Jeff Carter

This version of the limited hangout was first promoted on the CBS program "Face The Nation" in November 2013 by Peggy Noonan and Bob Woodward. Their discussion on this program also, I believe, introduced the term "deep state" to the American mainstream media. Noonan claimed the coverup was engineered by "patriots" who avoided WWIII while also preserving the State which would eventually win the Cold War. A potted history, for sure, but also an acknowledgment the official story had withered against the 1990s document releases. But such a slow agonizing withering...

Here is a very good summary of the history of the internet and issues of net neutrality which, read in conjunction with the article Douglas Caddy posted above, reveals how deceptive the remarks by the FCC chairman really are.

https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-breaks-with-50-years-of-history/

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jeff,

It seems to me that somebody is trying to set up Ruth Paine.   Marina Oswald is also a target -- but a naïve and non-English speaking target. 

No, Ruth Paine is the real target here -- and SOMEBODY tapped her phone.   We still can't determine WHO yet -- even with this new document by Aynesworth.

I suspect that FBI agent James Hosty requested this wire-tap -- possibly unknown to FBI HQ -- because Ruth Paine herself was secondary to Lee Harvey Oswald.  This was the actual target of the wiretap.

FBI agent James Hosty was working with Walker partner and KKK publisher, Robert Alan Surrey, who produced the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbills that circulated around Dallas from October 24th to November 22nd.    The Secret Service PRS asked Hosty directly -- who published these?   And Hosty repeatedly reported: "I have no idea." 

Yet: (1) Hosty's main duty in Dallas was to track General Walker and the Radical Right in Dallas; and (2) Robert Alan Surrey was Hosty's bridge partner for years, according to Penn  Jones Jr.

So -- working with General Walker to make Lee Harvey Oswald into their Patsy -- it seems to me that James Hosty pretended that the FBI wanted this wire-tap, and it was put up -- possibly for free -- as a patriotic duty to spy on Ruth Paine for no good reason.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, the FBI document from 1976 posted by Bart Kamp is either a) poorly composed and sloppily written (i.e. imprecision between “subsequent” and immediately following” within a few sentences) or b   carefully written to imply information without actually stating the information. I presume the latter because it is discussing a historical document trail rather than events happening in the moment. That the author jumps from a reference to a possible tap on the Paine household directly to a description of a later tap on Marina Oswald, strongly suggests a correlation. 

If the wiretap was a rogue Hosty operation, then there is no reason for Barger to be involved and it would be highly unlikely that the documents which exist would have been generated.There is no indication in the record that anyone was setting Ruth Paine up, or that either of the Paines were seriously under suspicion.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jeff:

 

What is your take on this?  Did Barger plant the bug for the FBI, and is the FBI now trying to deny responsibility for it after the assassination?

It would seem to me that the FBI suspected Marina was,as Hosty said, a Sleeper Agent.  That appears to be the reason for the bug as far as this document goes.

Although, I must say, I am not sure just how much they would accept Aynesworth into their secret lair.  The guy does have a big mouth.

I believe Barger was the FBI’s liaison within the Irving Police Department. When Ruth Paine started finding new evidence, she took it to the Irving Police and asked for Barger. Barger was sent to the phone company on the weekend after the assassination and reports on the 1 PM Nov 22 phone call between Ruth and Michael. Whether he had set the tap himself or was just acting as a liaison to examine contents - probably not knowable. 

The problem for the FBI was twofold: the content of the phone call got into the record and therefore had to be explained, and that the wife and babysitters of the lone nut assassin were under surveillance prior to the assassination would have to be explained.  So in 1963-64, the story was that the monitoring of the call was accidental and done by a phone company employee, and that the alleged contents of the call were just a rumour, denied by Michael Paine (attributing the false date). 

In the mid-70s, FBI documents are declassified and the original reports on the phone call are unearthed. Led by Bud Fensterwald, the reaction to the call’s content leads to the public attention which was carefully avoided in 1963-64. This is where we see Aynesworth jumping in to assist with damage control. He digs up Barger, who tells a new story about a phone company technician who accidentally and coincidentally monitored the call while engaged in routine maintenance.At the HSCA, the story is not really pursued, and somehow the Paines are not interviewed. But the phone call itself, as well as its contents, are not denied by anyone (other than Michael Paine’s coached denials in 1963-64). 

FBI documents referring to this call, from 1963-64 and then again in the mid 1970s, appear to be carefully worded to confirm surveillance on the Paine household without ever actually using the word “wiretap”. I would think that this is one of the FBI’s big secrets in this case, as it undermines the obscure lone nut loser narrative and also introduces a “dog that did not bark” element in that the follow up to a potential huge lead (“we know who is responsible”) was so muted, in contrast to the reaction exhibited in the mid-70s by the Congressmen when this story was unearthed.

On page three of the document provided by Bart Kamp:

“Dallas files were reviewed and there definitely was no telephone tap by the FBI at the PAYNE residence subsequent to the assassination.” (emphasis added) The document continues by referring (“it is noted”) to Marina Oswald being placed in protective custody “immediately following the assassination”, and that “subsequently” (i.e. three months later) moved to a private address which was immediately wiretapped and even had a microphone “installed and in operation”. 

The author of the document seems to parse events “subsequent” to the assassination and “immediately following” the assassination, which appears to confirm without openly stating that there was a wiretap on the Paine residence on Nov 22, 1963 which captured a conversation “immediately following” the assassination. That there was no wiretap on the Paines “subsequent” to these events (leaving aside whether there was one in place prior to events), while the author takes care to note that Marina Oswald was later subject to surveillance, does appear to support the notion that the wiretap on the Paine household was directed at Marina Oswald.

hi Steve

I believe WC Exhibit 427 served as Oswald's application at JCS.

Thanks for that link, Kirk. I take it the Breitbart author “Milo” is the provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. The article itself has no intellectual depth, in fact it does not get further than providing a few weak anecdotal suppositions. The core of the argument is a list of types to scorn - “Silicon Valley hipsters, head-in-the-clouds-bloggers, Lefty ideologues who hate big business, radical transparency campaigners, copyright infringers…” - coupled with the premise that ending Net Neutrality will be a blow against those types (“if that means sticking it to the nerds, well…”). 

Back in the “reality-based” community, here is Cory Doctorow on the context of possible court challenges:

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/11/27/fcc-chairmans-arrogant-internet-overreach

The folks at Free Press analyze the FCC's reasoning and break down what's at stake.

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/11/22/fccs-order-out-weve-read-it-and-heres-what-you-need-know-it-will-end-net-neutrality

The FCC chairman was formerly a staff lawyer at Verizon, and is something of a free-market ideologue (ending net neutrality will produce "economic efficiencies", etc). He can't be reasoned with, so really just a massive outpouring of opposition may turn the tide. If not, Free Press believes it has identified the legal precedents which may turn the tide in court. But emphasis on "may". 

The linked NBC article which begins this thread is certainly depressing. Short of a massive response over the next few weeks, this is a done deal.

The FCC is made up of political appointees, but apparently oversight of their decision-making ends there. It appears the current make-up of this body are prepared to move forward with this decision no matter what, even as it is conceded that it will totally transform the internet and give “internet service providers free rein to control your online experience.” These service providers did not create the internet itself, they do not create the content, they simply provide the pipeline through which the internet is accessed. But they are about to receive the keys to the kingdom. 

The chairman of the FCC claims that Net Neutrality amounts to “micromanaging the internet.” That is like claiming municipal waterworks are “micromanaging” access to clean water, or highway systems “micromanage” transportation. A spokesperson for Verizon is “confident” that consumer’s access to the internet will be protected “without forcing them to bear the heavy costs from unnecessary regulation that chases away investment and chills innovation."   Is Net Neutrality an unnecessary regulation which has created “heavy costs” for consumers? Neither Verizon or the FCC share any data to support this. Has the internet ever lacked investment or innovation? That’s nonsense.

The FCC “collected a record 22 million responses before the comment period closed at the end of August. However…senior FCC officials said they did not take into account the quantity of the comments when making their decision.” In fact, officials dismiss this record response as fraudulent: “New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said his office has spent the past six months investigating hundreds of thousands of those comments, saying many were spam offering antinet neutrality views. Some of the comments used fake names and email addresses, while others borrowed the details of real New Yorkers, which Schneiderman said is akin to identity theft.”  *

This decision may well approach Citizen’s United as a signature disaster for American democracy and the pursuit of the common good. It is not hard to predict that not just the Education Forum but also resources such as the Mary Ferrell Foundation and academic repositories such as the Weisberg and Armstrong archives will become a “tier 2” resource. Also, video streaming services such as Vimeo, where many of the recent independent JFK documentaries can be accessed, will be in danger of being squeezed out (“throttled”).

* note: The New York Attorney General's complaint is that hundreds of thousands of ANTI net neutrality comments submitted to the FCC appear to be fake, while the vast majority of submissions support net neutrality. The FCC is apparently refusing to cooperate with a probe into these comments.

Michael Clark:  “Eventually vary large interests were able to destroy those competitors.”

Yes, and large interests were permitted to become “very large interests” by the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

The possible reversal of Net Neutrality seems to have come up very quickly, and worryingly within a climate of hysteria over open channels of information. The NBC news piece linked above by Douglas Caddy suggests that there has been a huge public response to an FCC call for public opinion, overwhelmingly in favour of Net Neutrality, but this response has been dismissed by the Commission as largely "spam" using “fake names and email addresses”. 

Sandy, you should have a look at the Vidal - Buckley doc. They had debates during prime time on ABC TV during the Democratic Convention in 1968. ABC put them together in a bid for ratings success - which suggests their appeal was to a wide audience.

In my opinion, the range of acceptable debate/opinion has narrowed, particularly with "left" or progressive voices. Correspondingly, the mainstream definition of what constitutes "left" thinking has transformed i.e. positions identified with the DNC are routinely described as "left" while they are actually to the right of where Nixon was on some policies, whereas reactionary right-wing opinion has become almost mainstream.  True diversity exists solely on the internet, and this is under threat.  Have a look at the Google News aggregator, especially when international stories related to major foreign policy issues break - the uniformity of presentation and opinion across the Western press is stunning.

I think of the outright censoring/removal of informed opponents of the proposed Iraq War in 2002/03 (Phil Donahue etc), and Clear Channel's infamous list of songs which could not get airplay (including John Lennon, Marvin Gaye). Or take a look at the documentary about Gore Vidal and William F Buckley ("Best of Enemies") - it is unimaginable that an articulate person with the views of Vidal could appear on mainstream television today. 

Here is a fairly widely distributed chart of media consolidation from five years ago:

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6

And, for debate's sake, here is a critique of that chart (which features some of the arguments about regulation vs free markets which animates Gibson's discussion in "Battling Wall Street")

http://memepoliceman.com/corporate-media-control/

I recently read Donald Gibson’s “Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency”. Gibson usefully articulates a long-standing division in the American body-politic centered on the “proper role” of the federal government intervening and regulating business interests and the economy. He places JFK on the Hamiltonian side of the debate: that the government has a responsibility to advance policy which steers the economy in general towards development priorities which ensure the greater good of the populace . The opposite point of view, dominant within Wall Street and the business establishment, is that government should have little decision making role in shaping or regulating the economy. This was a serious fault line during Kennedy’s presidency. The Net Neutrality debate involves world views which reflect the above divisions.

In 1996, as the Clinton Administration moved to gut rules controlling consolidated ownership of media corporations, critics complained that the new rules would lead to media monopolies and a loss of diversity of opinion. Proponents claimed that consumers would be empowered. Clearly, twenty years afterwards, the critics have been proven correct as America’s media landscape has become corporatized, monopolized and uniform. Proponents of the gutting of net neutrality likewise make vague claims that consumers will ultimately benefit, but it is hard not to see that the critics will eventually be proven correct. Large interests will understand their "ownership” of the internet portals will allow them to decide the information available through such portals. The ability to throttle alternative points of view on controversial issues will exist and will be taken advantage of.

For entrenched interests, the problem with JFK was that his policies - including using the power of the federal government for the greater good - were popular and the prospect of continued electoral victories seemed ensured. Hamilton, back in his day, was equally detested by his political opponents, and was actually killed by one of them in a duel. Aaron Burr’s pistols which helped win that particular battle apparently ended up as a prized Rockefeller possession. 

The Washington Post correspondent manages several outright falsehoods during his rather short presentation. 

"Oswald was the only employee who fled the building"  - that is incorrect.

In the Texas Theater "he pulls that pistol out and tries to shoot more policemen"  - that is incorrect.

There are "dozens" of pieces of evidence to prove Oswald was the assassin - that is incorrect.

This is notable because the Washington Post has been leading a reaction against "fake news", including editorializing in favour of forms of censorship or blacklisting of designated "fake news" outlets. 

In contrast, the World Socialist Web Site has run two stories this week on the case, both of which provide more factual information than most of the mainstream media offerings:

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/27/kenn-o27.html

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/28/kenn-o28.html

The WSWS has, of course, been designated a "fake news" site and targeted by Google's algorithm adjustments which have greatly reduced referrals to "non-authoritative" information sources (Google referrals reduced 70% almost overnight this summer and WSWS removed from the Google News aggregator).

Always interesting to note otherwise informed commentators weigh in on the case. This has been posted by the academician Binoy Kampmark.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/25/when-conspiracies-meet-donald-trump-and-the-jfk-files/

Here is his conclusion, evidence to the effectiveness of the calculated black-out of information developed since 1992:

“The Kennedy files that are promised for release are hardly going to rock the boat, alter the world, or change a single mind.  Historians will be able to bring out modestly updated versions of old texts; official accounts might be slightly adjusted on investigations, locations and suspects, but the conspiracy set is bound to stick with grim determination to ideas long formed and re-enforced by assumptions that refuse revision.”

It also speaks to the longstanding success of the CIA’s 1967 memo which established the talking points used to discredit the so-called conspiracists. It set a framework which sidestepped the factual record in favour of speculating on the psychological makeup of those who would question the official account.  Most if not all of the mainstream coverage in the past week or two has posited a simple dichotomy of reasonable historians (who accept Oswald’s guilt) opposed to factually/mentally challenged c-theorists.

That said, the advance of knowledge allowed by the JFK Records Act, particularly in tracking the extent of the cover-up, has forced the emergence of a fall-back position embodied by Shenon and Sabato: “yes there was a coverup, but it was designed to hide the incompetence of the CIA and FBI, who were aware that Oswald was dangerous but failed to stop him. “ That will likely be the position of “responsible” historians for the foreseeable future.

This seems to be an AP story. Sabato again reassures that "forensic science" has already proven the case.

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/jfk-assassination-secrets?google_editors_picks=true#comments-area

10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

My bad.  Please don't let me be misunderstood.

No, T3 Denial is not the hot topic at JFK Conferences.

T3 Denial is the subtext of presentations by T3 denialists, not the context.

 

 

It seems a basic problem with this thread has been identified. 

Holocaust Denial has a body of work behind it - presentations, articles, books - all based on a premise which is clearly defined. The “denial” necessarily requires a pre-existing idea or concept by which to be in denial, or opposition, against.

Conversely, there is no body of work identifiable as T3 Denial. As far as I know, none of the alleged heretics identified by Varnell have ever discussed issues relating to the back wound as being in specific opposition to a set notion identified as “T3”. How can they be described as being in “Denial”, when the set terms of denial are not even addressed?

If anything, they seem to be better explained as “Warren Commission Deniers” or “Lone Nut Deniers”, as those appear to be the specific parameters in which their presentations are for the most part engaged. Is it not the parameter by which most discussion on this topic is engaged?

Again, in my opinion a T3 position for the back wound seems completely probably accurate, but I’m not sure when some kind of rule or law was established that any discussion of the back wound must conform to a strict set of criteria or be condemned.

41 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Wecht 2003 and 2013.

The presentations of John Hunt, Stu Wexler and Pat Speer.

Cyril Wecht, David Mantik, and Tink Thompson put the back wound at T1 in spite of the irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

Most researchers simply ignore the physical evidence -- more a crime of omission than commission.

And thus "50 Reasons for 50 Years" ignoring the physical evidence entirely.

I don't see any presentations listed for Hunt or Wexler in 2003 or 2013.  In 2013, Pat Speer co-presented on the Harper Fragment.

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 T3 deniers are routinely given speaking slots at JFK conferences presented by other T3 deniers.

Cliff, I was not aware that T3 denial was a hot ticket at JFK Conferences. Could you highlight some of the T3 Denial presentations?

Cliff, in making your argument you have managed to slag Cyril Wecht, Bill Kelly, Jim DiEugenio, and Pat Speer - all of whom have made major contributions to the case and all of whom agree with you that the official story is bogus. That result suggests something about your methodology is unsound. Not necessarily the content of your argument, more the presentation. That said, a clever lawyer could likely induce reasonable doubt over T3, but it's been established clever lawyers cannot raise the wound to make the SBT viable.

Cliff, your argument on this issue is sound. You are probably correct. 

But your insistence on enforcing an orthodoxy leads directly to petty sectarian division and squabbles, akin to those observed in organized religions, scientific academies, etc. It leads to time-wasting and pointless slander. I think it's good you state your position at every opportunity, but I don't understand the need to attack those who have a different approach.

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Black Op Radio did a series for the 50th anniversary called "50 Reasons for 50 Years" and not one of those reasons involved the actual physical evidence in the case.

Not true. The 50 Reasons series featured a number of individual episodes on physical evidence - including the alleged rifle, the alleged bullet, the mail-order paperwork, and, yes, the back wound. Pat Speer did a great job on the latter subject.

Is it not the case that most on the conspiracy side argue the back wound is too low for the single bullet theory to be viable? If so, why make such a meal out of the exact position? The autopsy report's deliberate vagueness seems to have ensured that any exact measurement may always be in dispute, or at least not settled. But the dishonest presentation after the fact by the official gatekeepers - including Humes, Specter, and Ford - surely indicates the wound was too low.

Personally I’m of the opinion there is much to support a back wound located at T-3 : the clothing, Burkley’s note, the FAC sheet, the observations of Siebert and O’Neill. I’ll wager there was a major change from what originally appeared in the autopsy first draft to the existing third revision; switching  from (probably) T-3 to the ridiculously vague “14 cm below the mastoid”. Humes proved his perfidy when he appeared on CBS in 1967 and claimed the Rydberg sketches were “schematic.”

Here is Pat Speer on the back wound. What is there really to argue or be in denial about?

More on this appears on Bill Kelly's blog. Essentially the controversy involves recent commentary by Sabato and Shenon published in Politico and The Washington Post, where they claim  “21st century forensic science demonstrates that Oswald was almost certainly the lone gunman in Dallas.”

No such forensic science exists, as Dr Wecht correctly observes. Hopefully he and CAPA can press this point to force some kind of retraction.

Here's another critical viewer, concerned over Burns' downplaying (or ignorance) over the crucial misrepresentation of the Tonkin Gulf incidents. 

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/19/getting-the-gulf-of-tonkin-wrong-are-ken-burns-and-lynn-novick-telling-stories-about-the-central-events-used-to-legitimize-the-us-attack-against-vietnam/

A useful distinction is made - namely Burns sees himself as a storyteller not a historian - but this program is being presented as a history.

Re: Lansdale - his career after 1963 is tracked in Sterling and Peggy Seagrave's book Gold Warriors. Lansdale joined other CIA veterans in creating off-the-books ventures, and was a founding member of what would become known as The Enterprise, exposed during Iran-Contra.

hi Joe

Expecting the mainstream media to cover this event objectively or honestly is a fool’s errand. The lone nut verdict is the Official Story, and so it will be, regardless of the facts, until it is no longer the Official Story (which may be never). On certain topics, the American press is, in effect, blatantly dishonest and rather Soviet. For example, contemporary U.S. mainstream reporting on Syria, Ukraine, or Russian hacking consists of mostly, provably, lies.

Was “Tracking Oswald” produced with an intention to deflect attention away from the new document release? Probably - although the producers would never confess to such. What could be at stake with a fifty year old story? In part it is credibility - of both the mainstream media (who have been blatantly dishonest) and the national security state (which could never admit to removing an elected president). Such dishonesty will likely continue until everyone who was alive at the time will have passed on. That was the express intent by classifying and locking away so much of the official record, as Earl Warren explicitly stated.

Here is Joseph McBride’s contribution to the “50 Reasons” series - discussing the mainstream media and their poor coverage of this case.

William Polk, who served in the Kennedy administration during the Cuban Missile Crisis, recently reviewed the competing pressures the crisis induced as a means to analyze the current crisis over North Korea. He determines that JFK identified Lemnitzer as the most powerful hawk of the Joint Chiefs, and that Lemnitzer’s Operation Northwoods plan “could easily have been turned into a coup d’etat. Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as far from Washington as he could (to Europe to be the NATO commander).”

“…not long afterwards, (JFK) was assassinated by persons, forces, or interests about whom and whose motivation there is still much controversy. At minimum, we know that powerful people, including Lemnitzer, thought Kennedy had sold out national interest in pursuit of the interest of his administration.”

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/05/on-the-brink-of-nuclear-war/