Steve Cearfoss

“There are multiple researchers and more inquisitive people than I that should confer their important observations on the most important subjects coming to light recently and (possibly) in the near future. “ ???

Parnell: 'As Morley says, two CIA employees did indeed say that they thought Phillips used the name Bishop. However, both later recanted. In a HSCA deposition, former CIA director John McCone stated that he thought that a Maurice Bishop had worked for the agency. [8] However, just over a month later in a letter from the CIA’s office of Legislative Council, McCone recanted.'[9] So where should we put the weight, on the original statement or the recantation? Just because somebody recants does not mean the original assertion was untrue. After all, 30 years after the assassination, in Posner's book, some of the Parkland doctors disavowed their November 22, 1963 assertions regarding the JFK head wound. And we all know what nonsense that was. As a matter of fact, original statements are usually given freely, and we may surmise that a later about-face could very well be the result of intimidation or coercion.

All of this belated "info" should have been made clear in the first post

Thanks for your response, Jim. I can see now why you think it's an angle that should be explored more thoroughly. Enjoyed your thoughtful review of Savastano's book.

In your review of Savastano's Robert Kennedy section, you say that he gives short shrift to the 'girl in the polkadot dress' angle. I'm not at all sure that this angle merits much attention. I could never fathom why a woman, complicit in the shooting, would have been running away shouting, ''We shot him! We shot him!” It always seemed more likely to me that this woman was simply frightened and shouted, 'They shot him! They shot him!' Also, yelling that 'We shot him!' would of course irrationally call attention to herself. Her purportedly demonstrative physical and vocal exhibitions certainly do not seem like something a member of what seems to be a fairly professional and sophisticated hit would be inclined to do.

'Trump is openly contemptuous of the intelligence agencies that any commander in chief must rely on to make decisions.' The only stance he's taken that has any merit.

The following pull-out gem is from a Dec. 17 article in "The Nation" titled "Why Are the Media Taking the CIA’s Hacking Claims at Face Value?" by James Carden: "In 1977, Carl Bernstein published an exposé of a CIA program known as Operation Mockingbird, a covert program involving, according to Bernstein, 'more than 400 American journalists who in the past 25 years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.' Bernstein found that in 'many instances' CIA documents revealed that 'journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.'” Carden conspicuously omitted any mention of Max Holland of the magazine's editorial board who has been published by journals run by the CIA and also has appeared on the CIA's website. https://www.thenation.com/article/why-are-the-media-taking-the-cias-hacking-claims-at-face-value/

'red fiend" -- typo nevertheless describes what many thought he was.

"I urge all serious JFK students to download this 4 part program & make safety copies." What is the procedure for doing this? Thanks

Scott: "People like Jim, still hasn't rebut the original origin of the debate we had at Deep Politics as pointed out [in this thread], altas, just ignored, as my memory severs me well, and people like Jim's doesn't." This is a perfect example of why so many members are scratching their heads while trying to figure out what you are saying. Clear writing -- especially expository writing -- should not be a haphazard, slapdash endeavor. Clear writing requires clear thinking. Do you re-read your posts? George Orwell said 'The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. . .' I don't think you are insincere, and I'm sure most members would agree, but you risk the possibility of being considered superficial and possibly insincere by continuing to let your emotions override your intellect.

Tom Neal: "That's a good thought, Mark. But their goal is to convince the public it's the TRUTH." So true, the grandees' shills are relentless . . keep disgorging the big lie.

Who is this "Bartholomew"??

Steven, is this a follow up to a thread that I missed? I don't know who these people — DeMoh and Wolf — are. Please elucidate. Thanks

Isn't this a bit off-genre?

I have been trying without success to uncover info re Marvin Kantor, who was in Russia at the same time as Oswald. Kantor spent time in 1958 and 1959 in Minsk. I believe Kantor also was a former marine. I have found a lot of info on "defector" Robert E. Webster, but not much on Kantor. Any info would be appreciated.

I found the following memo from Richard Helms at http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=85017 MEMORANDUM FOR: Mr. J. Lee Rankin General Counsel President;s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy SUBJECT: Allegation of Pfc. Eugene B. DINKIN U.S. Army, Relative to Assassination Plot Against President Kennedy 1. Reference is made to paragraph 2 of your memorandum, dated February 12, 1964 requesting that the Commission be furnished copies of disseminations relative to the assassination of President Kennedy that were sent to the Secret Service. 2. Immediately after the assassination the CIA (deleted_ in Geneva, Switzerland, reported allegations concerning a plot to assassinate President Kennedy that were made by Pfc. Eugene B. DINKIN, U.S. Army, serial number RA-76710292 on 6 and 7 November 1963 in Geneva while absent without leave from his unit in Metz, France. Available details of this charge, together with information on its exploitation by Alex des Fontaines, a Time-Life stringer in Geneva, were disseminated in OUT Teletype message No. 85770, on 29 November 1963. This dissemination was sent to the White House, Department of State, and Federal Bureau of Investigation, with a copy to the Secret Service. 3. Since the (deleted) cooperated with the U.S. Military Attache in assembling information on this affair, and the Military Attache reported through his channels, the Commission man have already received information of Pfc. DINKIN’s allegations. Because sensitive sources and methods were involved, an appropriate sensitivity indicator has been affixed to this memorandum and its attachment. (signed) Richard Helms Richard Helms Deputy Director for Plans 11 May 1964 3 NB -- Name of correspondent, Alex des Fontaines, a Time-Life stringer, and US Army serial number Also: "While Dinkin’s name does appear in later documents that can be located online, his whereabouts and disposition remain a mystery, Plumlee says, “The whole Dinkin story has been squashed for years and nobody can find him or his family. That is another interesting thing.”

Roger Stone ". . . served as a senior staffer in eight national Republican Presidential Campaigns including those of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush." (From his truncated bio.) Perhaps, just perhaps, Mr Stone has an interest in deflecting suspicion from Nixon—and his sponsors—and their possible machinations in JFK's murder. Nixon's actions and utterances certainly deserve as much scrutiny as that currently being focussed on LBJ. Mr Stone's strident insistence on LBJ's complicity along with his dossier as a Republican operative casts considerable doubt on his impartiality.

Hello has the forum re-opened?

From Ray Mitcham: "Maybe you could start the ball rolling, Blair. Who are you and what are your qualifications?" Good question. And the answer is . . . .??

Wrong forum?

It's absolutely maddening the way these mavens of the media -- the list seems interminable -- continue to show their ignorance of this extraordinary and perhaps most portentous event of the last century. One has to ask over and over again: Is it simple ignorance or is it something more underhanded, more deceitful. I am inclined to write off most of these lone assassin buffs as unenlightened, with a few obvious exceptions; but, their oversights are not easily pardoned. They have no right, considering the position they hold down, to be unenlightened. They have betrayed their trust whether it be through ignorance or duplicity. I suppose all we can do is continue in our small way to set the record straight when the occasion demands.

Jim: I see now what you meant by, "He was at least a commie symp. Maybe a commie agent." The lead-in to the quoted sentence threw me off. Duh. Steve

Jim: "He was at least a commie symp. Maybe a commie agent." Confused, Explain, please.

I am surprised and gratified that Morgan was so generous in his praise for Stone and his new show. As for the above comments, although the interview didn't touch upon the JFK assassination per se, the assassination, et al, is inescapably intertwined with the topic of Stone's newest endeavor, thus highly recommended.

What is CUSA?