Martin Blank

Talk about jumping to conclusions on every page -- the CIA controlled Albert Schweitzer College, and the CIA controlled the Quakers, and the CIA controlled countless Churches, and used Churches everywhere to accomplish their "nefarious" goals of world-domination. Pitiful. Didn’t that Albert Osborne/John Howard Bowen intelligence guy use a cover as a minister with the American Council of Christian Churches? The CIA and the Vatican’s Intelligence Apparatus By Martin A. Lee | July/August 1983 Issue
 When the Allies liberated Rome in 1944, Morlion re-established his spy network in the Vatican; from there he helped the OSS obtain confidential reports provided by apostolic delegates in the Far East, which included information about strategic bombing targets in Japan. Pope Pius’ decoration of Wild Bill Donovan marked the beginning of a long-standing, intimate relationship between the Vatican and U.S. intelligence that continues to the present day. For centuries the Vatican has been a prime target of foreign espionage. One of the world’s greatest repositories of raw intelligence, it is a spy’s gold mine. Ecclesiastical, political and economic information filters in every day from thousands of priests, bishops and papal nuncios, who report regularly from every corner of the globe to the Office of the Papal Secretariat. So rich was this source of data that shortly after the war, the CIA created a special unit in its counterintelligence section to tap it and monitor developments within the Holy See. But the CIA’s interest in the Catholic Church is not limited to intelligence gathering. The Vatican, with its immense wealth and political influence, has in recent years become a key force in global politics, particularly with Catholicism playing such a pivotal role in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Unbeknownst to most Catholics, the Vatican, which carefully maintains an apolitical image, not only has a foreign office and a diplomatic corps, but also has a foreign policy. And with Polish Communists embracing Catholicism and Latin American Catholics embracing communism, the U.S. government and particularly the CIA have recently taken a much greater interest in Vatican foreign policy. A yearlong Mother Jones investigation has revealed a number of unlikely channels — both overt and covert — which the agency uses to bring its influence to bear upon that policy. Since World War II, the CIA has: · subsidized a Catholic lay organization that served as the political slugging arm of the pope and the Vatican throughout the Cold War; · penetrated the American section of one of the wealthiest and most powerful Vatican orders; · passed money to a large number of priests and bishops — some of whom became witting agents in CIA covert operations; · employed undercover operatives to lobby members of the Curia (the Vatican government) and spy on liberal churchmen on the pope’s staff who challenged the political assumptions of the United States; · prepared intelligence briefings that accurately predicted the rise of liberation theology; and · collaborated with right-wing Catholic groups to counter the actions of progressive clerics in Latin America. Read more here: http://churchandstate.org.uk/2013/04/cia-and-the-vaticans-intelligence-apparatus/Mother Jones And don’t forget the ratlines! Where there’s smoke there’s fire! But really, what can one expect from an English Professor with only a slight command of History or Church? Right -- you get "Deep Structures." Seriously, an English professor would have a tremendous grounding in history and the church – so much of British literature is concerned with the church (Catholic and Anglican) and/or written by clerics that it is impossible not to have more than a slight command. Really you ought to read some Milton or Donne or Cardinal Newman or the Venerable Bede. Let us strive to deal with facts and not knee jerk reactions or wild theories such as General Walker, which some throw around here without factual basis, that we want to be true so much we garble everything up in our minds until we think we can see a picture in the distance that recedes as we approach. I too decry the use of wild speculation! And remember if it walks like a Paine, sounds like a Paine, looks like a Paine, it’s nothing more than an intelligence agent in Quaker clothing.

The reason that George DM marked his copy of the Backyard Photograph with a Copyright © notice, was because he was about to give it to LIFE magazine in early 1964 -- and George wanted to be sure that any of the profits from the photo came back to him. Regards, --Paul Trejo He would have negotiated a fee for the picture's use before he turned it over.

Well, Martin, I deny that LHO shot the President. On *that* day LHO had nothing to be worried about -- or so he thought. Regards, --Paul Trejo Well, Martin, I deny that LHO shot the President. On *that* day LHO had nothing to be worried about -- or so he thought. Regards, --Paul Trejo From a Frontline interview with Robert Oswald: In your mind, are there questions about whether Lee shot President Kennedy? There is no question in my mind that Lee was responsible for the three shots fired, two of the shots hitting the president and killing him. If you truly understand what happened that day (and are not following some dead end tangent like some people are won't to do), you will know that here Robert is telling the truth about his brother Lee. Lee, and at least one other person, was up in the window in his white shirt showing a rifle and firing it to draw attention to the TSBD. Sure as shootin', as they say in Texas. Now the Harvey fellow, who was not in the sixth floor window and was an innocent patsy, was somewhere near the entrance to the building when the shooting occurred and was not related to Robert in any way, shot no one that day, as he attested. "I didn't shoot anyone," Harvey yelled to reporters and he was telling the truth. It's all very simple and if you understand the plan and don't get sidetracked by sideshows as some do it all falls into place.

quote Paul Trejo: "My objection was this -- if a person was in a hurry, or worried or nervous, about to commit a crime and perhaps get arrested" like if you shot the president unlike the cool calm collected unflappable harvey oswald

that dutt guy was psychic

I only wish I could persuade Ruth to start a slander lawsuit. She'd win, hands down. Does anybody have Ruth's phone number? Maybe I'll give her a call. Maybe the fact that she hasn't should tell you something

wow

Fair enough, Paul B. Yes, about Allen Dulles and his deals with the Nazi's AFTER THE WAR, let us be clear that Dulles was making deals with the DEFEATED Nazis. Actually, the only alternative with making deals with the DEFEATED Nazis would have been -- what? I mean, they're defeated, so they have no more power. It's just like, at the end of the US Civil War, after Robert E. Lee surrendered to the North, the North then began making deals with the DEFEATED South. That's just common sense. In the case of the Cold War, the issue after the surrender of Germany to the Allies was an immediate clash of the West with the USSR. The USSR wanted to take more and more of Europe, and Europe didn't want to be taken. So, the Cold War began. Winston Churchill was a leader in the first moments of the Cold War, but soon the clash with the USSR became so heated that the USA and Western Europe needed INFORMATION about Soviet spies. Enter Allen Dulles. His first problem was to get QUICK information about Soviet spies -- and where would he get it? The answer is OBVIOUS. Allen Dulles would go to the DEFEATED Nazi Intelligence Department, and make a deal so that the USA could get their computerized database of Soviet spies. It was really an act of brilliance and courage -- except to the Communists who really wanted the USSR to win. For anybody to criticize Allen Dulles for that deal with the DEFEATED Nazi's is, even today, a political opinion of the left-wing, IMHO. Regards, --Paul Trejo First order of business: if having a sense of morality, a conscience and a desire for justice make someone left wing, then sign me up, comrade. For anyone, especially today, to praise Dulles’ deal with the DEFEATED Nazis is a political opinion of the extreme right wing. Second, a great man once said “You can’t be around something too long without getting some of it on you.” This is precisely what happened to this country through its post war associations with mass murderers. By bringing these people who used slave labor, made unprovoked war, and engineered mass death into our camp ultimately made us more like them and not vice versa. Dulles’ deals were the beginning of our slide toward fascism. IMHO It doesn’t matter whether a deal was with DEFEATED or UNDEFEATED Nazis, it spit on the many who gave their lives to defeat this evil, including the 300,000 American servicemen who perished fighting Germany. This was all the upshot of Dulles’ deal with the DEFEATED Nazis blowing up in his face. By taking on Gehlen and his apparatus in his extreme hunger to get info on the Soviets and turning him loose to operate he opened the United States up to manipulation by those DEFEATED Nazis. It was an act of stupidity of the highest order and helped lead our government astray with false information that would get the DEFEATED Nazis what they wanted and fan the flames of the Cold War. The alternative you ask? Trials and appropriate punishment for those guilty. Justice for the millions killed in the camps, the millions slaughtered on the battlefields, the thousands who met their end as slave laborers. Churchill was voted out of office in July 1945 Christopher Simpson writes of Gehlen in his book Blowback: “The Gehlen Organization was the one group that did have networks inside Eastern Europe, and that is why we hired them,” international affairs expert Arthur Macy Cox says. “[but] hiring Gehlen was the biggest mistake the U.S. ever made. Our allies said, you are putting Nazis at the senior levels of your intelligence,’ and they were right. It discredited the United States.” According to Cox, the Gehlen Organization was the primary source of intelligence that claimed that ‘’the Soviets were about to attack [West] Germany. . . . [That was] the biggest bunch of baloney then, and it still a bunch of baloney today.” The crucial period of 1945 to 1948, when East-West relations moved from a wary peace to an intense political war, provides one case study of the damage that Gehlen’s intelligence and analysis could produce. Among the most basic elements in the American interpretation of European events during the early cold war years was the evaluation of the Red Army. That subject, it will be recalled, was Gehlen’s specialty. In mid-1946 U.S. military intelligence correctly reported that the Red Army (then in control of most of Eastern Europe) was under equipped, overextended, and war-weary. Its estimate of the number of Soviet troops in Eastern and Central Europe was quite high -- some 208 divisions -- but the U.S. Army concluded that these forces were almost entirely tied down with administrative, police, and reconstruction tasks in the Russian-occupied zone. Soviet military aggression against Western Europe was highly unlikely for at least a decade, if only for logistical reasons, the army determined. Particularly intriguing were 1946 U.S. Army reports concerning railroads in eastern Germany. The Red Army, it was well known, lacked the motorized strength of Western forces and relied heavily on the railroads to move troops to the front and for logistic support.* The U.S. Army intelligence reports drawn from military attachés inside the Soviet zone, from the U.S. strategic bombing survey research teams in Eastern Europe and from other on-the-spot reports prior to the Soviet decision to close its occupation zone to the West made it clear that the Russians were tearing up much of the German railroad network and shipping it back to the USSR as war reparations. The Soviets uprooted about a third of the entire German railway system, including such strategic lines as Berlin-Leipzig and Berlin-Frankfurt, seizing train yards, switches, and thousands of miles of track. Whatever else may be said of this form of Russian industrial development, it was clearly not the behavior of a military power contemplating a blitzkrieg attack. Over the next two years, however, the U.S. appraisal of the capabilities and intentions of the Red Army fundamentally shifted, and this change was pushed along by misleading reports and mistaken warnings from the Gehlen Organization. By the time the reappraisal was over, it had become an article of faith in Washington, D.C., that the war-weary Soviet occupation forces were actually fresh assault troops poised for an attack on the West. The Americans’ new estimate of the number of those troops, furthermore, was also greatly exaggerated because it did not take into account the large-scale demobilization of Soviet forces after 1945. As U.S, intelligence’s primary source of information on the Soviet military during this pivotal period of the cold war, Gehlen’s organization played an important role in the creation of the American evaluation--or rather misevaluation--of Soviet power in Europe that has not been adequately appreciated until recently. Important changes took place within the U.S. intelligence community in the course of those years that reinforced the overall drift toward open hostilities with the USSR. Colonel John V. Grombach of the Pentagon’s Military Intelligence Service (MIS), who appears later in these pages, played a significant role in one such change: the U.S. purge of the foreign intelligence analysis teams at the Pentagon and the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). This self-imposed purge, which appears to have been carried out primarily for political reasons, helped lay the foundation for Gehlen’s growing influence within the U.S. intelligence community.

maybe he had that perfect balance because he was two people

Well, Paul B., I have always recognized that LHO was tracked by the CIA, starting with his trek into the USSR in 1959. LHO was moving in Intelligence Circles since 1959, IMHO, but not as an important figure, rather, only as a trainee. I believe it went back farther than that (1959) IMHO, former CIA Agent Victor Marchetti is right when he says that Oswald went to the USSR as a "dangle" in a large system of dozens of "dangles" organized by the ONI. some of that may have been part of a molehunt. was there a connection to john paisley? IMHO, LHO pissed off the ONI by quitting on them -- abandoning his post, getting married and having a baby, and then rushing back to the USA before completing his trainee "dangle" mission. maybe that was his mission That explains, IMHO, why the Marines lowered LHO's discharge status. even in the land of make believe things must be made to look real After that, the FBI did interview him, and the CIA admitted that it considered "laying on of interviews" with regard to LHO. But LHO never got hired. I think" laying on of interviews" is more of a debriefing kind of procedure. how do we know he never got hired? listen to allen dulles (who this time at least is telling the truth) Allen Dulles: This is a hard theory to disprove, you know. How do you disprove a fellow was not your agent? How do you disprove it? Hale Boggs: You could disprove it, couldn't you? Allen Dulles: No...I never knew how to disprove it. and REP. [HALE] BOGGS: Let's say [u-2 pilot Gary] Powers did not have a signed contract but he was recruited by someone in CIA. The man who recruited him would know, wouldn't he? MR. [ALLEN W.] DULLES [FORMER CIA DIRECTOR]: Yes, but he wouldn't tell. THE CHAIRMAN [EARL WARREN]: Wouldn't tell it under oath? MR. DULLES: I wouldn't think he would tell it under oath, no. THE CHAIRMAN: Why? MR. DULLES: He ought not tell it under oath. Maybe not tell it to his own government but wouldn't tell it any other way. [sic] MR. [JOHN J.] McCOY: Wouldn't he tell it to his own chief? MR. DULLES: He might or might not. If he was a bad one then he wouldn't ... I would tell the President of the United States anything, yes, I am under his control. He is my boss. I wouldn't necessarily tell anybody else, unless the President authorized me to do it. We had that come up at times. LHO was bright enough to learn Russian at a young age, as well as radar secrets and perhaps "micro-dots", but LHO was also too independent to be a Team Player. Neither the FBI, CIA nor ONI hired him full time (but possibly gave him "informant" status and some chump change). i grew up with lots of kids (eastern european immigrants after world war ii who oddly speak russian, ukranian, polish, etc what they learn at home at home was bolstered by schools (yes there were polish schools, etc.) and nationalist youth organizations. ​again you have to give oswald a character that fits him. you are not going to send him to a country club LHO really got into trouble with the FBI and CIA, however, when, at the urging of George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt (and possibly Michael Paine), LHO tried to murder General Walker at his Dallas home, IMHO. i don't think so myself Dick Russell (1992) says Mrs. Igor Voshinin told the FBI about Oswald-as-a-Walker-suspect only four days later. This corresponds with many of Walker's personal papers, for example, his letter to Senator Frank Church in 1975: http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf After the Walker shooting, I feel certain that the FBI, CIA and ONI scratched Oswald off their prospect lists, and only put him on their watch lists as just another crackpot mixed up with Guy Banister in New Orleans. Regards, --Paul Trejo

i don't think you give our leaders credit for their proper level of cynicism

review from the beast, which posits incorrect facts and myths about jfk's policies and assassination. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/13/did-allen-dulles-order-the-hit-on-jfk.html

all of us would have liked to see everyone who was held captive or mia come home from vietnam, cambodia and laos return home. better yet we would have liked to see the war not happen at all and no one killed, captured or missing. how long do esteem an agreement to this effect would have taken and what would have had to be done to get it done – invading laos (which jfk didn't do in the early 60s) or continued massive bombing. invading every country in indochina? what would you have done to elicit this agreement? why should north vietnam give back what it had won through massive losses. to them there was only one vietnam – the one that would have existed had we not blocked the elections. it would have only been a matter of time before the north took back those gains with more casualties on both sides. would you have sent the army back? bombed? what would have accomplished that aim? enough deaths to win kissinger another peace prize? no matter how long the cessation of hostilities the north would have won. I would treat my enemies more humanely after their defeat than the north did. to the northern as is standard revolutionary creed, any in the south who had served the interests of colonial powers such as france and the U.S. were traitors and should have been fighting the imperialists rather than the northern and the viet cong. what would you do to traitors? just trying to look at the situation realistically and would have preferred the boat people, etc. not happened but their lives are on us and not their countrymen. its what happens when amoral people have a war just to have a war and make some money in the name of patriotism and freedom. pretty cynical people our leaders, eh? just some devil's advocate and trying to look through the eyes of others. no offense meant to all who served.

what would have been an acceptable way to disengage? string it out with thousands more dead american boys?

better yet who was robert oswald?

deleted

i might substitute the word "intended" for "planned." planned seems to convey a sense of far in advance when i think it was more of a scramble than that.

what is final charade and when will it be available? sorry if you've answered this before

This itself is evidence of pre-planning. Seems to me that a completely honest, unplanned reaction to the assassination would be to find the best forensic autopsists available for an autopsy of the President of the United States. Only despicable pre-planners would deliberately choose incompetents having no experience with gunshots. i wonder who was scheduled to do the autopsy at walter reed

please robert, i implore you for the sake of history to get a dna test that can be compared with harvey's daughters. help clear the name of the innocent man who was gunned down by jack ruby and help people understand that you are telling the truth when you say lee did it.

at what point did hack factor in the chinese entering the war?

of what?

strategic bombing had been unsuccessful against germany in world war ii and we knew it. compared to germany there were not that many industrial targets, etc., in north vietnam. just ask albert speer if you don't believe me and we were going to bomb north vietnam back to the stone age when it was barely out of the stone age to begin with

well look we're clean. absolutely nothing in those documents morley wants