Jump to content
The Education Forum

Michael Clark

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,737

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Michael Clark

    Watergate doc. From New release

    in Watergate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    This Document shows how llittle was known by people in power, way back when

     

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10135-10047.pdf

     

    To*: Teheran

    Routine Plargyle

    For Ambassador Helms from Maury

    Refs:

    A. Dir 477397

    B. (redact) 17-8 21979

     C. (Redact) 21990

    1. At Senate armed services committee party 13 December, I asked Tom Korologos, Deputy Assistant for Legislative affairs, if he could throw light on bigger problem. He said in confidence Baker had discussed agency/Watergate matter with him and made clear that Bakers central hang up is thesis advanced by Copeland and St. George that agency staged Watergate in order to entrap plumbers. Korologos indicated Baker may have been particularly influenced by Copeland allegations. 

    2. On December 13, Lyle Miller, with Baker's permission, received 190 page transcript of Martinez testimony before Baker. In general, Martinez account of significant developments consistent with agency testimony and records available to Baker. Moreover, Martinez said Sturges denied allegations which St. George attributes to him. However, Martinez did state to Baker that he consider tradecraft of plumbers unbelievably faulty. From this Baker apparently infers that his faulty tradecraft was deliberate on part of at least one of participants who sought thereby to lead other participants into trap. Martinez flatly denied St. George allegation that he was "anyone's double agent."

    3. Understand another advocate of the "Entrapment" theory, (not necessarily entrapment by CIA, but merely entrapment by a mysterious "third force") is Ed Henley, former OGC staffer and more recently senior official with Mobile Oil and known to be on close terms with Baker.

    4. Several days ago in response to your query from Tom Braden we sent Braden a copy of the memo given Symington and 7 November and quoted in reference A., paragraph 4. On 13 December we received from Braden, without covering comment, a copy of the "Tom Braden Report", (apparently a newsletter, understand he is no longer associated with Los Angeles Times although they syndicate his material) of 11 December entitled "Can He Blame it on CIA?",  full text, which has not yet appeared in any publication we know of, as follows:

    "Washington – the last turn in the defense of Richard Nixon will be to blame the Watergate on the Central intelligence Agency. Such is the view of former CIA director Richard Helms, and such is the direction in which senator Howard Baker (R. Tennessee) and his minority staff on the Ervin Comittee, are now proceeding. It is not a very salable theory, but it's about all that's left;  and if it could be made sellable, it might get Richard Nixon off the hook. Consider: if CIA accomplished the break-in, the subsequent White House cover up might be excused on the grounds that the president had to protect this secret intelligence agency. And if the cover-up could be excused on that ground, unrelated crimes such as illegal contributions, forgeries and alleged extortions might be pardoned as mistakes of judgment arising from excessive political zeal. Thus, "some sinister force" General Alexander Haig put it to Judge J Sirica the other day, might eventually be used to explain it all. Three recent magazine articles – two published in the National Review by a former CIA employee named miles Copeland, The other published in Harpers by Andrew Saint George – suggest the President' last stand. Senator Baker has called the attention of all three articles to his colleagues on the Ervin committee.  Copeland alleges that the Watergate operation was CIA's is retaliation against the White House for setting up the plumbers as a rival apparatus. "McCord took Liddy into the trap," he writes, "and after all, the CIA specialists in operations of the plumbers's kind had a lot to gain by putting the White House clowns out of business. "St. George makes a similar allegation and adds detail worthy of 007 and a Fleming novel: "Ha, well," he quotes Helms as telling the young watch officer he telephoned him to report the break-in, "they finally did it… A pity; they really blew it… If the White House tries to ring me,… Just tell them you reported McCord's arrest already. Said I was very surprised." Senator Baker has also asked his colleagues to view an 38 page memorandum prepared by one of his investigators name George Murphy. Murphy's findings, Baker hints, implicate the CIA. Does the theory that the CIA is at the bottom of the Watergate makes sense? Is it a reasonable Presidential deffence? Richard helms has testified as follows: "I am prepared to swear that no such conversation with the CIA watch officer ever took place... The quotations attributed to me… We're never said by me. Of this I am certain". From the time he first learned of the Watergate break-in, Helms has been afraid that it would be blamed on him. Put yourself for a moment in his shoes. You're a career servant. You join the Office of Strategic Services during the war and you stayed on to help a series of directors build the first US intelligence service.President Lyndon Johnson has made you it's director. You feel the responsibility keenly. Now consider what happens to you in the subsequent administration. First, an old friend of the president, Patrick Gray, is appointed to be chief of your major rival agency. One month later, you are told by H. R. Haldeman that the President has appointed another old friend, George Vernon Walters, to be your deputy. Another month later, and just after the break in, you and your new deputy are summoned to the White House. You listen while Haldeman tells your deputy that "it has been decided " that he should go to Gray and ask him not to investigate the money found on the burglars because it might expose your operations.  For the next few days, the White House calls to discuss the break-in and to suggest that you pay money to the families of those arrested. 11 days after the break-in and on the eve of your departure for a long scheduled trip, Gray calls to cancel an appointment you had made with him. With this sequence of events in mind, what would you suppose? That people at the White House might be trying to blame the Watergate on you? That's what Helms supposed and supposes still."

    5. On 14 December Baker met with Robert Bennett, of Mullen company, his father Senator Wallace Bennet and George Murphy to review agency memos covering our relationships with Mullen Company.after meeting, which lasted two hours, bakery emerged and told Lila Miller for everything Ben it said was consistent with what we had told bigger and it was becoming clearer that agency not involved but Baker reserves option to pursue matter furthersince he doesn't want to go to his grave without having gotten to the bottom of it. Indicating he is still receiving information implicating agency, he asked Fred Thompson, minority Council of Ervin committee, if you should tell Miller "about the money".Thompson advised him not to, remarking he was not sure of his source. We have no idea what this refers to.

    6. Many thanks to reference C, which has been discussed with Colby, who is commenting to you there on directly.

    7. Warmest regards and seasons greetings

    EEIMPDET

    Date 17 Dec., 73

    Orig. J. M Maury

     

    New document releases 2017 and beyond

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    New document releases 2017 and beyond

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    CIA Location codes research

    in JFK Research

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    Thread Post 27

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10223.pdf

    James P. O'Connell, attaining new clearances. 4-25-63. July of 1965, O'Connell was relieved as Chief of Far East Security Operations, replaced by Arthur Sheridan. McCord replace Sheridan.

    All redacted

    13 - 27

    13 - 28

    18 - 17

    18 - 27

    13 - 14 (?)

    13  - 13

    12 - 5

    (?)

    13 - 25

    13 - 1

     

     

    Reassignment  May '62

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10288.pdf

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10286.pdf

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10292.pdf

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10295.pdf

     

    13 - 26

    13 - 17

     

    Travel orders for O'Connell

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10302.pdf (1958)

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10299.pdf (1959)

    16 - 43 

     

     

     

    New document releases 2017 and beyond

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    Hede Massing

    I have never heard of this person, yet there are many documents prior to, at least the document number of the document linked below.  This person only came to my attention by many entries on him or her as I scan for Cryptonyms, location codes or other items of interest. IIRC correctly this person is of domestic and European interest, in the years surrounding 1962.

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10193.pdf

     

    This doc. Goes back to 1949. It's largely illegible. Mention is made of Berlin. 

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10265.pdf

     

     

    "Bubble Top' - was it bullet proof?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

    Michael, I began by asking two related questions. No conclusions. No speculation. I asked questions. Others added the "may or may not" part in reply. Therefore, based ONLY on my two questions that began this thread (nothing to do with as LHO guilty or not guilty), and the fact that JFK was killed by a bullet to the head in Dallas while sitting in his car, others said that maybe and maybe not that a bullet would have hit JFK in the manner that it did. What I added was that the added noise factor, while keeping in mind that an obstruction has now been placed in front of the shooter, would have alerted the driver that something untoward was occurring. So no speculation, and no assumption. Just questions asked by me and answered by others. The question is unrelated to LHO. Mervyn

     

    3 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

    Question: Was the bubble top bullet proof?

    If it was, or even if it would have only deflected bullets from their original trajectory, then it presents a problem for a premeditated conspiracy, unless the conspiracy included the person who ordered its removal and possibly the person who removed it.

    Follow-up question: What if the bubble top had not been removed?

     

    Mervyn, The above is your first post. It takes the form of..

    Question...

    If; then; unless..... proposition

    Question.

    ----------------

    Your proposition is false because of the failed logic in your premise.

     

    But, alas, I am sure this is not lost on the reader, and I fear the reader may tire of this debate. Have at it. I a done.

    CIA Location codes research

    in JFK Research

    Posted · Edited by Michael Clark

    Thread Post 24

     

    15-6 = The Hague

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10044.pdf

    ------------------------

    20 - 6 The Hague 

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10116-10049.pdf

    ------------------------------

     

    15-6 = The Hague  (20-6 HAGU error?)

    15-20 Frankfurt 

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10046.pdf

     

    ----------------

    15 - 6.    The Hague 

    https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10044.pdf

    ---------------

    15 - 6 The Hague

    15 - 20    Frankfurr

    20 - 6    Hague

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    New document releases 2017 and beyond

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    "Bubble Top' - was it bullet proof?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

    Hi Mike. You make a statement that LHO "did not do it". That is your opinion based upon no demonstrable evidence. It is a theory held by some. You could not take that into a court of law because an army of people would disagree with you. If you read what I wrote, you will see that I posed two questions. It was answered by others who stated that bullets may or may not have hit JFK. Mervyn

    Mervyn, you stated...

    "...even if it would have only deflected bullets from their original trajectory, then it presents a problem for a premeditated conspiracy, unless the conspiracy included the person who ordered its removal and possibly the person who removed it." ....

    You did more than ask questions. You made the above  and subsequent arguments which are fallicies by the nature of the assumptions iimbedded in them.

    Michael

    "Bubble Top' - was it bullet proof?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

    Hi Mike. I am not assuming anything. The fact of the matter is that JFK was shot in his car. That is the only fact you have. Everything else is speculation in which LBJ might have been shot, or Earl Warren might have been shot or anyone else anywhere might have been shot. But the only fact that exists is that JFK was shot in his car in Dallas. So my point is, if that bubble top had not been removed then all of the rest of the speculative ideas would be null and void, if he was not shot when he was shot and where he was shot. Who shot him is another matter. Mervyn

    You can't get to the truth without speculation. That is the scientific method. You take a hypothesis and then try to disprove it. We know that LHO did not do it. So spaculation, hypothesis, and the testing of theories is the only path to the truth.

    Your conclusion that the bubble top would have foiled the plan to Assassinate JFK that day is speculation that I find unsustainable.

    "Bubble Top' - was it bullet proof?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

    Question: Was the bubble top bullet proof?

    If it was, or even if it would have only deflected bullets from their original trajectory, then it presents a problem for a premeditated conspiracy, unless the conspiracy included the person who ordered its removal and possibly the person who removed it.

    Follow-up question: What if the bubble top had not been removed?

     

    Not really Mervyn, You are assuming that the conspiracy unfolded exactly as planned, and exactly as the Warren Omission says it did. There were plenty of ways to kill JFK that day. And he was going to be killed whether they could pin it on LHO or not.

×
×
  • Create New...