Jump to content
The Education Forum

Richard Booth

Members
  • Posts

    447
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Richard Booth

  1. And this week the Gabbi Petito case, and he had a series on HBO. Shiling for JFK's killers is great for the career.
  2. These are two of the things I was referring to when I said that her answers to Tim's questions were revealing. My intent was to not to reveal Tim's conclusions or findings in my own post, as I did not want to put those things in my words but rather wanted people to go read the piece and see it in Tim's words. Though I did paraphrase and explain how she denied working based on copies, and shared my opinion that her defensiveness and denying something that is a known fact (she testified to it under oath) is a manifestation of her psychological or emotion state: her knowing full well she participated in a cover-up, and at once probably also feeling too proud to acknowledge this, created so much discomfort that she irrationally denied something not-very-important just to be argumentative with Smith. Why bother denying using copies, after all? Especially after having testified to having done so? It only makes sense in terms of it being an irrational emotional response related to her possible feelings of guilt, shame, and her pride conflicting with her surely knowing she was part and parcel to something that she has to know was wrong. I wonder how Dr. Baden's career might have gone had he not did what he did. I see he's in the news just this week talking about that Gabbi girl's disappearance. Guy was also in the news and involved in the Epstein case. I can't help but think his success and exposure was a reward for what he did in the JFK case.
  3. That pretty much sums it up. Tim did a good job in raising the issue of "why in the world would you want to have someone draw a picture then release the drawing when you already have photos?" -- it doesn't make any sense. Until then you find out Dr. Baden is talking to her about how good she can likely draw bullet entrance wounds and lo and behold you find out that the drawings she made differ in distinct ways when compared to the actual photos. Why in the world would anyone say "oh no we can't publish these pictures. instead let's have someone draw photo realistic duplicates and then publish those" Obviously the only reason to do it is so that the drawings can be used to depict something that isn't in the original photos. Same reason they had Rydberg in the WC. Then you use the age-old excuse of "Kennedy family" to explain why you're hiding autopsy photos. I think that Ida Dox's responses to Tim's questions were very revealing and show that she knows she participated in a cover-up. Even if she may not have been aware at the time (which is a bit of a stretch, she's no fool) and was heavily influenced by Dr. Baden, she surely knows what she did. Her responses to Tim make that abundantly clear.
  4. Doubt that she knew she was part of any cover-up. To her mind I am sure she was just a professional there doing a job, with no suspicion that anything ontoward was going on.
  5. Hi John, I agree with Tim Smith's assessment that it was Michael Baden and Ida Dox was probably doing what he told her to do. Especially illuminating is Baden's 5/9/78 notation "Ida - You can do much better" that happens to be on a piece of paper that is about the appearance bullet wounds. From that we can assume that there was some level of discussion concerning how and where to draw such a wound in her official work for the committee. Dox's answers to Smith's questions are also revealing: She became curiously defensive in some cases, and in some cases denied things that were known to be true. Makes you wonder if she on some level knows that she was part of a manipulation, and perhaps she has too much pride to admit that, so this translates to a defensive attitude and denial when it's entirely nonsensical: for example, she had testified that a set of autopsy photos were made for her to utilize so that she didn't have to take up Archives' employees time presumably working with originals. She testified this is what happened. Yet, she became defensive and denied this fact for no apparent reason when asked about it. I suspect that is a manifestation of her knowing on some level, full well, that she played a role in manipulation that she cannot consciously acknowledge. I perceive that she had to have been uneasy with the conversation due to the feelings this might cause in a person.
  6. Every now and then we get a slam-dunk over at Kennedys and King. The last one I remember that stood out strongly was Creating the Oswald Legend pt 4. by Vasilios Vazakas, specifically the material in that piece regarding Malcolm Blunt's discovery of HSCA researcher Betsy Wolfe's notes concerning the creation-of and routing-of the Oswald file. Well, K&K has done it again with The Mysteries Around Ida Dox by Tim Smith. Read it and you'll see why this is important. Even better, this is an excerpt. Looks like Tim Smith has a forthcoming book about the HSCA coming round. If this piece is any indicator it's going to be a good one.
  7. I just think it was incredibly sloppy. Three casings found on the floor, one bullet inside the rifle, makes four bullets. So this means we are to believe Oswald brought four bullets with him. Meanwhile anyone who uses firearms knows full well you fill a magazine. My observations are simple ones. I'll leave the details to others, DJ did a good post concerning those details above. I remain fixated on the absurdity of finding "evidence" of four bullets and I can only fixate on what is missing from that equation: a full magazine. The idea of Oswald frantically trying to put together a rifle using a dime, then loading four bullets into a MC magazine and trying to load that into the rifle ... it's comical. If you watch Craig Roberts' video you will see why 4 bullets loaded into a MC magazine won't work, the way it's designed you need a full mag to even load it right. One thing that DJ did bring up that was new to me was D-79 (sounds like an FBI 302 number there), a documentary record of 4 boxes of ammo found. That surprised me, I was always under the impression Oswald did not have any ammo at all. Meanwhile, the MSM productions on this case not only insist Oswald did it, but we're treated to fantasy stories from the likes of Patricia Johnson Macmillan -- stories about Oswald firing his rifle (see "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?") in the park at leaves or dry firing it on the porch. About as absurd and ridiculous as the idea of someone trying to put together a rifle with a dime and load that MC using only 4 bullets for the mag... Just outrageously absurd and preposterous. Did not happen.
  8. Amen. You raise excellent points here and provide ample material supporting your positions. I was not aware of D-79 or the 4 boxes of ammo that were recovered. That was quite the surprise.
  9. Came across that about a week ago. Very well done piece. I remember seeing some of the stories it cites--the two guys pulled off the train for example. Shocking how much of that went down the memory hole. Another piece I came across last week: http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2011/04/many-false-hijackings-of-911.html This one is briefly mentioned in Bojinka Maximum, worth a read. You mention Israeli espionage in that art students story. If you're interested in Israeli espionage and history I recommend reading "The Killing of Karen Silkwood" by Richard Rashke. Bottom line is that the companies NUMEC and Kerr-McGee were diverting fissile nuclear material to Israel for use in their nuclear program. Enough material was diverted from Kerr-McGee to make several nuclear weapons, and at the time whistleblower Karen Silkwood's work was putting her on a path to discovering, and publicizing that missing nuclear material. Consequently, it's no surprise that she was murdered. The NUMEC/Kerr-McGee nuclear material diversion was tied to James Angleton (see 'The Ghost' for additional details on Angleton and NUMEC) and the Mossad, and I think that Karen Silkwood's murder was a direct result of James Angleton protecting his operation.
  10. Hi David, I've read that piece - absolutely fantastic journalism there on a truly befuddling and bizarre story. You would never see reporting like that today.
  11. I think one of the biggest problems facing research for other events is that it seems today people just do not read. They don't read, write, or analyze or dig into things. They just make videos. Look to 9/11 and some of the best research I've seen there comes from "DJ Thermal Detonator" (see video "BOJINKA MAXIMUM") which is a video containing many, many primary source citations of things that aired in the newsmedia that just went down the memory hole. However, there is no existing written record that is comparable to that. Maybe Paul Thompson's "The Terror Timeline" but that's almost 20 years old now. When I do see people talking about, say, the Oklahoma City bombing, I find that overwhelmingly people are low-information on that. Just yesterday I saw someone write "OKC was a random nut" -- and nothing can be further from the truth as the record of that case proves, McVeigh was part of a network of white supremacists which even today still threaten us, as evidenced by Atomwaffen Division, the Proud Boys, the January 6th insurrection. So if people continue in their low-information ways, just refusing to read or examine readily available records, they cannot complain when later down the line we see another horrific attack by a white supremacist, at least they can't say "why didn't we see this coming?" -- if people were paying attention to the record they would realize that this is a very real threat and that Oklahoma City was anything but a "random nut" but rather it is a chilling example of what these people can do, and to a larger extent, how they got away with it. You won't find McVeigh's accomplices in prison today and his chief co-conspirator was never captured. Just a few years before the bombing, you'll find the 1988 Sedition Trial where the defendants also got away with it: found NOT GUILTY. Acquitted of all charges. Which emboldened them. For some reason people just don't research other events with the same level of scholarship and seriousness you see with JFK. At least, if they do, there does not exist an online community where the scholars interact. Instead you just find people online arguing about whether or not the 9/11 planes were holograms and other nonsense. That community has been entirely compromised but that is another story.
  12. When you have publishers and owners who are willing to subvert hard reporting or censor their journalists you've got a compromised press. And I think that we largely have that now. Is there any outlet with any level of circulation or clout that isn't compromised? This leaves us in a position where truly hard hitting reporting is relegated to obscurity at best, left unpublished at worse. How many excellent stories were left in the wastebasket or never ran at all? Then we have an additional layer of censorship now with social media companies. I'm thinking of how Twitter and Facebook outright banned the circulation or linking to of the Hunter Biden laptop story in October of 2020. With that story, the mainstream media largely self-censored and just refused to cover it. This left the reporting on the very-real story to the likes of basically Daily Mail and the NY Post, tabloids. The Post got the story right, but then they found that Twitter would not allow people to circulate links to the story. We do not have a healthy or free press today. If we ever had one.
  13. Jim, I believe you are 100% correct about Tina Brown. She's a real piece of work and I know about one specific case of censorship that can be attributed to her that relates to my own research. There was a very significant Newsweek story on an FBI program called PATCON that was published in 2011. The story was basically about an FBI operation involving infiltrating right-wing terrorist groups. It was a very, very good piece. However, a funny thing happened. Some rather significant details in that piece were GUTTED by Tina Brown at Newsweek before print. A journalist I know provided me with the original piece, before it was gutted by. This journalist told me that the writer said that the piece was gutted by the editors, and he opined that he thought that Tina Brown was responsible for the censorship of the piece. In the original story, it is recounted that FBI undercover operative John Matthews had recognized Timothy McVeigh when he saw him on TV the week of the OKC bombing in April of '95. He recognized him from his time working undercover at a white supremacist ranch in Texas. He called his FBI handler, Don Jarrett, and told him. His handler told him "Don't worry about it. We got it covered." All this was in the original piece. There is more to it, but basically, at the end of the day, Tina Brown gutted from that story one of the most significant details in it that relates to McVeigh's far-right accomplices who very likely helped him plan the OKC bombing. Sounds like Tina Brown has long carried water for certain law enforcement and intelligence organizations to keep things out of print, or twist stories in a certain way. Surely she has probably benefitted from this greatly. Richard
  14. Let's hope not. Let us wait and see, either way there will be controversy. I don't think that Newsom will be willing to take the political heat for letting Sirhan out of prison, but you never know. Maybe this recall effort will show him that he can't take his position in life for granted and maybe he should do something worthwhile for a change.
  15. And who would have spotted and recruited Mr. Phillips? Angleton. He planted the "virus" to ensure post-assassination cover-up and I think surely he picked who would head up the operational compartments. Phillips was a perfect choice: proven track record of victory (PB/SUCCESS) and known hatred for John Kennedy. Ultimately I pretty much agree with what you wrote here. I just put Angleton up near the top in the hierarchy.
  16. Absolutely right. There exists very good work on the Oswald file on Kennedy's and King, which does show I think beyond any doubt that Angleton manipulated the routing of documents for that file and handled it in a special way. That is a red flag. We also have Angleton reacting strongly to the atmosphere in the mid 70s where the CIA was suspected of involvement in the assassination, with high level interest from Congressional committees. What Angleton chose to do there was very interesting and also a red flag. He basically hangs E. Howard Hunt out to dry to save himself. He fabricated a document implicating Hunt and then Angleton's mark, Joe Trento, accepts it as real. Then Angleton has an asset/friend, William Corson, independently "confirm" that the document is real. Angleton's behavior when Win Scott died is also a red flag. While we do not have outright proof that Angleton was behind it I think we have enough to classify him as the primary suspect. There are enough red flags here that it is obvious to me he was involved.
  17. I think this was a sort of mutiny at CIA. Angleton was not about to be ruled over by John McCone. His loyalty was first to the agency itself and to him that was rightfully Allen Dulles' organization, and his own. Angleton continued to view Dulles as his superior and Dulles continued to receive briefings on everything, from Angleton, inside his home. Angleton had access to EVERYTHING in his position as head of CI/SIG. I think Angleton was the brain of the entire thing. Angleton alone wouldn't have been able to sell an operation like this to others, but if others knew that it had Dulles' blessing and he was behind it, they would probably be far more inclined to participate. Angleton knew where all the bodies were buried, he knew all of the operational capabilities they had, who could be trusted, who couldn't be, what assets to use, what not to use, and how to manipulate the system. Dulles had the social skills and connections. Together, they could have mapped the entire thing out.
  18. Regular meetings at Dulles' home, post-firing It wasn't to discuss the preakness or make their horse bets...
  19. I think that Spike Lee most likely made the decision entirely on his own without having to be compelled. All it took for him was a moment. In one short moment, he realized what world he lived in, and what would happen to him if he continued down this path. He was smart enough to see that... but not smart enough to anticipate it before he went there. He probably heard from his publicist, saw the headlines, and it only took him a moment to realize he had made a grave mistake. A very sad state of affairs, isn't it? There are always things we are not allowed to talk about. It isn't that we'll be arrested, or killed if we do talk about certain things. And that's probably what is so infuriating about it: if we lived in some kind of dictatorship we would have a convenient way to explain the situation we are in. Instead, we live in a voluntary self-censoring thought-prison and that makes it even more disgusting. It's almost worse to live in a voluntary world of self-imposed censorship than if we were put there under an iron fist. At least with the dictatorship, the way "out" is self-evident: you resist and overthrow it, you topple the regime. But how do you escape the self-imposed prison? How do you change that?
  20. Not before the recall, no: "The parole board’s larger staff will review the recommendation for Sirhan’s release over the next 90 days before it is sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who then has 30 days to decide on whether to grant it." If Newsom does get recalled, I wonder how long it is before he leaves office and his replacement takes over.
  21. Only among a very small set of people, it's marginalized groups who will get behind that. The vast majority of people would view it as Newsom supporting a murderer, supporting someone who killed one of the last sympathetic Democratic politicians we've had. Of course I would support him making the decision to back the parole board's decision and think it would show courage and morality. But that's me, not the majority of California or American voters.
  22. I was actually thinking of Democrat ads -- was thinking of what someone like Kamala Harris might have to say about it. It could harm him in the running from "friendly fire" in the running. I think that Gavin Newsom, Steve Sisolak (Nevada's governor), and Gretchen Whitmer will all probably run for President one day. Now that Cuomo is out, they've each got a chance. Newsome isn't going to wreck that chance over Sirhan Sirhan
  23. 100% Perhaps the best example of operational use of MK/ULTRA / ARTICHOKE / BLUEBIRD techniques
×
×
  • Create New...