Terry Mauro
-
Posts
1,791 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Terry Mauro
-
-
If there is benefit to be discerned from the exchanges I recently initiated regarding Gary Mack, I suggest it lies within consideration of the passionately and self-righteously delivered claim by so many posters ostensibly on the side of truth and justice that conspiracy is simply a matter of opinion.
And so Housman is brought to mind ...
What can I do, what can I write
Against the fall of night?
I have reached the conclusion that the fight, at least for me, is best fought elsewhere than in these cyberpages.
The truth may be rendered as a simple statement of fact and is inescapable save through ignorance and/or corruption:
Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination who does not conclude that President Kennedy was murdered by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
The field is not mine to cede. I simply move to a different line to stage what passes for an offensive of my own choosing.
To those who, as a consequence of their dementia and/or criminal intent, deny conspiracy, I offer only this: Pray for a cure and/or forgiveness.
To those who choose to continue the fight on this, a ground that your sacrifices have hallowed, I offer my solidarity and respect.
As for me, I shall continue in a different manner to speak and to write against the fall of night.
Watch your newspapers.
Charles R. Drago
February 25, 2008
Charles, when you say "watch your newspapers" I sincerely hope you mean that you're working on a positive development, and not contemplating a desperate act. While I agree with many of your views, I can not agree with your presumption that we can understand other men's souls, and judge their cognitive powers without error. There are many people who BELIEVE Oswald acted alone, with as much intensity and self-righteousness as we BELIEVE he did not. While history has shown that there is little chance we'll ever be able to convince them, it also has shown that if we take the argument to the public--much as Mark Lane once did--that we'll win over the next generation.
I've found that one can reach newbies via Youtube and the IMDB forum for the film JFK. If we reach people before they get indoctrinated in the "Oswald did it" cult, there's a chance new members of the media will see things our way, and quit toeing the company line. If you want to make an impact you might want to take your efforts there. But--warning--no one anywhere is particularly swayed by "I'm right and if you disagree with me you're cognitively impaired" type arguments. It just doesn't play in Peoria.
*************************************************
"There are many people who BELIEVE Oswald acted alone, with as much intensity and self-righteousness as we BELIEVE he did not. While history has shown that there is little chance we'll ever be able to convince them, it also has shown that if we take the argument to the public--much as Mark Lane once did--that we'll win over the next generation."
We can try winning over the next generation only if they're not completely and thoroughly indoctrinated by their neocon, or just plain ignorant, low intelligence quotient, ostriches with their heads in the sand, sheeple for parents.
Does that cover every point? Because, what you're essentially trying to accomplish is to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse when it comes to ignorant people who basically lack the equipment to think critically, and most likely are too afraid to buck this already dysfunctional system called The American Government.
Good luck, because I've spent the past 40 years talking myself blue in the face only to end up looking into a pair of vacant eyes, or ones that look like a deer's caught in the headlights, staring back at me. If they can't even begin to comprehend, they need to go all the way back to school for the tools that I doubt they'll ever have a inkling to go looking for.
Your heart may be in the right place, but their heads aren't.
Keep on keeping on, FWIW.
-
There is a huge reluctance on the intellectual left in the US to evaluate either JFK or RFK's threat to the standing order. They were by no means going to deconstruct the capitalist structures that had served them so well , but they both stood in the way of war, profit and rule by fear.
Cockburn shares Chomsky's belief that King was assassinated because he posed a threat, but JFK did not pose a threat and thus his death was not conducted by his own class or his own government. Logic has never been so misused, so much so that I dare not call it logic.
I would dearly like to know the extent of reading both Cockburn and Chomsky have done on this topic. Sometimes ones insights into power and ones critique of politics is no match for a seat, a book and an open mind.
We have discussed Alexander Cockburn's and Noam Chomsky's reluctance to look at the matter previously on the forum, here again is another reminder that one can be intelligent and still lack knowledge.
Did the Elites Want MLK Dead--If So, Why?
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
http://www.counterpunch.com/cockburn04052008.html
I believe Oswald killed JFK and Sirhan killed Bobby. Lone gunmen both. With MLK, it could be a different matter. And with the infinitely more radical Malcom X it certainly was. The Kennedys were no threat to ruling power. They were part of the ruling power. Whatever his actual function--and King was given a hard time as an Uncle Tom by radicals in the later Sixties--the ruling power construed him as a threat.
He was assassinated forty years ago just after 6 pm as he stood on a balcony of the Lorraine motel in Memphis, Tennessee. A single rifle bullet hit him in the jaw, then severed his spinal cord. James Earl Ray, a white man, was convicted of the killing and sentenced to 99 years. Ray was certainly the gunman.
But there are credible theories of a conspiracy, possibly involving US Army intelligence, whose role in the life and death of Martin Luther King was explored by Stephens Tompkins in the Memphis Commercial Appeal in 1993.
The Army's interest in the King family stretched back to 1917 when the War Department opened a file on King's maternal grandfather, first president of Atlanta's branch of the NAACP. King's father, Martin Sr., also entered Army intelligence files as a potential troublemaker, as did Martin Jr. in 1947 when he was 18. He was attending Dorothy Lilley's Intercollegiate School in Atlanta and 111th Military Intelligence Group in Fort McPherson in Atlanta suspected Ms Lilley of having Communist ties.
King's famous denunciation of America's war in Vietnam came exactly a year before his murder, before a crowd of 3,000 in the Riverside Church in Manhattan. He described Vietnam's destruction at the hands of ''deadly Western arrogance,'' insisting that ''we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem." US Army spies secretly recorded black radical Stokely Carmichael warning King, "The Man don't care you call ghettos concentration camps, but when you tell him his war machine is nothing but hired killers you got trouble." Carmichael was right.
After the 1967 Detroit riots 496 black men under arrest were interviewed by agents of the Army's Psychological Operations Group, dressed as civilians. It turned out King was by far the most popular leader. That same year, watching the great antiwar march on Washington in October 1967 from the roof of the Pentagon Major General William Yarborough, assistant chief of staff for Army intelligence, concluded that "the empire was coming apart at the seams". He thought there were too few reliable troops to fight the war in Vietnam and hold the line at home.
The Army increased surveillance on King. Green Berets and other Special Forces veterans from Vietnam began making street maps and identifying sniper sites in major American cities. The Ku Klux Klan was recruited by the 20th Special Forces Group, headquartered in Alabama, as a subsidiary intelligence network. The Army began offering 30.06 sniper rifles to police departments, including that of Memphis. King was dogged by spy units through early '67. A Green Beret unit was operating in Memphis the day he was shot. The bullet that killed him came from a 30.06 rifle purchased in a Memphis store. Army intelligence chiefs became increasingly hysterical over the threat of King to national stability.
After his Vietnam speech the major US newspapers savaged King. Fifteen years later the New York Times was still bitter when the notion of a national holiday honoring the civil rights leader was being pressed--with ultimate success--by labor unions and black groups. "Why not a Martin Luther King Day?" an NYT editorial asked primly. "Dr King, a humble man, would have objected to giving that much importance to any individual. Nor should he be given singular tribute if that demeans other historical black figures." Give one of them a holiday and they'll all be wanting one.
Within hours of King's murder rioting broke out in 80 cities across the country. Dozens of people, mostly black were killed. On April 6 the Oakland cornered the Black Panther leadership and when one of the young leaders, Bobby Hutton, emerged with his shirt off and his hands up, shot him dead. Futher police executions of Panthers followed, most notoriously the killing of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, as they slept, by the Chicago police, with FBI complicity, in December, 1969.
In contrast to Hutton, the Panthers and above all Malcolm X, slain in 1965, white liberal opinion, resentments at the disloyalty of the Riverside Church speech conveniently forgotten, has hailed King as a man who chose to work within the system and who furthermore failed to make any significant dent on business as usual. In his last years King was haunted by a sense of failure. Amid a failed organizing campaign in Chicago he was booed at a mass meting there and, as he lay sleepless that night he wrote later that he knew why: "I had urged them [his fellow blacks ] to have faith in America and in white society They were now booing because they felt were unable to deliver on our promises They were now hostile because they were watching the dream they had so readily accepted turn into a nightmare." As the radical journalist Andrew Kopkind wrote shortly after King's assassination, "That he failed to change the system that brutalizes his race is a profound relief to the white majority. As a reward they have now elevated his minor successes into major triumphs."
Forty years on, America is still disfigured by racial injustice. Militant black leadership has all but disappeared. To black radicals Obama's sedate homilies and respectful paeans to America's ladders of advancement available to the industrious are to the fierce demands for justice of Malcolm X and of King in his more radical moments, as Muzak is to Beethoven. Obama is caught, even as King was. The moment whites fear he is raising the political volume, he's savaged with every bludgeon of convenience, starting with the robust sermons of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose sin is to have reminded whites that there are black Americans who are really angry. "Damn America," roared the Rev Wright. King was just as rough at Riverside Church in the speech that so terrified the white elites: "I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government." Honesty of this sort from a black politician in America extorts due retribution.
And an Aside on Eldridge Cleaver
Reading up on the death of Bobby Hutton, and MLK, a few weeks ago I came across Henry Louis Gates Jr's interview with him for Frontline, from which I recently quoted some lines. I'd been inclined to think of Eldridge Cleaver as a somehat pathetic figure in his later years, after a failed bid in the 1980s to bring the codpiece back into sartorial repute. But Cleaver was a smart fellow who understood that aside most Americans really believe in rebirth. So, amid problems with crack addiction, burglary charges and the rest of it, he sensibly rebirthed himself in the 90s as a Christian and a Republican. He remained as sharp as a tack and essentially a Marxist in political analysis right untl the end, as his interview by Henry Louis Gates for Frontline shows. This must have been done shortly before his death at the age of 62, in 1998. Next time you want to explain Marx's theory of the reserve army of the unemployed to someone, you could do a lot worse than quote Cleaver here:
GATES: Are you optimistic about the future? I mean given the fact that we have this large black underclass and a large black middle class, it looks like we have two nations and they're both black.
CLEAVER: We have more nations than that because we have poor white people, we have poor Indians, we have poor -- we have got to eliminate the economic basis of the underclass by providing them with jobs not handouts from the federal government. That is the failure of our economic system, that you have economists who say that you've got to keep the people on the brink of starvation in order to motivate them to work and hustle around. The failure of the capitalistic economic system is that they did not provide for full employment. They were satisfied with a certain percentile and then they were willing to keep a lot of people perpetually in reserve and that was to keep wages down and all that kind of pressure.
We have got to have a policy of full employment and by restoring the frontier and the union of the western hemisphere it is a full employment program for the whole hemisphere. There's a lot of work to be done but we have to reorient ourselves from a system of scarcity and a belief system in scarcity and there is no problem that we have on our agenda that we cannot solve.
GATES: But Tupac was a gangster, wasn't he?
CLEAVER: Huey was a gangster.
GATES: Oh, he was?
CLEAVER: I'm not-- I'm talking about a real gangster. Tupac, they were talking about gangster rap. Huey P. Newton was a gun toting gangster, but that's not all he was. I'm saying he went through that experience as a criminal, but the thing about Tupac was his spirit and his rebellion against oppression. This comes from the way that he was raised and the values that were transmitted to him.
His father died in a gun fight with the New York police department and so Afena was a very strong stalwart of the Black Panther party and Tupac was raised like that. He is what we call a panther cub. And that was what he was about.
And that is why it was such a blow, [Tupac's] liquidation, and many people think that it was the COINTELPRO that took him out because the story doesn't hold up because anybody who knows Las Vegas knows that after the Mike Tyson fight there, there is no way that anybody going to drive along upside of another car, shoot them and drive away because it's gridlocked for blocks around there, man. So that is not what happened. There is more to it than that.
GATES: Eldridge, now, thirty years later, the smoke has cleared, bodies are buried, people have moved on. Was it worth it? I mean was the Panther movement worth it? Was it a good thing?
CLEAVER: It was a good thing and like all things, there was good and bad, but nothing like what this nitwit, Horowitz, is talking about because that is not where we were coming from. And I regret the way that the Party was repressed because it left a lot of unfinished business because we had planned to make a transition to the political arena and we would have been able to transmute that violence and that legacy into legitimate and peaceful channels. As it was they chopped off the head and left the body there armed. That's why all these young bloods out there now, they've got the rhetoric but without the political direction and they've got the guns. A man told me in Berkeley, said-- 'Eldridge, the two most dangerous demographics in the Bay Area right now are young black men with guns and middle-aged white women with Volvos.'
GATES: You're crazy.
CLEAVER: They're taking out more people than anything else.
GATES: Will history judge you and your contemporaries from the '60s -- Karenga, Rap, Stokely, Angela, the whole gang, Julian Bond -- favorably, do you think?
CLEAVER: I think they will. I think they will give us Fs where we deserve them and they'll give us As where we deserve them and they're going to give Huey P. Newton, Bobby Seale and Eldridge Cleaver an A plus.
******************************************************************
"GATES: Are you optimistic about the future? I mean given the fact that we have this large black underclass and a large black middle class, it looks like we have two nations and they're both black.
CLEAVER: We have more nations than that because we have poor white people, we have poor Indians, we have poor -- we have got to eliminate the economic basis of the underclass by providing them with jobs not handouts from the federal government. That is the failure of our economic system, that you have economists who say that you've got to keep the people on the brink of starvation in order to motivate them to work and hustle around. The failure of the capitalistic economic system is that they did not provide for full employment. They were satisfied with a certain percentile and then they were willing to keep a lot of people perpetually in reserve and that was to keep wages down and all that kind of pressure.
We have got to have a policy of full employment and by restoring the frontier and the union of the western hemisphere it is a full employment program for the whole hemisphere. There's a lot of work to be done but we have to reorient ourselves from a system of scarcity and a belief system in scarcity and there is no problem that we have on our agenda that we cannot solve."
It was words and actions such as these expressed by Eldridge and Kathleen Cleaver that made them heroes of their time, to me.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!
-
Woah! An all out blistering flaming attack! Lordy.
Complete with:
-Insinuation that I'm a xxxxx, thereby demonstrating he doesn't know the definition of xxxxx. Ok. Now it's the Remedial Education Forum. So I'll define xxxxx for this guy--"Daniel Wayne Dunn" (who likes to put quotes around people's names so I assume he wants his own name in """quotes""").
A xxxxx is someone who isn't interested in the forum topic so posts irrelevant comments merely to evoke reaction. Clearly I'm interested in the topic of President Kennedy's assasination and many other political assassinations.
-Actual for-real old-fashioned anti-semetic slurs. My god, what is this guy? Was he cryogenically frozen during WW2 and just now thawed out like some kind of goose-stepping Austin Powers?
-Attacks on nearly everyone in the thread. I'll let Peter speak for himself--as he's more than capable of doing--on the outside chance that this "Daniel Wayne Dunn" person hasn't been put on his ignore list.
-French lessons. To demonstrate that he can launch flame wars in two languages?
-Apparent attempts to intimidate me by posting information about my background. Details SO personal and SOO intimate and SOOOOOOOO secretive that only someone with... uh, a PC and access to google could dig them up.
Friggen hilarious. Is he trying to "out" someone who lives a very public life, has spoken to half the reporters on the planet, has spent a great deal of time in state and national capitals working with scores of politicions, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (Oh deary deary, I hope he doesn't uncover the very personal TOP SECRET fact that "Myra Bronstein" is also in a book being released on April 15 written by a NY Times reporter. Gosh, I hope no one sees that book... which is COMING SOON TO A BOOK STORE NEAR YOU.)
-Shadowy bizarre musings that "Myra Bronstein" is some kind of online construct in parallel with his outing of "Myra Bronstein" as a very real person who has received a ton of press. Not strong on logic but, hey, these are...
-Stream of gibbrish ramblings. Dark warnings that "Myra" has a--GASP--website! The horror! Rants about class divides and apparent jealousy that "Myra Bronstein" was offered a severance package when a past job was outsourced... Oo, I better not divulge how much money I made from those national commercials he mentioned lest he feel even more inferior about his self-perceived low station in life.
Wow, is this guy a mass of exposed nerves and psychic damage or what?
But here's the weird part. He wonders why it's "taken [me] this long to try confronting [him] directly." Er, I literally never noticed the guy until his little hissy fit today. Why would I have noticed this guy let alone confront him? Who the heck is he???
Anyone feel free to answer.
Seriously, has anyone even noticed him before now?
*********************************************************
"Seriously, has anyone even noticed him before now?"
I believe he was a fixture over at Debra's a few years back. In fact, I remember running into him over at Lancer's site around 2005 or 6, I believe.
-
It makes the context of his murder very clear, as well as the fact that he was coming out of retirement to be full time--world famous--activist, and getting results (e.g., getting the guy busted for pot out of jail within hours of his benefit concert).
Myra, are you reffering to the concert for John Sinclair the pro pot activist? If so that took place in Dec 1971, the hight of Johns political activism, not in 79-80.
Your cherrypicking/nitpicking the facts
LOL yeah pointing out there was no real motive is "cherrypicking/nitpicking the facts"
Many of his friends were WELL aware he was working on a new political album, was putting his money behind political events, actions and personsVery doubtful given what he said in his September 80 interview
-------------
and had gotten off of drugs [that those who killed him had gotten him hooked on].The government got Lennon hooked on downers and smack? I don't suppose any evidence will be forthcoming
they had him monitored 24/7 and bugged.That seems to have stopped 8 years earlier
----------------
Len claims there was no real motive. Can you imagine John Lennon being silent during the 1980s? It was a strange hard right turn. But Lennnon was appealing to a number of different audiences. He was working class, and he was anti-war. With him around it would have been much harder to resurrect the great Hitler like stabbed in the back myth that Reagan and the corporate media made about Vietnam. Lennon was on record about Vietnam. HE ALSO COULD GET ON NATIONAL MEDIA ANYTIME THAT HE WANTED AND DELIVER A REAL CRITIQUE OF US POLICY NOT THE SORT OF MEALLY MOUTH FAKE CRITIGUE THAT WAS TYPICAL OF DEMOCRATS IN BEGINNING AROUND 1976 TO THE PRESENT.
Governments are concerned by this coast to coast prime time media capacity of a REAL opposition figure. See Hoover's famous "black messiah comment.
LENNON HAD THIS PRIME TIME NATIONAL MEDIA ABILITY. Think Nicaragaan contras. Now think of living John Lennon. Could well have been the tipping point. More so than another politician.
Its about message, its purity, and the degree of access to the national media. Not some vote in a smothered committee. Just ask the Clintons, those can be a bit deceptive.
*********************************************************
"HE ALSO COULD GET ON NATIONAL MEDIA ANYTIME THAT HE WANTED AND DELIVER A REAL CRITIQUE OF US POLICY NOT THE SORT OF MEALY-MOUTH FAKE CRITIQUE THAT WAS TYPICAL OF DEMOCRATS IN BEGINNING AROUND 1976 TO THE PRESENT."
And, let us all not forget why Operation Mockingbird was created in 1947 by the British and American OSS affiliation, in the first place.
If I'm not mistaken, television was invented as a primary venue for the psychological manipulation and control of masses of humanity, albeit presented in the form of an entertainment diversion. To this day, it serves as the major vehicle for molding public opinion and promoting sales of consumer goods, as well as for controlling the political campaign machinations, of which the majority of the "public" STILL cannot seem to grasp the fact of how this VISUAL "aid" or application IS, and CONTINUES to be used against them.
It has already been medically demonstrated via Brain Scan SPECT Analysis how susceptible and vulnerable the human brain may be when visually manipulated through the use of simple tasks or visual stimulation which, over time and exposure to said stimuli may, in some cases, permanently alter its chemical response to certain stimuli in the exact same way it would react to that of a drug-induced stimuli.
It was stated above that John Lennon's "call-to-arms" for a demonstration against an unpopular cause, and the power he wielded over a generation could be reason enough to silence him. Especially, since he had the balls to voice his opinion and knew exactly how to use Mockingbird's own devices against them for his own gain, and to the perceived betterment of a country.
And also, let us never forget his statement on national radio and T.V. about how The Beatles were bigger than Jesus Christ. He was right! And, "The
Right" was all over him like flies on dog doo-doo for blaspheming another tried and true mind control tactic used by the fascists for centuries, since The Dark Ages.
IMHO, this was enough reason for them to want to snuff him, Marley, or any other musician or popular figure who ran counter-culture to the scheme being perpetrated by the dictates of the puppeteers pulling the strings in this country, or any other country considered to be part of the "free" world.
Can someone please enlighten me as to what it means when the title of this thread reads, "Moved:" and to where, exactly it has been moved?
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
*************************************************************
O.K. I found it. I forgot there was a sub-section here.
-
In addition to Mae's close friends and weekly listeners, she corresponded and networked with such people as Jim Garrison, Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, and Larry Flynt. Her first published article in Paul Krassner's The Realist was actually financed by John Lennon. And Frank Zappa once gave her a computer for filing and cross-indexing her research (but she never used it).
Oh I get it Lennon supposedly financed and obscure article, by an obscure author in a fairly obscure magazine so the MIBH whacked him 8 - 9 YEARS LATER, yeah makes a lot of sense to me.
-------
Len where do you get the cash to feed all your straw dogs?
******************************************************
"Len where do you get the cash to feed all your straw dogs?"
Oh, and BTW, Len. I keep forgetting to ask. Why do you live in Brazil? Are you an ex-patriot, or merely searching for more "Boys From Brazil?"
And, I'm not trying to be facetious here by asking, either.
-
It makes the context of his murder very clear, as well as the fact that he was coming out of retirement to be full time--world famous--activist, and getting results (e.g., getting the guy busted for pot out of jail within hours of his benefit concert).
Myra, are you reffering to the concert for John Sinclair the pro pot activist? If so that took place in Dec 1971, the hight of Johns political activism, not in 79-80.
Your cherrypicking/nitpicking the facts
LOL yeah pointing out there was no real motive is "cherrypicking/nitpicking the facts"
Many of his friends were WELL aware he was working on a new political album, was putting his money behind political events, actions and personsVery doubtful given what he said in his September 80 interview
-------------
and had gotten off of drugs [that those who killed him had gotten him hooked on].The government got Lennon hooked on downers and smack? I don't suppose any evidence will be forthcoming
they had him monitored 24/7 and bugged.That seems to have stopped 8 years earlier
----------------
Len claims there was no real motive. Can you imagine John Lennon being silent during the 1980s? It was a strange hard right turn. But Lennnon was appealing to a number of different audiences. He was working class, and he was anti-war. With him around it would have been much harder to resurrect the great Hitler like stabbed in the back myth that Reagan and the corporate media made about Vietnam. Lennon was on record about Vietnam. HE ALSO COULD GET ON NATIONAL MEDIA ANYTIME THAT HE WANTED AND DELIVER A REAL CRITIQUE OF US POLICY NOT THE SORT OF MEALLY MOUTH FAKE CRITIGUE THAT WAS TYPICAL OF DEMOCRATS IN BEGINNING AROUND 1976 TO THE PRESENT.
Governments are concerned by this coast to coast prime time media capacity of a REAL opposition figure. See Hoover's famous "black messiah comment.
LENNON HAD THIS PRIME TIME NATIONAL MEDIA ABILITY. Think Nicaragaan contras. Now think of living John Lennon. Could well have been the tipping point. More so than another politician.
Its about message, its purity, and the degree of access to the national media. Not some vote in a smothered committee. Just ask the Clintons, those can be a bit deceptive.
*********************************************************
"HE ALSO COULD GET ON NATIONAL MEDIA ANYTIME THAT HE WANTED AND DELIVER A REAL CRITIQUE OF US POLICY NOT THE SORT OF MEALY-MOUTH FAKE CRITIQUE THAT WAS TYPICAL OF DEMOCRATS IN BEGINNING AROUND 1976 TO THE PRESENT."
And, let us all not forget why Operation Mockingbird was created in 1947 by the British and American OSS affiliation, in the first place.
If I'm not mistaken, television was invented as a primary venue for the psychological manipulation and control of masses of humanity, albeit presented in the form of an entertainment diversion. To this day, it serves as the major vehicle for molding public opinion and promoting sales of consumer goods, as well as for controlling the political campaign machinations, of which the majority of the "public" STILL cannot seem to grasp the fact of how this VISUAL "aid" or application IS, and CONTINUES to be used against them.
It has already been medically demonstrated via Brain Scan SPECT Analysis how susceptible and vulnerable the human brain may be when visually manipulated through the use of simple tasks or visual stimulation which, over time and exposure to said stimuli may, in some cases, permanently alter its chemical response to certain stimuli in the exact same way it would react to that of a drug-induced stimuli.
It was stated above that John Lennon's "call-to-arms" for a demonstration against an unpopular cause, and the power he wielded over a generation could be reason enough to silence him. Especially, since he had the balls to voice his opinion and knew exactly how to use Mockingbird's own devices against them for his own gain, and to the perceived betterment of a country.
And also, let us never forget his statement on national radio and T.V. about how The Beatles were bigger than Jesus Christ. He was right! And, "The
Right" was all over him like flies on dog doo-doo for blaspheming another tried and true mind control tactic used by the fascists for centuries, since The Dark Ages.
IMHO, this was enough reason for them to want to snuff him, Marley, or any other musician or popular figure who ran counter-culture to the scheme being perpetrated by the dictates of the puppeteers pulling the strings in this country, or any other country considered to be part of the "free" world.
Can someone please enlighten me as to what it means when the title of this thread reads, "Moved:" and to where, exactly it has been moved?
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
-
...Watergate was a trap set to catch Nixon, ...
I'd be really interested in hearing your theory on why the CIA (presumably it was the CIA) set the trap for Nixon Stephen.
Either in this thread or another.
***********************************************
DL once told me, in so many words, that Nixon never really posed any big threat to the guys running the show in D.C., NYC, or Dallas.
Although, he may have had aristocratic WASP-ish aspirations, he would never have been allowed to join the big boys in their big "board" games as any kind of a major player. Why? Because he came from "Quaker" bloodlines and would never be suited, nor accepted by the American old line of blue-blood society industrialists and bankers. At least, that's what appears to be a logical explanation for his lack of support during the Watergate fiasco. It also explains the lack of respect afforded him by that segment of society which, by and large, graduates from Yale, Harvard, MIT, North Western, and the Chicago School of Economics, etc. He probably was looked upon as a "bidder, or "lacky" of sorts, who would do the "bidding" of the industrial complex. But, what they hadn't counted on was for him to go paranoid on them in the manner he did, especially after the assassinations that took place in the 60's, and his subsequent election thereafter.
The same could be said for that other hand-puppet of the industrialist fascists, Ronald Reagan.
-
Just stumbled across this blog entry that shows, in my view, that the gov't assassination of John Lennon is widely accepted as a fact:
"Bob Marley was an ambassador of universal global peace. That is why the CIA assassinated him. Great men who are a threat to the elites have been systematically eliminated time and time again (i.e., Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Robert F.Kennedy, and John Lennon).
..."
http://dillsnapcogitation.wordpress.com/20...e-white-devils/
Which raises the issue of Bob Marley's death...
He was, like Lennon, a hugely famous influential artist utterly dedicated to justice and human rights.
He survived one blatant assassination attempt:
"He was nearly murdered in 1976 when he refused to support the U.S. backed puppet presidential candidate of Jamaica. Two days before the “Smile Jamaica” festival Marley’s home was shot up with automatic weapons and he received two bullet wounds."
Nothing sneaky about that, no patsies or mkultra.
But what about his supposed death from cancer? Did he get injected Ruby style?
The below is the first claim I've ever seen that he did:
"The CIA finished the job when Marley tried on a boot that was ostensibly given to him by a fan (who was none other than Carl Colby, the son of CIA Director William Colby). The boot was fitted with a small syringe filled with a fast-acting cancer agent that ended his life prematurely.
...
Melanoma can be injected into the host’s body. Here is a recent study.
“A History of Secret U.S. Government Programs,” notes that as early as 1931, there has been documented federal interest in the creation of a cancer-causing agents: “Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.” In 1975, “the virus section of Fort Detrick’s Center for Biological Warfare Research is renamed the Fredrick Cancer Research Facilities and placed under the supervision of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) . It is here that a special virus cancer program is initiated by the U.S. Navy, purportedly to develop cancer-causing viruses.”
What are the odds that the son of the CIA director would visit Marley at his home and give him a boot to try on? He yelled “ow” when he slipped it onto his foot. These are powerful inferences that may or may not validate my claim, but they warrant further investigation."
[All quotes from the URL already given.]
What do you guys think about Bob Marley's death? Did a second assassination attempt succeed?
****************************************************
“A History of Secret U.S. Government Programs,” notes that as early as 1931, there has been documented federal interest in the creation of a cancer-causing agents: “Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.” In 1975, “the virus section of Fort Detrick’s Center for Biological Warfare Research is renamed the Fredrick Cancer Research Facilities and placed under the supervision of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) . It is here that a special virus cancer program is initiated by the U.S. Navy, purportedly to develop cancer-causing viruses.”
Here's an excerpt from an article in my April 2008 Harper's Magazine documenting transmissible cancerous tumors found in Tasmanian Devils off the coast of Australia and New Zealand, how there may be an evolutionary process at work:
CONTAGIOUS CANCER
The evolution of a killer
By David Quammen
The phenomenon of transmissible tumors isn't confined to Tasmanian Devils. There have been human cases.
"Other cases are less easily explained. In 1986, two researchers from the National Institutes Of Health reported that a laboratory worker, a healthy nineteen-year-old woman, had accidentally jabbed herself with a syringe carrying colon-cancer cells; a colonic tumor grew in her hand, but she was rescued by surgery. More recently, a fifty-three-year-old surgeon cut his left palm while removing a malignancy from a patient's abdomen, and five months later he found himself with a palm tumor, one that genetically matched the patient's tumor. His immune system responded creating an inflammation around the tumor, but the response was insufficient and the tumor kept growing. Why? How? It wasn't supposed to be able to do that. Again, though, surgery delivered a full cure. And then there's Henri Vadon. He was a medical student in the 1920s who poked his left hand with a syringe after drawing liquid from the mastectomy wound of a woman being treated for breast cancer. Vadon, too, developed a hand tumor. Three years later, he died of metastasized cancer because neither the surgical techniques of his era nor his own immune system could save him."
Judyth Baker may not have been "just whistling down a well."
-
The sad thing is IF the judge allows the jurors to say how they were deadlocked , eg half to convict, excellent chance DA will re-try. So this is potentially horrible for Dr Wecht.
Well, I imagine the whole idea in these things is that if you can't get the target convicted for something, you can at least financially ruin him.
Yup, that's the idea. Let's HOPE the jury remains deadlocked and the judge is forced to declare a mistrial. Then hope that on balance there were only a couple of holdouts for conviction. And I hope that they will talk with the media, once released.
Erick- (my husband, law partner and forum member )- had an interesting experience yesterday related to this. At a CLE (Continuing Legal Ed. ) class, the subject was witness prep and jury selection. The presenter told of one prospective juror who was a counsellor and said, one of her areas of concentration is with people who had been victims of brain washing by the government. He said he got rid of her figuring she was a loonie. So my husband went up to him and asked him if he knew about the CIA and MKULTRA. "No" was the resposnse. So Erick, who is actually shy in social settings- (but NOT in his law practice)- went up to several more attorneys and asked the same question. As someone pointed out I believe in this thread, the more educated a person is, the less they know or WANT TO KNOW on this stuff. I noticed this many decades ago. All had the same response "No." He told them all to google it, even wrote it down. They won't. I have been doing this for years to no avail.
Dawn
*****************************************************
As someone pointed out, I believe in this thread, the more educated a person is, the less they know or WANT TO KNOW on this stuff. I noticed this many decades ago. All had the same response "No." He told them all to google it, even wrote it down. They won't.
And, in their insecurity and sometimes [outright] avarice, they become complicit, in and of, themselves for not being unbiased enough to take a look at both sides of the coin. Just another crew of ostriches and sheeple, you'll never be able to count on, IMHO.
A "hypocritic oath" for the profession of law. Pardon my bastardization of the word "hypocrisy."
-
From TreeFrog, today March 30, 2008:
"Hi Ed,
This is the mini-website for John's and my book that you are thanked in.
http://www.globepequot.com/special/whokilledmlk/
Lyndon"
Who Killed Martin Luther King?
The answer was known... December 9th, 1999:
"Raul," The Mafia and the Memphis Police:
From the King Center:
MLK Assassination - James Earl Ray Trial Transcripts
Testimony of LOYD JOWERS, Judge Joe Brown, and others.
http://www.thekingcenter.org/news/trial/Volume5.html
King Center - The Entire MLK Assassination - James Earl Ray Trial Transcripts
http://www.thekingcenter.org/news/trial.html#Transcript
On December 9th, 1999, a jury of 12 Tennessee citizens restored the judicial honor of their state when they found James Earl Ray "not guilty of shooting Dr. King."
The Transcription of the King Family Press Conference on the
MLK Assassination Trial Verdict
December 9, 1999
Atlanta, GA
http://www.thekingcenter.com/news/trial/PressConf.html
"Free at last...Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we're Free at last."
Martin Luther King, April 3rd, 1968
-
The CIA Wants YOU!
*************************************************
"The CIA Wants YOU!"
That was cute, Bill!
How are things coming along at the cabin?
Write me:
tmauro@pacbell.net
-
...
Probably another reason he was killed. Big Business. Like US Steel. As Eisenhower warned.
Kathy
Exactly the point. Motive.
He sided with working people vs US Steel, vs outsourcing, vs big business...
**********************************************************
It's time for another Civil War.
The People of The United States vs The U.S. Government and its pandering corporate lobby of on-shore and off-shore entities, including and notwithstanding, The Federal Reserve, and the global power it has take upon itself to ensure.
It's time to take action because, at this rate, no one else is going to.
-
Tom Hayden once said that whenever it looked like the progressive majority was coming to power in the 1960s, it was interrupted by killings, killings performed by unknown forces. JFK in 1963, followed by Martin Luther King then Bobby Kennedy in 1968. Does anyone know if he has recently shown any interest in the case?
Maybe he wants to remain alive, unlike Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin.
Kathy
I talked to Hayden last year after attending a small anti-war play in West L.A. directed by a friend, at which he spoke. I asked him if he followed developments in the Kennedy assassination. He said he did, but just barely. I gave him a card with my webpage address on it. He said he'd look at it, but much as Oliver Stone and Emilio Estevez before him, never wrote me to tell me his reaction to my "stuff." I doubt he even looked.
I've found that most veterans from the 60's feel there was a conspiracy, but won't lift a finger to read anything written about the case from the last 30 years. They were pleased that the HSCA said there'd been a conspiracy, and that Oliver Stone's film was a hit. But that's as far as it goes.
***************************************************************
"I've found that most veterans from the 60's feel there was a conspiracy, but won't lift a finger to read anything written about the case from the last 30 years. They were pleased that the HSCA said there'd been a conspiracy, and that Oliver Stone's film was a hit. But that's as far as it goes."
On target once again, Pat!
Especially, those whose lives [between the ages of 55 and 65] have been basically left untouched, or unchanged by the job layoffs, loss of medical benefits, higher energy costs, and the purportedly "looming" recession. More like "The Great Depression Of The 1930's," if you ask me. The subprime scam is creating more homelessness than John Q. Sucker [the taxpayer] can afford to shoulder much longer, what with the Iraqui debacle, and all the outsourcing that's been wrecking our economy for the last 20 years.
Ostriches with their heads in the sand, or "where the sun don't shine."
"Just as long as it stays away from my backyard!" And, "As long as I can manage to retire with my dignity in tact."
IOW, "Please don't force me to have to face those particular realities of life, especially now that I have my nest egg [401K Plan] to worry about."
-
"Von Pain," as I've referred to him on Lancer, and in retorting him on amazon.com, is nothing more than a shill, for Bugliosi.
An out and out LN "shill," for Bugliosi.
Von Pinhead was hawking Bugliosi's book a year before it was published on various forums on the web.
He is a subscriber of the official version and like Bugliosi, refers to and considers anyone who disagrees with him a "kook", often referring to them as "Mr. Kook". Not only is Von Pein in complete denial even when presented with evidence of a conspiracy, he has suffered the misfortune of being thrown off reputable forums like JFK Lancer. In newsgroup alt.conspiracy.jfk, one can see that a typical Von Pein post may include links to previous Von Pein posts. In other words, he posts opinion, then uses it as a factual reference in a later post. I've never seen anything so ridiculous: using oneself as a source.
Of course, when you have nothing else, I suppose, you dock at any port in a storm.
In Von Pein's world, there is no such thing as tampering with evidence. There is no such thing as altering affidavits. There is no such thing as evidence substitution. There is no such thing as staged police lineups. There is no such thing as coerced witnesses.
In Von Pein's world, 80 % or more of the public, who believe that John Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy, are simply "kooks".
For Von Pein's sake, I hope Bugliosi doesn't stop short one day.
I've been following the antics of the lone nut shills over at the alt.conspiracy.jfk site for several months now. Do Von Pein and those other people really think they are fooling anybody? Anyone who has to hurl insults, in lieu of actual fact based arguments, has already lost the debate. I haven't read Bugliosi's book, and don't intend to (no need to waste my time on a book arguing the thesis that the world is flat) but from what I have heard, he stoops to the same level of name calling that the lone nut internet forum brigade engages in as a regular routine. At this late date, with all the new revelations from the ARRB added on to what was previously known, anyone seriously arguing the Warren Commission line is either in a severe state of denial, or is a paid shill of the establishment. Pathetic.
Brian:
I, like you, have not bought nor read Bugliosi's "cinder block" book. And I also have no intention of doing so. I have the WC 26 volumes on CD-ROM and I've read Case Closed (then threw it in the trash), so for me, the-same-old-same-old is just a waste of time and money.
The purpose of the childishness of the McAdams-sent trolls at a.c.j. is to distract the discussion away from evidence and testimony and away from exposure of the truth by using off-topic postings that have nothing to do with the JFK assassination but instead serve to sidetrack everyone.
As you know, more often than not, the ones who hurl the first insults are those on the LN side. Many times, Cters (myself included) fall for their tactics and retaliate. But I'm learning not to fall into their trap.
Trolls don't care about the case. They just care about being a-holes to whomever. Many don't like the Kennedys. Many more don't like people who believe in conspiracies.
So this case draws quite a few "nut jobs" from all over the map. Some of whom wish to please their master, who has vowed to destroy a.c.j.
I find it funny that those who ridicule conspiracies are, in fact, part of a conspiracy to destroy a newsgroup.
************************************************************
"...Bugliosi's "cinder block" book."
Just loved that reference to it, Gil.
Myra Bronstein referred to it as, "Bugliosi's Tonnage."
I like to think of it as a "door-stop," for all that it's not worth.
DL once told me, "What's the use of having all these documents and data in your hands when you don't know the first thing about piecing it all together?"
It's like taking a person who does not make it a hobby of working on thousand piece puzzles, handing them a bagful of thousands of pieces, and encouraging them to "run with it." And, that's how Bugliosi comes off, in my opinion.
Then, to top it all off, he comes out swinging with both fists, ranting and raving like a rabid dog, against the opposition. All the while resorting to school yard name-calling tactics, and slinging ad hominems in the direction of any "so-called" conspiracy theorem. Every contradiction, or contra-indication, against a case for conspiracy has all the earmarks of a totally irrational mindset. And, Bugliosi wears it out.
-
As I've stated publicly, ghostwriting is an honorable profession. Publishers often contract with writers to do the writing for an author who either cannot write, or doesn’t have the time or inclination to write, or for whatever reason. Often, the reason is simply that the author is a busy person, has something he wants to convey, but doesn't have the time it would take to sit down a craft a book. So a writer is hired to do that job. Sometimes the identity of the ghost remains anonymous; in other cases, the book's title reads "by Joe Smith, with Tom Jones."
Bugliosi's involvement in the JFK case goes way back to 1985, and the television program The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, which was originally contracted for by London Weekly Television (and a producer named Mark Redhead). In that program, Bugliosi was prosecuting attorney, and Gerry Spence was defense attorney. Numerous witnesses were flown in from the U.S., and the trial was conducted—before a judge and jury—in accordance with standard legal procedures. After the program was originally aired in London, many hours were later broadcast on Showtime. From that experience, Bugliosi, who thought he knew everything there was to know about the JFK case, set out to write a book. After all, he had met many of the witnesses, he "knew the case" (or so he thought); and he would set the record straight.
Unfortunately, life is not that simple—as Bugliosi soon learned. And despite the time and effort he put in on the JFK case, he has been humbled by the experience. As he himself has admitted, the JFK case "is a bottomless pit." He refers to it a "this terribly long journey" and persons who know him personally have told me he has been humbled by the experience.
Bugliosi states as much in his own acknowledgements, "With every project that we take on in our lives, we intuitively know. . that if we work long and hard enough, we will reach the bottom of the pile. But I found. . that there is no bottom to the pile in the Kennedy case. . it is endless. . " (Reclaiming History, p. 1513).
In short, Bugliosi has not found closure. One problem is that Bugliosi's goal—of refuting every single conspiracy theory (or at least all the principle ones)—was unrealistic and led to an unmanageable research project. Another is that the particular theory to which Bugliosi subscribes—that Oswald was guilty, and acted alone—is simply false. That fact will only be further validated with the passage of time. In short, Vincent Bugliosi—like many honorable reactionaries before him—is on the wrong side of history.
Further, he will not prevail by writing that depends on personal insults (comparing the JFK researchers to bacteria, and the documents they won under FOIA or as a result of the ARRB, as their "oxygen") or by his outsized ego.
But let's return to the issue ghostwriting, because here the issue is not just how the book was written (or "assembled," as the case may be) but the credibility of Mr. Bugliosi, himself.
Just how knowledgeable is he about the JFK case himself—or is he just a blowhard who has strong beliefs, and likes to argue and debate, but used the services of an assortment of experts when it came to the details of the actual writing?
There are various “shades of gray” when it comes to writing about the Kennedy assassination, and how a book about such a complex such as the JFK case is assembled. Let’s explore the situation as it applies to Bugliosi.
* * *
The Kennedy assassination is quite involved, Bugliosi is a busy man and this particular project, which began in 1985, extended forward some 22 years to 2007, before publication. Indeed, Bugliosi's project went through two major periods in its literary evolution—one, when the proposed book was titled Final Verdict, and which came to an ending of sorts around October, 1999; the second, when it was retitled (and expanded) and called Reclaiming History.
Moreover, over the course of some 15 years, there were at least two ghost-writers who played key roles in the creation of the book as finally published, in 2007, under the title Reclaiming History. These two individuals—each who worked as paid "subcontractors" of a sort—are Fred Haines, of Los Angeles, and Dale Myers, the JFK researcher from Livonia, Michigan. Each was a paid ghost-writer, and each had a contract with Bugliosi's New York publisher, W. W. Norton.
These two individuals worked on (i.e., contributed to) the manuscript during distinctly different time periods. In each case, the arrangement called for a shared credit; i.e., the arrangement called for the book—when published—to be "by" Vincent Bugliosi but "with" the other named author.
In the case of Haines, the book's title was FINAL VERDICT, and was to be "by" Bugliosi but "with Fred Haines." In the case of Dale Myers, the book was titled (as it is presently published) as RECLAIMING HISTORY and the author's credit was to read "by" Bugliosi, but "with Dale Myers."
The fact that two separate ghost writers were hired over a period of 15 years—writers with signed contracts who were each remunerated to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars—should put an end to the nonsense that Bugliosi did not utilize ghostwriters. But apparently, there are those who want to believe "no matter what," so I suggest they channel such energies, and such a "will to believe", into theological areas; or perhaps ask Bugliosi to make public the paid contracts that he (and/or his publisher) had with each of these two writers.
As to Bugliosi and the matter of ghostwriting, here is the basic outline of the facts.
* * *
Let's start with Haines, whose arrangement goes back to the 1990s.
Writer Fred Haines—an amiable man and talented intellect—received regular monthly payments from W. W. Norton. (Those who save their old Compuserve posts will find Fred Haines on those boards). Haines' compensation was at the rate of approximately $50,000 per annum. He worked on Bugliosi's project for years—indeed, for the better part of a decade, while Bugliosi immersed himself in other matters (e.g., the O. J. case).
Haines' primary task was to write "the biography" of Oswald—similar to the work that Attorneys Jenner and Liebeler did for the Warren Commission (See Appendix 13 of the Warren Report), only a greatly expanded version of that. As published, Haines contribution comes to 260 pages. ( See page 513 to 788, listed as two chapters in Bugliosi's table of contents).
As just noted, the arrangement with Haines --and it went on for many years--was that the author's credit on the book would read "by Bugliosi," but "with Fred Haines." This was similar to the titling of HELTER SKELTER, which was "by Bugliosi," but "with Kurt Gentry". But those who knew Kurt Gentry knew that he wrote HELTER SKELTER . In setting out to write about the JFK case, Bugliosi was continuing that same pattern of behavior that began back in the days of the Manson case—i.e., "I know all this, but I'm a busy man, too busy to write, so let's hire someone to do the job." So a writer (Fred Haines) was hired, he had a separate contract with the publisher, and was paid monthly by the publisher.
Going now to the matter of JFK researcher Dale Myers, and how he came to be involved, we must first move towards the end of what might be called the "Fred Haines" period, and a significant turning point in the evolution of Bugliosi's work.
* * *
In mid-October 1999—this is now 14 years after the original TV special—Bugliosi turned in a "manuscript" of (what was then called FINAL VERDICT) to W. W. Norton. Unfortunately, there was a serious problem with Bugliosi's 1999 manuscript being published in the form in which it was presented at the time. Bugliosi's manuscript was 3,000 pages long; furthermore, Bugliosi was referring to that submission as "Part 1".
Bugliosi told Norton (this is mid-October, 1999) that this 3000 page manuscript was something that he had worked on it for some ten years (i.e., 1989 – 1999). He said that this manuscript was now "finished" and could be published on its own. He noted that it could be divided into two books. That decision was up to the publisher. He said that as far as he was concerned, what he had just submitted was just "the first part of it", but that, if Norton wanted to go forward with a Part 2 "which involved critiquing in some detail all the different conspiracy theories") why then a new arrangement would have to be negotiated.
Bugliosi's position, in short, was that he had now (circa, 1999) fulfilled his contract. He had arrived at a plateau of sorts; and what had been his experience starting with London Weekly Television, back in 1985, and the role he had played in that TV special, had now morphed into this manuscript, circa 1999.
As we now know, the publisher did NOT publish Bugliosi's 1999 3,000 page submission, then titled "Final Verdict", with the credit then reading by Buglioi and "with Fred Haines."
So the work now continued. As the summer of 2001 approached, both Bugliosi and Fred Haines both had contracts with Norton, and Haines was receiving payments at least through that time. But not too long afterwards, Haines had to leave the project because of medical problems. So a "parting of the ways" was arranged, and now Bugliosi was on his own, and he cast about for further editorial assistance.
Bugliosi needed assistance because (1) his work was not really complete, in accordance with his grand design of criticizing all the conspiracy theories; and (2) everything was now complicated by the work of the ARRB between 1995 and 1998, and the attendant release of a huge amount of archival material. Some of this "new material" was released starting around 1994, but then much more followed, in the way of depositions, additional documents, and internal memos, after the ARRB shut down on 9/30/98.
So now, before proceeding with what happened next in connection with Bugliosi's project, let's take a small side trip on how the ARRB's work impacted on the JFK case in general, and, in particular, Bugliosi's writing project (and the subsequent entry of "Ghostwriter #2").
SIDETRIP: 1998: About the ARRB and the document releases
One cannot overestimate the importance of the (1992) JFK Records Act, or the work of the ARRB (1995-1998) on the history of this case. Nor can one overstate the effect the release of millions of pages –in late 1998. In addition, there was the advent of the Internet –with the first browsers, etc., circa 1995—and the matter of hundreds of thousands of pages coming "on line" (e.g., at Mary Ferrell dot org, or in various university collections, and even at the National Archives). In other words, not only did the JFK Records Act change everything, so did the advent of the "information superhighway."
Indeed, Bugliosi was not immune from the effect of this torrent of information. But, unfortunately, he was particularly ill-equipped to handle this torrent of data, because he is (or at least was) not computer literate, and worked with pencil and paper and dictating machine. Moreover, he did not use the Internet. So Bugliosi was like a man on a bicycle, while cars were whizzing by on the freeway. He was constantly having to write the National Archives for information, didn't know how to use a search engine, and I can only wonder when he first learned what a pdf file was.
But now, back to the ARRB and the problem(s) it presented.
Included in that material was significant new data about the medical evidence, and a major amount of work done by the ARRB's Doug Horne, who was Chief Analyst for Military Records" on the staff of the ARRB; and played a major role in handling numerous matters pertaining to the medical evidence and the Zapruder film. To put it mildly, Bugliosi, who adopts the manner of someone who knows everything about the JFK case, now had to face the fact that the record was loaded with material, in the medical area—in the form of depositions and staff memos—that was supportive of Best Evidence. And lest there be any question about Doug Horne's conclusions about Best Evidence, here is what he has publicly posted:
QUOTE FROM DOUG HORNE (as posted on Education Forum):
David Lifton's thesis in his 1981 book "Best Evidence" has been validated by the work of the ARRB staff. Our unsworn interviews and depositions of Dallas (Parkland Hospital) medical personnel and Bethesda autopsy participants confirm that the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a markedly different condition than it was in when seen at Parkland for life-saving treatment. My conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details, David Lifton "got it right" in his 1981 bestseller. (He has modified his views since his book was published on the "when" and "where," and I concur with his changes, which he will publish at a later date.)
Horne and I used to wonder about this: what was Bugliosi going to do with all this "new evidence"? The answer, it turns out, is simple: included would be his personal attack on Doug Horne, who he calls "insane" about four times; and a completely ridiculous and superficial chapter on my own work. But let's not go there--at least, not in this post. The fact is that, when cornered, Bugliosi behaves like a name-calling street bully, but let's return to the primary issue at hand, the matter of the ghostwriting—i.e., the issue of the employment of paid writers by his publisher, who rendered major assistance to Bugliosi over the course of some 10 years (at least).
BUGLIOSI AND GHOSTWRITING (contd.)
As previously stated, first paid ghostwriter was Fred Haines. Haines' arrangement with Bugliosi—which went back many years to the 1990s (at least)— involved an arrangement in which he would write the "Oswald biography" of FINAL VERDICT (which was then the title) –the book to be published with the author's credit reading "by" Vincent Bugliosi, but "with Fred Haines."
With the 1998 ARRB releases, and the advent of the Internet, Bugliosi needed assistance to complete his project. This brings us to the second phase.
ENTER Ghostwriter #2 –DALE MYERS
Bugliosi (and/or his publisher) hired another writer--this time, one with expertise in the area of the shots, the medical evidence, and the acoustics. Dale Myers—the JFK researcher who appeared with Bugliosi on a Discovery Channel documentary—was solicited, and agreed. Once again, as was the case with Haines, a formal contract was drawn up. Furthermore, it was agreed that the credit for the book would now read "by Vincent Bugliosi," but "with Dale Myers."
Unfortunately for Bugliosi (and perhaps because both of these fellows have outsized egos), the collaboration between Dale Myers and Bugliosi didn't work out. Consequently, and similar to a marriage that doesn't work, a "literary divorce" now had to be arranged (i.e., another contract had to be drawn up—this one spelling out the terms of their "separation.) One of the provisions of this second contract was that Myers agreed that he would never divulge the existence of the original arrangement, or its dissolution. In other words, Myers is bound by contract not to talk about the writing he did for Bugliosi, what he contributed, how much he was paid for his contribution, or the circumstances of their "divorce."
Consequently, Dale Myers has TWO contracts with publisher W. W. Norton:
--the first, when his writing deal was originally formalized, and the book was to be published with the authorial credit reading by Vincent Bugliosi "with Dale Myers";
-- the second, when their collaboration didn't work as planned and their separation had to be formalized.
So now, addressing the issue of ghostwriting and counting up the signed contracts for ghostwriting, here's where we stand: there's one (and probably two) with Fred Haines (one for the original arrangement, and one for the separation); similarly, there were two contracts with Dale Myers—one for the original arrangement, the second for the "literary divorce."
These contracts span a total of about 15 years, and account for a significant amount of the writing that appears in the published work—irrespective of how hard Bugliosi worked on the project, or how much of the work represents his own writing—i.e., his own "original writing."
OK, then, so much for Bugliosi and his utilization of paid ghost-writers. Now lets turn to the actual contributions of each paid ghost-writer.
THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE TWO GHOSTS—An Attempt at Quantification
Fred Haines wrote the entire section on Oswald—i.e., the "Lee Oswald biography," such as it appears in Bugliosi's book. That section –from page 513 to 788—is about 260 pages. In a way, it’s a "mini-book" enclosed within the larger work.
Dale Myers wrote the original drafts of material on Dealey Plaza, the acoustics, etc. As to the size of the written contributions of these two individuals, we can consult Bugliosi's own acknowledgements, so lets now do just that, plug in some numbers and "do the math":
From Bugliosi's own acknowledgements section (Reclaiming History, pp. 1514-1515), is the acknowledgement Bugliosi gives Dale Myers:
Dale helped me in the writing of several sections of Book One, most notably on acoustic, "Four Days in November" (particularly in the Oswald interrogations), and all matters dealing with still photography).
This statement is particularly significant, because Bugliosi, in the acknowledgements, compares the size of the Myers contribution to that of Fred Haines (his other acknowledged ghostwriter, and the one who wrote the Oswald biography, which is 260 pages in length, as published). Importantly, Bugliosi makes clear that Myers' contribution was larger. Specifically, Bugliosi compares his (Haines') contribution to Myers, as follows:
the other person who played a writing role, though a smaller one, was Fred Haines (Bugliosi, p. 1515).
". . . a smaller one. . . "??
To get some sense of what is going on here, quantitatively speaking: we know that the Oswald biography--"Lee Harvey Oswald", which extends from page 513 to 788—is about 260 pages. Since Haines 260 pages is referred to by Bugliosi (again, who compares it to Myers, in size) as being "the smaller one," it seems reasonable to assume that Myers' contribution was considerably larger than 260 pages.
But note: even if the two contributions were of equal size, that would mean (based on Bugliosi's own admissions, in his acknowledgements) a total of 520 pp (260 plus 260) was written by these two paid ghosts. In other words, at least 520 pages of this book—i.e., at least one-third of a book whose main text (including the "Epilogue") runs to page number 1510—was written by two paid ghosts, each of whom had signed contracts with Bugliosi's publisher, W. W. Norton.
As to what changes were made by Bugliosi in the material submitted, I can only state that Dale Myers, upon first receiving a copy of the book and examining it, told a third party (with regards to the material he provided): "Well, that's just about exactly as I wrote it!"
But now, for a second look as to the actual amount of ghostwriting involved, let's return (again) to the number's, and "do the math"—this time, with a closer look at the area of Dale Myer's contribution. (Dale Myers, remember, is the fellow forbidden to talk about any of this, under the terms of the second contract he has with Norton, i.e., the one that is akin to a "literary divorce.")
Bulgiosi's opening chapter—"Four Days in November"—is just under 320 pages (it extends from page 3 to page 319). The section on acoustics, in the end notes, runs about 25 pages. Adding these together, that brings us to a sum of about 350 pages (for Dale Myers), but that is only the beginning—because, as Bugliosi himself said, Myers contribution extended beyond "Four Days in November" to "all matters dealing with still photography."
So, (and just estimating here), if we were to add another 50 pages (at least) for all that material (i.e., "all matters dealing with still photography"—Bugliosi's own words), we are up to a Dale Myers contribution of about 400 pages. Adding that to Haines' 260, that would bring us to a total of 660 pages of a book whose main text ends at page 1510. So by this analysis, (which admittedly involves some reasonable estimates) we come to numbers suggesting that "one-third" is conservative, and that in fact almost half of Bugliosi's book (at least) was written, for the most part, by these two paid ghostwriters.
But even that doesn't put an end to the subject of ghostwriting, because there are any number of other areas of the book where Bugliosi may well have received major outside assistance. Remember: Bugliosi didn't use the Internet, or even a computer, which is another factor that suggests he received plenty of outside assistance, at a time when a flood of information was being released, and Bugliosi was writing with pencil and paper, and didn't even know how to use the net. So, in view of all this, I believe that the basic thrust of what I previously wrote about this issue of Bugliosi and his use of ghostwriters (see my Internet essay, "Ghostwriters in the Sky", posted on the Education Forum) is quite correct. I believe that at least half the book—if not more—is ghostwritten.
BUGLIOSI AND THE MATTER OF "inserts"
Bugliosi himself gives the game away when he writes, in his acknowledgements (see p. 1514), that his book is "a book of inserts."):
Though resulting from much dictation, the book you have read is, much more than dictation, a book of inserts. By that I mean the first drafts of sections I wrote (e.g., Zapruder film, wounds to the president, CIA, Oliver Stone, etc.) which I then dictated, were not overly long. But they all increased far beyond their original size in the many subsequent drafts with the addition of yellow-page inserts
I know of no other writer who talks of "his" work in that way; and the language the author himself uses certainly suggests a major collaborative effort, with a number of third parties.
In fact, Dale Myers has told confidants that the "original" Bugliosi sections—as he received them—were "a complete mess" and "terrible" and in need of thorough rewriting and revision.
Again, I repeat: ghostwriting is an honorable profession. There is nothing wrong with it, per se. In writing Helter Skelter, Vincent Bugliosi availed himself of the services of author Kurt Gentry, and the title page on the book reads by Bugliosi "with Kurt Gentry." Those of us who knew Kurt Gentry know that he wrote Helter Skelter. It was an honorable and overt ghosting job--overt in the sense that Kurt's name was on the cover of the book.
But no one else's name is on the cover of RECLAIMING HISTORY, and that is part of the problem. This is especially important if one-third to one half of the manuscript was originally written by third parties, regardless of whether or not Bugliosi thoroughly endorses their ideas, or made minor editorial revisions (which, in Bugliosi's case, often appear in the form of nasty insults and ad hominem personal attacks).
Which brings us back to the primary issue at hand—the matter of ghostwriting.
Ghosting is done all the time, and it is not necessarily publicized. Publishers are not running a CIA type operation. They can request--even demand--that the writing contribution be kept secret; alternatively it may be acknowledged right on the cover of the book, as in "by Joe Smith, with Eric Jones."
The problem with RECLAIMING HISTORY is that Bugliosi (and/or his publisher) has tried to minimize the extent of the writing assistance he received and present this as entirely his own work. Unlike the case of HELTER SKELTER, where Kurt Gentry's name appears on the cover of the book, in this instance, Bugliosi has followed a different path. Consequently, most of Bugliosi's defenders are unaware of the true situation. They see a 1600 page book with a wide variety of data, a lot of it quite technical, and think that Bugliosi (who wasn’t even experienced enough to use the Internet, much less a computer Word processing program, when it came to the writing) wrote it all himself. The fact is that, in several critical areas, these two paid ghostwriters did the heavy lifting; and, in at least those areas, Bugliosi functioned more or less as "managing editor.”
In no way do I mean to state or imply that Bugliosi did not work very hard on this project—indeed, for years on end--only that he didn’t do it all by himself.
That's why Doug Horne refers to this work as "Bugliosi by Committee." It is why I have referred to this book as a "glorified anthology" (with everything switched to the first person) and something that should perhaps have been titled Helter Smelter.
*********************************************************
Thanks for posting this, DL.
You always make me proud to know you, Bunky.
Love,
Ter
-
I just noticed on another Forum that Bugliosi devotee David Von Pein is attacking Lifton on this matter, and claiming Bugliosi's use of material from his former co-writers is irrelevant, and not the same as his using "ghost-writers". He claims that because Bugliosi acknowledges the input of Haines and Myers in the book, they are not "ghosts" and therefore not "ghostwriters". Although Von Pein tries to dismiss the problems with the medical evidence as "nit-picking," as if the actual location of the entrance on Kennedy's head has no bearing on Oswald's guilt or innocence, I believe he is the one "nit-picking" here.
Nowhere in Bugliosi's interviews, and nowhere in the ad campaign for his book, will you find his admission that as much as a third of his book was written and researched by others. You just won't find it. Instead, he and others hawking his book (including HBO) have repeatedly asserted that he personally mastered all the details of the case in order to shut down all the conspiracy theories, blah blah blah. Lifton's research proves, if nothing else, that this was false advertising.
I believe one can make the argument that someone willing to misrepresent the nature of a book ( i.e. how it was written) in order to sell more copies, would also be willing to twist its content to mislead its potential audience. Like Spitzer and his hookers, Bugliosi's use of Haines and Myers, and his paying them to keep quiet, raises questions about his integrity. I mean why, if everything was on the up and up, as claimed by Von Pein, would Bugliosi arrange to have them "silenced"?
Mighty mighty peculiar, in my opinion.
*********************************************************
"...Bugliosi's use of Haines and Myers, and his paying them to keep quiet, raises questions about his integrity. I mean why, if everything was on the up and up, as claimed by Von Pein, would Bugliosi arrange to have them "silenced"?"
Exactly, Pat.
"Von Pain," as I've referred to him on Lancer, and in retorting him on amazon.com, is nothing more than a shill, for Bugliosi.
An out and out LN "shill," for Bugliosi.
-
Mr. Plumlee,
What information did you have on George E. Joannides, if you can recall?
Steve Rosen
I might have to revive my time line by a few months or so, but this is from memory.
The M-26-7 was formed in Mexico City about 1957 known as the Mexico/Arms Pack. (Joe Westbrook Rosales, Fureta Chomon and others I can not recall at the moment were the founders, I think) The Students from a Democratic Cuban operated from the University of Havana. At first there was no CIA involvement in those activities. This was Pro-Castro days. Castro was in the Mountains with about 80 or so rebels and was known to the CIA as Castro's Jul 26 revolution.
Soon the Students of the University was caught by Batista and some were jailed and some were executed. The group was splintered and most went with Castro's July 26th movement. Just before the M26-7 disbanded and threw in with Castro, the CIA step in and planted operatives within that group, the M26-7. Some of these operatives merged in with Castro's rebels and reported back to the CIA at Miami's Wave Station. (not JM/WAVE; it had not been formed as yet; and too, it was not known as Miami Station as yet) Operative Howard out of Washington DC was the POC (Point of Contact from this group of operatives) William Morgan who was with the Castro rebels was one of the CIA operatives who reported back, via cut-outs, back to CIA HDQ's Covert Action Group, (CAG) That's the first time I was aware of "Howard" which I some years later found out was Joannides. However, he would not become of interest until the early sixties after the DR and the Fair Play organizations and Oswald came on the scene.
This is a rough background as recall from memory. However, it is documented and If the CIA does release their files we can all read about how the CIA supported Batista, The M26-7 as well as Castro's July 26th Revolution, all at the same time.
I'm sure some will take issue with this rough recap on one operation which ran about six years. None the less it is my viewpoint and I think if the documents are released it will support this recap and other matters to some degree. All of the above is perhaps still classified. But I do not think my memory is "Classified". I have not released any documents to this effect and my seven years is long over on these matters. I'm not sure if any of this early background helps you in anyway...., but I thought it might. I think Harry Dean might have matters he could add, as to the early sixties material..., but I do not speak for Harry.
XXXXXI might have to revive my time line by a few months or so, but this is from memory.
The M-26-7 was fromed in Mexico City about 1957 known as the Mexico/Arms Pack. (Joe Westbrook Rosales, Fureta Chomon and others I can not recall at the moment were the founders, I think) The Students from a Domocratic Cuban operated from the University of Havana. At first there was no CIA involvement in that operation. This was Pro-Castro days. Castro was in the Mountains with about 80 or so rebels and was known to the CIA as Castro's Jul 26 revolution.
Soon the Students of the University was caught by Batista and some were jailed and some were executed. The group was splintered and most went with Castro's July 26th movement. Just befor the M26-7 disbanded and threw in with Castro, the CIA step in and planted operatives with that group, M26-7. Some of these operatives merged in with Castro's rebels and reported back to the CIA at Miami's Wave Station. (not JM/WAVE; it had not been forumed as yet; and to it was not known as Miami Station as yet) Operative Howard out of Washington DC was the POC (Point of Contact from this group of operatives. William Morgan who was with the Castro rebels was one of the CIA operatives who reported back, via cut-outs, back to CIA HDQ's Covert Action Group. Thats the first time I was aware of "Howard" which I some years later found out was Joannides. However, he would not become prominate until the early sixties after the DR and the Fair Play organizations and Oswald came on the scean. This is a rough background as recall from memory. However, it is documented and If the CIA does release their files we can all read about how the CIA supported Batista, The M26-7 as well as Castro's July 26th Revolution, all at the same time.
********************************************************************
Thanks for clarifying these details on Johannides and DRE, Bill.
I'm really looking forward to your book's release. You're one of the last true patriots left, you know.
I'm glad you're still here, and decided to stick around for as long as you have.
Ter
-
'JFK Love Child': Now I Don't Want To Know
ABC NEWS
But Worthington's own response is that he is telling the truth and that he will "proceed with criminal charges against her [HIS OWN MOTHER] for willfully and maliciously misleading me regarding my paternity."
Doug, since you are Worthington's lawyer, will you be assisting him in the "criminal charges" he is threatening against his elderly mother?
Will Mrs. Worthington's trial on the charge of "misleading her son" be televised live around the world on CNN?
What is the maximum sentance a court can award for the crime of "Misleading Jack Worthington" ?
************************************************************************
I'm still waiting for this guy to flash that "unmistakable" Kennedy smile.
Show me the "teeth."
-
http://wlym.com/tiki/tiki-directory_redirect.php?siteId=6633
listen to mp3 audio listed as 20071128-la-cody-jadatz-myspace-vs-cincinnati
powerful presentation. it should be linked on the education forum
-
To my knowledge he never used them or actually had any need of them.
His first murder, Kinser, was done with little attempt at all to hide his true identity.
His alleged follow-on murders for Johnson were more in the nature of hits e.g. find the victim
off by themselves and just kill them. Nothing really covert.
And, if you accept the Loy Factor story, Mac even used his true last name with Factor, who
knew him as Wallace.
-- Larry
Does anyone know if he ever used any aliases?Thanks
Have you contacted Larry Hancock? He has carried out detailed research into Wallace.
There was no reason for those boys to cover their tracks or use alaises. The golf course hit (one of many of the time) was just a walk up, by one person and POW. It had nothing to do with Texas politics. It was all about a girl friend I was told. Even if they, or he, were caught with the smoking gun in hard and if they were Texas connected they had a "get out of jail free" card. There were a whole flock of good old Texas boys that would do the dirty work for the special interest of the power elite of Texas. Those boys paved the way for LBJ into State and National Politics. It was a tight organization and not many escaped their wrath. JFK found that out the hard way. Texas to this day has more power in national and state politices than most Americans can comprehend. And It's not over yet. The way to Washington DC is via Texas. If you do not play their game, they will just kill you and be done with it; and go home and have dinner.
***********************************************************
"Texas to this day has more power in national and state politices than most Americans can comprehend. And It's not over yet. The way to Washington DC is via Texas. If you do not play their game, they will just kill you and be done with it; and go home and have dinner."
This is based upon Texas' power in the oil industry, I presume, or am I off-base, here?
Or, is Texas strictly a separate entity unto itself? Maybe that's why they like to refer to themselves as "The Lone Star State?"
Federal Regs obviously need not apply to them.
-
"I say I saw JFK get assassinated. I saw we were sent in to stop it or as I have said long ago "ABORT IT"" Tosh
I have heard of a theory that the Assassination was going to be fake or it was going to be real and Oswald was going to help abort the thing. How? By standing at the Coke machine? (I can't help but interject that Nixon was in Dallas that day for Pepsi. Pepsi - Coke - get it?) Then the people who wanted a fake assassination -- the purpose to scare America into invading Cuba, as people would think it was a real attempt -- were infiltrated, unbeknownst to them, by real assassination plotters who succeeded.
Tosh, if you were there, why? Were you trying to stop the assassination? If so, by what means -- hiding in the shadow of a tree some distance away from the action, so to speak? What were you doing to prevent the assassination? Did you know where the assassins were?
Please respond as I am very curious about this.
Kathy Collins
Kathleen:
I too, have heard the theory that you mentioned. However, I do not know about that and can't be of much help in that direction. Your other questions have been addressed in detail in scattered places on this forum and at other places for a number of years now. It was detailed to some degree in a post "Flight to Dallas", I think, and posted some years ago. None the less, I will be as brief as I can in responds to your questions. Perhaps others here can bring some of those post forward and therein some of your questions will be answered in more detail.
"...Tosh, if you were there, why?...".
Information had been received from Military INTEL and CIA Miami Station that a hit was going to be made on the President. The information had been obtained from two people who were going to fire a Bazooka on Air Force One, at West Palm Beach Florida, approximately November 17, 1963. From that interrogation (I was told) of these two people came the information and it was passed to JM/WAVE and to our case officers at West Palm Beach. I was one of the pilots that flew the team into Dallas. I was not "mission operational", at that time other than the pilot. The details of how and why that mission came together I would not know. I was not at the clearance level to know. Most of those details would be reveled to me later. (Some of those details came many years later)
"...Were you trying to stop the assassination?...".
Yes.. I was asked by Sergio, at Red Bird, if I wanted to go and see the President, Otherwise I would just hang out at Red Bird Airport as I had done on most other transportation type missions. Sergio explained most of the details of what his part was in the overall mission. He was a "Spotter" I did know bits and pieces, but most of the details came from my case officer, Bob Bennett and Sergio. Most of the team did not think much of the mission. They, as well as I, thought it just another wild goose chase and there was nothing to it. There had been many threats and rumors as to the assassination of the Presidents during that time frame. I had worked Dallas with MI on other matters, and was familiar with the area and knew some of the Dallas Cubans as well as knowing of LHO. They, the Dallas Cubans, were NOT involved in any way concerning the assassination. But they were heavily involved in Gun Running to southern Florida and the Cuban exile community)
"...If so, by what means --What were you doing to prevent the assassination?...".
Sergio's was one of many "spotters". His job was to secure the south side of the Plaza and the south parking lot. Other spotters were working the north side and that parking lot as well as the rail road tracks and overpass. There was communication between all personal on the mission. Sergio had a communication device and I had a clip board and a pair of binoculars. Our communication was spoty at best. nothing worked right. It has been said that I said "we were there to take them out". I have said that, BUT it has been taken out of context. We were there to get close enough to disrupt their, (the assassins) timing and to quickly remove them from the threat. To "take them out" was not meant to shoot them or have a gun fight, like some have said. If that had happened then there would have been a fire fight in the Plaza that day and many, other than the President, would have been killed. As I have said before..if that had happened.... "It would have been a real blood bath... two factions fighting it out in the Plaza".
"... hiding in the shadow of a tree some distance away from the action, so to speak?..."
We were not hiding in the shadows. We were working our (Sergio's) section. We had just completed our walk through the south parking lot where we saw nothing unusual and had walked past the steps by the fork tree and turned to walk back toward the overpass. The shots were fired at about the time we were just west of the steps and in the shadows of the tree. At that point we knew the mission had failed and it was our job to get out of the area. The team was not to be known about for obvious reasons. ( The reaso for confrimation of the South Knoll Photo about two people standing in the shadows of the tree)
I know this does not address all your questions and it would take pages and pages, perhaps books to answer all of them. However, I too, would like some answers about that day and that is why I joined this forum and have tried to help the research community and in turn get some help from them on my questions... That has not worked..... I think its a lost cause today... This story is to far fetched for anyone to believe today, or yesterday for that matter. The record has been lost and only new releases and other documentation will perhaps someday come to surface, but by then I will be long gone and that is the way it is suppose to be.
"...;Did you know where the assassins were?...".
NO. We were checking for triangulation crossfire that would be used as a sniper attack method. Each section had been divided up and parts of the team went into areas where a sniper would or should be located. It was a type of walk through, spotting most likely places and then getting close enough to wreck their timing on hence "take them out". We failed in that. In fact the whole mission was a mess from start to finish. We were late, getting to the Plaza. And the flight into Dallas was a wreck waiting to happen, weather delays and etc.
A question I have been asked many times... "Could some on your team have been assassins?".
Yes. Could have been. But that is speculation. But I do not think so. Because of the way some (most) of the teams reaction as to the failure. If it was an attack team then I think they would have been overjoyed that they had carried it off. That was not the case. Nobody on our flight was happy about the chain of events. Nor were any team members taken out that day..
*************************************************************
"Information had been received from Military INTEL and CIA Miami Station that a hit was going to be made on the President. The information had been obtained from two people who were going to fire a Bazooka on Air Force One, at West Palm Beach Florida, approximately November 17, 1963. From that interrogation (I was told) of these two people came the information and it was passed to JM/WAVE and to our case officers at West Palm Beach. I was one of the pilots that flew the team into Dallas. I was not "mission operational," at that time other than the pilot. The details of how and why that mission came together I would not know. I was not at the clearance level to know. Most of those details would be revealed to me later. (Some of those details came many years later)"
"I was told sometime after the assassination that the Adolphs Hotel was a strong possibility and that was the location first learned about from information received from Miami, but it was changed at the last minute to the Plaza. By who I have no idea... As I have said I was not at the level to know all the planning steps involved. Some of what I knew then and know now and came after the fact and in conversations with those involved in the team..."
Excellent examples of "compartmentalization," inherent in pretty much any detail or operation meted out by those agencies involved, on a regular basis.
The nature of the "job" description, or "non-description," if you will. All the better to maintain total control of all the operatives in the field, by the upper echelon producing the show, IMHO.
Thanks for hanging in here, Bill, for fielding all the inquiries, and answering them to the best of your ability. Especially, considering the conditions you were forced to work under on that particular day. You're a most obliging and engaging person to have put up with all the "bonafide" researchers and authors, the hack-job disinfo's and misinfo's, as well as with the students.
You're doing a stand-up job, my friend.
Ter
-
JFK was told about the kid.
Know what he said?
"I need this like I need a hole in the head."
(edited to enhance offensiveness)
*********************************************************
"I need this like I need a hole in the head."
CD, you irreverent "wise guy," you!
What I'd like to see is a picture of his mother, especially around the the era of his birth.
Maybe if he'd smiled and flashed that familiar toothy Kennedy smile, which most of the Kennedy off-spring have, I might be persuaded.
And maybe if he'd lose 20 pounds, as well. But, what the hey, the smile would probably suffice, to say the least.
Your Berry,
Terry
-
These documents about Priscilla L. Johnson might already be on this thread, Im not sure. They are from Lisa Pease's site
and come with nice highlighting!
http://www.webcom.com/lpease/collections/a...m#Document%20#2
*************************************************
As far as her statements to the HSCA goes, this woman is committing outright perjury with her stunning lack of recall faculties. Premature Alzheimers' perhaps?
And, this pitiful act of concern for what poor little PJM considers to be the "truth," which the CIA is all but mockingly depicting in that memo of theirs, is worse than wretched. They inaccurately, and most likely purposely, portray her as if she's some ridiculously "coercible" American journalist/reporter, "just as long as you don't allow her to suspect she's being manipulated." In a pig's eye!
Seems as if she was considered to be a viable, and all but willing, agent for them as far back as 1956, long before the truth about her real affiliations would be made known to the rest of the world. How very convenient for all concerned parties!
Thank you, Lisa, Bill, Nate, and James, for this little gem.
-
Last night, I saw something on TV that I haven't seen in decades. Obama won every single caucus state. When he gave his speech at someone's dinner, the cheers and applause from the audience were overwhelming. I've not seen that type of reaction in many a year. So I think to myself, as I did when I voted in the Florida Primary, if I were to cast my ballot for Obama, I'd be voting for a dead man. I just can't believe the powers that be would ever let a black man become President.
Republican Huckabee ran well too last night. If the candidate, however, becomes McCain, I think it'll be bad for the Democrats, as he's considered liberal. Either the "families" will rig the election for McCain or something dreadful is going to happen. Obama is as beloved a politicians as President Kennedy and in '68 Bobby Kennedy. He has that type of charisma. It's a little scary. And he has Ted Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy and Oprah Winfrey behind him -- talk about charisma.
I'm leaning toward Hillary. A vote for Obama might be a vote for a dead man. I wouldn't want to ride in a small plane or helicopter with him. I wish him luck.
Kathy
*****************************************************************
Oh yeah? Well, get a load of this twisted turn of events. When I went to vote last Tuesday, I was directed to the American Independent booth, and told I was no longer allowed to vote across party lines. I ended up voting for Cynthia McKinney. On every place her name appeared, I poked a hole. But, when it came to the presidential candidates being offered up by the A.I., I passed. Why? Because I know nothing about them, was poised to vote for Ron Paul, and had never run up against this kind of opposition in the 22 years I've been voting as an American Independent. What is this? The USSR? I'm pissed as all get out! The American System has been bastardized, and skewed to the Right Of Center, aka Conservative Neo-Con Fascism. To hell with all of them!
John Roselli
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
**********************************************************
"Harry, Tosh, you supported Castro along with my father and multitude of young patriotic idealistic others who believed in the revolution but ended up on the other side."
This is good to hear, Crissie, as I always supported Fidel and Che.
Was your Dad an independent, or a bonafide agent for Central? I've never quite read the whole story, except that he was either MIA, or killed in the line of duty. That's a legacy-and-a-half for you to have to carry around, all these years.
As I read this thread, I immediately thought of Marita Lorenz for the NYC CIA operative connection to Fidel. Then, there's all those pics of her running around in the Keys with Gerry and Sturgis, which could've meant a double "00" rank for her, as was rumored of the status of Fiorini aka Sturgis.
From the photos I've seen, and the information I've read on Lisa Howard, I concluded that her relationship with Fidel was far more complex, and possibly more on the level of that of a back-channel business and/or mediator between the White House and Havana. Which is what got her killed, as I believe she was murdered, or "suicided."
From a Spanish language biographical book on Che, I surmised that if Howard was having any kind of a tete-a-tete with anyone, it would more than likely have been with Che for whom, it would seem, she only had eyes according to the photos I've seen of them together. But, that's just my understanding of it.