Myra Bronstein
-
Posts
1,883 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Myra Bronstein
-
-
“Finally, in this regard, I must comment on the book's treatment of JFK and Mary Meyer. I was quite surprised that, as with Sheridan, Talbot swallowed the whole apple on this one. As I have written, (The Assassinations pgs 338-345), any serious chronicler has to be just as careful with this episode as with Judith Exner -- and to his credit, Talbot managed to avoid that disinformation filled land mine. Before criticizing him on this, and before I get smeared by people like John Simkin, I want to make a public confession. I actually believed the Meyer nonsense at one time. In fact, to my everlasting chagrin, I discussed it -- Timothy Leary and all -- at a talk I did in San Francisco about a year after Oliver Stone's JFK came out.” (James DiEugenio)
James suggests that he is in danger of being smeared by me for his criticism of the Mary Pinchot story. The reason for this hostility is that I included passages from books by Dale Myers and Gus Russo that were critical of him on the page I created on James DiEugenio. The reason that I include different views on the people that I write about is because of the British educational system. In history we have to teach different interpretations of the past. We encourage students to be critical of the sources. All the people I write about are treated in this way. However, James took offence at this approach to education and insisted I removed these critical comments. It seems that James only likes me to encourage educational debate about establishment figures. For example, I have posted James’ comments about me on my page and the one on Mary Meyer. I have also added some of his harshest criticisms of David Talbot to his page.
I have in fact removed the comments made by Dale Myers and Gus Russo as it seems that James DiEugenio cannot take criticism. I don’t expect David Talbot to make demands that I remove James’ comments about him.
“It wasn't until I began to examine who Leary was, who his associates were, and how he fit into the whole explosion of drugs into the USA in the sixties and seventies that I began to question who he was. In light of this, I then reexamined his Mary Meyer story, and later the whole legerdemain around this fanciful tale. Thankfully, Talbot does not go into the whole overwrought "mystery" about her death and her mythologized diary. But he eagerly buys into everything else. Yet to do this, one has to believe some rather unbelievable people. And you then have to ignore their credibility problems so your more curious readers won't ask any questions. For if they do the whole edifice starts to unravel.
Foremost among this motley crew is Leary. As I was the first to note, there is a big problem with his story about Meyer coming to him in 1962 for psychedelic drugs. Namely, he didn't write about it for 21 years previous --until 1983. He wrote about 25 books in the meantime. (Sort of like going through 25 FBI, Secret Service, and DPD interviews before you suddenly recall seeing Oswald on the sixth floor.) Yet it was not until he hooked up with the likes of Gordon Liddy that he suddenly recalled, with vivid memory, supplying Mary with LSD and her mentioning of her high official friend and commenting, "They couldn't control him any more. He was changing too fast" etc. etc. etc.” (James DiEugenio)
It is true that Tim O’Leary is an unreliable source. However, that does not mean that everything he said is untrue. Is it not possible that he kept quiet for 21 years because he was afraid? After all, O’Leary believed that Mary Pinchot Meyer had been murdered because of what she knew about the events surrounding JFK.
Another surprising source Talbot uses here is none other than CIA counter-intelligence chief James Angleton, the guy who was likely handling Oswald until 1962. Talbot actually quotes the nutty Cold Warrior, Kennedy antagonist and Warren Commission cover up artist waxing poetic about Kennedy being in love with Mary: "They were in love ... they had something very important." (p. 199) This from a man who, later on, Talbot admits loathed JFK and actually thought he was a Soviet agent.! (p. 275). (James DiEugenio)
This is of course ridiculous. David Talbot does not quote Angleton in support of his story about the possibility that Mary Pinchot Meyer was murdered by the CIA. In fact, we know that Angleton lied about certain aspects of the case during Raymond Crump’s trial. Does James DiEugenio believe that Crump was guilty of this crime or was he set-up by the CIA? Is he aware that one of the main witnesses against Crump at the trial was a CIA contract worker?
It seems that James DiEugenio is against using quotes from Angleton as evidence is because he “loathed JFK”. Therefore he is seen as another unreliable source of information. I know some researchers are very protective of JFK and are unhappy when historians criticise him. I believe this creates a major problem. JFK was indeed a very flawed individual. Historians must not see the world like a black and white hat cowboy movie.
A further dubious source is Jim Truitt, the former friend of Ben Bradlee who used to work for him at the Washington Post and was also friends with Angleton. Consider: Truitt had been trying to discredit President Kennedy while he was alive by saying he was previously married and had it covered up. In fact, he had pushed this fatuous story on Bradlee. And it appears that Truitt then started the whole drug angle of the story as a way of getting back at Bradlee and the Post for firing him. By 1969 he was so unstable that his wife sought a conservatorship for him and then divorced him in 1971. Truitt tried to get a job with the CIA and when he did not he moved to Mexico into a colony of former CIA agents. There he grew and smoked the mescaline-based hallucinogenic drug peyote. This was his sorry state when he first reported to the press about the "turned on" Meyer/JFK romance. He then shot himself in 1981. Here you have a guy who was a long-time Kennedy basher, became mentally unstable, was a CIA wannabe, and was planting and taking hallucinogenics with other CIA agents-- and then accuses JFK of doing the same, 14 years after the fact. Some witness, huh? (James DiEugenio)
It is true that Jim Truitt was extremely hostile to Ben Bradlee when in March, 1976, he gave an interview to the National Enquirer. Truitt told the newspaper that Meyer was having an affair with JFK when he was assassinated. He also claimed that Meyer had told his wife, Ann Truitt, that she was keeping an account of this relationship in her diary. Meyer asked Truitt to take possession of a private diary "if anything ever happened to me".
Ann Truitt was living in Tokyo at the time that Meyer was murdered on 12th October, 1964. She phoned Bradlee at his home and asked him if he had found the diary. Bradlee, who claimed he was unaware of his sister-in-law's affair with JFK, knew nothing about the diary. He later recalled what he did after Truitt's phone-call: "We didn't start looking until the next morning, when Tony and I walked around the corner a few blocks to Mary's house. It was locked, as we had expected, but when we got inside, we found Jim Angleton, and to our complete surprise he told us he, too, was looking for Mary's diary."
James Angleton, CIA counterintelligence chief, admitted that he knew of Mary's relationship with Kennedy and was searching her home looking for her diary and any letters that would reveal details of the affair. According to Ben Bradlee, it was Mary's sister, Antoinette Bradlee, who found the diary and letters a few days later. It was claimed that the diary was in a metal box in Mary's studio. The contents of the box were given to Angleton who claimed he burnt the diary. Angleton later admitted that Mary recorded in her diary that she had taken LSD with Kennedy before "they made love".
As you can see, it was not only Jim Truitt’s evidence that supports this story. Ann Truitt, Ben Bradlee, Antoinette Bradlee and James Angleton also agree that it happened. The disagreement concerns the motivation for looking for the diary. According to both Jim and Ann, there was something in that diary that posed a threat to the life of Mary Meyer.
Leo Damore claimed in an article that appeared in the New York Post that the reason Angleton and Bradlee were looking for the diary was that: "She (Meyer) had access to the highest levels. She was involved in illegal drug activity. What do you think it would do to the beatification of Kennedy if this woman said, 'It wasn't Camelot, it was Caligula's court'?" Damore also said that a figure close to the CIA had told him that Mary's death had been a professional "hit".
There is another possible reason why both Angleton and Bradlee were searching for documents in Meyer's house. Meyer had been married to Cord Meyer, a leading CIA operative involved in a variety of covert operations in the early 1950s, including being in charge of Operation Mockingbird. Was the CIA worried that Mary Meyer had kept a record of these activities? It has to be remembered that both Cord and Mary Meyer had held left-wing views in their youth.
We also know that in August, 1953, Richard Helms, Wisner's deputy at the OPC, told Cord Meyer that Joseph McCarthy had accused him of being a communist. The FBI added to the smear by announcing it was unwilling to give Meyer "security clearance". However, the FBI refused to explain what evidence they had against Meyer. Allen W. Dulles and both came to his defence and refused to permit a FBI interrogation of Meyer. The FBI eventually revealed the charges against Meyer. Apparently he was a member of several liberal groups considered to be subversive by the Justice Department. This included being a member of the National Council on the Arts, where he associated with Norman Thomas, the leader of the Socialist Party and its presidential candidate in 1948. It was also pointed out that his wife, Mary Meyer, was a former member of the American Labor Party. Meyer was eventually cleared of these charges and was allowed to keep his job.
Cord’s political opinions changed dramatically after joining the CIA. Mary remained true to her views and politics became a source of conflict between them and was one of the reasons why they were eventually divorced. The CIA would have been very concerned that Mary would have known about Mockingbird and other illegal CIA operations. Did she record these events in her diary? Was this why Mary Pinochet Meyer had been murdered?
“I don't even want to mention the last major source Talbot uses to complete this rickety shack. I have a hard time even typing his name. But I have to. Its sleazy biographer David Heymann. Heymann wrote one of the very worst books ever published on Bobby Kennedy, and has made a lucrative career out of trashing the Kennedy family. For me, Heymann is either a notch above or below the likes of Kitty Kelley. But when you're that low, who's measuring?” (James DiEugenio)
One again the source is considered to be unreliable because he has in the past criticised the Kennedy family. James does not explain what evidence that Heymann provides. From the passage above it would seem to be about JFK’s reputation. That is not true. This is the passage from Heymann’s book, Georgetown Ladies’ Social Club (2003) that he is referring to:
“Cord Meyer gave expression to his support of Angleton in, "Facing Reality," an autobiography subtitled, "From World Federalism to the CIA." In the same volume, he comments briefly on the murder of his wife: "I was satisfied by the conclusions of the police investigation that Mary had been the victim of a sexually motivated assault by a single individual and that she had been killed in her struggle to escape." Carol Delaney, a family friend and longtime personal assistant to Cord Meyer, observed that, "Mr. Meyer didn't for a minute think that Ray Crump had murdered his wife or that it had been an attempted rape. But, being an Agency man, he couldn't very well accuse the CIA of the crime, although the murder had all the markings of an in-house rubout."
Asked to comment on the case, by the current author (C. David Heymann), Cord Meyer held court at the beginning of February 2001 - six weeks before his death - in the barren dining room of a Washington nursing home. Propped up in a chair, his glass eye bulging, he struggled to hold his head aloft. Although he was no longer able to read, the nurses supplied him with a daily copy of The Washington Post, which he carried with him wherever he went. "My father died of a heart attack the same year Mary was killed , " he whispered. "It was a bad time." And what could he say about Mary Meyer? Who had committed such a heinous crime? "The same sons of bitches," he hissed, "that killed John F. Kennedy."
In other words, Mary Meyer was killed as part of the cover-up to the JFK assassination. James is wrong to suggest that the only sources that we have for this story are the ones mentioned in his review. My main source is someone who knew Mary and Cord Meyer when they lived together in Washington. In fact, he was the son of one of Cord’s colleagues at the CIA. He knows a great deal about this case. I have asked him to post what he has on the Forum. However, he has declined the offer.
He also has a copy of Leo Damore’s unpublished manuscript on Mary Meyer. In it Damore names the CIA contract worker who murdered Mary Meyer. He has given me this name and details of his background. Damore “committed suicide” in October 1995 and the book has never been published. It is therefore understandable why this person is unwilling to post on this forum. Does that make him an unreliable source? In my opinion he is reliable but one of course never really knows.
"Damore than began investigating the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer. In an article that appeared in the New York Post Damore claimed that he believed that the Central Intelligence Agency had something to do with the death of Meyer. He pointed out that on the night of the murder James Angleton and Ben Bradlee were in Mary's home looking for her diary. He added: "She (Meyer) had access to the highest levels. She was involved in illegal drug activity. What do you think it would do to the beatification of Kennedy if this woman said, 'It wasn't Camelot, it was Caligula's court'?" Damore also said that a figure close to the CIA had told him that Mary's death had been a professional "hit"."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAdamore.htm
John,
Do you know if Damore's book has the same JFK-bashing "Caligula's court" slant that the New York Post article seems to have? Do you know when the book was written? Was it long before his "suicide" or around the same time?
Is there some way for forum members to see Damore's manuscript and/or get the name of the supposed CIA contract agent who he says did the professional hit?
Does anyone have the entire NY Post article?
-
Jim DiEugenio’s review of David Talbot’s book Brothers has been posted on the CTKA web site.
http://www.ctka.net/brothers.html
Ron W
Excerpt:
"Finally, in this regard, I must comment on the book's treatment of JFK and Mary Meyer. I was quite surprised that, as with Sheridan, Talbot swallowed the whole apple on this one. As I have written, (The Assassinations pgs 338-345), any serious chronicler has to be just as careful with this episode as with Judith Exner -- and to his credit, Talbot managed to avoid that disinformation filled land mine. Before criticizing him on this, and before I get smeared by people like Jon Simkin, I want to make a public confession. I actually believed the Meyer nonsense at one time. In fact, to my everlasting chagrin, I discussed it -- Timothy Leary and all -- at a talk I did in San Francisco about a year after Oliver Stone's JFK came out. It wasn't until I began to examine who Leary was, who his associates were, and how he fit into the whole explosion of drugs into the USA in the sixties and seventies that I began to question who he was. In light of this, I then reexamined his Mary Meyer story, and later the whole legerdemain around this fanciful tale. Thankfully, Talbot does not go into the whole overwrought "mystery" about her death and her mythologized diary. But he eagerly buys into everything else. Yet to do this, one has to believe some rather unbelievable people. And you then have to ignore their credibility problems so your more curious readers won't ask any questions. For if they do the whole edifice starts to unravel.
Foremost among this motley crew is Leary. As I was the first to note, there is a big problem with his story about Meyer coming to him in 1962 for psychedelic drugs. Namely, he didn't write about it for 21 years previous --until 1983. He wrote about 25 books in the meantime. (Sort of like going through 25 FBI, Secret Service, and DPD interviews before you suddenly recall seeing Oswald on the sixth floor.) Yet it was not until he hooked up with the likes of Gordon Liddy that he suddenly recalled, with vivid memory, supplying Mary with LSD and her mentioning of her high official friend and commenting, "They couldn't control him any more. He was changing too fast" etc. etc. etc. "
That's exactly what I was trying to discuss with post #291 here:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...9824&st=285
"David,
The material in your book about the motivation behind Mary Meyer sharing LSD with President Kennedy was pretty jaw-dropping, certainly a revelation to me.
And the entire time I was wondering about Timothy Leary and whether or not he was CIA.
If Leary was CIA then Meyer, presumably inadvertently, played right into the CIA's hands by giving them one more thing to use against JFK and/or one more reason to hate JFK. (Actually you make the case that the episode(s) hurt him anyway since the CIA was aware of them.)
Do you think Leary was CIA? Did you find any evidence that he was CIA?
Thanks.
Myra"
It was never answered.
So, does anyone have any insights into Mr. Leary that may help clarify?
-
Jim DiEugenio’s review of David Talbot’s book Brothers has been posted on the CTKA web site.
http://www.ctka.net/brothers.html
Ron W
I learn more from DiEugenio's reviews than I do from most books.
Thanks for posting this Ron.
Sure wonder what the real story is with Sheridan...
He went way beyond merely assessing Garrison's case.
So, in sabotaging Garrison was he representing RFK or betraying him?
And in any case, why?
-
...If it is Hargraves on the steps with a remote control transmitter - he would need a clear line-of-sight to avoid possible interference. I believe that the position on the stairs would have given him that.
...
- lee
I'm confused. I think Hargraves is Umbrella Man.
-
I think the Federal Reserve angle is a red herring & has nothing to do with President Kennedy's assassination.
According to The Money Masters by Bill Still (http://tinyurl.com/2reh2s) JFK merely reissued Lincoln's greenbacks in 1963, which was a routine matter. In 1994 the Regal Act was introduced in the US to replace President Lincoln's (US Treasury) Greenbacks with debt based (Federal Reserve) notes. Now they're almost gone.
Still gives a talk here (http://tinyurl.com/2uout7) where he emphatically debunks the theory that JFK was trying to bypass the Fed.
Of course we have to decide whether or not we believe Still, but I find him and his info credible and consider the Federal Reserve angle a dead end. There was no shortage of people and institutions with motives; this may be one of the few cases where there was none.
However, JFK was trying to bypass the World Bank/IMF in giving economic aid to developing nations...
(Source: Battling Wall Street.) I consider that very significant.
-
Roy Hargraves - anti-Castro fighter, closely associated with Gerry Hemming and Felipe Vidal Santiago, member of Interpen, veteran of many missions into Cuba with Vidal. Expert in explosives and IMO was the Umbrella Man on Elm.
James
Then how come he's not shown in "Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza (2)" James?
I think he was umbrella man too, FWIW.
I also think Orlando Bosch was DCM. If you agree then I wonder why he isn't included in FFiDP as well.
-
It seems widely accepted that Leopoldo is Bernardo De Torres.
I don't have a strong opinion about it but he does fit Odio's description.
Whereas I've seen Angelo ID'd as both Angel Murgado/Kennedy and Edwin Collins.
For example, there even seems to be contradiction within Spartacus (which is unusual):
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKtorres.htm
"The following day Leopoldo phoned Odio and told her that Leon was a former Marine and that he was an expert marksman. He added that Leon had said “we Cubans, we did not have the guts because we should have assassinated Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs”. It is believed that De Torres was Leopoldo and Edwin Collins was Angelo."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmurgado.htm
"Bernardo de Torres and Murgado visited Sylvia Odio on 25th September, 1963. When they arrived, Lee Harvey Oswald was also in the apartment."
What do you all think about Angelo's identity?
I'm confused about the prospect of Edwin Collins as Angelo. Wasn't Collins American? And Odio described the two as Latin, probably Mexican. Did Collins have a Latin background? There's a photo of him at the first link and it looks like he could appear to be Mexican or Cuban.
-
I wonder if this means that the final volume of Robert Caro's biography of LBJ will finally be published. I remember reading (I don't recall who said it) that Caro may have been waiting till after Lady Bird's death to tell the rest of the story.
I hope so.
Caro is willing to tell the ugly truth about LBJ.
It was Bird and Valenti who censored THE GUILTY MEN.
I wonder if maybe it has a chance now.
Jack
And Moyers?
Moyers sure is a mystery.
Carries the devil's water for years, then becomes Mr PBS Uber Journalist supposedly exposing corruption...
All the while fighting to hide his master's crimes.
I suppose there's a guilty conscience in there somewhere.
But not guilty enough.
-
I wonder if this means that the final volume of Robert Caro's biography of LBJ will finally be published. I remember reading (I don't recall who said it) that Caro may have been waiting till after Lady Bird's death to tell the rest of the story.
I hope so.
Caro is willing to tell the ugly truth about LBJ.
-
I was thinking of Lady Byrd last night. I was going to post how kind she was for attending Jacqueline Kennedy's funeral. A car brought her and when everyone went inside, she made her way up the stairs with the help of a walker and sat in the last pew, trying hard not to attract attention to her. I always admired her for that. I thought last night, oh, no one will be interested in that and it's appropos to what?
She was also a good partner for LBJ. She knew he was screwing around, but he would never leave her. When he suffered from bouts of depression in the Oval Office during his presidency, she would send him a letter of encouragement.
I don't know what members think of Lady Byrd, but I have nothing against her. She also said, after the assassination of Kennedy that she "never met a woman more suited for wearing lace," meaning Jackie."
Kathy
She put LBJ's radio station in her name and he used it to launder bribe money.
It's hard to imagine she was unaware of this fact, and of her husband's corruption.
If she was unaware of all that then she must have been quite oblivious (euphemism).
-
Stephen (Not Steven) Colbert interviews Vince Bugliosi on The Comedy Channel.
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/pl...p;is_large=true
What a waste. Colbert scored no points.
Regardless, Bug just comes off as a crackpot.
Thanks for the link Mike.
-
Hello all,
I recall seeing some lists of CIA abbreviations from documents on the forum sometime in the past.
For example: CIAWH/3 is CIA western hemisphere division 3.
Would anybody know of lists similar to this on the forum or on the net? I can't seem to locate them on the forum.
You can also email them to me at johnpetergeraghty@gmail.com
All the best,
John
Don't know about the forum list John, but there's this:
-
The "new" CIA is reviving one of its oldest dirty tricks with this Bobby Kennedy smear. And yes, consider the sources-- Kissinger and Helms. I explain the genesis of this attack on RFK in my book. I just blogged about it in Salon. Here's part of what I wrote:
The CIA's new honesty is also far from complete. There is nothing in the family jewels about agency officials long suspected by congressional investigators and researchers of ties to the Kennedy assassination, including deceased agents such as William Harvey, David Phillips, David Morales and George Joannides. The agency continues to keep these records under wraps, in brazen defiance of the law.
In fact, the agency could not help taking another whack at the Kennedys with the release of its family jewels. Press reports about the declassified CIA secrets laid the blame for the assassination efforts against Fidel Castro directly on then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy. What's the original source for this anti-Kennedy smear? None other than Richard Helms, the No. 2 man at the CIA during the Kennedy presidency and a bitter enemy of the two brothers.
Helms, desperately trying to head off congressional investigations into CIA abuses in the post-Watergate period, warned that he would drag RFK -- by then conveniently dead -- into the Castro controversy. By doing this, the wily Helms was clearly trying to intimidate the Democratic-controlled Congress. At a lunch meeting in January 1975, Helms told his friend Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that "Robert Kennedy personally managed the operation on the assassination of Castro" -- confident that Kissinger would spread this around Washington, as he quickly did. Helms knew his accusation against RFK was a lie, and when later pressed by the Church Committee to provide proof, he could not, admitting that the CIA had misled Bobby about its plots. In truth, RFK was appalled when he learned that the agency was collaborating with the Mafia to kill Castro -- and Kennedy believed that he shut down this sinister operation. But he did not succeed -- the CIA continued to conspire against Castro for years after the Kennedys were removed from power.
Spreading poisonous disinformation about the Kennedys has long been one of the CIA's oldest family jewels. Helms' loyal aide Sam Halpern was a master at disseminating these lies to the press for years. But don't expect the agency to come clean about this any time soon.
PS The fact that media is once again falling for this old lie -- including NPR's Daniel Schorr, the blithering idiot Chris Matthews, CNN etc -- once again shows how deeply misinformed the press is about this hugely important chapter in our history. I can't tell you how fed up I am with my profession.
The whole Kissinger/Helms story that RFK was behind plots to kill Castro was new to me when it recently made news, but then I just read the same story (Intelligence Wars, NYRB, 2004) in a Thomas Powers New York Review of Books from February 4, 1999.
Thomas Powers, who of Oswald, in the chapter called The Mind of the Assassin, after reviewing most of his intelligence related activities, writes, "Oswald's Tale brings us right up to the pinch-lipped misery and sour odor of the man. He borught pain to many and happiness to none. Anger is what this makes me feel. It was an insect that brought Kennedy down. Would to God he had popped first beneath somebody's foot."
Powers then joins forces with Mad Max Holland and Dark Slyd Hersh, not in a search for the truth, but to step on Bobby the Bug, whose been dead eight years when, as Powers says, these words were "written down in the heat of a government crisis, the words of a man [Henry Kiss] in a position to know [bK: and known to lie], recorded on the day, perhaps even within the hour, they were uttered."
As Powers puts it (p.372-373), "...The secrets a the heart of secrets are rarely confided to official paper or the appropriate files. The deepest secrets of all have nothing to do with the burn time of ballistic missiles, the configuration of fissionable material in nuclear weapons, or other technical matters, but rather with what presidents want. Those are what ancient Chinese writer about war and statecraft Sun-tzu called 'mouth-to-mouth" matters."
"One such surfaced recently when the Assassinations Records Review Board released a two-page 'Memorandum of Conversation' from Gerald Ford Presidential Library recording some comments of Henry Kissinger on January 4, 1975, during a discussion of news stories by Seymour Hersh claiming extensive wrongdoing by the CIA."
"According to Max Holland, who is writing a book about the Warren Commission, Kissinger, then serving as both Ford's secretary of state and his national security advisor, had sought a blanket denial from the agency but had been infromed by William Colby that some major secrets remain hidden. A former director, Richard Helms, was summoned back to Washington from his post as Amabassador to Iran to fill in the details for Kissinger at a breakfast meeting shrotly before Kissinger met in the White House with President Ford and Brent Scowcroft, who was taking notes."
"'Helms said all these stories are just the tip of the iceberg,' Kissinger said, as recorded by Scowcroft during the meeting with Ford. 'If they come out, blood will flow. For example, Robert Kennedy personally managed the operation on the assassination of Castro.'"
"The friends and defenders of the Kennedy brothers say it isn't so; but there it is on paper, written down in the heat of government crisis, the words of a man in a position to know, recorded on the day, perhaps even within the very hour, they were uttered."
"Holland and Hersh, still on the case, also learned recently the name of the CIA intelligence officer named to serve as liaison with the attorney general during the year in which he continually pressed the CIA for results in getting rid of Castro - a career intelligence officer, now dead, named Charles Ford."
"According to Ford's office-mate Sam Halpern, a CIA officfer also assigned to Task Force W in the agency's effort to get rid of Castro, Ford traveled hither and yon about the country on Robert Kennedy's business, but there public knowlege comes to an end. Hersh's book The Dark Side of Camelot, published in 1998, includes some addiional ancillary detail. Whether still-classified CIA files can fill out the story of Ford's work for Bobby remains unknown but it's likely, just as it is likely no one will be given free range of the files until many, many additional years have passed, if then."
"Think of the CIA's files as the nation's unconscious. There you may find the evidence, like the gouges on rock where a glacer has passed, of what American leaders really thought, really wanted, and really did - important clues to who we are as a people. Does this eternal battle over access to the files make sense when few still care what happened at the Bay of Pigs? Does it matter whether we are permitted to haul up the last piece of paper to the light of day before letting it rest? There is no right anwer, just personal preferences: some would rather know, and some would rather not."
"[Mad Max] Holland and [Dark Slyd] Hersh, still on the case....." are undobutedly sill chasing down Charles Ford and what he was doing for "Bobby" traveling "hither and yon," the office-mate to Sam Halpern, the sill-alive CIA officer also assigned to Task Force W., who also hates Kennedy.
Now that Bugliosi is fizzling out, I'm sure we will soon receive a barage of broadsides from the likes of Powers, Holland and Hersh.
BK
The note writing, record keeping General Brent Scowcroft served directly under
presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr. and now with Bush Jr.
Scowcroft is only one of several thousands of Mormons imbeded within influencial
positions of U.S. Government Administrations.
It is urgent, that JFK Researchers expose such powerful socio/religious/politico
combinations!
Harry
Can you recommend some specific sources on a Mormon/gov't alliance Harry?
Other than google that is.
Myra
Just now briefly checked google re; the subject, and can only point out my personal
experience and associations as outlined in the 1990 manuscript/book, YROJ Connection
to the JFK Assassination, and on the Forum Index under my name.
My aim is to direct researchers toward the ongoing, and present powerful
undercurrent of this successful subversion.
One may well begin with Sen. Orrin Hatch,and/or Gen.Brent Scowcroft etc & etc.
Harry
Thank you Harry.
-
No worries, Francesca. We should really thank the Mary Ferrell site for hosting the complete interview.
It is my opinion that Hall was to be a designated patsy that day but something happened to change that. Whether he smelled a rat and took off in the other direction, I don't know.
As to Godinez, he seemed to be right amongst the action when it came to exile activity in Dallas. He also had the right associations to be approached as a 'handler' of sorts and I do think he knew the identity of the mystery Cuban (as mentioned by Father MacChann) who worked at Parkland hospital - and I further contend it was this mystery Cuban who planted the so-called magic bullet.
FWIW.
James
Woah. I thought Ruby planted the magic bullet.
What other reason would Ruby have had for popping up at the hospital?
To make sure the president was dead so the plotters wouldn't have to use plan C?
-
...
How do we support such a hypothesis? For now, we've got to hold most of those cards close to the vest.
...
I don't really see how it's possible to critique your theory when you decline to share supporting evidence.
However, as I was reading Ultimate Sacrifice it was clear to me that it was propaganda.
Obviously that means the authors were either disinformation agents or incredibly gullible and illogical.
-
The "new" CIA is reviving one of its oldest dirty tricks with this Bobby Kennedy smear. And yes, consider the sources-- Kissinger and Helms. I explain the genesis of this attack on RFK in my book. I just blogged about it in Salon. Here's part of what I wrote:
The CIA's new honesty is also far from complete. There is nothing in the family jewels about agency officials long suspected by congressional investigators and researchers of ties to the Kennedy assassination, including deceased agents such as William Harvey, David Phillips, David Morales and George Joannides. The agency continues to keep these records under wraps, in brazen defiance of the law.
In fact, the agency could not help taking another whack at the Kennedys with the release of its family jewels. Press reports about the declassified CIA secrets laid the blame for the assassination efforts against Fidel Castro directly on then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy. What's the original source for this anti-Kennedy smear? None other than Richard Helms, the No. 2 man at the CIA during the Kennedy presidency and a bitter enemy of the two brothers.
Helms, desperately trying to head off congressional investigations into CIA abuses in the post-Watergate period, warned that he would drag RFK -- by then conveniently dead -- into the Castro controversy. By doing this, the wily Helms was clearly trying to intimidate the Democratic-controlled Congress. At a lunch meeting in January 1975, Helms told his friend Secretary of State Henry Kissinger that "Robert Kennedy personally managed the operation on the assassination of Castro" -- confident that Kissinger would spread this around Washington, as he quickly did. Helms knew his accusation against RFK was a lie, and when later pressed by the Church Committee to provide proof, he could not, admitting that the CIA had misled Bobby about its plots. In truth, RFK was appalled when he learned that the agency was collaborating with the Mafia to kill Castro -- and Kennedy believed that he shut down this sinister operation. But he did not succeed -- the CIA continued to conspire against Castro for years after the Kennedys were removed from power.
Spreading poisonous disinformation about the Kennedys has long been one of the CIA's oldest family jewels. Helms' loyal aide Sam Halpern was a master at disseminating these lies to the press for years. But don't expect the agency to come clean about this any time soon.
PS The fact that media is once again falling for this old lie -- including NPR's Daniel Schorr, the blithering idiot Chris Matthews, CNN etc -- once again shows how deeply misinformed the press is about this hugely important chapter in our history. I can't tell you how fed up I am with my profession.
The whole Kissinger/Helms story that RFK was behind plots to kill Castro was new to me when it recently made news, but then I just read the same story (Intelligence Wars, NYRB, 2004) in a Thomas Powers New York Review of Books from February 4, 1999.
Thomas Powers, who of Oswald, in the chapter called The Mind of the Assassin, after reviewing most of his intelligence related activities, writes, "Oswald's Tale brings us right up to the pinch-lipped misery and sour odor of the man. He borught pain to many and happiness to none. Anger is what this makes me feel. It was an insect that brought Kennedy down. Would to God he had popped first beneath somebody's foot."
Powers then joins forces with Mad Max Holland and Dark Slyd Hersh, not in a search for the truth, but to step on Bobby the Bug, whose been dead eight years when, as Powers says, these words were "written down in the heat of a government crisis, the words of a man [Henry Kiss] in a position to know [bK: and known to lie], recorded on the day, perhaps even within the hour, they were uttered."
As Powers puts it (p.372-373), "...The secrets a the heart of secrets are rarely confided to official paper or the appropriate files. The deepest secrets of all have nothing to do with the burn time of ballistic missiles, the configuration of fissionable material in nuclear weapons, or other technical matters, but rather with what presidents want. Those are what ancient Chinese writer about war and statecraft Sun-tzu called 'mouth-to-mouth" matters."
"One such surfaced recently when the Assassinations Records Review Board released a two-page 'Memorandum of Conversation' from Gerald Ford Presidential Library recording some comments of Henry Kissinger on January 4, 1975, during a discussion of news stories by Seymour Hersh claiming extensive wrongdoing by the CIA."
"According to Max Holland, who is writing a book about the Warren Commission, Kissinger, then serving as both Ford's secretary of state and his national security advisor, had sought a blanket denial from the agency but had been infromed by William Colby that some major secrets remain hidden. A former director, Richard Helms, was summoned back to Washington from his post as Amabassador to Iran to fill in the details for Kissinger at a breakfast meeting shrotly before Kissinger met in the White House with President Ford and Brent Scowcroft, who was taking notes."
"'Helms said all these stories are just the tip of the iceberg,' Kissinger said, as recorded by Scowcroft during the meeting with Ford. 'If they come out, blood will flow. For example, Robert Kennedy personally managed the operation on the assassination of Castro.'"
"The friends and defenders of the Kennedy brothers say it isn't so; but there it is on paper, written down in the heat of government crisis, the words of a man in a position to know, recorded on the day, perhaps even within the very hour, they were uttered."
"Holland and Hersh, still on the case, also learned recently the name of the CIA intelligence officer named to serve as liaison with the attorney general during the year in which he continually pressed the CIA for results in getting rid of Castro - a career intelligence officer, now dead, named Charles Ford."
"According to Ford's office-mate Sam Halpern, a CIA officfer also assigned to Task Force W in the agency's effort to get rid of Castro, Ford traveled hither and yon about the country on Robert Kennedy's business, but there public knowlege comes to an end. Hersh's book The Dark Side of Camelot, published in 1998, includes some addiional ancillary detail. Whether still-classified CIA files can fill out the story of Ford's work for Bobby remains unknown but it's likely, just as it is likely no one will be given free range of the files until many, many additional years have passed, if then."
"Think of the CIA's files as the nation's unconscious. There you may find the evidence, like the gouges on rock where a glacer has passed, of what American leaders really thought, really wanted, and really did - important clues to who we are as a people. Does this eternal battle over access to the files make sense when few still care what happened at the Bay of Pigs? Does it matter whether we are permitted to haul up the last piece of paper to the light of day before letting it rest? There is no right anwer, just personal preferences: some would rather know, and some would rather not."
"[Mad Max] Holland and [Dark Slyd] Hersh, still on the case....." are undobutedly sill chasing down Charles Ford and what he was doing for "Bobby" traveling "hither and yon," the office-mate to Sam Halpern, the sill-alive CIA officer also assigned to Task Force W., who also hates Kennedy.
Now that Bugliosi is fizzling out, I'm sure we will soon receive a barage of broadsides from the likes of Powers, Holland and Hersh.
BK
The note writing, record keeping General Brent Scowcroft served directly under
presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr. and now with Bush Jr.
Scowcroft is only one of several thousands of Mormons imbeded within influencial
positions of U.S. Government Administrations.
It is urgent, that JFK Researchers expose such powerful socio/religious/politico
combinations!
Harry
Can you recommend some specific sources on a Mormon/gov't alliance Harry?
Other than google that is.
-
John:
I speculate that Harvey hated Bobby more (not necessarily John) for having cost him the JM/WAVE lead... and he was subsequently retired in-place in Rome, which must have been an extreme embarrassment to a primetime player like Harvey. The demotion (and essentially end of his career advancement) sure appears to be the heavy-handed influence of either the President or his AG... who else could've caused banishment (far away) of such an operator? I sure wish I had complete knowledge of everything Harvey did, and everywhere he went, in the ensuing year leading up to Dealey Plaza. Rumor had it that he travelled domestically, and continued to meet with Roselli, even though he no longer had Mongoose, Executive Action, ZR/Rifle, and was then supposedly Chief of Station in Rome (i.e. a ceremonial demotion). And, how do we explain the untimely murder of Roselli and the death of Harvey, so tantalizingly close to the HSCA hearings. -- gene
Was Harvey supposed to testify to the HSCA?
Gaeton Fonzi does not mention this in his book “The Last Investigation”. In fact, Fonzi does not appear to be very interested in Harvey (only mentioned three times in the text of the book). William Harvey was interviewed by the Church Committee (Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities). It was partly because of Harvey’s testimony that Church established a subcommittee under Richard Schweiker in September, 1975, to investigate the performance of the intelligence agencies concerning the assassination of JFK. However, the investigation did not get its budget until the following year and by that time Harvey was dead (June, 1976). Harvey clearly knew things about the assassination and it was almost certain that he would have been interviewed by the HSCA if he had lived. It is indeed possible that Harvey would have given vital information to the HSCA and might have had an assisted heart-attack.
Some witnesses who did die before they could testify include William Pawley (January, 1977), George De Mohrenschildt (March, 1977), William Sullivan (November, 1977) and David Sanchez Morales (May 1978). Sullivan, who carried out the original FBI investigation into the assassination, was one of six top FBI officials who died in a six month period in 1977. Others who were due to appear before the committee who died included Louis Nicholas, special assistant to J. Edgar Hoover and Hoover's liaison with the Warren Commission; Alan H. Belmont, special assistant to Hoover; James Cadigan, document expert with access to documents that related to death of JFK; J. M. English, former head of FBI Forensic Sciences Laboratory where Oswald's rifle and pistol were tested; Donald Kaylor, FBI fingerprint chemist who examined prints found at the assassination scene.
Fonzi and his fellow investigators never discovered Carl E. Jenkins’ role in the plots against Castro and was never a candidate for being interviewed. The same goes for George Joannides. As a result, he was allowed to die of natural causes in 1990. As long as Jenkins is left alone he will also die of natural causes like his friend and fellow conspirator, Chi Chi Quintero.
Ah, thank you John.
I didn't realize there was a prolonged period between naming of the commission and securing a budget.
-
John:
I speculate that Harvey hated Bobby more (not necessarily John) for having cost him the JM/WAVE lead... and he was subsequently retired in-place in Rome, which must have been an extreme embarrassment to a primetime player like Harvey. The demotion (and essentially end of his career advancement) sure appears to be the heavy-handed influence of either the President or his AG... who else could've caused banishment (far away) of such an operator? I sure wish I had complete knowledge of everything Harvey did, and everywhere he went, in the ensuing year leading up to Dealey Plaza. Rumor had it that he travelled domestically, and continued to meet with Roselli, even though he no longer had Mongoose, Executive Action, ZR/Rifle, and was then supposedly Chief of Station in Rome (i.e. a ceremonial demotion). And, how do we explain the untimely murder of Roselli and the death of Harvey, so tantalizingly close to the HSCA hearings. -- gene
Was Harvey supposed to testify to the HSCA?
-
Has anyone read Michael Kurtz's book "The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman Versus Conspiracy"?
I'm just now reading his older book "Crime of the Century" and I'm very disappointed in it.
There are a number of reasons, chief among them the lack of historical context in spite of the author trumpeting the fact that he's a historian. It treats the murder of President Kennedy as an isolated event, not bothering to mention decades worth of events that lead up to it and resulted from it.
Other flaws:
-Kurtz frequently quotes Claire Booth Luce like she's the oracle. I think Fonzi et al found out the hard way that she was a CIA disinfo agent. The reliance on her undermines the credibility of the book.
-In his summary chapter about the gunshot sequence he completely ignores the neck wound. He's aware of the wound because he mentions it earlier in the book, but for some reason he leaves it out of the speculative summary chapter.
Anyway, just a few observations. I suppose I just had overly high expectations of the book.
I'm not sure if I'd even bother to read his newer one.
And of course in DiEugenio's review of "Breach of Trust" he said this:
"I was rather predisposed against reading Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust. Most of the recent books on the JFK case had been disappointing. Not just the horrible and ridiculous Ultimate Sacrifice, but others like the efforts of Jaime Escalante and Michael Kurtz."
-
"Review: Breach of Trust
By James DiEugenio
I was rather predisposed against reading Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust. Most of the recent books on the JFK case had been disappointing. Not just the horrible and ridiculous Ultimate Sacrifice, but others like the efforts of Jaime Escalante and Michael Kurtz...."
More about Kurtz:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry108865
-
"...Not just the horrible and ridiculous Ultimate Sacrifice..."
Yes!
The best summary I've read of this overlong, redundant, redundant (
) propaganda. -
I have thanked David Healy privately for his apology. What was said remains between the two of us, but I was glad to bury the hatchet. I want to take this opportunity to thank him publicly.
To the members that voiced their support for me, I am most grateful.
The moderators closed the other thread for reasons. I've tried to respect that by staying out of this one, but each time Bill Miller mentions me in this thread, it becomes increasingly difficult.
I'm sure it is difficult when constantly provoked and lied about Mike.
On the other hand the provocateur is simply not to be believed. In so many ways.
-
...
Can't we move on?
Done.
-
Very true. Couple of associated thoughts:
After pushing to envelope of decency to the breaking point, Miller then happily breaks it, as in the Hogan case. Then when this occurs & members complain, Miller remembers that he has been expelled from other forums. Miller then becomes the mild mannered, affable milk man who purrs & fawns before the Mods who are apparently shocked senseless at witnessing the enormity of Miller's outrage. As an old time troller Miller knows that as time goes by the thread of his outrage will fade away & all will be conveniently forgotten. Miller banks on his alleged reputation as a "photo expert" to cow the mods during the time required for his outrage to drift away into oblivion. A nice con.
One associated thought:
My Controls/Manage Ignored Users/Add a new user to your list
) propaganda.
Op Dallas
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Needless to say...
I sure do.
Photos attached.
Many believe DCM was Felipe Vidal Santiago who worked closely with Hargraves.
So it'd be logical for them to work closely in Dealey Plaza.
It also seems possible that the umbrella could have served as a go/no-go signal for contingency explosives in case the shooters missed. Hargraves, being the explosives expert, was a logical person to make the go/no-go call.
I tend to be skeptical of anything the professional murderers and liars at the CIA say.
I think that's only logical.