3 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I am still not sure where you are going with this, Leslie. Are you suggesting we should be in any other state that calm in debate, in politics etc? 

I'm noting that insistence on "calm" can sometimes be manipulative, an attempt to silence, as identified in the examples I offered for your consideration.

Apparently "democracy," without reservation, is a word you simply won't utter?   I can't tell you how many closet Conservatives and Libertarians who claim to be Independent have lectured me similarly:  It may be worth pointing out that we really don’t have democracy, per se, it’s representative democracy. As opposed to what the Athenian lawmakers, Solon and Cleisthenes intended. Rule for the people, by the people. 

Perhaps a bit more transparency on your end would engender trust, an essential component of productive political debate?

29 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I think this is misguided and unfair. 

Even German generals who were plotting to kill Hitler in 1939 voiced the same obligatory pro-Hitler sentiments that Foertsch's brother voiced. 

There were plenty of evil, vicious German generals, but I don't think Foertsch was one of them. I think Foertsch was on the lesser of two evils side of the balance sheet when it came to most Wermacht and SS generals.

"The Soviet military tribunal" was an obscene joke. The Soviet army was just as brutal as the SS and more brutal than the German army. The Soviets had no moral standing to be judging anyone for war crimes. They were arguably the worst of the WWII war criminals. They wiped out numerous cities and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians. The Soviet occupation of Manchuria was far more brutal than the Japanese occupation had been. 

Stalin and his henchmen should have been tried for war crimes, right alongside high-ranking N-azi officials and many SS and Wermacht generals.

Had Stalin's generals been in the Gold Room at the Pentagon on November 22, 1963, I would be writing about them.

Apparently the US Joint Chiefs held a similar view as you, indicative of the success of the Himmerod Memorandum — drafted for the specific purpose of controlling public perception, the myth of the "clean Wehrmacht."

By 1950, the West was prepared to facilitate rearmament of the Germans so they would be in a position to challenge communist aggression. Along with former Wehrmacht officers, Chancellor Adenaur met secretly at Himmerod Abbey to discuss West Germany’s rearmament and agreed on what is known as the Himmerod Memorandum, laying out the conditions of rearmament which included release of their war criminals, defamation of the German soldier must cease, and a campaign to transform foreign public opinion should ensue. Ike Eisenhower who had once referred to the Wehrmacht as National Socialists, changed his mind. 

Foertsch himself declared. "I feel completely clean".

I'll be elaborating on those who joined Foertsch at the Pentagon soon.
 

8 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

The whole system is a threat, because truth isn’t held as a high value amongst politicians, the media and now the public. If you have read Ryan Holliday’s “Trust me, I am lying.” It depicts the system of journalism as it is. Where the aforementioned critical thinking comes in, is that you must be able to see it at CNN if you can see the deception at Fox. That’s not to say that there is absolute equivalence on all matters, including methods used to disinform, deceive, manipulate, or agitate the public. 
 

One thing you may consider is that we need calm, or each thread or conversation becomes a melee. I would be interested in you supplying some links where psychologists are asserting that being cool, calm, steady etc equates to manipulation. I don’t think there is equivalence. 

the simplest google turns up, How to Recognize the Signs of Emotional Manipulation and What to Do

Some manipulators presume to be the expert, and they impose their “knowledge” on you. 

For example:

• “You’re new to this, so I wouldn’t expect you to understand.”
• “I know these are a lot of numbers for you, so I’ll go through this again slowly.”
   

This is a particular possibility if you express scrutiny or ask questions that draw their flaws or weaknesses into question.

For example:

• “This will be way too difficult for you. I’d just stop now and save yourself the effort.”
• “You don’t have any idea the headache you’re creating for yourself.”
   

  This is especially true in emotionally charged situations. That’s so they can use your reaction as a way to make you feel too sensitive. 

  You then gauge your reaction based on theirs, and decide you were out of line.

   

For example:

• “You saw that everyone else was calm. You just got too upset.”
• “I didn’t want to say anything, but you seemed a little out of control.”

2 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Leslie, according to John Newman he states that de Vosjoli holed up in Colorado, and quotes de Vosjoli's autobiography 'Lamia' for that info.

Thanks, Ron. I'm mostly interested in whether the US government actually funded his relocation, and if so, why?


(btw, Bob Wills Day is underway in in Turkey, Texas!)

William Manchester continues with his account of what unfolded in the Gold Room of the Pentagon on November 22, 1963:  

. . . Simultaneously the Pentagon’s command center sounded a buzzer, awaken- 

ing General Maxwell Taylor, who was napping in his office between sessions 

with the Germans. McNamara had a tremendous reputation, and he 

deserved it. Despite his deep feeling for the President — the emotional 

side of his personality had been overlooked by the press, but it was very 

much there — he kept his head and made all the right moves. An ashen- 

faced aide came in with the bulletin. Jerry Wiesner studied the man’s 

expression as the secretary read it. Wiesner thought: The Bomb’s been 

dropped. McNamara quietly handed the slip around — Wiesner felt momentary relief;

anything was better than a nuclear holocaust — and then 

the Secretary acted quickly. Adjourning his conference, he sent Mac 

Bundy back to the White House in a Defense limousine and conferred 

with Taylor and the other Joint Chiefs. Over the JCS signature they dis- 

patched a flash warning to every American military base in the world . . .

1. Press reports President Kennedy and Governor Connally of Texas shot 

and critically injured. Both in hospital at Dallas, Texas. No official in- 

formation yet, will keep you informed. 

In the Pentagon McNamara and the Joint Chiefs remained vigilant, 

though after their conference in the Secretary's office the Chiefs decided 

they should leave sentry duty to subordinate sentinels and rejoin their 

meeting. General Taylor in particular felt that it was important to present 

a picture of stability and continuity, that it would be an error to let their 

visitors from Bonn suspect the depth of the tragedy until more was known. 

At 2:30 he and his colleagues filed back into the Gold Room. He told the 

Germans briefly that President Kennedy had been injured. General Fried- 

rich Foertsch replied for his comrades that they hoped the injury was not 

too serious. The Chiefs did not reply, and for the next two hours they 

put on a singular performance. Aware that the shadow of a new war might 

fall across the room at any time, they continued the talks about dull mili- 

tary details, commenting on proposals by Generals Wessel and Huekelheim 

and shuffling papers and directives with steady hands. Even for men with 

their discipline it was a stony ordeal, and it was especially difficult for 

Taylor, who had to lead the discussion and whose appointment as Chair- 

man had arisen from his close relationship with the President. As America’s 

first soldier he would be expected to make the first military decision should 

war come. Meanwhile he had to sit erect and feign an interest in logistics 

and combined staff work. At 4:30 the meeting ended on schedule. The 

Joint Chiefs rose together and faced their rising guests. Taylor said evenly, 

“I regret to tell you that the President of the United States has been killed.” 

The Germans, bred to stoicism, collapsed in their chairs.

9 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

HST, 11/22/1963, Aspen Colorado.  Fear and Loathing, first use. Can't find his letter to William Kennedy on msnbc/bing.  Frustrating.

But does Thompson say that the US government set Vosjoli up for life  in Aspen?

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Why not quote JFK in this moment: 

“If a democracy is to survive, people need to be vigilant, educated, and ready to rise up should their freedoms be threatened with being taken away.” 
 

That may not be verbatim, but that’s the gist of it. Does either major US party follow those words?

It may be worth pointing out that we really don’t have democracy, per se, it’s representative democracy. As opposed to what the Athenian lawmakers, Solon and Cleisthenes intended. Rule for the people, by the people. 
 

The question you ask is not a straight yes or no. It is possible for someone to align with the ideals of a party whilst maintaining critical thinking faculties. As soon as you become emotionally involved, then critical thinking is impaired. Its analogous to sports fans who really want to see their team win. They’ll cheat, only see things their way, everything is looked at in a lens that suits their colours. The social scientists know this very well. They tap into the primeval tribal mechanisms, the herd instincts. We’re back to the neo-cortex vs the amygdala. Rationality and logic vs the emotional animal brain. 

Adopting a cool, calm, steady cadence — which most psychologists recognize as a form of emotional manipulation — to impart lofty insight into human behavior as if a referee and not a participant, doesn't exempt one from the responsibility of taking sides when democracy is under threat.

The fundamental ideology — not a political party or a subjective perspective, but the bedrock of what makes Carlson and his ilk tick — is a threat to democracy, harkening back to November 1963.

@Chris Barnard
Presumably you're not suggesting that those who align with party are incapable of critical thinking.

It could be argued that those who have yet to stand firmly in favor of democracy for all and firmly against anything or anyone that might erode it are in a growth phase.  The worrisome nature of that phase is that it "could go either way,' which prompts many of us to remain vigilant. 

7 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Zilch Leslie. The Wiki on Foccart is not well endowed with citations unfortunately.  I don't see him as communist though.  A long time French colonialist who acted as advisor to many French presidents on African affairs.

Yes, de Vosjoli was Head of French Intelligence in U.S. & he learned from CIA's KGB defector Major Anatoly Golitsyn (KGB's First Chief Directorate) in early 60's about KGB agents in de Gaulle's cabinet & in France's SDECE.  In fact from Golitsyn's revelations CIA informed JFK of these spies in French intelligence, causing JFK to write a warning letter to de Gaulle.  The French Ambassador to Moscow, Maurice Dejean was also compromised in an adulterous affair with a KGB 'swallow'

However, it wasn't just in de Gaulle's cabinet and SDECE, but the Paris H.Q. of NATO was riddled with KGB agents, so much so that agents could produce on two or three days notice any NATO  document Moscow asked for.

Just hours after Kennedy's assassination, de Vosjoli was summoned back to Paris.  He then received a telegram warning him that he would be killed upon his arrival back in France.  He then went on the run to Mexico.  A 'goon' squad from France was sent to kill him, but he eluded them.  Subsequently U.S. authorities provided him a quiet life somewhere in Colorado.  Ian Fleming couldn't write this stuff. 

Pete, I'm looking for the source for the "quiet life somewhere in Colorado"? I recall that he says he spent time with Leon Uris in either Aspen or Vail (or both?) but I thought he 'retired' to Florida.

Berlet provides us with an appropriate analogy:

. . . Sinkin’s appearance on the same platform with the LaRouchians served as an implicit endorsement, suggesting by example that joint work with the LaRouchians was acceptable . . .

. . . working with the LaRouchians and other far-right and bigoted forces will only discredit serious work towards . . .

Similarly, leading figures in the assassination research community appearing on the same platform as Carlson/Fox may suggest implicit endorsement?  And, working with far-right and bigoted forces can only discredit the serious work at hand? 

The question is whether Tucker Carlson would countenance direct criticism of his overriding political ideology of (male) white supremacy, racist, anti-Semitic, mysogenistic inflammatory lying coming from those whose efforts toward enforcing the JFK Records Act are both genuine and heroic? Have any of the spokespeople in question gone near such criticism of Tucker and Fox when they apparently have the perfect platform? Perhaps begin by saying, Tucker, it's ironic that President Kennedy gave his life fighting against the very ideology you espouse."

Is it sufficient to say, "well at least Carlson will have us on"?

What is the difference between "the government" determining the narrative and Fox News/Tucker Carlson determining the narrative?

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 

 

So many people in the government flying all over the Pacific, and no one in Washington.

In response to the observation, No one in Washington: "no one" except the US Joint Chiefs who — with the exception of Curtis LeMay — were in meetings with German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer's Bundeswehr generals, including war criminals, at the Pentagon.

As William Manchester reports in his award-winning book, The Death of a President: November 22-November 25, 1963,

. . . On Friday, November 22 in Washington DC, "Tight security was also enforced in the Pentagon's Gold Room, down the hall from McNamara, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff were in session with the commanders of the West German Bundeswehr [armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany]. General Maxwell Taylor, the Chiefs' elegant, scholarly Chairman, dominated one side of the table; opposite him was General Friedrich A. Foertsch, Inspector General of Bonn's armed forces. Everyone was dressed to the nines—the Germans out of Pflicht [duty], the Americans because they knew the Germans would be that way—and the meeting glittered with gay ribbons and braid. 

First, General Friedrich A. Foertsch, Inspector General of Bonn's armed forces:

Friedrich Foertsch, a native of West Prussia, served as Second General Staff Officer of the Brandenburg Army Corps of the Wehrmacht at the outbreak of WWII. 

His brother, Hermann Foertsch who was five years his senior, had announced after Hitler came to power that, “today the Wehrmacht has no greater pride than being associated with this man."

The younger Foertsch later served as First General Staff Officer in the 60th Infantry Division. By 1943 he was promoted to Chief of Staff of this Army and in January 1945 he became the Chief of Staff of Army Group Kurland which included the 18th and 16th Army. Long cut off from the bulk of the eastern army, Group Kurland capitulated on May 8, 1945. 

The obligatory war crimes trial awaited the Army Group Commander, Generalleutnant Foertsch. The indictment contained the accusation that Foertsch had tolerated "that the troops and units under his command destroyed the cities of Pskov, Novgorod and Leningrad and destroyed historical art monuments in the cities of Gatchina, Peterhof, Pavlovsk and Pushkin..."

At trial, Foertsch said to his blushing military judges: “I admit that I gave the orders mentioned (such as artillery fire on Leningrad), but I do not plead guilty, because the orders I gave were necessary in order to end the war against the Soviet Union to lead."

The Soviet military tribunal sentenced Friedrich to 25 years in a correctional camp where his German comrades saw him just as his superiors and staff assistants had during the war — steadfast, sober, and clever. However, the anti-Communist and anti-Russian sting was deeply rooted in Foertsch, an avowed German nationalist for the remainder of his life.  

In September 1955, German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer was persuaded to establish diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union during his state visit to Moscow. The Soviets honored the agreement by releasing the last German prisoners of war. Among them, General Foertsch who was granted an "early release from prison."

A year after his release, Friedrich put on his general's coat again as if nothing had happened and served in several senior staff positions in Adenauer’s Bundeswehr including an assignment to the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe of NATO in Paris.

In 1961 General Foertsch succeeded the first Inspector General of the Bundeswehr, Adolf ("Order in Conflict") Heusinger, a decision seen by the Moscow government as an "arrogant, unfriendly act towards the Soviet Union." In response, Bonn was outraged, arguing that the Soviet Union had no "right to have a say" in the personnel policy of German military forces. Foertsch himself declared. "I feel completely clean", a phrase that holds significance for those informed of this history: The myth of the clean Wehrmacht is the negationist notion that the regular German armed forces (the Wehrmacht) were not involved in the Holocaust or other war crimes during WWII.  

THE HIMMEROD MYTH

The myth began during the Nuremberg trials when Wehrmacht leaders signed "The German Army from 1920 to 1945" which established key elements meant to control the public perception. 

By 1950, the West was prepared to facilitate rearmament of the Germans so they would be in a position to challenge communist aggression. Along with former Wehrmacht officers, Chancellor Adenaur met secretly at Himmerod Abbey to discuss West Germany’s rearmament and agreed on what is known as the Himmerod Memorandum, laying out the conditions of rearmament which included release of their war criminals, defamation of the German soldier must cease, and a campaign to transform foreign public opinion should ensue. Ike Eisenhower who had once referred to the Wehrmacht as National Socialists, changed his mind. 

Signatories of the Himmerod Memo included Friedrich Foertsch’s brother Hermann, General Adolf Heusinger who was present in the Gold Room, and General Hans Speidel, another character who will surface in this analysis.

Nineteen days after the president of the United States had been assassinated in Dallas while our JCS met with General Friedrich Foertsch and his Bundeswehr delegation were meeting with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Foertsch retired from active service and was given an official farewell with a Great Tattoo at Ehrenbreitstein Fortress in Koblenz, December 11, 1963.

 

So many people in the government flying all over the Pacific, and no one in Washington.

In response to the observation, "no one in Washington" [on Friday, November 22, 1963]:

"No one" except the US Joint Chiefs who were — with the exception of Curtis LeMay — in meetings with German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer's Bundeswehr generals, including war criminals, at the Pentagon.

As William Manchester reports in his award-winning book, The Death of a President: November 22-November 25, 1963,

. . . On Friday, November 22 in Washington DC, "Tight security was also enforced in the Pentagon's Gold Room, down the hall from McNamara, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff were in session with the commanders of the West German Bundeswehr [armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany]. General Maxwell Taylor, the Chiefs' elegant, scholarly Chairman, dominated one side of the table; opposite him was General Friedrich A. Foertsch, Inspector General of Bonn's armed forces. Everyone was dressed to the nines—the Germans out of Pflicht [duty], the Americans because they knew the Germans would be that way—and the meeting glittered with gay ribbons and braid. 

5 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Taylor was taking a break on the couch in his office when he got word that JFK had been shot. He called Secetary McNamaa out of a conference on the budget, and sent words to the Germans that he would be delayed in rejoining them. He called a meeting of the Joint Chiefs and McNamara in his office. The unified command was put on alert in case the assassination was an attempt to overthrow the government. He then rejoined the Germans, telling them of the assassination attempt but not that the president was dead. (Source: An American Soldier, by Taylor's son John M. Taylor, pp. 289-290.)

Ron, I won't derail W. Niederhut's thread on Col. Prouty any further than I have in my response to @James DiEugenio 's suggestion there was "no one in Washington" on Friday, November 22; instead, I'll launch a new thread, "JCS, the Bundeswehr, and the Pentagon, November 22, 1963"

5 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I believe that JFK's dalliance with Ellen Rometsch was one of the things that at least some of the plotters used to rationalize and justify their conspiracy in their own minds. The last time I checked, murder was a much more serious sin than adultery.

Thomas Reeves argues that if JFK had not been killed, his presidency may well have imploded with the revelation of his affair with Rometsch. During one of JFK's last press conferences, a female journalist asked him a very pointed hypothetical question that was clearly referring to his adultery--her question asked something along the lines of if he thought that a man who was cheating on his wife should leave his wife and marry one of his mistresses after he was out of office/retired. If you watch the video clip, you can see the question caught JKF off guard and made him uncomfortable. 

Well, anyway, when JFK and the plotters stand before the judgment bar of God, I'm confident that the plotters will be shocked when they receive a far, far harsher punishment for their crimes than JFK will receive for his adultery. 

Was that Helen Thomas?

4 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Zilch Leslie. The Wiki on Foccart is not well endowed with citations unfortunately.  I don't see him as communist though.  A long time French colonialist who acted as advisor to many French presidents on African affairs.

Yes, de Vosjoli was Head of French Intelligence in U.S. & he learned from CIA's KGB defector Major Anatoly Golitsyn (KGB's First Chief Directorate) in early 60's about KGB agents in de Gaulle's cabinet & in France's SDECE.  In fact from Golitsyn's revelations CIA informed JFK of these spies in French intelligence, causing JFK to write a warning letter to de Gaulle.  The French Ambassador to Moscow, Maurice Dejean was also compromised in an adulterous affair with a KGB 'swallow'

However, it wasn't just in de Gaulle's cabinet and SDECE, but the Paris H.Q. of NATO was riddled with KGB agents, so much so that agents could produce on two or three days notice any NATO  document Moscow asked for.

Just hours after Kennedy's assassination, de Vosjoli was summoned back to Paris.  He then received a telegram warning him that he would be killed upon his arrival back in France.  He then went on the run to Mexico.  A 'goon' squad from France was sent to kill him, but he eluded them.  Subsequently U.S. authorities provided him a quiet life somewhere in Colorado.  Ian Fleming couldn't write this stuff. 

Those of us who have spent time with the physical instrument — the 1963 datebook maintained by Pierre Lafitte — accept that de Vosjoli's official storyline fails to reveal critical ties to several, in addition to Frank Brandstetter of the 488th, who were more closely involved in the lead up to the assassination. That is not to say we concluded the SDECE officer should be directly implicated, but it's clear that he has the attention of Lafitte in the spring of 1963, much earlier than the official line.

' . . . A decade later, [Indiana native Thomas whose law partner Paul McNutt had served as head of War Manpower Commission] Proctor surfaced in the Horn of Africa, perhaps for the first time, when he attended a military parade with Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia. Phil [Proctor — original member of the Firesign Theatre] who initially couldn't explain why his father might have been invited to Ethiopia, still has the sword of the “blue people” gifted his father by the emperor. Phil was not aware that his father was known to Pierre Lafitte who on February 5, 1963 made the note: “WerBell guns – in desert with Proctor in Eritrea.” Certain words in the entry are nearly indecipherable, but once it was confirmed that Proctor spent time in Ethiopia, the location in the desert of Eritrea made sense. And when told the entry seemed related to a notorious gun trafficker, Phil seemed satisfied that it “all made sense.” 

De Vosjoli and Tom Proctor appear again on Pierre’s radar on May 20:

Vosjoli with Davis

(Carolyn — Proctor) ask OS (Ilse)

With this entry, Lafitte names Thomas Proctor in context with the Davis couple, and mention of Philippe de Vosjoli , the head of French intelligence in D.C. at the time), we revisited the illegible words in the February 5 WerBell / Proctor entry. The word “mission” is clear although spelled with only one s; the letters preceding mission may well be a rough notation “Vosjoli.” 

As this investigation progresses, we encounter more and more clues of Tom and Carolyn Davis’s connections to weapons manufacturers [Remington Arms], global arms dealers and gunrunners. We also pursue the role Philippe de Vosjoli may have had, witting or not, in the plans for Dallas. For now, a preview of Vosjoli should suffice: “In light of the harrowing story that he tells, it is well to note that de Vosjoli had close relationships with multiple people who are quite germane to this story, including Jim Angleton (de Vosjoli functioned as a CIA double-agent, working inside French intelligence) and Frank Brandstetter, who was a member of Jack Crichton’s 488th Intelligence Reserve unit. When de Vosjoli declined to return to France in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of President Kennedy, he fled to Mexico, where he spent several months with Brandstetter at the Las Brisas resort in Acapulco. Intriguingly, Pierre Lafitte, engaged in a pivotal meeting at an iconic Dallas hotel on November 20, 1963, jotted in his notebook: “Frank B. here…”

It should be recalled that Brandstetter's colleague in the 488th, Jack Crichton — also identified in the Lafitte datebook —  was a consultant on behalf of Dallas-based DeGolyer & MacNaughton to the Meadows-Skorzeny oil scheme of 1952, sanctioned by Spain's military dictator Francisco Franco. 

(photo of Thomas Proctor as a young man, courtesy of the Proctor family.)

Thomas Proctor private collection.pdf

11 hours ago, David McLean said:

Curious you mention Al Ulmer…was he and his wife with the Bushes November 22?…and I recollect Bush saying something to the effect the assailant was either undoubtedly of the far left or the far right. 

Yes, Al Ulmer and his wife were in from London where he had assumed a role within the Niarchos organization having left the CIA. Al's brother Dan was living in Tyler TX where Barbara and George joined both Ulmer couples along with Joe Zeppa and his wife. Zeppa's Delta Drilling had been critical to the [Algur] Meadows - [Otto] Skorzeny oil scheme in Spain in the early 1950s.  Ulmer was posted in Madrid during that time, as was, btw, sharpshooter Charles Atkins Military Attaché in the capitol to aid in Franco's refurbishment of his military.  

The infamous question of GHWBush's whereabouts on November 22 was finally resolved when Barbara wrote about their flight from Tyler to Fort Worth to drop Joe and back to Love Field where she and George sat on the tarmac waiting for AF Two to take off.  She casually mentions the Ulmers and the kindness of Zeppa that day; OR, one might argue she finally provided George with alibis and witnesses?

As Jeff Morley reported in "Our Man in Mexico", Al Ulmer had planned to go into business with Win Scott and a number of other retired intel officers from GB and the US. The enterprise, DiCoSe (Diversified Corporate Services) was a private corporate intelligence service. For whatever reason, Morley didn't pursue the relationship with Ulmer and Scott which obviously was one of trust or at least mutually rewarding ambitions, nor did he elaborate on Win Scott's post in the early 1950s - chief of the Western Division of the Office of Special Operations, described by Cleveland Cram as the most important division in the agency.  "He really had things going his own way. He was a big deal in the Agency." It's likely that the Ulmer-Scott relationship extends to Ulmer's post in Madrid at the same time. We know from at least one document that in the role, Win Scott was kept apprised of the machinations of Madrid resident — put into service by Wm Donovan and Allen Dulles — Otto Skorzeny.  And we know that another attaché, Jere Wittington, was reporting to Ulmer while he monitored the N-azi couple, Otto and Ilse Skorzeny.

There is so much more work to do regarding Win Scott's knowledge of international operations throughout the Cold War including drugs and gun-running through Mexico in the early 1960s. After all, it was on his watch that Skorzeny, Hans Ulrich-Rudel and German arms dealer and intelligence operative Gerhard Mertins established Merex, AG in MC.   

' . . . The LaRouchites frequently attempt to build coalitions in a sly manner. For instance activist Lanny Sinkin, a former attorney for the Christic Institute, appeared at a March, 1991 post-war panel sponsored by a Washington, D.C. group called The Time is Now. Also on the panel were two key LaRouche operatives and a leader of The Time is Now. According to a staff member of the Washington Peace Center, members of The Time is Now worked closely with the LaRouchians and thoroughly disrupted the political work of the Washington Area Coalition to Stop U.S. Intervention in the Middle East during January and February, 1991. When members of The Time is Now passed out LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review at a February meeting, they were asked to leave the coalition. When criticized by the Peace Center staffer, Sinkin defended his appearance at the conference as legitimate outreach, according to the staffer.

When criticized by the Peace Center staffer, Sinkin defended his appearance at the conference as legitimate outreach, according to the staffer.

Sinkin says he was unaware when invited that LaRouchites would also be on the panel, and he vigorously denies that he has ever had any ongoing relationship with the LaRouchians or that his actions were improper. Sinkin says that his appearance reflected his commitment to speaking to broad audiences. Organizers at the Washington Peace Center counter that Sinkin’s presence at the meeting lent credibility to two groups that were disrupting their work.

The issue here is not one of implying any type of ongoing relationship between Sinkin and the LaRouchians. No such relationship exists. But for the Washington Peace Center, Sinkin’s appearance on the same platform with the LaRouchians served as an implicit endorsement, suggesting by example that joint work with the LaRouchians was acceptable at the same time that the Peace Center was telling members of the local antiwar coalition that joint work with the LaRouchians was unacceptable.

A number of experienced antiwar activists warn that working with the LaRouchians and other far-right and bigoted forces will only discredit serious work towards peace in the Middle East. Jon Hillson is a seasoned political organizer and peace activist based in Ohio who already knew the history of the LaRouchians. Hillson reported LaRouche organizers at events sponsored by the Cleveland Committee Against War in the Persian Gulf. At one meeting, “Two people went through the crowd handing out LaRouche’s New Federalist,” says Hillson. “I was shocked, but then I realized most students had never heard of LaRouche,” says Hillson. “I would urge people to disavow any collaboration with them because of their past ties to government agencies…and their homophobic, racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic agenda.” Hillson notes that it will take patience to explain to new activists why a broad-based coalition should exclude anyone, but that the task of educating people that coalitions with fascists should be rejected is not one to be ignored. . . .' — Chip Berlet, Right Woos Left, February 1997

https://politicalresearch.org/1999/02/27/right-woos-left

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Jeffrey Meek. Although retired now he was managing editor of the Hot Springs Village Voice weekly newspaper in Hot Springs Village, Arkansas, from which platform he interviewed many relevant JFK assassination witnesses and published those interviews and recently a 2021 book, The Manipulation of Lee Harvey Oswald and the Cover-Up That Followed (https://www.amazon.com/Manipulation-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Cover-Up/dp/B09CTY8YQ6).

I don't know if that qualifies as "mainstream" or not. Across America around the '70s and '80s and 90s, I noticed that the print "weeklies" in cities and towns large and small seemed to reflect a shift in where real investigative reporting and breaking of stories often seemed to happen especially on local levels but sometimes national and niche too such as Jeffrey Meek's long-time work on the JFK assassination.

Jeff continues to write for the Hot Springs Village Voice, including his monthly column — "The JFK Files"  — which I believe is unique in the country.

https://www.swtimes.com/story/opinion/2020/09/09/meek-to-launch-new-voice-column-on-jfk/42418961/

I had the honor of meeting Jeff last November in Dallas during which time he was able to peruse the Lafitte datebook first hand. He subsequently published a column focused on Coup in Dallas titled, "New information — is it too good to be true or the real deal?" 

Go to www.hsvvoice.com, click on e-editions, click on 2022, then click on today’s edition [December 20, 2022] and turn to page 4.  

Lest we forget.

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

You know when you think about that, it is really weird, to say the least.

So many people in the government flying all over the Pacific, and no one in Washington.

No one in Washington, except the US Joint Chiefs who — with the exception of Curtis LeMay — were in meetings with German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer's Bundeswehr generals, including war criminals, at the Pentagon.

As William Manchester reports in his award-winning book, The Death of a President: November 22-November 25, 1963,

. . . On Friday, November 22 in Washington DC, "Tight security was also enforced in the Pentagon's Gold Room, down the hall from McNamara, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff were in session with the commanders of the West German Bundeswehr [armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany]. General Maxwell Taylor, the Chiefs' elegant, scholarly Chairman, dominated one side of the table; opposite him was General Friedrich A. Foertsch, Inspector General of Bonn's armed forces. Everyone was dressed to the nines—the Germans out of Pflicht [duty], the Americans because they knew the Germans would be that way—and the meeting glittered with gay ribbons and braid. . . .

9 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Jacques Foccart, after Anatoly Golitsyn's defection to CIA came under suspicion of French intelligence due to his relationship with a Czech named Saar, who was naturalised French after the war under the name of Demichel.  Demichel was involved in many business deals with the Soviets, who bought through him most of the industrial equipment they were getting from Western Europe.  The close relationship between one of de Gaulle's most trusted aides and a man of indeterminate extraction doing most of his business with Moscow certainly seemed strange.

Interestingly, the KGB false defector Yuri Nosenko in a meeting with CIA in 1962 made this interesting comment:- "Gribanov himself", (referring to the chief of the Second Chief Directorate, Oleg Gribanov), "is dealing with an important French businessman.  The guys name is Saar Demichel.  He lives in Paris and has a lot of business with the Soviet Union."   I would suspect this comment from Nosenko as being another provocation for Western intelligence.

Jacques Foccart also helped to create the Department Protection Security (DPS), security organization of the far-right Front National party led by Jean-Marie Le Pen, so he certainly was not a witting collaborator of the Communists.

 

11 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Jacques Foccart, after Anatoly Golitsyn's defection to CIA came under suspicion of French intelligence due to his relationship with a Czech named Saar, who was naturalised French after the war under the name of Demichel.  Demichel was involved in many business deals with the Soviets, who bought through him most of the industrial equipment they were getting from Western Europe.  The close relationship between one of de Gaulle's most trusted aides and a man of indeterminate extraction doing most of his business with Moscow certainly seemed strange.

Interestingly, the KGB false defector Yuri Nosenko in a meeting with CIA in 1962 made this interesting comment:- "Gribanov himself", (referring to the chief of the Second Chief Directorate, Oleg Gribanov), "is dealing with an important French businessman.  The guys name is Saar Demichel.  He lives in Paris and has a lot of business with the Soviet Union."   I would suspect this comment from Nosenko as being another provocation for Western intelligence.

Jacques Foccart also helped to create the Department Protection Security (DPS), security organization of the far-right Front National party led by Jean-Marie Le Pen, so he certainly was not a witting collaborator of the Communists.

 

Jacques Foccart also helped to create the Department Protection Security (DPS), security organization of the far-right Front National party led by Jean-Marie Le Pen, so he certainly was not a witting collaborator of the Communists.

I came across this on wikispooks, but I'm not tracking the citation.  Have you found it?

Is it possible Foccart was the quintessential triple agent? Or just one who relished a role as "kingmaker" behind the scenes? A French Al Ulmer?

For our purpose, and considering Lafitte's frequent reference to SDECE's Philippe de Vosjoli who was convinced de Gaulle's government had been infiltrated by the communists, Foccart is particularly significant.

I recognize the controversy that the gov't. source for Jean Souetre's presence in the US in early 1963 is tied to the SAC, and it could be  argued that Foccart was deliberately pointing fingers at the OAS; but ... Lafitte writes specifically on April 30, Walker + Souetre in New Orleans ...



 

In January 2005, the Supreme Court declined to hear Womack+Hampton Architects v. Metric Holdings Limited Partnership, according to the docket on the court’s website. Had a justice been recused from participating in the case, it would have been noted. There were no such notations.

The Crow name does not appear in the caption of the case, but a corporate disclosure statement attached to the filing says that the corporate parent of Metric Holdings is Trammell Crow Residential Company. According to a statement from Harlan Crow’s office, the Crow family at the time had a non-controlling interest in Trammell Crow Residential Company.

“At the time of this case, Trammell Crow Residential operated completely independently of Crow Holdings with a separate management team and its own independent operations,” Crow’s office said in the statement.

“Crow Holdings had a minority interest in the parties involved in this case and therefore no control of any of these entities. Neither Harlan Crow nor Crow Holdings had knowledge of or involvement in this case, and a search of Crow Holdings legal records reveals no involvement in this case. Harlan Crow has never discussed this or any other case with the Justice,” the office said.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/25/politics/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-supreme-court/index.html

In light of this excerpt from Coup in Dallas, the April 2022 piece by French journalist Maurin Picard which follows is particularly intriguing. 

' . . . The source for the report’s information is described: “Competent American observer from a Western-European in close touch with Captain Jean Souetre, official of the OAS, from Souetre, who expected the information to reach officials of the US”

The information follows: 

On 21 May 1963, Rene Souetre*, who claimed to act as external coordinator for the OAS organization based in Portugal, said that after de Gaulle, there would be only two choices in France: Communism or the OAS? Therefore, the OAS believed that it was important to allow de Gaulle to remain in power while the OAS strengthened its organization. Souetre pointed out, however, that the OAS must be prepared to counter a Communist plot at any time, as de Gaulle was an old man and also since he could easily meet with an accident. Souetre smiled as he made this last statement, but hastened to add that the Communists might see fit to assassinate de Gaulle in order to precipitate the revolution. 

Souetre claimed that the OAS had a list of the Communist penetrations of the French Government and expressed the belief of the OAS that the de Gaulle government was siding with Communist takeover by seeking rapprochement with the USSR. Souetre particularly mentioned what he termed de Gaulle’s “chief advisor,” Jacques Foccart, as being a witting collaborator of the Communists.** The OAS, according to Souetre, was now trying to penetrate the French army and the Government in order to build a counter force to the Communists within the French Government.

Souetre explained that the OAS intended to prevent a Communist takeover at the Post-de Gaulle election by the expedient of preventing the election from taking place.

*Headquarters [CIA] Comment: Information from both press and official French sources indicates that Souetre is the name of a former French army captain who escaped from a detention camp in 1961. Subsequent to his escape he was alleged to have been involved in an assassination attempt against de Gaulle. Souetre was born 15 October 1930, in the Gironde Department of France.

** Headquarters Comment: Jacques Foccart is the Secretary General to the Presidency for African and Malagasy Affairs. He also has an undetermined role in intelligence matters probably derived from the fact that from 1958 to 1959 he was acting as technical advisor on security and intelligence matters to the President. One of his responsibilities is believed to concern political action in Black Africa, and another that of collating and digesting for the President the intelligence reports from the various French Services.” — Coup in Dallas

***

OPINION:

The Missing Link in a UN Cold Case? A French Death Warrant Against Dag Hammarskjöld Comes to Light

Maurin Picard, April 14, 2022

' . . . The warrant had no signature. Just three letters and a notorious acronym: OAS (Organisation Armée Secrète, or Secret Armed Organization), a far-right French dissident paramilitary group opposing Algerian independence and the the Gaullist regime. The clandestine movement, which was mostly operational from 1961 to 1962, even tried to murder President Charles de Gaulle on Aug. 22, 1962. It killed 1,700 to 2,200 people, mostly French and Algerian civilians, French soldiers, police officers, politicians and civil servants, during its brief existence.

Somehow, the death warrant — a facsimile that seemed to be a transcription of an original letter — ended up in the personal files of a legendary man from the shadows and chief adviser to President de Gaulle on African affairs and mastermind of the “Françafrique” networks, Jacques Foccart (who lived from 1913 to 1997). The document appears to be authentic, given the fact that it was found in Foccart’s confidential files preserved by the French National Archives.'
https://www.passblue.com/.../the-missing-link-in-a-un.../
 

The ongoing investigation:

Continuity of the Coup (@copyright 2023)
We've yet to determine why both Richard Case Nagell and Pierre Lafitte were interested in Anita L. Ehrman who was found dead in her D.C. apartment on July 29. Ehrman was a former reporter for the Hearst news conglomerate who had worked for The Washington Post only six months before leaving on her own volition or being fired at the end of June 1963.

As Dick Russell indicates in his limited analysis of the Pierre Lafitte datebook presented in the Front Matter of Coup in Dallas,

"The only other reference to this [Ehrman] appears in my 1992 book, citing a notebook seized from Richard Case Nagell by the FBI on September 20, 1963 but not released until 1975. That entry says: “ANITA L. EHRMAN. 7-30-63 WASHINGTON, D.C.”" . . .

Nagell's own note identifying Ehrman coincides with that of Pierre Lafitte's datebook entry of July 30 which reads, "George .... D.C. ... A. L. Ehrman   2 yrs +1 <- 29th?   ... Kaack ..."

The "George" in Lafitte's July 30 entry is FBN agent George Hunter-White; "Kaack" is FBI SA Milton Kaack, New Orleans.

It was later determined that Ehrman, then 28 yrs old, likely died on July 28, and although the New York Times published a brief notice, The Washington Post did not follow up.

***

What was the shared interest between Lafitte and Nagell in a young reporter who had covered the Algerian War from the ground — including interviews with leaders of the FLN — as well as the installation of U Thant at the UN following the suspicious death of Dag Hammarskjöld (*see related comment) who the FLN had appealed to during their struggle? Were either or both issues of interest to Pierre and Richard, or was it something closer to home?
 

Ehrman had also traveled in the press pool when Jackie Kennedy visited Japan in '62, so it's possible from there she was introduced to the Georgetown Set and eventually landed a job at The Washington Post. With that access, did she hear gossip?

Ehrman, whose father was a well-known Lehman Bros. banker and a director of Republic National of Dallas in the 1950s, died five days before the Post's publisher Phil Graham allegedly committed suicide on August 3. He had been on a weekend pass from the Chestnut Lodge "insane asylum",  notorious for mind control experiments, read Sidney Gottlieb.

The day Ehrman is presumed to have died, July 28, Lafitte wrote in his datebook: "George / O.S. talk to Stockdale about P. Graham (George says Chestnut Lodge) —dupe—" [again, George Hunter-White, Phil Graham both in the same entry with Otto Skorzeny and Grant Stockdale whose own suspicious death occurred just four months later.]

***

Stranger still, Anita Ehrman's family were longtime residents of Armonk, a New York hamlet where Pierre Lafitte and his wife Rene (who appears in his note alongside Hunter-White and D.C. on July 30, 1963), maintained a residence in the early 1960s as evidenced on several flight passenger cards.

***

It's possible that Anita Ehrman died of natural causes and the timing of her death and that of Phil Graham is purely coincidental. 

It's also possible — considering Lafitte's Phil Graham entry of July 28 and his Ehrman entry of July 30 — that Ehrman was privy to insider gossip related to the brewing scandal involving Ellen Rometsch and President Kennedy, a topic apparently on Phil Graham's mind since early 1963 when he broke down in front of an audience of newsmen and women in Phoenix — the event that precipitated his eight month psychiatric ordeal.

***

We also can't discount out of hand other clues directly related to the political climate which both Ehrman and Graham would have been consumed with professionally regardless of their states of mind:

For instance, WaPo publisher Phil Graham's mistress Robin Webb who was a stringer for Newsweek in Paris had been recruited by the magazine's Washington correspondent Ben Bradlee who had been directly involved in Newsweek's buyout by the Post and later assumed editorial control over both.

We know that Phil Graham's Foreign Correspondent in Paris had been Waverley Root who also covered Algeria's war for independence; it's plausible Root knew Robin Webb in Paris, and knew Anita Ehrman via coverage of the war and possibly recommended her to the Post? (Root's relevant articles will be shared under a separate comment.)

Under Root's byline on September 2, 1962, only two months after President Kennedy's public statement in strong support of Algeria's newly won independence (see link), and a month following the attempt on French President de Gaulle's life in Petit Clamart, The Washington Post published a lengthy exposé under Root's byline, "A Fascistic France is New Aim of OAS". Root opens with, "The recent attempt to assassinate Charles de Gaulle confirms what qualified observers here had maintained all along: the real objective of the terrorist Secret Army Organization (OAS) was not to keep Algeria French but to upset the regime. . . . If Algerie Francaise had been the goal, the attempt to kill de Gaulle would have been without object — and so would the continued existence of the OAS. It would have died a natural death. Instead, it has transferred its major effort to France proper."

July 3, 1962 - President John F. Kennedy - Statement on the Occasion of Algerian Independence (see link):

Was Algeria a common thread that might have bound Lafitte, Ehrman, and Graham, along with Skorzeny, Stockdale, Hunter-White and Milton Kaack in July of 1963?

Did Lafitte meet Nagell when he was in New Orleans purportedly to talk to Oswald?

Was OAS Captain Jean Souetre in New Orleans at the same time?

Does the death of Dag Hammarskjöld factor in this angle of the investigation?

And why does  Ella Rometsch appear in the datebook on frequent dates pre and post the Lafitte's Ehrman - Graham entries of July 28 and July 30? 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YDKRqoRkfQ