29 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

James,

 

Finally, regarding that evil, evil Tennent H. Bagley, if he were alive he'd probably say to you, "If it's true as you say, James, that 'the Cold War died in 1985,' why then did the Soviets/Russians continue to wage so many "active measures" and "strategic deception" counterintelligence operations against us and our allies?"

 

--  T.G.

Tommy,

Bagely was likely a sadistic, myopic torturer. His later claims about Nosenko are very likely clouded by that part of human nature which demands that we justify what we have done in order to absolve ourselves of guilt. He was also likely incompetent and dangerously-so.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32359254.pdf

28 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Bill Decker and John Tower - it’s a thread on the Education Forum by Bill Kelly.

Yes. That’s a good thread. 

15 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

James,

 

OMG.  I mean, I mean.

 

When you say "bombed the Kremlin," are you referring to the 1999 "Russian Apartment Bombings" (which bombings, none of them within Moscow's city limits and therefore nowhere near "The Kremlin," by the way, which killed 300 Russian citizens and led to the imposition of martial law, the assumption of the presidency by Putin, etc, etc, and which bombing were traced to Putin's favorite charity organization, the FSB (you know, the successor, along with the SVR, to the KGB, the NKVD, the MGB, the ...) ?

Is that what you're referring to?

 

--  T.G.

I think he means the Russian White House, not the Kremlin. It was the Russian Parliament or Parliament offices at the time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_(Moscow)

...and the 1991 coup attempt..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_coup_d'état_attempt

Or, more probably, The 1993 Constitutional Crisis...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

And then the plan was revised again by Bundy, who proposed the D-Day-2 false flag attack with 16 planes.

Kennedy cut the number to 8.

How can you deny this with a straight face?

It is an important debate. Greg Burnham follows Prouty in maintaining that Bundy called off an airstrike the night before, when three planes were left. 

10 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

When I first arrived here on this Forum not that long ago, I explained how I got here and why I am here. It begins with Weaver's book. So I began a thread and was told that no one was interested. No one bothered to engage the subject either. So I moved on. Look it up in the index and you will find it.

Paul Brancato engaged you. Sometimes it takes a few posts, highlighting points for debate, to garner the interest of forum members.

Greg Burnham shared this, from The Black Vault, today on Facebook. The Black Vault has converted (all?) documents into a searchable, clickable index.

http://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/j-f-k-assassination-records/#

The entire collection of all records released have been compiled below. Despite the files originally being released in a non-searchable format, The Black Vault converted 100% of the files to a searchable format, and compiled them into a search engine above.  In addition, The Black Vault created a 3,032 page index file of the entire collection, with clickable links to download the files.  This also can be downloaded below.

The Documents Released

Please Note: Due to the size of the following index, which is more than 47MB in size, we recommend to download (right click, save as…) the .pdf file to your desktop, and open it from there. 

 CLICK HERE FOR A COMPLETE INDEX OF DOCUMENTS RELEASED [3,032 Pages, 28.3MB]

9 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Have a listen to this version of Pre-Millennial-ism as applied to the politics of 1966, it was heard daily in Dallas on KRLD-AM and daily throughout the UK on all of the major offshore commercial radio stations:

https://soundcloud.com/garner-ted-armstrong-ea/1966_twt-from-west

That link did not work for me. I found this...

12 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

However, I find Jason's views to be very refreshing

I felt the same way when he first showed-up. However, his acceptance of Paul Trejo' s postings, which are diametrically opposed to his (Jason's) stated aims of embracing truth and evidence were a huge disappointment.

 

 However, what I am discovering is that the term "right-winger" is being tossed around as though it is meaningful.

Firmly agreed. Further, even commonly accepted understandings of a "right-wing" are dinifinitevely truncated, in Jason and Trejo' dialogue, to precisely what they want it to mean. They don't see a right wing beyond Dallas, Birchers and the like. They don't see a "Radical Right" that can be traced up through the upper eschlons of the American power structure.

 

What is missing in this "discussion" about Walker is any sort of concept or knowledge of Pre-millennia-ism.

This is new to me. I am listening. I would like to see a dedicated thread on this.

 

 Mervyn

5 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

I guess this just adds to more speculation to the 50 years of speculation that went before. It is such a easy question that I ask: What happened to LHO after leaving UK Immigration at Southampton, England and his sudden, unexpected and contradictory departure at London's Heathrow Airport on a mystery flight? I forgot, you are ignoring me but answering me at the same time. LOL.

Well, thanks for entertaining my question. We are kind of off topic now.

But to be sure, Mervyn, Paul is not ignoring you. Paul's style can, unfortunately, be difficult upon first introductions. It took me months to realize that he is a fair, intelligent, knowledgeable straight-shooter. He just happens to be blunt. And , Mervyn, you are fairly blunt as well. Also, keep in mind that it Is Paul Trejo who maintains a growing list of people on his ignore list, and he publicly announces each addition when he does-so. Jason does the same thing, that is how they come to have a personal discussion instead of a debate, in a debate forum. You and Paul Brancato had a misunderstanding and it is unnecessarily affecting ongoing debate between the two of you. Paul Brancato does not stick his fingers in his hears and stick out his tongue, like Jason and Trejo.

Thanks again,

Michael

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

 I agree that Russia is a diversion, but from what? He’s taking us backward, destroying what little progress we’ve made, harnessing the old hatreds and divisions that still underly our fragile Union in service of his ego and financial ambitions. I don’t see anything good on the domestic front.

Russia may be a diversion to get the old guard back in charge. If I am right, Trump will be taken out be the media, before he serves 2 years; and we may end-up with 10 Years of Pence.

I hold the same revulsion for Trump that many people do. But there is no getting around the fact that most politicians and people are multi faceted, we/they wear different hats. One hat that Trump says he wears is that of the deep-state disruptor. I see some evidence of that being true. His recent statements regarding Big Pharma is hugely important. He did not cave completely on the records release and his most out of character statement came with regard to the same when he said "I have no choice" back in November. That was something to behold, I not know if that struck a chord with anyone else.

He promised a stupid wall and he has to follow through, or try to.

I just see him as posssibly making a turn towards the better. He is no conservative, fiscally, morally or otherwise. He's not a neocon. He's not a real oligarch, in the mold of Rockefeller and the like. He's a phony, wannabeee Oligarch.

Lastly the media is and has been on a Russia-did-it trip with regard to the elections. I start any analysis  by assuming that I am being lied to, and then see if that makes sense. I don't see the Russians as having put Trump in power, I see domestic forces as having prevented Hillary from taking the WH, propping up Trump for a couple years, then sliding in an unelected agent for the Sam-ole same-ole crap that we have seen for 50 years.

So, although it may go against the very core and conscience of your soul, you (anyone) may want to consider voicing support for Trump, because ten years of Pence might very well be the alternative.

5 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Hi Michael. What I am saying, in agreement with Jason (who states that it is a possible explanation), is that until the moment LHO stepped out of UK Immigration at Southampton, England, he thought he would be in the UK for a week, and then he would go to school in Switzerland.

I have a friend who worked for Marconi and he was joined in a pub by someone who sat down next to him and in the course of conversation offered him a job on a ship. It was obvious that the person who sat down next to him knew exactly who he was before he began the conversation. Later, this same friend was tapped with two others, one a senior retired BBC engineering man and the other another Marconi employee, and they were asked to go and set up the British propaganda radio station aimed at Ian Smith's self-proclaimed Rhodesia. It was also clear that this UK Foreign Office / MI6 job was offered after all three had been previously vetted.

I am sure you are familiar with the expression "making an offer that you cannot refuse". The US Mafia is not alone in making such propositions, the undercover agencies of government who do not answer to the public, also make such "offers".

I have no idea how such an "offer" was made to LHO, but it does seem to suggest that it was made in England, because all of a sudden, LHO's announced plans disappeared and then, by some mysterious route after leaving Heathrow, he cropped up at an expensive hotel in Helsinki.

Mervyn

 

Thanks Mervyn, To be sure, I am not convinced that The CIA or ONI could or would create an effective false defector operation by compelling their agent under threat. I appreciate your position thank you for the clarification; I will keep an open mind regarding that scenario.

Yet, it should be remembered that LHO left the Marines, under a family hardship discharge, went home and almost immediately left for Europe. If he believed, prior to his discharge, that he was going to school in Switzerland, or even knew that he was going on some other operation, for which college coursework was a cover, then I believe that this whole operation started while he was in the Marines. I think that this early initiation of this operation, commencing with an early marine discharge, just does not jibe with a coerced operative.

But in the end, I am wondering what the importance of this element of the Europe trip really amounts to. Is this just an idle side conversation of is it important part of the picture you are developing.

For me it is of interest because I have my ears open for ONI involvement in the JFK assassination operation and Paul Trejo's theory, that the CIA and ONI were working LHO this early, piqued my interest.

Thanks again Mervyn

4 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

It may be an excellent explanation. In the course of my investigations I have also interviewed (by phone) Victor Marchetti after his heavily redacted (more like blanked-out!) book was published. But one thing Marchetti had no direct knowledge of was CIA activity in the UK, which means that he had no knowledge about what happened to LHO in England (if LHO was being "influenced" by CIA.) That is the starting point. It is LHO's 'Road to Damascus' "vision" (or gun in the back, or other form of coercive threat to "do as you are told and no one will get hurt"...) Of course that "gun" could have been in the hands of someone representing a faction within MI6 (British Crown).

Mervyn

 

Hi Mervyn,

I haven't given it a lot of thought or study, but at first consideration I don't see how coercion could get a young man to head home from the  marines, pack-up and head to Russia, playing the part of a defector on dee threat of death. It seems like the kind of job that has to be done right, with skill and with some personal and ideological  mind set. Being a spy and, more dangerous yet, a counter intelligence operator In Russia would be dangerous work, and it would also dangerous for the CIA or whatever agency sent him there. Being under threat of death would, I would think, lead such an actor to seek safety in the hands of the enemy.

So I have to look into it , but, in the meantime, I have to question whether the CIA really works that way, in a strategic manner. I can understand Central Intelligence, or military intelligence doing such a thing in a more tactical manner.

On 3/16/2018 at 1:51 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Paul- you have it backwards in many ways

Physically seizing the POTUS body is one thing. Changing the laws of the state of Texas would have been quite another feat. Even if a trial judge allowed inadmissible evidence and instructed the jury that it could consider that evidence, there would have been multiple appeals. very different process.  

Regarding Marina,  she told the government what it wanted her to say to AVOID being deported. Since she gave sworn testimony, she could be subject to perjury which is probably why she has been very careful since then in what she says. he was interrogated  46  without benefit of counsel before her first appearance before the WC. Indeed. Rankin stated this on the record in her first testimony on 2/3/64. she made it clear in this session that she was "cooperating".  

Marina is the only person who could tie LHO to possessing the rifle, to the note that was allegedly written before the Walker shooting, to what he told her when he came back, to the presence of the rifle in the blanket. How do you know she was not lying about these facts?

The WC called her four times because of its frustration with her evolving testimony. this is documented in Shennon's book and staff memos of Willens. As Casey Stengel used to say "You can look it up"    

I have to agree with Lawrence here.

21 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Ron,

James' implicit belief that .....

--  T.G.

 

T.. Show us something that supports your understanding of James' beliefs. 

Are we debating your contrivances or something else?

2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Michael,

 

Haven't you noticed that people who think they are excellent writers will trash a worrhwhile thread whenever they can?

 

--  T.G.

 

Italics are M.C.''s

 

Yup..

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Geez, thanks Michael.

I guess you liked the article.

It is pretty important.  As much as I like Newman's groundbreaking book, JFK and Vietnam, I think he missed this part of the story.

Its hard to explain how he is the only one arguing against inserting combat troops into Indochina in November of 1961 if you do not know this back story.  Some of the arguments he made at that time are evident in the statements he made back then.  And recall, Nixon actually proposed inserting American combat troops at DIen Bien Phu.

It is an excellent article. It's kind of painful to read. It highlights JFK's competence to lead us where we could have gone. It points out the reality of a possible French Connection, and reinforces and expands the length width and breadth of the Vietnam experience for the United States.

On 3/12/2018 at 10:25 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

 

I have often said on this Forum that I remain open to the theory of former CIA man, Victor Marchetti, that LHO went to the USSR on behalf of the ONI as part of a "dangle project" which involved dozens of members who did not know each other.   This was like an intern spy job, and the "dangle was supposed to report on the location of selected people when sighted.   This allowed the ONI to record travel patterns.   

All best,
--Paul

This an excellent explanation for Oswald's trip to the USSR.

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Plus: Yawn.

Yup, Tommy’s rubber stamping of threads is like graffiti tagging. It does not pass the “would I want everyone to do as I do” test. I wonder if he marks-up bathroom stalls and breaks random stuff for kicks.

It reminds me of a song by Denis Leary... the title of which escapes my memory....

This thread is for sharing documents. If you have something to debate please create or find another thread.

Now, on June 11, these unnecessary and harmful internet regulations will be repealed and the bipartisan, light-touch approach that served the online world well for nearly 20 years will be restored," Ajit Pai, chairman of the FCC, said in a statement Thursday."

http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/10/technology/net-neutrality-end-date/index.html

..............

Will the National archives have to pay, per-bit, for the acess of its users? Or will its users have to pay, per-bit, to access the Archive?

Probably both...

Phillips

   A compreheniveish timeline. The last entry:  " Most conspicuous thing about file is that it does not go beyond the time he left Havana in 1960".

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/180-10143-10096.pdf

Edmund Gullion, JFK, and the Shaping of a Foreign Policy in Vietnam

In the 1951 photograph above, President Charles de Gaulle is leading a contingent through the streets of Saigon at a time when France was engaged in a losing cause during the First Indochina War. In the back of the pack, a young congressman from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy, is observing the conditions on the ground in a war effort that was at the time receiving substantial American aid. Kennedy’s younger brother Robert accompanied him on the trip. RFK later ran on an anti-war platform at the height of the Vietnam War, shortly before his assassination in 1968. This study explores the impact of the 1951 trip to Vietnam on John F. Kennedy, his association with the diplomat Edmund Gullion, and the evolving vision of JFK for American foreign policy in Vietnam, which was articulated in a major address given in 1954.

 

As a congressman from Massachusetts, Kennedy embarked on a seven-week, 25,000-mile trip in 1951. Accompanied by his brother Robert and his sister Patricia, Kennedy visited Israel, Pakistan, Iran, India, Singapore, Thailand, French Indochina (Vietnam), Korea, and Japan

.................. 

In March of 1952, Kennedy spoke to an audience in Everett, Massachusetts, voicing his opposition to sending American troops to assist the French in Indochina. In April, he addressed a Knights of Columbus chapter in nearby Lynn, stating that “we should not commit our ground troops to fight in French Indochina.”

After Dien Pien Phu...

The Geneva agreement stipulated that in the nation’s transition to independence, there would be a temporary partition of the country pending a national election to be held in the summer of 1956.

But the United States never signed the Geneva agreements, and almost immediately, the CIA aggressively began to transform Vietnam with the same zeal that had just effected regime changes in Iran and Guatemala.

..................

In 1954...

On the floor of the Senate, Kennedy prefaced his chronological survey by demanding the government’s accountability to the American people for adventurism and potential war in Vietnam:

"If the American people are, for the fourth time in this century, to travel the long and tortuous road of war—particularly a war which we now realize would threaten the survival of civilization—then I believe we have a right—a right which we should have hitherto exercised—to inquire in detail into the nature of the struggle in which we may become engaged, and the alternative to such struggle. Without such clarification the general support and success of our policy is endangered."

..................

"I am frankly of the belief that no amount of American military assistance in Indochina can conquer an enemy which is everywhere and at the same time nowhere, “an enemy of the people” which has the sympathy and covert support of the people"

...................

JFK’s tour-de-force Senate address of 1954 was not political grandstanding. Rather, it was a carefully formulated examination of the question of American intervention in Vietnam at a pivotal moment for both nations.

................

During the 1960 presidential campaign, Kennedy stressed that we would never succeed in Laos against “guerrilla forces or in peripheral wars … We have been driving ourselves into a corner where the choice is all or nothing.”

.................

As a senator, Kennedy had recognized that “public thinking is still being bullied by slogans which are either false in context or irrelevant to the new phase of competitive coexistence in which we live.”

.................

The history of the Vietnam War is invariably delineated by historians as a continuum of escalating involvement from the administrations of Eisenhower to Kennedy to Johnson to Nixon in the form of an incremental progression.33 This essay challenges that notion as apparent in the vision of John F. Kennedy, one that vehemently opposed conventional warfare in Vietnam

 

 

 

 

 

 

John Simkin's above remarks are quoted from the following tread

On 3/7/2018 at 2:34 PM, Jason Ward said:

Paul,

............   I've reviewed 1000s of CIA/FBI files and never seen a shred of evidence indicating anyone in New Orleans was taking orders from the CIA, 

Jason

On 11/5/2014 at 3:17 PM, John Simkin said:

 

Researchers might be interested in this CIA memorandum signed by Wistar Janney on 20th September, 1967. Its importance becomes more clear if you know the back story of Raymond Rocca.

 

1. Executive Director said that the Director had asked him to convene a group to consider the possible implications for the Agency emanating from New Orleans before, during, and after the trial of Clay Shaw.

 

2. General Counsel discussed his dealings with Justice and the desire of Shaw's lawyers to make contact with the Agency.

 

3. Raymond Rocca felt that Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.

 

4. Executive Director said the group should level on two objectives: (i) what kind of action, if any, is available to the Agency, and (ii) what actions should be taken inside the Agency to reassure the Director that we have the problem in focus. The possibility of Agency action should be examined from the timing of what can be done before the trial and what might be feasible during and after the trial. It was agreed that OCC and Rocca would make a detailed study of all the facts and consult with Justice as appropriate prior to the next group meeting.

 

On 3/7/2018 at 2:34 PM, Jason Ward said:

Paul,

.................

I think you are taking the basic evidence Garrison compiled and instead of CIA sponsorship, you are substituting General Walker and the Radical Right as the paymasters and leaders, correct?  Maybe you can provide evidence that instead of the CIA, it was Walker and/or the Radical Right wingers who were ordering and funding Banister and the New Orleans cell?

Jason

I am wondering if Paul Trejo came up with any evidence. He cited his take on the opinions of an author, but provided not evidence for his "substiiitution" of Walker for the culpability of the CIA.