard for providing docs and Greg for posting it. BK

What Americans have such trouble understanding is that the same country can have a]considerable more freedom than the Soviet Union AND b] possess a better system of propaganda than the Soviet Union. Better in what sense? Better in the sense that it is harder for a majority to "recognize their own stregnth" and galvanize in opositon to the government. This in spite of and because of the greater amount of freedom-- though this freedom is also very limited. Or maybe they do understand it, each alone in thier livingrooms; its just that Larry King and Bill O'Reily haven't gotten around to discussing it.

Found this intersting snippet from 1987 ECHOES OF CONSPIRACY May 31, 1987 Vol. 9, #1 Paul L. Hoch A recent discussion of the psycholinguistic aspects of the tapes of Oswald in New Orleans revived my interest in Oswald's radio adversary Ed Butler. Butler's INCA (the Information Council of the Americas) sounds as spooky as it ever did. Now that we know about MK/ULTRA, the 1967 description (by right-wing columnist Henry J. Taylor) of INCA's Dr. Alton Ochsner as a "consultant to the surgeon general of the U. S. Air Force on the medical side of subversive matters" has a certain resonance; I suppose it refers to brainwashing. (#76, Human Events, 7 Jan 67, 2 pp.) ============ "consultant to the surgeon general of the U.S. Air Force on the medical side of subversive mattars"?? Some Job Title. Guess they lost the nameplate.

The fact that Tim is now into THIS Limited Hangout mode NOW, might suggest something about how close Bill's article is to something really important. Tim, I don't think I've ever heard you speculate before on the possibility that the CIA was running LHO in an anti-Castro operation. Yes, I recognize that you are using the conditional tense; still it seems further than you have gone along this line before, in acknowledging the possibility. I COULD WELL BE MISTAKEN, and trust you will correct me if this is the case.

Don't the implications of your article put David Phillips at the center of everything and not just the Oswald dangle?

Bill; Great article. Seems really important. I urge everyone to read this ASAP. Couldn't put it down. Any way of getting a timeline on Ford to go with it? It you can tie this in with more details about Ford in the next intallment, it seems like this could be a REAL BREAKTHROUGH, provided the leads on Ford pan out. It might be one even if you have no more on Ford, as your linking the 1978? CIA memo to the O'Reily on air transcript is a real find!

Bill; Great article. Seems really important. I urge everyone to read this ASAP. Couldn't put it down./ Sorry, wrong thread.. I urge everyone to check out the article posted on the J. Walton Moore (CIA Agent in Dallas) thread.

QUOTE(John Simkin @ Aug 7 2007, 05:01 PM) Has anyone got any information on William Frawley, the Californian industrialist who was INCA's largest financial contributor. The web seems to have nothing on this man yet he was a major funder of both Nixon and Reagan and was probably the main figure behind the INCA cover-up in 1967. ------------- John, could you be thinking of Patrick J. Frawley Jr. Christian and Turner have this to day about him in thier RFK book. The context is about right wingers in LA area (some actual Birchers) who were trying to feed a trail of planted bread crumbs to the media, the purpose being to depict the basically apolitical Sirhan as a leftist with links to Castro: In time the LAPD discredited Duarte's identification of Sirhan by producing a look-alike Iranian student who had been at the leftist meeting and recalled being involved in the altercation. However, the entire scenario struck us as all too familiar. In August 1963 lee Harvey Oswald was accosted by an anti-Castro exile while handing out pro-Catro-litterature on the streets of NO. Shortly after the scuffle Oswald was invited to participate in a radio debate on the subject. In the evening of the day John Kennedy was shot, taped excerpts were broadcast nationally Oswald was heard by millions proclaiming, "I am a Marxist!" Both the debate and the assassination-evening ariring of the excerpts were arranged by Edward S. Butler, who headed a right wing propaganda outfit in New Orleans called the Information Council of the Americas. By 1968 Butler had moved to Los Angeles, where he carried on with financial aid from PATRICK J. FRAWLEY JR.. cheif executive officer of the Schick Safety Razor Company. For years Frawley generously supported hard-line conservatives such as Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Sam Yorty. (p.59) This part I found especially intersting. Sam Yorty and Frawley both belonged to the American Security Council. So did Senator Dodd. Dodd's committee was investigating the inter-state gun sales that just happened to have Oswalds papers ready and waiting. Might these LA locals have been involved on the California end, coordinated with Dodd via the American Security Council? What a weirdo was Dodd! ----- Does anyone know of any links between the American Security Council and the John Birch Society?

------------- John, could you be thinking of Patrick J. Frawley Jr. Christian and Turner have this to day about him in thier RFK book. The context is about right wingers in LA area (some actual Birchers) who were trying to feed a trail of planted bread crumbs to the media, the purpose being to depict the basically apolitical Sirhan as a leftist with links to Castro: In time the LAPD discredited Duarte's identification of Sirhan by producing a look-alike Iranian student who had been at the leftist meeting and recalled being involved in the altercation. However, the entire scenario struck us as all too familiar. In August 1963 lee Harvey Oswald was accosted by an anti-Castro exile while handing out pro-Catro-litterature on the streets of NO. Shortly after the scuffle Oswald was invited to participate in a radio debate on the subject. In the evening of the day John Kennedy was shot, taped excerpts were broadcast nationally Oswald was heard by millions proclaiming, "I am a Marxist!" Both the debate and the assassination-evening ariring of the excerpts were arranged by Edward S. Butler, who headed a right wing propaganda outfit in New Orleans called the Information Council of the Americas. By 1968 Butler had moved to Los Angeles, where he carried on with financial aid from PATRICK J. FRAWLEY JR.. cheif executive officer of the Schick Safety Razor Company. For years Frawley generously supported hard-line conservatives such as Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Sam Yorty. (p.59) This part I found especially intersting. Sam Yorty and Frawley both belonged to the American Security Council. So did Senator Dodd. Dodd's committee was investigating the inter-state gun sales that just happened to have Oswalds papers ready and waiting. Might these LA locals have been involved on the California end, coordinated with Dodd via the American Security Council? What a weirdo was Dodd!

Francesca-- one of Angleton's old contacts that Colby mad contact with was Code -named 'Charlie,' the man had been with the OSS contingent in northern Italy toward the end of the war. There he made friends with many of the Italians only then beginning to resotore the nations political system. By the 1950's those people were at the apex of Italian politics and Charlie knew them all. From time to time he returned to visit, and Charlie reports reflected the very highest levels of Italy's political leadership. Gerry Miller was supposed to handle Charlie's accomadations in Rome; but as station chief, Miller had high visibility, and CIA headquarters decided to keep Charlie on the scene to provide a steady stream of reports. Miller into- duced Charlie to Colby, who thereafter handled him. Astonished at the range of Charlie's contacts, colby also discovered that his reports were being puched...... (blends into above quotation, p. 57, Prados, Lost Crusade.) Perhaps you have come accross this old OSS Italian "Charlie" before?