Greg Wagner
-
Posts
410 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Greg Wagner
-
-
It's nice to know that the U.S. Government is using the tax dollars of its citizens to finance their fascist agenda:
Pentagon creating student database
Recruiting tool for military raises privacy concerns
By Jonathan Krim
Updated: 2:03 a.m. ET June 23, 2005WASHINGTON
The Defense Department began working yesterday with a private marketing firm to create a database of high school students ages 16 to 18 and all college students to help the military identify potential recruits in a time of dwindling enlistment in some branches.
The program is provoking a furor among privacy advocates. The new database will include personal information including birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and what subjects the students are studying.
The data will be managed by BeNow Inc. of Wakefield, Mass., one of many marketing firms that use computers to analyze large amounts of data to target potential customers based on their personal profiles and habits.
"The purpose of the system . . . is to provide a single central facility within the Department of Defense to compile, process and distribute files of individuals who meet age and minimum school requirements for military service," according to the official notice of the program.
Privacy advocates said the plan appeared to be an effort to circumvent laws that restrict the government's right to collect or hold citizen information by turning to private firms to do the work.
Some information on high school students already is given to military recruiters in a separate program under provisions of the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act. Recruiters have been using the information to contact students at home, angering some parents and school districts around the country.
School systems that fail to provide that information risk losing federal funds, although individual parents or students can withhold information that would be transferred to the military by their districts. John Moriarty, president of the PTA at Walter Johnson High School in Bethesda, said the issue has "generated a great deal of angst" among many parents participating in an e-mail discussion group.
Under the new system, additional data will be collected from commercial data brokers, state drivers' license records and other sources, including information already held by the military.
"Using multiple sources allows the compilation of a more complete list of eligible candidates to join the military," according to written statements provided by Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke in response to questions. "This program is important because it helps bolster the effectiveness of all the services' recruiting and retention efforts."
The Pentagon's statements added that anyone can "opt out" of the system by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate "suppression file." That file will be matched with the full database regularly to ensure that those who do not wish to be contacted are not, according to the Pentagon.
But privacy advocates said using database marketers for military recruitment is inappropriate.
"We support the U.S. armed forces, and understand that DoD faces serious challenges in recruiting for the military," a coalition of privacy groups wrote to the Pentagon after notice of the program was published in the Federal Register a month ago. "But . . . the collection of this information is not consistent with the Privacy Act, which was passed by Congress to reduce the government's collection of personal information on Americans."
Chris Jay Hoofnagle, West Coast director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the system "an audacious plan to target-market kids, as young as 16, for military solicitation."
He added that collecting Social Security numbers was not only unnecessary but posed a needless risk of identity fraud. Theft of Social Security numbers and other personal information from data brokers, government agencies, financial institutions and other companies is rampant.
"What's ironic is that the private sector has ways of uniquely identifying individuals without using Social Security numbers for marketing," he said.
The Pentagon statements said the military is "acutely aware of the substantial security required to protect personal data," and that Social Security numbers will be used only to "provide a higher degree of accuracy in matching duplicate data records."
The Pentagon said it routinely monitors its vendors to ensure compliance with its security standards.
Krenke said she did not know how much the contract with BeNow was worth, or whether it was bid competitively.
Officials at BeNow did not return several messages seeking comment. The company's Web site does not have a published privacy policy, nor does it list either a chief privacy officer or security officer on its executive team.
According to the Federal Register notice, the data will be open to "those who require the records in the performance of their official duties." It said the data would be protected by passwords.
The system also gives the Pentagon the right, without notifying citizens, to share the data for numerous uses outside the military, including with law enforcement, state tax authorities and Congress.
Some see the program as part of a growing encroachment of government into private lives, particularly since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
"It's just typical of how voracious government is when it comes to personal information," said James W. Harper, a privacy expert with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "Defense is an area where government has a legitimate responsibility . . . but there are a lot of data fields they don't need and shouldn't be keeping. Ethnicity strikes me as particularly inappropriate."
Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the Social Security Administration relaxed its privacy policies and provided data on citizens to the FBI in connection with terrorism investigations.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
-
I should add that, like John, I believe that any documents released through declassification would not necessarily lead us to the conspirators. There's been so much time for incriminating documentation to be removed or falsified.
Hi Mark-
You're right in that there's certainly no smoking gun just waiting to be declassified. Still, who knows what possibilities we might be able to explore. Or eliminate. Declassification of the remaining documents certainly wouldn't answer all the questions or definitively solve the case. I guess it's more the principle of the thing: I feel entitled to to view those documents.
You hit upon a key point: If it could be shown that the classification was activated in the context of a threat to national security that no longer exists, then such an excuse for keeping the docs secret becomes unavailable. But I guess it comes down to who exactly would be making that determination.
What national security issues could still be relevant in 2005? Most of those involved are probably dead. The Cold War is over. The Soviet Union no longer exists. Communism, as a threat to capitalism, is very much dead. The only national security issue is that the truth would implicate elements of our federal government resulting in a Constitutional crisis, the implications of which would be staggering.
-
Interesting, John.
What if a list of all such still classified documents were assembled and a "full court press" was undertaken to force their release?
Who is responsible at this time to make the decision whether to release the documents? I suspect in most cases it is the agency that generated the documents. But who decides (before judicial intervention) whether HSCA records should be released?
Hi Tim-
That's a great question. Generating a list of all such still classified documents, just as you suggest, and perhaps organizing them in a database such as MC Access, would be the first step.
Determining who within the government has the authority to release such documents is step two.
Step three: We get as many people as we can to write to their Congressman, write to their Senator, and write to this as yet undetermined person of authority with the list attached and demand that these docs be released.
I know this probably sounds naive and idealistic, but I think it's worth the effort. Although I have no idea how to begin generating such a list. Any suggestions there? The list would be the difficult part.
Once it's compiled, we can use it to generate support and get people to write. Maybe if enough people regularly bombard their elected officials with such a request, perhaps over time someone in a position of authority will address the situation. At the end of the day, those records belong to the People. They're ours. We own them. We pay for them to be kept locked away. OK, I know that's incredibly naive, but it just ticks me right off.
The government keeps re-opening these civil rights cases from the 60's, U.S. v. Cecil Price et al. ("Mississippi Burning" Trial) being the most recent. While I think that's a great thing, it angers me that the Kennedy murders and MLK's killing are still being ignored.
So, how would one go about compiling such a list? Any ideas?
-
Re Ron's post re Maxwell Taylor, this emotion certainly tells me he had no involvement in the asssassination. He, a hard-bitten career military officet was presumably close to tears at the thought of the brutal murder if his friend.
He too is another man, most likely innocent, who has been indicted by certain members of this Forum on the scantest (if any) evidence.
Just caught Pat's post. Amen, Pat!
Hi Tim-
Who knows what Taylor's reaction to Rostow's Kennedy comment was all about? Maybe it really was true sadness. Maybe regret. Maybe part of facing up to something terrible he did or knew of and failed to halt. Maybe it was cover. You don't know the answer to that question any more than I do. My point is that we are here to ask questions and engage in discussion on the issues surrounding John Kennedy’s murder.
Would Taylor be convicted in a court of law based on the speculation and circumstantial evidence (that of which we are currently aware) present today? Of course not. But this isn't a court of law. It's still a murder investigation. And in such an endeavor, one poses questions, considers possible scenarios, and collaborates and consults with peers to obtain their input. And your input is certainly clear, and at times, valuable. But I think you may be jumping the gun in this instance.
Ridiculous assumptions are one thing. But quite frankly, if you listen the White House tapes from the days of the missile crisis (or read any number of books on the subject and on the men in question), it's very clear that the JCS were diametrically opposed to Kennedy's position- that includes Taylor. At one point in one of the conversations, LeMay sounds very much like he is dictating to the president, practically scolding him. Again, as I have stated on other threads, this lone issue of Kennedy's handing of the missile crisis does not prove anything in and of itself. It is but a single element of a larger context: The nation's military leadership thought Kennedy was making critical errors in judgment with regard to foreign policy and communism.
Combine this with Kennedy's back channel discussions with Khrushchev and Castro (which could in and of itself be considered potential treason- don't you think Max and the boys were concerned about what those discussions entailed?) his habit of sleeping with women connected to communism and the mafia, and throw in the drug usage. I think there is every reason to consider the node of power surrounding Taylor, LeMay, & Co.
Finally, even if Taylor (or anyone under consideration as a suspect) “liked” Kennedy, I think it would be a mistake to exclude them from examination. The last time I checked, having a general fondness of someone is not considered exculpatory evidence.
Consider that these were very serious military men, men whose views about U.S. foreign policy, communism, and negotiating only from positions of strength, had been forged in war. Furthermore, these men were charged with the security of the United States and its citizens- a responsibility that men like Taylor and LeMay would have taken very seriously. If they truly thought Kennedy was seriously mishandling Cuba, Vietnam, and the global struggle against communism, and if they further were suspicious about his back channel talks with Khrushchev and Castro, with whom he was sleeping, and what was in Max Jacobson’s syringe, I believe that it’s quite possible that they could have acted on those concerns. In fact, it’s hard to imagine that they would not have acted (in some fashion, anyway). These were not passive, subordinate men, by any stretch.
Admittedly, none of this is proof that they were the prime movers. But men like Max Taylor are certainly worthy of our exploration and discussion.
-
Photo from pg. 71 of the 1963 book, The Torch Is Passed.
The caption reads, "The Nation's Military Leaders In The Funeral Procession."
I've got Max Taylor and Curt LeMay. Can anyone ID the others?
-
Double post... sorry.
-
Dammit, Greg. Now you have me anxious to see those photographs. Anyone?
Whomever was behind the Kennedy assassination -- FWIW, I think that power was the Eastern Establishment/American Banking/US War Industry -- it could not have been accomplished without the approval and co-operation of the US military. Of course, the military could've been used, just like Oswald, just like the Cubans, just like the CIA. The men in the shadows are never seen. That's part of their power. They throw out all the rest for us to consider and digest. David Atlee Philllips, James Angleton, E. Howard Hunt, The Tramps, Multiple Oswalds, Badgeman, Texas Oil, LBJ and Hoover, Richard Nixon, Guy Banister, David Ferrie. So we can play the popular board game of, "Who Killed John F. Kennedy?". Over forty years now, and still...that's true power.
What differentiates the military from US Banking and the War Industry?
What happens to a president when he f*cks with the Federal Reserve?
For whom did John McCloy and Allen Dulles really work? If you answer that question, I think you get really close to the center of the conspiracy that murdered John Kennedy.
Hi Stan-
Mark Knight was kind enough to email me a copy of the photo from page 71, but neither one of us has had any success uploading it to this thread. I'll make another attempt this evening.
If the military leadership of the U.S. were the prime movers, they were most likely acting under a scenario similar to the one Shanet suggets, which means they felt Kennedy was unfit, dangerous, and perhaps even treasonous. And for those reasons, the rationalizations surely went, they had to do their duty to protect the Country.
Even if they had convinced themselves of that, what about the many dead witnesses? American citizens murdered, intimidated, and wrongfully "discredited"? What about the countless lies told to the People by their government resulting in the destruction of every shred of official credibility? And of course, the complete subversion of our most basic underlying democratic principles.
Talk about "domino theory." What a mess.
-
Hi Bernice-
Great posts!
If you, or anyone out there, has a copy of the 1963 book The Torch Is Passed, there is a great photo on page 71 titled "The Nation's Military Leaders In The Funeral Procession."
Unfortunately, I am having trouble with my scanner and can't get it digitized. If someone could post that photo, it would be most appropriate on this thread. It's haunting.
There's also a photo of a very troubled looking Ike on page 82. One wonders, given the comments he made in his farewell address and his knowledge of these military leaders, if he suspected the truth as soon as he heard about Dallas.
-
For all the Aussie forum members, today (Monday) at 5:10pm, the History Channel is running a program titled, 'False Witness' which looks at Clay Shaw and his trial.
James
Hi James-
Doesn't look like it's on over here (U.S.), but below is the front page on that segment:
On March 1st of 1967, Clay L. Shaw, a successful businessman and highly decorated WWII veteran, was arrested by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison on charges of conspiring to murder President John F. Kennedy. So began one of the oddest chapters in the seemingly never-ending inquiry into the JFK assassination.
FALSE WITNESS traces Shaw's ordeal from the moment of the arrest to the verdict and beyond, painting a portrait of a man whose life was turned upside down in the name of political ambition. Though the trial ended in a crushing defeat for Garrison, his version of the events was popularized by the director Oliver Stone in the controversial film, JFK. Drawing on the research of author Patricia Lambert (False Witness), this program tells the real story of what happened, and it is more fantastic than anything Stone could contrive.
For years, the facts have been obscured by people uninterested in the truth. Now, the complete tale is finally told.
If you catch it, perhaps you could let us know if it's worth a look.
-
Hi Bernice-
Great posts!
If you, or anyone out there, has a copy of the 1963 book The Torch Is Passed, there is a great photo on page 71 titled "The Nation's Military Leaders In The Funeral Procession."
Unfortunately, I am having trouble with my scanner and can't get it digitized. If someone could post that photo, it would be most appropriate on this thread. It's haunting.
There's also a photo of a very troubled looking Ike on page 82. One wonders, given the comments he made in his farewell address and his knowledge of these military leaders, if he suspected the truth as soon as he heard about Dallas.
-
There was a young black couple having lunch by the stockade fence. They are probably still alive. If they could be located and interviewed it could be very helpful to furthering our understanding of what took place on the knoll.
As far as possible conspirators, Hunt, Barker, and Hemmings would be three people who might know a lot more than they've ever revealed. Is Gray Lynch still alive? He might know something as well. Assuming that Cubans were involved...
As far as people who might know more than they've ever let on, Nellie and Lady Bird might have heard something from their husbands. Ethel Kennedy might know a thing or two, as might Caroline. And good old Gerry Ford...
I suspect Maheu had much stronger ties to the mob than he ever let on. He and Phyllis McGuire might know a few of Giancana's secrets, which may or may not have included the Kennedy assassination..
Hi Pat-
It's hard to imagine the demons that Caroline must face every day of her life. One wonders if she really knows. I guess it comes down to whether or not Jackie knew the real story. If she did, I would guess that she told her kids at some point.
-
Hi Tim-
I suppose you could be right about Hunt, in that there is no evidence of his involvement. However, with what we do know about his Agency activities, his ties to the Mexico City and JM/WAVE stations, and his apparent lies about his whereabouts on 11/22, I'm inclined to believe he knows quite a bit. Even if he wasn't involved, even if he was never in DP, it would shock me if he didn't know how things went down based on his associations with the exiles, and of course, within the Agency. I could be wrong, but that's always been my feeling about Hunt.
I've always felt that the Paines were involved. But I'm not sure about how much they would have known about the actual plot. My thought has always been that they were told by their contact to do X and Y with Lee and Marina. But it would seem foolish to have told them much more than that. Of course, it's possible that after the assassination they may have been able to connect some dots in their heads that could explain a few things. But Ruth maintains her claims of innocence to this day. Has Michael ever said much of interest? Anyone know where he is these days?
So among the living, who's your MVP? Who knows the most about the origins, scope, and prime movers of the plot? Hunt? Castro (I know The Big Cigar gets Tim's vote)? Lady Bird? George HW Bush? I'm sure there are other good candidates that have escaped me for the moment (escaped us all, in reality).
My LMVP (Living Most Valuable Player) is Hunt (or GHWB). I think. How's that for conviction?
-
I think we are all in agreement that Howard Hunt is not going to give us a confession of his sins on his death bed.
I do however think that when he does pass away we may see more information released on his part in the assassination.
Victor Marchetti said that he saw a document suggesting a limited hangout involving Hunt, perhaps this may happen after Hunts death when he would be unable to release any damaging evidence in retaliation.
This would of course be highly censored and made to look as though Hunt pretty much orchestrated the assassination, but it would be a step in the right direction.
In the next few years it looks like the CIA is going to take on another form and possibly change name, this could be part of starting fresh and turning a new leaf.
In short what I am trying to suggest is that once howard hunt passes away, the CIA will release information linking hunt to the assassination which shows that he acted independently of the agency wiht cuban exiles.
I would think that this is quite plausible as it would give the CIA a more transparent and less ogreish look and also show that they have changed since those days.
John
Hi John-
It's quite a frustrating situation with Hunt. He's certainly someone who, I believe, knows a good bit about what happened in DP. He's someone we can get our hands on, and yet we can't. Intolerable really.
He's got to be one of the very few left alive that still know a significant amount about what really happened. There are others that might know pieces of the thing, but probably not many (or none?) that know as much as EHH. Among the living with first-hand knowledge, is he the current MVP?
-
Hi Don-
Excellent job! Thanks for the informative post. These new documents are important.
In a prior post, I suggested that NSAM 263, Kennedy’s signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963, Kennedy’s decision to opt for a naval blockade during the missile crisis (despite pressure from within his own administration to strike), Kennedy’s intensive back-channel communications with Khrushchev re: the missile crisis while publicly taking a firm, no-negotiations stance toward the Soviet Union, Jean Daniel’s meeting with Castro, and the deal Kennedy ultimately made to resolve the missile crisis form a framework, a context, to help us understand JFK’s “dual track” efforts with regard to Cuba.
Without opening that can of worms again on this thread (Cuba), I believe that these new documents and the supporting statements made by Schlesinger, McNamara, Galbraith, Edward Kennedy, Sorenson, and Ellsberg, add yet another significant structural element to that framework which shows us, regardless of any political maneuvering in which he may have been engaged, JFK’s true beliefs with regard to confrontation, war, and communism (eradication by force vs. diplomatic/political solutions).
As Dallek and Kaysen correctly point out, these latest revelations don’t PROVE anything. It is impossible to know with 100% certainty what track Kennedy would have ultimately pursued, or been compelled to pursue, with regard to Vietnam. Tim Gratz has pointed out the same about Kennedy’s Cuba policy. So perhaps these events, when viewed in isolation, can be interpreted somewhat loosely. But when these matters of fact are viewed in relation to one another, we have no less than seven matters of historical record, all of which occurred almost immediately prior to Kennedy’s bloody removal from office, that force us to draw certain conclusions about Kennedy’s true beliefs and his ultimate foreign policy track, beginning at least as early as April 1962, but most especially during and after October 1962.
Couple this with the fact that the CIA and the Joint Chiefs learned from the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis that while Kennedy may seek their counsel, he would not be manipulated or bullied into supporting an agenda in which he did not believe. They now knew that they could not control him. Given the fact that many of these men (Taylor, LeMay, Lemnitzer, Dulles, Walker, Lansdale, etc.) were hardened Cold Warriors who helped their country to victory in WWII and who were now leading the fight against the communists around the globe, it is interesting to wonder about their attitudes toward their commander- the young, inexperienced, independent-spirited president who would engage in so much back-channel discussion about peace with the Soviet leader at the height of the Cold War. All while Mary Meyer was filling his head with these pacifist notions, Dr. Jacobson was giving him daily injections of God-knows-what, while he’s been sleeping with Giancana’s woman, a possible communist spy in Ellen Rometsch, and who knows how many other women.
And so it would seem that by late 1962, Kennedy was surrounded by some very powerful men to whom he was diametrically opposed when it came to the very serious issues of national security. Add to that the women, drugs, and Kennedy’s refusal to be bullied, and it’s hard to imagine these men had much respect for him by the time 1963 rolled around. These were not stupid men. They probably ticked off the same seven foreign policy issues listed above and were terrified of what that might mean in the global struggle of ideologies. These were big-picture guys. Men with strong views about how the world ought to be. And men of action. It’s hard to believe they would sit back impotently and watch JFK piss it all away.
So, does this prove that they organized and carried out his murder? No. No more so than do the motivations possessed by the other casts of usual suspects prove that they “did it.”
But as more of these pieces fall into place, especially as they continue to construct the framework that reveals Kennedy's true foreign policy agenda, it becomes even more difficult to imagine that these men just sat back and did nothing.
-
Is Felt telling the truth?
Mark Felt, who retired from the FBI after rising to its second most senior position, has identified himself as the "Deep Throat" source quoted by The Washington Post to break the Watergate scandal that led to President Nixon's resignation, Vanity Fair magazine said Tuesday.
"I'm the guy they used to call Deep Throat," he told John D. O'Connor, the author of Vanity Fair's exclusive that appears in its July issue.
Felt, now 91 and living in Santa Rosa, Calif., reportedly gave O'Connor permission to disclose his identity.
"The Felt family cooperated fully, providing old photographs for the story and agreeing to sit for portraits," Vanity Fair stated in a press release.
Felt said he was "only doing his duty" and did not seek to bring down Nixon over the cover-up of a break-in at Democratic Party offices in the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C.
Carl Bernstein, who with Bob Woodward broke the story as Washington Post reporters, issued a statement neither denying nor confirming Felt's claim. Bernstein stated he and Woodward would be keeping their pledge to reveal the source only once that person dies.
NBC News commentator Chris Matthews, who wrote a book about Watergate, said he wasn't surprised, adding that Felt "has always been the leading suspect."
The last Felt boomlet was in 1999, when a high school senior in New York claimed that Bernstein's son let the secret slip at a summer camp.
In the article, O'Connor reports that Felt's children, Joan and Mark Jr., urged him to go public after he revealed his secret to them in 2002.
Felt argued with them, O'Connor writes, saying he didn't want the story out there.
“I don’t think (being Deep Throat) was anything to be proud of,” Felt indicated to his son, Mark Jr., at one point, according to the article. “You (should) not leak information to anyone.”
But Joan is quoted as saying that "Bob Woodward's gonna get all the glory for this, but we could make at least enough money to pay some bills, like the debt I've run up for the kids' education. Let's do it for the family."
O'Connor adds that Felt finally agreed, saying "that's a good reason" even though Mark Jr. recalls him as saying "he wasn't particularly interested" in disclosing the secret.
Felt is one of a number of people who have been named over the years as the source whose disclosures helped bring down the Nixon presidency. Others include Assistant Attorney General Henry Peterson, deputy White House counsel Fred Fielding, and even ABC newswoman Diane Sawyer, who then worked in the White House press office.
In 1999, Felt denied he was the man.
“I would have done better,” Felt told The Hartford Courant. “I would have been more effective. Deep Throat didn’t exactly bring the White House crashing down, did he?”
-
This is strange. It would be interesting to know what the text in question contains that has the group so concerned. I would tend to think these folks are just nuts, but the article mentions that they are a PAC. I wish it went into more detail about this group. Maybe it's nothing sinister. Any thoughts?
THE BOROWITZ REPORT
Monday, May 30, 2005
A political-action group in the state of Kansas is applying pressure on the Kansas State Board of Education to ban any and all references to the 20th century from school textbooks, a spokesman for the group confirmed today. The move to ban the 20th century came up in a series of contentious school-board hearings as the group loudly complained that the state’s current textbooks are rife with references to the controversial century, which they say may or may not have happened.
"These textbooks state unequivocally that the 20th century occurred, as if that were a proven historic fact," said Gordon Lavalier, the group’s leader and spokesman.
"The simple truth is, the 20th century is and has always been nothing but a theory."
If the group gets its way, starting in the fall of 2005, Kansas students would be taught from newly reconstituted history books that end with the year 1899. Among students at Kansas City’s John F. Kennedy High School, which the group has demanded be renamed William Jennings Bryan High School, reaction to the ban on the 20th century was mixed.
"If the 20th century didn’t happen, does that mean I have to give up my iPod?" asked junior Carolynn Bevins, 17.
But sophomore Zach Golloway, 16, was more upbeat about the news: "If it means that we have to learn a hundred less years of history, that would rule!"
-
As always Ron, thanks!
-
To James:
I think it may assume a conspiracy too vast to presume the conspirators had someone present during Oswald's interrogation. Granted, anything is possible.
Or do you have a specific candidate for the police or FBI spy?
Tim,
I don't have any specific candidate but submit that once LHO was arrested, the plotters would have been desperately working on knowing what was being said in that interview room.
Like you mentioned, they would have been sweating bullets and men capable of successfully plotting the assassination of the President don't strike me as being reactive but completely proactive.
I would imagine the scramble was on while LHO was being driven back to police headquarters. They may have even bugged the room. Who knows?
James
Hi James-
I had never really considered this, but it's a very interesting point. Wasn't Oswald also interrogated at DPD by the FBI? I'm sure some knowledgeable Forum member has a list of the individuals present throughout LHO's questioning. Even at a local level, Earl Cabell, HL Hunt, and Murchison would have had sufficient clout to put/have a man on the inside. Just thinking out loud.
One thing is certain, if LHO's arrest was unanticipated by the plotters, James is 100% correct: "they would have been sweating bullets and men capable of successfully plotting the assassination of the President don't strike me as being reactive but completely proactive."
Below is a description of some of Oswald's Texas Theater activities (http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr198-jfk.html). The author appears to have some Lee v. Harvey suggestions going on here as well:
Researcher Jones Harris interviewed Julia Postal in 1963. When Harris asked Julia Postal if she had sold a ticket to "Oswald" (the man arrested), she burst into tears and left the room. A short time later Harris again asked Postal if she sold a ticket to "Oswald" and got the same response. From Postal's refusal to answer this question and her reaction to same, Harris believes that Postal did sell "Oswald" a theater ticket. On February 29, 1964 Postal told FBI Agent Arthur Carter "she was unable to recall whether or not he bought a ticket." (A few months later, when the Warren Report was issued, Postal's memory had improved. She was now certain the man did not buy a ticket. See page 178 of the report.)
Butch Burroughs, an employee of the Texas Theater, heard someone enter the theater shortly after 1:00 PM and go to the balcony. Harvey Oswald had apparently entered the theater and gone to the balcony without being seen by Burroughs. About 1:15 PM Harvey came down from the balcony and bought popcorn from Burroughs. Burroughs watched him walk down the aisle and take a seat on the main floor. He sat next to Jack Davis during the opening credits of the first movie, several minutes before 1:20 PM. Harvey then moved across the aisle and sat next to another man. A few minutes later Davis noticed he moved again and sat next to a pregnant woman. Just before the police arrived, the pregnant woman went to the balcony and was never seen again. In addition to Harvey there were seven people watching the movie on the main level (six after the pregnant woman left). Within 10 minutes, he had sat next to half of them.
We have followed the probable movements of the man wearing the "brown shirt," Harvey Oswald, from the Book Depository, to the bus, to the cab and to the rooming house. We still don't know how he managed to get from the rooming house to the Texas Theater without being seen. What about Lee Oswald, the man wearing the "white shirt," and possibly seen by Arnold Rowland in the west end window of the 6th floor shortly before the assassination?
If the above account is accurate, it appears from his movements within the theater that he was looking for someone (his "contact"?).
So, are there two schools of thought here:
1) LHO was never supposed to make it to the TT, but was told to go there by his "handler" after the motorcade on 11/22 as a contingency? A redundancy built into the operational plan, so that if "they" didn't get Oswald as planned, at least they knew where he'd be. But the DPD got there too quickly, before they could whack him? Or maybe there was a DPD officer in the arresting posse who was charged with this task, but circumstances made it impossible for him to carry out such a plan?
2) It wasn't part of the plan to eliminate LHO in Dallas. "They" were planning to get him to Cuba. LHO was at the TT to meet someone who would arrange this, but the DPD got there first.
Do I understand the two competing theories? Or am I out in left field somewhere?
-
Dawn wrote:
. . . seen to it that LBJ appinted [sic] a Warren Commission to make sure LHO was found to be the official killer. You have just stated here that you originally believed this fairy tale.
Dawn, I do not remember if I ever originally believed the "fairy tale" of the WC Report. I think from the get-go I, like many other Americans, suspected the murder of Oswald indicated he was being silenced.
I read the early critics of the WC, Lane, Epstein and Thompson are the ones I remember and concluded there was probably a conspiracy. But I thought LHO was a part of it.
Now I am fairly convinced he was not a shooter (because of the lady who observed him in the lunchroom at 12:15 and Truly and Baker finding him there only a few moments (was it ninety seconds) after the bullets stopped. I am less sure whether he played a part, witting or not, in the assassination. For instance, he may have smuggled his rifle into the building.
I now think he was probably working for American intelligence but I am concerned he may have been "doubled" during his stay in the Soviet Union. I think polygraphs are right more often than not and Nosenko flunked the polygraph question whether the KGB returned Oswald to the US on a mission. Of course, as I am sure you know, the usual idiots at the CIA did not ask Nosenko whether Oswald was on a KGB mission to kill Kennedy so Nosenko's deception would be consistent with LHO being on a relatively harmless mission for the KGB (if any KGB mission can be considered "relatively harmless").
Let me assure you I am not trying to "hijack" the Forum or "sabotage" it or turn every thread into a "Fidel did it" discussion and I will do my best to "stifle" myself (to borrow a phrase from a popular seventies TV show).
However what started the Fidel discussion on this thread was John's original post (#1 on this thread) claiming that JFK's assassin, former Key West resident Gilberto Policarpo Lopez, was a CIA agent!!! (An assertion with no basis whatsover, of course.)
I'd be interested in sources to learn more about Gilberto Policarpo Lopez, if any Forum members can offer suggestions. Thanks.
-
"The basic problems facing the world today are not susceptible to a military solution."
~John F. Kennedy
-
I have to agree with the above members. Tim's efforts to stifle genuine progress are becoming a little tiring. I think John's work here is first class research pointing to a plausible scenario, well worth further enquiry. I don't think it's fair that the efforts of John and others be constantly diverted by having to always refute Tim's claims of Castro's involvement. Let's have a thread for Castro and contain all those theories within, including a poll of members on whether they believe Castro did it. Refer all 'Castro did it" arguments to that thread.
John, back to the question on US Military foreknowledge/involvement. What sways me towards believing they knew in advance (and may have been original conspirators) is the arrest and incarceration of the codebreaker Dinkin, who had apparently discovered details of the assassination in advance as well as the absence of the codebooks on AF1. Do you believe these events to be significant?
Hi Mark-
I have heard of Dinkin, but I don't really know the story here? Could you direct me to a good resource to learn about it? Or if it's not too much trouble, could you give me the quick and dirty on it? Thanks!
Greg,
As you can see, Ron's answered your question. Ron's a mine of information and a very helpful forum member. If you have a question re the assassination and he's online, you'll have your answer in no time. I must confess I haven't read Bloody Treason so I didn't know about Dinkin's lawsuit. This whole thing's a steep learning curve for me but I'm in for the long haul and as Maxwell Smart would say, "And loving it!". Like your posts, by the way.
Hi Mark-
Ron certainly does make some great contributions here, and I really enjoy learning from him and so many of the other knowledgable members.
I haven't read Tyman or Russell either, but they are both on my list to purchase.
You certainly are correct about the learning curve. I thought I had a pretty good handle on things when I discovered this forum. Turns out, I didn't even know what I didn't know. Andy and John have a tremendous thing going here. Lots of motivated, intelligent people who all seem to bring something a little bit different to the table.
Take care, Mark. And thanks for the kind words.
-
I have heard of Dinkin, but I don't really know the story here?
Greg,
Eugene Dinkin was a U.S. Army private who worked as a code breaker in France. He went AWOL from his unit in Metz, France in early November 1963, telling reporters and embassies in Geneva, Luxembourg, and Frankfurt of a plot to assassinate JFK. Upon return to his unit, Dinkin was put under psychiatric care by the military, which diagnosed him as suffering from a rare mental condition called schizo-assassination prognostication.
In a civil action lawsuit filed in 1975, Dinkin wrote that he sent a letter on 10/22/63 to Attorney General Robert Kennedy warning him that “an attempt to assassinate President Kennedy would occur on November 28th, 1963; that if it were to succeed, blame would then be placed upon a Communist or Negro, who would be designated the assassin.” Dinkin also wrote in the letter that “believing that the conspiracy was being engineered by elements of the military, I did speculate that a military coup might ensue.”
The Dinkin story is covered well in Twyman’s Bloody Treason in addition to Russell’s book. There is also this government document:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/cia...10125_0001a.htm
Thanks very much, Ron. I look forward to reading up on this aspect of the case.
-
Hi Mark-
I have heard of Dinkin, but I don't really know the story here? Could you direct me to a good resource to learn about it? Or if it's not too much trouble, could you give me the quick and dirty on it? Thanks!
The single best source is likely still Dick Russell's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" [preferably the original monster-sized edition.] FWIW...
Thanks RCD, I'll add it to my list.
-
I have to agree with the above members. Tim's efforts to stifle genuine progress are becoming a little tiring. I think John's work here is first class research pointing to a plausible scenario, well worth further enquiry. I don't think it's fair that the efforts of John and others be constantly diverted by having to always refute Tim's claims of Castro's involvement. Let's have a thread for Castro and contain all those theories within, including a poll of members on whether they believe Castro did it. Refer all 'Castro did it" arguments to that thread.
John, back to the question on US Military foreknowledge/involvement. What sways me towards believing they knew in advance (and may have been original conspirators) is the arrest and incarceration of the codebreaker Dinkin, who had apparently discovered details of the assassination in advance as well as the absence of the codebooks on AF1. Do you believe these events to be significant?
Hi Mark-
I have heard of Dinkin, but I don't really know the story here? Could you direct me to a good resource to learn about it? Or if it's not too much trouble, could you give me the quick and dirty on it? Thanks!
Could it be?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Greg Wagner
Hi James-
I think they're a match. Both men appear to be of equal height (in relation to one another) in both photos. Look at the hats as well. Dead-on match (although you can't quite make out the band on the Robertson figure's hat, the shape/style is the same). Similar facial features (although not enough to be conclusive on its own), same height ratio in both photos, same hats. 1-2-3. Any ONE of these could be a coincidence (although I don't really believe in coincidences where this case is concerned), but three coincidences surrounding this pair of men?? As George W. Bush says when asked if he's ever made any mistakes, "No." IMHO, This is the same pair of dudes.
You are a keen observer, sir. Good job.