Steven Gaal

Reports about these false alarms have revealed extraordinary circumstances around some of the incidents and bizarre explanations for how they arose. For example, it has been claimed that the pilots of one foreign aircraft approaching the U.S. set their plane's transponder to transmit a code signaling they had been hijacked simply to show authorities that they were aware of what had been taking place in America that morning. Another aircraft reported as transmitting a distress signal while approaching the U.S. was subsequently found to have been canceled, and still at the airport.

There may be innocent explanations for some of the less serious false alarms, such as those simply involving the temporary loss of radio communication with the plane, which is a common occurrence and happens on a daily basis. But, viewed in its entirety, the evidence appears highly suspicious and raises serious questions. Why, for example, were there so many false alarms on September 11? Why did so many of them involve false reports of hijackings or aircraft falsely signaling that they had been hijacked? The details of specific incidents that have been reported, which I describe below, show that these false alarms must have been something more than just the results of confusion caused by the terrorist attacks.

Khamisiyah.....but there was coverup.....so I guess Mr. Colby/KARA are discedited ...........

if we cant believe KARA on WMD then how can we believe him on 911 drills ????????

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

April 10, 1997|By THOMAS D. WILLIAMS; Courant Staff Writer

The Central Intelligence Agency admitted Wednesday that itknew in advance that chemical weapons possibly were present in an Iraqi munitions bunker that was blown up by unprotected U.S. troops in March 1991, just after the Persian Gulf War ended.

In a series of documents released Wednesday, CIA officials also acknowledged that they and other government agencies did not focus on the potential hazards from the chemical exposures for years -- until well after thousands of veterans complained of health problems.

More than 100,000 gulf veterans have reported suffering persistent illnesses since the war, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs says about 4,300 have died.

Troops who were stationed near the munitions bunker at Khamisiyah and soldiers who participated in its demolition were not protected with gas masks or chemical suits, according to soldiers who served in the war. Documents show tons of chemicals were present at the Iraqi bunker and pit, which were demolished March 4, 10 and 12, 1991. The site in southern Iraq is about 62 miles north of Kuwait.

Longtime critics of the government's inquiry were not impressed by the CIA's disclosures Wednesday.

``This is either evidence of an unraveling coverup or an unprecedented intelligence failure,'' said James J. Tuite, a former congressional aide who interviewed scores of sick veterans for a 1994 Senate investigation and now heads a foundation studying gulf war illnesses.

``They are saying today, `Oh look what we found!' And, yet I told them and other people told them [about the chemical weapons bunker and pit] years ago,'' he said. ``These assessments have to be made within hours in order to provide proper protection for the troops.''

In a statement released Wednesday, acting CIA Director George J. Tenet conceded that the inquiry illustrates intelligence support for the war ``should have been better.'' He said the information was disguised by multiple computer databases, limited sharing of ``sensitive'' but vital information and incomplete searches of intelligence files in preparing lists of known or suspected chemical weapons facilities.

``[A CIA] task force is preparing recommendations to address these problems and will continue to assess how we can improve,'' he said.

For 11 months the CIA and a special investigative unit for the Defense Department have been focusing on possible exposures of U.S. troops as a result of the explosions at Khamisiyah.

Last June, almost 5 1/2 years after the war, the Defense Department admitted troops may have been exposed to low levels of sarin, a nerve agent, from the explosions.

Prior to that time, they insisted in the face of contradictory information from the Senate investigation that no U.S. troops were exposed to chemical weapons except for an episode involving one soldier.

Late last year, the Defense Department also acknowledged that about 21,000 troops were within 51 kilometers -- or about 32 miles -- of the explosions.

``[CIA officials] said all along they didn't have anything on Khamisiyah,'' said Patrick G. Eddington, a former CIA analyst now writing a book that he says documents a coverup by the CIA and the Defense Department. ``Where has this data been?''

``I think it shows how completely out of touch the CIA is with the American public,'' said Eddington, who is suing to gain access to gulf war-related documents.

Michael Donnelly, a South Windsor resident who was an Air Force pilot during the war, said Wednesday he flew over Khamisiyah, near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, four or five times in March 1991, but not on the days when the bunkers were blown up.

``They stood out in the desert as this huge bunker complex. It was a couple of square miles of storage bunkers laid out in a square grid. Most all of them were blown up either by the bombing or the EOD [Explosive Ordnance Demolition] guys.''

Donnelly, 37, believes he contracted Lou Gehrig's disease, a disabling neurological disorder that has confined him to a wheelchair, from his own exposures during the war.

``This never should have happened,'' he said. ``If they knew about this, they should have come forward right away, and they should have started treating people right away. It's costing the lives of people.''

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs officials have said most of more than 1,100 troops closest to the site have reported various persistent illnesses. The majority of those not in the immediate range of the demolition clouds did not report being sick, the VA said.

VA data show demolition soldiers and others closest to the site were more likely than other gulf war troops to have infectious diseases, cancer, disorders of the genitals, skin diseases and especially muscular and connective tissue disorders.

Thousands of gulf war veterans reportedly have cancer, and heart and neurological diseases. A total of 690,000 military personnel served during the height of the war.

Facing the prospect of a 2nd quarter GDP report showing economic growth less than 1% (some professional forecasting services predict as low as 0.5%), and a year to year growth of the US economy likely to come in at barely 1%–compared to a 2011-12 already tepid 1.7%–today the Obama administration will announce a major revision of how it calculates GDP which will bump up GDP numbers by as much as 3% according to some estimates. That’s one way to make it appear the US economy is finally recovering again, when all other fiscal-monetary policies since 2009 have actually failed to produce a sustained recovery.

Today’s GDP definition revisions is not the first time that politicians, failing in their policies, have simply rewritten the numbers to make the failure ‘go away’. But this time, the GDP revisions will be made going all the way back to 1929. So watch for the slowing US economy GDP numbers from last October 2012 onward to be significantly revised upward.

Instead of an actual, paltry 0.4% GDP growth rate in the fourth quarter of 2012, a weak 1.6% in the first quarter 2013, and the projected 0.5%-1% for the 2nd quarter 2013—all the numbers will be revised higher in the coming GDP estimate for the 2nd quarter 2013. The true GDP growth rate of the most recent April-June 2013 period, projected as low as 0.5% by some professional macroeconmic forecasters, might not thus get reported.

President Bill Clinton played fast and loose with economic statistics as well at the end of his term, redefining who was uninsured in terms of health care coverage. The total of 50 million uninsured at the end of the 1990s, was reduced to 40 million—after having risen by ten million during his eight years in office. Today, they still claim there are only 50 million without health insurance coverage, despite the ten million more becoming unemployed since the Great Recession began in 2007, tens of millions of population increase in the US, and millions more having left the labor force.

Similarly, under President Reagan in the 1980s a raft of government statistics were ‘revised’. Unemployment in particular was revised downward by various means to make it appear fewer were jobless in the wake of the 1981-82 recession. Changes were made to inflation data as well to make it appear lower than it was, and to how manufacturing was defined to make it appear that the mass exodus of manufacturing ‘offshoring’ of jobs was not as great as it was in fact.

This writer has been forewarning of this radical shift in GDP definition since earlier this year, in a series of analyses on US GDP numbers over the past year, July 2012-June 2013, in which the warning was raised the US economy was slowing significantly—from its already weak historical 2011-2012 annual growth rates of less than 2% to around half at 1% (see my blog e

ntries at jackrasmus.com). The point was raised the Obama administration appears may use the 5 year scheduled GDP revisions to boost the appearance of the slowing US economy.

The government agency, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, responsible for the GDP numbers will explain the GDP methodology changes this week, and this writer will provide a follow up analysis of the revisions. Some initial indications have appeared in the business press as to how and why the changes are being made in GDP.

One explanation is that Gross Domestic Income (GDI) has been running well ahead of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). GDP is supposed to measure the value of goods and services produced in the US, while GDI is a measure of the income generated in the US. They are supposed to be about equal, with some adjustments for capital consumption and foreign net income flows. The idea is whatever is produced in terms of goods and services generates a roughly equivalent income. However, it appears income (GDI) is rising faster than GDP output. The BEA revisions therefore appear aimed at raising GDP to the higher GDI levels.

But income is rising faster because investors, wealthy households (2%), and their corporations are increasing their income at an accelerating pace from financial securities investments—that don’t show up in GDP calculations which consider only production of real goods and services and exclude financial securities income like stocks, bonds, and derivatives. So instead of adjusting GDI downward, the BEA will raise GDP. It appears from early press indications it will do this by reducing deductions from GDP due to research and development and by now counting some kinds of financial investments as GDP.

When GDP was developed back in the 1930s, economists purposely left out financial assets’ price appreciation in the determination of GDP. Such assets did not reflect real production of goods and services, it was determined. But today in the 21st century, massive gains in capital incomes increasingly come from financial asset appreciation. Even many non-financial corporations now accumulate up to 25% of their total profits from what are called ‘portfolio investments’—i.e. financial asset speculation. Like profits from real production, that gets distributed to shareholders in the form of capital gains, dividends, stock buybacks, etc. That income also ends up in reported ‘Gross Domestic Income’, or GDI. So capital incomes surging to record highs in recent years are showing up in a rising GDI in relation to GDP. The government’s answer is to conveniently revise GDP upward to better track GDI. But that doesn’t represent real economic growth and does represent a false recovery when measured in terms of new GDP revisions.

If GDP is revised upward, a host of other government data will have to revise up as well. That will likely include employment numbers as well. How reliable will be future jobs numbers, not just GDP numbers, is therefore a reasonable question.

Apart from making it appear the US economy is doing better than it in fact is, what are the motivations for the forthcoming redefinition of GDP, one should ask?

For one thing, it will make it appear that US federal spending as a share of GDP is less than it is and that US federal debt as a share of GDP is less than it is. That adds ammunition to the Obama administration as it heads into a major confrontation with the US House of Representatives, controlled by radical Republicans, over the coming 2014 budget and debt ceiling negotiations again in a couple of months. It also will assist the joint Obama-US House effort to cut corporate taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars more, as legislation for the same now moves rapidly through Congress in time for the budget-debt ceiling negotiations.

Revising GDP also enables the Federal Reserve to justify its plans to slow its $85 billion a month liquidity injections (quantitative easing, QE) into the banks and private investors. This ‘tapering’ was raised as a possibility last June, and set off a firestorm of financial asset price declines in a matter of days, forcing the Fed to quickly retreat. But the Fed and global bankers know QE is starting to destabilize the global economy in serious ways and both, along with the Obama administration, are looking for ways to slow and ‘taper’ its magnitude—i.e. slow the $85 billion. Redefining GDP upward, along with upward revisions to jobs in coming months, will allow the Fed to revisit ‘tapering’ after September, when the budget-debt ceiling-corporate tax cut deals are concluded between Obama and the US House Republicans. (see my lengthy article, ‘Austerity American Style’ , on this).

The Fed has stated it will begin to reduce its QE when the economy shows more growth and unemployment numbers come down to 6.5%, from the current roughly 7.5% low-ball estimate. (Other government data show unemployment at more than 14%, but politicians and the press ignore that number). Revising GDP upward will thus provide the Fed with an argument to start ‘tapering’. Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, is quite aware of the usefulness of the projected revisions, moreover. In his recent testimony to Congress he specifically noted that the economy was growing better than (old) GDP numbers indicate if the higher Gross Domestic Income (GDI) is considered.

It is ironic somewhat that what we are about to witness with the GDP revisions is a recognition that the economic recovery since 2009 has been a recovery for corporate profits and capital incomes, stock and bond markets, derivatives and other forms of income from financial speculation—all now at record levels—while weekly earnings for the rest continue to decline for the past four years. What the GDP revisions reflect is an attempt to adjust upward GDP to reflect in various ways the gains on financial side of the economy, the gains in income for the few and their corporations.

When you can’t get the economy going otherwise, just change the definitions and how you calculate it all. Manipulate the statistics—just as Clinton did before and Reagan even before that.

=

Dr. Jack Rasmus is Professor of Political Economy at St. Marys College and the author of the 2012 book, Obama’s Economy: Recovery for the Few, Pluto books, and host of the weekly radio show, ‘Alternative Visions’, on the Progressive Radio Network. His blog is jackrasmus.com, website: www.kyklosproductions.com, and twitter handle, #drjackrasmus.

http://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/climategate-anniversary/

....... Here are some of the emails relating to the IPCC:

Phil Jones writing to Michael Mann:
“The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”
[MM = McIntyre & McKitrick. In fact their paper was cited by IPCC AR4!]

Jones to Mann again:

================

The Role of the Media in Aiding and Abetting the Deceptions Seen in Climategate

49. Daniele Ganser, 9/11 ringleader connected to secret Pentagon operation,

Center for Research on Globalization, August 28, 2005. http://www.globalresearch.

ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050827&articleId=867.

=

On August 27, 2005 article, sub-titled, ‘‘9/11 Ringleader Connected to

Secret Pentagon Operation,’’ by Dr. Daniele Ganser of the Zurich Polytechnic,

published by the International Relations and Security Network

(ISN), identifies the role of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and three other

hijackers in a secret Pentagon operation. It largely refutes the official U.S.

government narrative as presented by the 9/11 Commission.

Recall that Atta is considered to be the ‘‘tactical leader of the 9/11 plot’’

and the suicide pilot who purportedly flew the first plane into the towers.

The Australian Department of Defense’s highly sophisticated research system

showed numerous meetings between Atta and Moussaoui. Ganser reveals

that Atta was also connected to a top-secret operation of the

Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the U.S. She says a

top-secret Pentagon project code-named, ‘‘Able Danger,’’ had identified

Atta as a member of an al-Qaeda cell more than a year before the attacks.49

===

A different fictional treatment of the use of a "war game" to perpetrate covert objectives was described in "The Lone Gunmen," a television show aired on Fox TV in March 2001. In that show, a small cabal within the military-industrial complex used a wargame scenario as cover for remote control hijacking of a commercial flight and crashing it into the World Trade Center in order to boost military spending for the permanent war. This show was so close to the most likely scenario for 9/11 that it is plausible that this information was deliberately leaked in order to discredit the idea as merely part of a bad television drama, thereby inoculating people from contemplating the probability that 9/11 was a covert operation using remote controlled planes under the guise of a war game.

=

Lone Gunmen script excerpt
BYERS: We know it's a war game scenario. That it has to do with airline counter-terrorism. Why is it important enough to kill for.
BYERS SNR: Because it's no longer a game.
BYERS: But if some terrorist group wants to act out this scenario, then why target you for assassination?
BYERS SNR: Depends on who your terrorists are.
BYERS: The men who conceived of it the first place. You're saying our government is planning to commit a terrorist act against a domestic airline?
BYERS SNR: There you go again. Blaming the entire government as usual. In fact, a small faction ...
BYERS: For what possible gain?
BYERS SNR: The Cold War's over, John. But with no clear enemy to stockpile against, the arms market's flat. But bring down a fully loaded 727 into the middle of New York City and you'll find a dozen tinpot dictators all over the world just clamouring to take responsibility, and begging to be smart-bombed.
BYERS: I can't believe this. This is about increasing arms sales?

################

Mascal is interesting but not evidence for complicity since it's reasonable to expect a plane crash given the proximity to National Airport. Anyone who has spent time in the DC area - or flown into National Airport - understands that the flight path runs very close to the Pentagon and the office buildings of Rosslyn, Virginia. In fact, it would be irresponsible NOT to plan for responses to a plane crash. Mascal is probably a distraction from more solid evidence of complicity.

Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in preparing for emergencies
www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/ContPlanP.html archive of article by Military District of Washington on emergency response planning for a plane hitting the Pentagon

=

A plane crash is simulated inside the cardboard courtyard of a surprisingly realistic-looking model Pentagon. This "tabletop" exercise was designed to help emergency relief personnel better prepare for disasters when they occur.

Washington area residents have known that a crash into the Pentagon (or other nearby buildings) was a strong possibility given the tight aviation corridor used by planes going into National Airport. It is likely that nearly everyone who has looked at the office buildings in Rosslyn and Crystal City has wondered about the probabilites of an off-course jet plowing into one of those buildings (several have beacons on their roofs to warn pilots). The Pentagon is not very far from the normal flight path and therefore an exercise of dealing with a crash is not evidence of preparation for 9/11, although it could be possible that it was used for that. It is certainly more open to interpretation than the National Reconnaisance Office "plane into building" exercise during 9/11.

Pentagon Simulated a Scenario of an actual Terrorist Attack 10 months before 9/11
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Outlook, No 8, Spring 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 20 June 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO406C.html

==

In October 2000, a military exercise was conducted which consisted in establishing the scenario of a simulated passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon.
The exercise was coordinated by the Defense Protective Services Police and the Pentagon's Command Emergency Response Team.
According to a detailed report by Dennis Ryan of Fort Myer Military Community's Pentagram, "the Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to on Oct. 24-26": "The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid… Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the "plane crash" was a simulated one.
On Oct. 24, there was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident to name just some of the scenarios that were practiced to better prepare local agencies for real incidents.
To conduct the exercise, emergency personnel hold radios that are used to rush help to the proper places, while toy trucks representing rescue equipment are pushed around the exercise table.
Cards are then passed out to the various players designating the number of casualties and where they should be sent in a given scenario.
To conduct the exercise, a medic reports to Army nurse Maj. Lorie Brown a list of 28 casualties so far. Brown then contacts her superior on the radio, Col. James Geiling, a doctor in the command room across the hall.
Geiling approves Brown's request for helicopters to evacuate the wounded. A policeman in the room recommends not moving bodies and Abbott, playing the role of referee, nods his head in agreement. …
An Army medic found the practice realistic.
"You get to see the people that we'll be dealing with and to think about the scenarios and what you would do," Sgt. Kelly Brown said. "It's a real good scenario and one that could happen easily." …
Abbott, in his after action critique, reminded the participants that the actual disaster is only one-fifth of the incident and that the whole emergency would run for seven to 20 days and might involve as many as 17 agencies.
"The emergency to a certain extent is the easiest part," Abbott said. He reminded the group of the personal side of a disaster. "Families wanting to come to the crash site for closure.
"In this particular crash there would have been 341 victims.1 The Bush Administration is lying
This Pentagon exercise simulated a plane crashing into the Pentagon. The report serves to refute unequivocally claims by the Bush Administration that they could not have predicted that an airplane could be used in a terrorist attack.
In the words of Condoleeza Rice at her 16 May 2002 Press Conference:

==

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile."

Sec Donald Rumsfeld, whose office is on the third floor of the outer ring of the Pentagon, stated "I didn't know". "The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise" had been ordered by senior Pentagon officials and Rumsfeld says he did not know.
Below is an excerpt of his testimony at the 9/11 Commission in March 2004 (in response to Commissioner Ben-Veniste):

==

BEN-VENISTE: ... So it seems to me when you make the statement, sir, that we didn't know that planes might be used as weapons in the summer of 2001, I just have to take issue with that.
RUMSFELD: Well, I didn't say we didn't know. I said I didn't know. And if I just was handed a civil aviation circular that people did know. And they sent it out on June 22nd, 2001 (See complete transcript of testimony at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/COM403A.html )

Simulated versus Actual Disaster

=
The objective of the exercise, in the words of its Pentagon organisers was

"preparation for any potential disasters… "This is important so that we're better prepared," Brown said. "This is to work out the bugs. Hopefully it will never happen, but this way we're prepared."2

Were they prepared ten months later on September 11, 2001, when the actual disaster occurred?
What was the purpose of conducting this exercise?

Note
1. Dennis Ryan, Contingency planning, Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in preparing for emergencies, MDW NEWS 3 Nov 2000. http://www.mdw.army.mil/
2. Ibid.

How did Gerry Patrick Hemming say he contacted James Jesus Angleton ? He said he just called him.

The CIA would not abandon the CIA project "Oswald"

ED 5-4211 Sec 16/448 fone nbr. from an LHO notebook. Is Govt. Switchboard

in Fort Worth. Ref: CD 735 pp 33, 395 & 397.

#############################################

Marina Spooky

++

Marina Prusakova was born in Molotovsk on July 17, 1941. She lived with her mother and stepfather until 1957 when she moved to Minsk where she lived with her uncle, Ilya Prusakova, who worked at the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD). There is also an allegation that Marina was raped at age 16 by an Afghan ambassador and that she was kicked out of Leningrad for suspicion of prostitution, or what’s known as a honey pot.

==

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19668&p=272355'

Yuri Merezhinsky, interviewed by Norman Mailer for his book Oswald’s Tale, says she was anything but virtuous, claiming she was a prostitute. He knew Marina quite well and says she was in a group of four people—two women and two men—that were plying their trade in a Hotel Leningrad that were eventually booted out of the city. It was an offence strong enough to be sent to a labor camp, which didn’t happen to Marina. What would lead her to this alleged occupation can only be speculated at but the KGB did maintain, “honey traps” for intelligence gathering purposes from various officials, both local and foreign. She would have been known as a “swallow” in the honey trap. Marina was known to associate with diplomats and high government bureaucrats. Her basic clientele would have been foreigners. She would years later admit to being raped by an Afghan ambassador. How would she meet up with this sort of individual? Never the less, Marina suddenly leaves Leningrad and ends up living with her aunt and uncle in Minsk, where he was a member of the secret police, the MVD. Merezhinsky, though not her lover, said she was quite promiscuous with many of his friends without regard to reputation. He said he never told Lee any of this. (Although Lee, understanding Russian would have picked up on the gossip.)

+++++++++++++

GOOGLE SEARCH === James Jesus Angleton AND PARANOID

=

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

James Jesus Angleton runs LHO in Russia

see

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=292212

#############

#############

How did Gerry Patrick Hemming say he contacted James Jesus Angleton ? He said he just called him.

The CIA would not abandon the CIA project "Oswald"

ED 5-4211 Sec 16/448 fone nbr. from an LHO notebook. Is Govt. Switchboard

in Fort Worth. Ref: CD 735 pp 33, 395 & 397.

=

James Jesus Angleton runs LHO in Russia

=

Marina Spooky

++++++++++

++++++++++

So James Jesus Angleton ,the paranoid, drops connection with LHO......ABSURD !!!!!!!

As with Andrews, Lambert’s swipe at the Clinton/Jackson witnesses is equally as vapid. In Anthony Summers’ third and latest reprint of Conspiracy, now titled, Not In Your Lifetime, he has added a disclaimer to his Clinton, Louisiana section. The note advises that new research has come to light that will reportedly cast doubt on the Clinton evidence. (This after Summers makes a strong case for the veracity of the Clinton/Jackson people). Since Summers maintains contact with researcher, Paul Hoch and Hoch is generously acknowledged in False Witness, Summers is obviously referring to Lambert’s "evidence." Note to Tony Summers: Should you decide to reprint Conspiracy for yet a fourth time, you can remove the disclaimer. It isn’t needed.

In summary, the Clinton incident refers to a sighting of Oswald in the company of David Ferrie and Clay Shaw. Shaw was identified when the town marshall approached him and asked to see his driver’s license. The car was registered to the Trade Mart, and the town marshal later testified that the name given by the man matched the one on his driver’s license: Clay Shaw. Several of the people who saw Oswald in Clinton testified during Shaw’s trial, and were collectively referred to as "the Clinton witnesses."

Lambert leads off her Clinton chapter, titled "The Clinton Scenario and the House Select Committee," with quotes from Shaw’s lawyers that sets the tone for what follows. Sal Panzeca states, rather disingenuously, "I was told that we could discredit these witnesses because Garrison’s men ‘did it wrong.’ That the witnesses were told what to say and they said it." Yet under cross-examination at the Shaw trial, the defense didn’t even come close to discrediting them. On the contrary, even the usually biased James Kirkwood reported that "the Clinton people had a strong effect on the press and spectators and, one presumed, the jury at the opening of the trial." Another of Shaw’s attorneys, William Wegmann, is also quoted: "Clinton, that’s Klan country." And in that quote lies the dark tactic of this chapter—smear the Clinton folk as racist Klansmen to destroy their credibility. (Lambert also says the left-wing Italian journals that divulged Shaw’s PERMINDEX connections are not credible either. Apparently in Lambert’s world only middle-of-the-roaders are to be believed. Or should we say only those who are pro-Shaw?) According to Lambert’s theory (and it is just a theory), town marshal John Manchester and fellow Klansman, registrar Henry Earl Palmer, concocted this conspiracy. Additionally, they brought in non-Klan participants, Reeves Morgan, Lea McGehee, Maxine Kemp and Bobbie Dedon from 10 miles away in Jackson. But incredibly, added to this nest of racist conspirators were two African Americans, Corrie Collins and William Dunn!

Even Lambert seems confused by this strange mix, writing "Four of those in warring camps that summer (Manchester and Palmer on one side, Collins and Dunn the other) presented a strangely unified front six years later, testifying for Garrison." Nevertheless, this doesn’t stop Lambert from speculating wildly that the black witnesses were coerced by the Klansmen. Later, she switches gears and again speculates that the silver-tongued Garrison caused their cooperation, suggesting "that susceptibility to Garrison’s rhetoric among Clinton’s black community may have been a factor in their cooperation with him." These last two statements are literally dripping with racism. In the narrow view of False Witness black folk are too feeble-minded to think on their own, allowing themselves to be manipulated by Garrison’s eloquence and charisma, and are easily bullied by the KKK. This, despite the fact that these African Americans were taking great risks by participating in the Clinton voting drive, asserting the very independence Lambert would deny them. She goes even further by quoting Clinton District Attorney, Richard Kilbourne, who pooh-poohs the whole notion of the Clinton scenario. However, nowhere in Lambert’s "analysis" do we find any mention of Kilbourne’s own racist views, which are quite adequately on display in the documentary work-in-progress, Rough Side of the Mountain. Since Lambert sources the film, we have to assume she’s seen it.

More wild speculation is thrown into the mix as Lambert quotes a rumor that Garrison was going to run for the Vice-Presidency on the ticket with racist Alabama Governor, George Wallace. Later, Lambert writes that no one heard about Oswald being in Clinton until after Garrison began his investigation. According to witness Lea McGehee, this is false. Not only was he aware of it from his own personal experience, but word of the incident was printed in the Councilor periodical before the Garrison probe started.

But the centerpiece of Lambert’s chapter are the "shocking revelations" contained in the notes of an investigator named Anne Dischler. First, we are treated to such illuminating and relevant facts that Dischler "has 27 grandchildren, has her own ministry, owns and operates a retail fabric store, is an expert seamstress, bakes her own bread, and can shoot with the best of them." The "shockers" in Dischler’s notes are anything but—with one exception. According to Dischler she had seen a 3x5 black and white photograph of the black Cadillac taken while the car was parked across from the registrar’s office. Dischler revealed to Lambert, "‘Clay Shaw was in the driver’s seat—it looked like him to me … I remember the white-haired man in the picture and the small face of Oswald. It seems like Oswald was on the passenger side of the front seat but I’m not sure’ … This picture came from the district attorney’s office, she said, perhaps from Sciambra." Of course since the picture has long since disappeared, this allows Lambert to further speculate that Garrison had expertly manufactured a doctored, composite photograph. At least Lambert gives Garrison credit for being multi-talented!

Other revelations from Dischler’s notes include a possible additional Caucasian male who was registering that day, Winslow Foster. It has long been known that another white male, Estus Morgan, was in town that day. According to Lambert, someone—she doesn’t know who, of course—just overlaid Oswald’s identity onto the actions of Morgan. There is no credible evidence to back any of this up, as even Lambert concedes: "Who conceived this story is unknown, and precisely how they implemented it is unclear." According to Lambert, once Garrison got wind that the Clinton story was getting out of hand and that Dischler was getting too close to the truth, he pulled her and Francis Fruge off the case and sent up his evil henchman, Andrew Sciambra, to keep the lid on things. Of course this doesn’t explain what Garrison investigators Frank Ruiz and Kent Simms were doing up there. Again, in a chapter rife with speculation and theorizing, this is yet another absurd hypothesis.

Lambert’s assault on the HSCA is mercifully short, but still long on speculation. Once again, Garrison just poured on the charm and charisma "winning converts among the [HSCA] staff."

Lambert ends her Clinton follies by segueing into her next chapter, an attack on Garrison’s book, On The Trail of the Assassins, calling it one of the "strangest" in the history of American letters. Apparently she has never read her friend David Lifton’s writings. Garrison’s rather quaint notion of a coup d’état pales in comparison to Lifton’s theories about papier mache trees on, and underground excavations below, the grassy knoll, casket swapping and body alteration.

****************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

http://www.ctka.net/reviews/cia_rogues.html

=

In support of his Ferrie contention, Nolan brings up the mysterious trip Oswald made to Clinton, Louisiana but, crucially, he leaves out the visits he made to the neighbouring village of Jackson. To Nolan, Oswald's standing in line for hours to register to vote in rural Louisiana is best explained as a test of the "MKULTRA conditioning process". (p. 126) But the fact is that by leaving out Oswald's appearance in Jackson, Nolan has stripped the Clinton incident of its context. Before he turned up to register in Clinton, Oswald had stopped to get a haircut in the Jackson barbershop of Ed McGehee. There he asked about job opportunities in Jackson and was told about the East Louisiana State Hospital, which was a mental institution. McGeehe suggested Oswald talk to State Representative, Reeves Morgan, who he was sure would help him get a job. When Oswald dropped in on Morgan, Morgan suggested it would help if he registered to vote. So, the next day Oswald, in the company of David Ferrie and Clay Shaw, was in Clinton attempting to register. Once he reached the front of the line, Oswald was informed that it wasn't necessary to register in order to get a job at the hospital so off he went back to Jackson where he apparently filled out an application. (for more details see the second edition of Jim DiEugenio's Destiny Betrayed, pgs. 88-93). It seems fairly clear that the purpose of the Clinton trip was to help get Oswald a job at the State Hospital, and had nothing to do with Ferrie testing his control over Oswald. What purpose would be served in securing Oswald such employment remains a matter of debate and speculation.

While we're on the subject, I cannot let Nolan's treatment of the Clinton/Jackson incident pass without noting one other serious misconception. He writes that "Ferrie drove" Oswald in a black Cadillac that day, and that the other passenger "is believed to have been Guy Banister, based on witness descriptions, although some researchers have said the third member on the excursion was Clay Shaw", which, Nolan says, "is unlikely". (p. 125) This is a serious misrepresentation of the facts. Firstly, according to witnesses, Ferrie was the second passenger and not the driver. Secondly, it is not just "some researchers" who have claimed the driver was Shaw. It was Clinton witnesses John Manchester, Henry Palmer, Corrie Collins, and William Dunn. And,what's more, they positively identified Shaw in court. There is little real doubt that Shaw accompanied Oswald to Clinton, however unlikely Nolan finds that fact. And there is also little doubt that Guy Banister was nowhere around. Because, as he told both Jim Garrison's office and the HSCA, eyewitness Henry Palmer knew Banister from before 1963 and he was sure Banister was not in the car. (DiEugenio, p. 93)

Evan, you make yourself look foolish when you pretend to know things outside your area of expertise. Facts are contextual. The drills exist in the additional universe of the facts presented below. A reasonable estimate of what is considered to be "normal" and the drills must be consistant with these facts. // GAAL (IN TWO PARTS)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

By Paul Thompson

In 2011, Norwegian scientist Dr. Christian Simensen proposed the idea that molten aluminum from the airplanes reacted with water inside the Towers, which in turn caused violent chemical reactions that produced the explosions heard by the witnesses and that destroyed the Towers. As noted by a press release of this theory:

The impacts triggered massive explosions and fires, but the subsequent collapse of each tower came as a shock to those watching the disaster unfold.

Blasts heard just before the buildings fell have led to conspiracy theories that explosives were set off inside the towers.

But Dr Simensen believes after crashing into the skyscrapers the two jets would have been trapped within an insulating layer of debris.

As a result, the aircraft hulls rather than the buildings absorbed most of the heat from the burning aviation fuel.

It is then claimed molten aluminium from the jets, flowing down through staircases and gaps in the floors, reacted with water from emergency sprinklers on the lower levels.83

Unlike the previous prosaic explanations discussed above, this theory does have some evidence to support it, as the technical literature explains that explosions caused by aluminum-water reactions can be extremely powerful. As one article notes:

Whenever two liquids, with widely different temperatures, come into contact, an explosion can result. This is purely a physical phenomenon, but with aluminium there is an additional concern because it is a very reactive element that has a strong chemical attraction for oxygen, as evidenced in its naturally occurring compounds. Just as a large an amount of energy is required in reduction cell electrolysis to break down the aluminium-oxygen bonds of its oxide form to produce metallic aluminium. This energy is released dramatically if the metal is able to recombine with the oxygen from either water or air. The energy released when 0.5 kg of aluminium fully reacts with oxygen… is equivalent to detonating 1.4 kg of trinitrotoluene (TNT).84

While this idea does seem offer an explanation for both the Towers’ destruction and the sounds the witnesses reported, there are a number of problems with Dr. Simensen’s theory that renders it as unlikely as all of the previously discussed explanations.

 Dr. Simensen’s theory does not account for the inward bowing of the Towers’ perimeter columns seen in the videos and photos. According to NIST, this effect was caused by the heating of the floor trusses which were weakened and sagged downward, which in turn pulled on the perimeter columns of each Tower until the columns finally broke. While the author disagrees with NIST’s explanation of what produced this effect (as other scenarios can account for it; see reference 59), there is no doubt this event happened and is entirely inconsistent with the effects of ANY type of explosion, let alone aluminum-water explosions.

 Dr. Simensen’s theory requires that water react with molten aluminum from the aircrafts in order to produce the explosions he claims took place. However, according to NIST the sprinkler systems were not operational on the principal fire floors, given that the airplane impacts had severed the water pipes that carried water to the sprinkler systems.85

==

pg 21

=====

　The

water evidently flowed down the stairwells from the severed pipes, which theoretically could have produced explosions at the lower levels, since the molten aluminum could have also flowed down the buildings as well. But the fact of the matter is that the collapses did initiate at the floors where the planes hit, so it can at least be said that no such explosions could have contributed to the initiation of collapse. What further complicates this scenario is that according to NIST, the collapse of WTC1 initiated at the 98th floor.86 However, this floor had far less debris (i.e. aluminum) on it compared to other floors below which were struck by much larger portions of the plane.87

Despite these problems for Dr. Simensen’s theory, he maintains that these were the explosions that "caused the uppermost floors of the buildings to fall and crush the lower parts" and that "these were the explosions that were heard by people in the vicinity and that have since given life to the conspiracy theories that explosives had been placed in the skyscrapers."88 While we conclude that Dr. Simensen’s theory is effectively groundless, we also note with interest that, in attempting to defend the idea that the Towers collapsed due to natural phenomenon, Dr. Simensen has nonetheless acknowledged one aspect of the Towers’ collapses that NIST and other detractors have consistently denied; that explosions equal in power to that of those produced by controlled demolition explosives contributed to the buildings’ destruction. And if such explosions took place at the WTC, then it follows that chemical analyses should have been carried out in order to determine their origin.

While further objections to the witness accounts may be expected, we maintain that the primary criticisms discussed so far have been effectively refuted. The witnesses’ accounts of explosions from the Towers match well with the audiovisual recordings. They are corroborated by the reported aftereffects of the event, and there appears to be no prosaic explanation that can account for every aspect of what the witnesses heard and experienced that day. We thus conclude that 911myths.com’s charge that "considerably more evidence" is needed to show that explosives were used has been answered.

How did Gerry Patrick Hemming say he contacted James Jesus Angleton ? He said he just called him.

The CIA would not abandon the CIA project "Oswald"

ED 5-4211 Sec 16/448 fone nbr. from an LHO notebook. Is Govt. Switchboard

in Fort Worth. Ref: CD 735 pp 33, 395 & 397.

By John Newman

Oswald and the CIA is not an easy book to read. And I think this is one of the reasons that it was underappreciated when it was first published in 1995. One would expect this result in the mainstream press. But even the research community was not up to the task of understanding the true value of this important work when it was originally published.

Jerry Rose's The Fourth Decade discussed the book twice: once directly and once indirectly. That journal specifically reviewed the book in late 1995 (Vol. 3 No. 1). The reviewer was a man named Hugh Murray. His review was completely inadequate. He gave the book less than two pages of discussion. Murray never even addressed the volume's two crucial chapters on Mexico City, which are the key to the book. (This would be like criticizing the Warren Report and never addressing the single bullet theory.) In the summer of the following year (Vol. 3 No. 3), Peter Dale Scott did something that may have been even worse. He wrote a long article for Rose's publication entitled "Oswald and the Hunt for Popov's Mole". This piece seriously distorted and misinterpreted both the book itself and some of the important information Newman had unearthed. This sorry performance partly explains why the book's achievement was never really comprehended even within the critical community.

But to be honest, Newman made some mistakes that contributed to the book's disappointing reception. The author felt it was important to get the book out quickly. He thought he should do so while the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB)) was still operating in order to draw attention to its work. I thought this was an error at the time. I still do. For there were some documents, not fully processed at the time, which would have been useful to the endeavor. For instance, The House Select Committee's Mexico City Report, aka the Lopez Report, had not yet been fully declassified. And to his credit, Newman updated his work on Mexico City with a 1999 article for Probe (Vol. 6 No. 6 ). This is included in The Assassinations.

Secondly, because of this haste, the book is--to put it gently--not adroitly composed. Newman's previous book, JFK and Vietnam, also deals with a complex topic: President Kennedy's intent to withdraw from the Vietnam conflict. Yet that book is skillfully arranged and written. When I asked the author about the comparison between the two, he said, "But Jim, that book was ten years in the making." I should also add that he had an editor on the first book. Something he did not have, at least to my knowledge, on the second.

Third, Major John Newman was an intelligence analyst for twenty years. And he approached Oswald and the CIA in that vein. In other words, he played to his strengths. Therefore the book is a study of Oswald as he is viewed through the intelligence apparatus of the United States government. Or, as the author notes, it's about "Oswald the file". The author rarely tries to fill out the story or the personage. For instance, the alleged attempted suicide of Oswald in Russia is not mentioned here. Ruth Paine is mentioned once; Michael Paine not at all. Only a highly disciplined, almost obsessed mind, could hew to that line almost continuously. Or the mind of a former intelligence analyst. Consequently, because of its inherent longeurs, the book makes some demands on the reader. Which some, like Scott and Murray, were not up to.

Now, with caveats out of the way, lets get to the rewards in this valuable, and undervalued, book. No person, or body, not even the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), has ever dug more deeply into what the American intelligence community knew about Oswald prior to the assassination. What Newman reveals here literally makes the Warren Commission look like a Model T Ford. All the denials issued to that body by the likes of John McCone and J. Edgar Hoover are exposed as subterfuges. Contrary to their canards, there was a lot of interest in Oswald from the time he defected to Russia until the assassination.

Newman first discovered this when he was hired by PBS to work on their ill-fated Frontline special about Oswald in 1993. And it was this discovery that inspired him to write the book. The CIA Director at the time of the debate in Congress over the creation of the Assassination Records Review Board had testified there were something like 39 documents at CIA about Oswald. Most of them were supposed to be clippings. Newman discovered there was many, many times that amount. Further, he discovered the Agency held multiple files on Oswald. And finally, and perhaps most interestingly, there were some puzzling irregularities within the record. (When the author expressed his continuing bewilderment about this to the archivist, the archivist replied, "Haven't you ever heard of Murphy's Law?" To which Newman shot back, "Every time I turn around I'm walking into Mr. Murphy.")

Mr. Murphy makes his appearance right at the start. Once Oswald defected to Russia in 1959 the FBI opened up a file on him for security purposes. But at the CIA there is a curious, and suspicious, vacuum. Richard Snyder of the American Embassy in Moscow sent a cable to Washington about Oswald's defection. But the exact date the CIA got it cannot be confirmed (p. 24). Further, the person who received it cannot be determined either. Since Oswald was a former Marine, the Navy also sent a cable on November 4th. This cable included the information that Oswald had threatened to give up radar secrets to the Soviets. But again, no one knows exactly when this cable arrived at CIA. And almost as interesting, where it was placed upon its immediate arrival. (p. 25) This is quite odd because, as Newman points out (Chapter 3), Oswald's close association with the U-2 plane while at Atsugi, Japan should have placed alerts all over this cable. It did not. To show a comparison, the FBI recommended "a stop be placed against the fingerprints to prevent subject's entering the US under any name." (Ibid) So, on November 4, 1959, the FBI issued a FLASH warning on Oswald. This same Navy memo arrived at CIA and, after a Warren Report type "delayed reaction", eventually went to James Angleton's CI/SIG unit on December 6th. Angleton was chief of counter-intelligence. SIG was a kind of safeguard unit that protected the Agency from penetration agents. It was closely linked to the Office of Security in that regard. But as Newman queries: where was it for the previous 31 days? Newman notes that the Snyder cable and this Navy memo fell into a "black hole " somewhere. In fact, the very first file Newman could find on Oswald was not even at CI/SIG. It was at the Office of Security. This is all quite puzzling because, as the author notes, neither should have been the proper resting place for an initial file on Oswald. This black hole "kept the Oswald files away from the spot we would expect them to go-the Soviet Russia division." (p. 27)

Another thing the author finds puzzling about this early file is that he could find no trace of a security investigation about the danger of Oswald's defection. This is really odd because while talking to some of his friends the author found out that Oswald knew something that very few people did: the U-2 was also flying over China. If Snyder's original memo said that Oswald had threatened to give up secrets on radar operation to the Russians, and Oswald had been stationed at the U-2 base in Japan, there should have been a thorough security investigation as to what Oswald could have given the Russians. For the obvious reason that the program could be adjusted to avoid any counterattack based upon that relayed information. Newman could find no evidence of such an inquiry. (pgs 28,33-34) Further, the author found out that Oswald was actually part of a unit called Detachment C, which seemed to almost follow the U-2 around to crisis spots in the Far East, like Indonesia. (p. 42)

Needless to say, after Oswald defected, the second U-2 flight over Russia--with Gary Powers on board--was shot down. Powers felt that, "Oswald's work with the new MPS 16 height-finding radar looms large" in that event. (p. 43) The author segues here to this question: Whatever the CIA did or did not do in regard to this important question, it should have been a routine part of the Warren Commission inquiry. It was not. As the author notes, "When called to testify at the Warren Commission hearings, Oswald's marine colleagues were not questioned about the U-2." (p. 43) Oswald's commander in the Far East, John Donovan, was ready to discuss the issue in depth. The Commission was not. In fact, Donovan was briefed in advance not to fall off topic. (p. 45) When it was over, Donovan had to ask, "Don't you want to know anything about the U-2." He even asked a friend of his who had testified: "Did they ask you about the U-2?" And he said, "No, not a thing." (Ibid) Donovan revealed that the CIA did not question him about the U-2 until December of 1963. But this was probably a counter-intelligence strategy, to see whom he had talked to and what he had revealed. Why is that a distinct probability? Because right after Powers was shot down, the CIA closed its U-2 operations at Atsugi. Yet, Powers did not fly out of Atsugi. As Newman notes, the only link between Powers and Atsugi was Oswald. (p. 46)

Right after this U-2 episode, Newman notes another oddity. The CIA did not open a 201 file on Oswald for over a year after his defection, on 12/8/60. (p. 47) This gap seriously puzzled the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Investigator Dan Hardway called CI officer Ann Egerter about it. It was a short conversation. She didn't want to discuss it. (p. 48) The HSCA tried to neuter the issue by studying other defector cases. But as Newman notes: defection is legal but espionage, like giving up the secrets to the U-2, is not. (pgs 49-50) So the comparison was faulty. In fact, when Egerter finally opened Oswald's 201 file, the defection was noted, but his knowledge of the U-2 wasn't. This delay in opening the 201 file was so unusual that the HSCA asked former CIA Director Richard Helms about it. His reply was vintage Helms: "I am amazed. Are you sure there wasn't? ... .I can't explain that." (p. 51) When the HSCA asked where the documents were prior to the opening of the 201 file, the CIA replied they were never classified higher than confidential and therefore were no longer in existence. Newman notes that this is a lie. Many were classified as "Secret" and he found most of them, so they were not destroyed. Further, the ones that were classified as confidential are still around also. (p. 52)

And this is where one of the most fascinating discoveries in the book is revealed. Although no 201 file was opened on Oswald until December of 1960, he was put on the Watch List in November of 1959. This list was part of the CIA's illegal HT/LINGUAL mail intercept program-only about 300 people were on it. Recall, this is at a time when Oswald's file is in the so-called Black Hole. It was not possible to find a paper trail on him until the next month. How could he, at the same time, be so inconsequential as to have no file opened, yet so important as to be on the quite exclusive Watch List? This defies comprehension. In fact, Newman is forced to conclude, "The absence of a 201 file was a deliberate act, not an oversight." (p. 54) Clearly, someone at the CIA knew who Oswald was and thought it was important enough to intercept his mail. Long ago, when I asked Newman to explain this paradox in light of the fact that his first file would be opened at CI/SIG, he replied that one possibility was Oswald was being run as an off the books agent by Angleton. In light of the other factors mentioned in this section, i.e. concerning the U-2 secrets, the "black hole" delay, plus what we will discover later, I know of no better way to explain this dichotomy.

In his analysis of the Russian scene with Oswald on the ground, Newman made clear two important points. First, whereas most of the attention prior to this book was on embassy official Richard Snyder's interaction with Oswald, Newman revealed a man behind the scenes, peering through the curtains: John McVickar. It was this other embassy official who asked Priscilla Johnson to interview Oswald without Snyder's OK. (p. 72) What makes this interesting is the timing. Oswald had actually refused an interview with American reporter Bob Korengold. He had not been very forthcoming with Aline Mosby, the first journalist to talk to him. Then two things happened. First, the Russians communicated to Oswald that he would be allowed to stay in Russia (p. 73). Second, after McVickar gave Johnson the tip about Oswald, the defector agreed to meet her at her room. He arrived at nine at night. He stayed until well past midnight. (p. 72) What makes this interesting is that Newman reveals that Oswald's room at the Metropole Hotel was equipped with an infra-red camera for the observation of its occupants-and the CIA knew this. (p. 9) Second, Oswald found out he would be allowed to stay through a Russian official who actually visited his room.

After the long interview with Priscilla Johnson, McVickar had dinner with the reporter. Johnson, of course, worked for the conservative, and intelligence affiliated, North American News Alliance. At this dinner, somehow, some way, McVickar revealed that Oswald was going to be trained in electronics. (p. 84) Which he was.

Besides the discoveries about McVickar, Newman actually found documents that revealed that Johnson had applied to work for the CIA as early as 1952. She then worked with Cord Meyer, who helped fund the Congress for Cultural Freedom, exposed later as a CIA conduit. At the time Newman wrote the book, it was not yet revealed that the CIA did not hire her because they later deduced she could be used to do what they wanted anyway and they classified her as a "witting collaborator." (The Assassinations p. 435) The story based on this interview received little play in the media at the time, although it did announce that Oswald was a defector. But after the assassination, Johnson revised this original story-to Oswald's disadvantage-- and it received circulation through the wire services, including the front page of the Dallas Morning News. Thanks to Newman we now know that McVickar was ultimately responsible for it.

Another hidden action that was first revealed in this book was that in 1961, the CIA launched a counterintelligence program against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which had been formed the year before. According to the author, that effort was launched by the CIA's Office of Security, under the orders of James McCord. (p. 95) Further, this operation was done within the United States, which made it illegal for the Agency, and without the permission of the FBI. Making it even more interesting is that, as Newman first revealed, David Phillips was also part of this program. (p. 241) This program used neighbors hired as spies, and double agents posing as sympathizers, both reporting back to the CIA. (p. 241)

When Oswald decided he wanted to return from Russia, Newman notes another appearance by Mr. Murphy. Actually two. No "lookout" card was inserted on Oswald by the State Department. Although it appears that one was prepared, it was never active. (p. 138) This would have alerted State and other agencies that a security risk had applied to reenter the country. Second, many FBI files that contained the security risk information on Oswald from 1959 are now missing. (p. 153) Finally, the FBI very selectively issued documents from these files to the Warren Commission. The HSCA got more of the picture. But in 1994, when the author went looking for the information hinted at to the HSCA, he couldn't find them. (p. 154)

When Oswald tries to return, he negotiates to have potential legal proceedings against him dropped. (p. 218) Interestingly, he was taken off the Watch List in 1960, then placed back on it in August of 1961. (But yet, his mail was opened even when he was off the list! p. 284) And at this time, there is the first documentary evidence that the CIA had an operational interest in Oswald. At the end of a memo about Oswald's probable return, the chief of the Soviet Russia division wrote, "It was partly out of curiosity to learn if Oswald's wife would actually accompany him to our country, partly out of interest in Oswald's own experiences in the USSR, that we showed operational intelligence interest in the Harvey [Oswald ] story." (p. 227)

Marina got her exit visa surprisingly fast. Oswald explained his behavior there as, "It was necessary to make this propaganda because at the time he had wanted to live in Russia." (p. 235) Oswald thought his passport would be confiscated when he returned. But, surprisingly-or not-Oswald was actually able to sign papers for a government loan at the American Embassy. A man named Spas Raikin of the Travelers Aid Society was contacted by the State Department to meet Oswald and his new wife in New York in June of 1962. The Oswalds made it through customs and immigration without incident. And without any evidence of an attempt at a debriefing.

When Oswald arrived back in Texas, FBI agent John Fain did do an interview with him. Oswald then got a job at Leslie Welding, and started to subscribe to communist newspapers. At this point, Mr. Murphy pops up again. Even though the FBI had informants in many post offices looking out for just this sort of thing-a former defector subscribing to communist periodicals- and Oswald has signed a post office form instructing the post office to deliver him foreign propaganda, the Bureau did an inexplicable thing. In October, they closed their Oswald file. (p. 271)

What makes the timing of this fascinating are two events. First, the CIA campaign against the FPCC begins to heat up, and the FBI opens up a similar front against the FPCC led by Cartha De Loach. (p. 243) Second, George DeMohrenschildt, the Baron, enters Oswald's life. In his interview with the Warren Commission, the Baron tried to conceal his knowledge of who J. Walton Moore was. Moore was the head of the CIA office in Dallas who, it was later revealed, approached the Baron about going out to meet the returned defector. But DeMohrenschildt told the Warren Commission that Moore was "some sort of an FBI man in Dallas. Many people consider him the head of the FBI in Dallas." (p. 277)

Newman closes this section of the book with a beautiful Mr. Murphy episode. He notes that FBI agent James Hosty was now, rather belatedly, looking for Oswald and his wife. This was in March of 1963. Hosty also recommended that Oswald's case be reopened. The grounds for this reopening? Oswald had a newly opened subscription to the Communist newspaper, The Worker. (p. 273) But, as the author notes, when the Dallas FBI office had previously learned of an earlier such subscription-to the exact same publication-it had closed his file! This recommendation had a caveat. Hosty left a note in Oswald's file "to come back in forty-five to sixty days." (Ibid) But by then, of course, Oswald would be in New Orleans. Newman poses the question: Was the reason Oswald's case was closed for these six months because DeMohrenschildt was now making his approach to Oswald? (p. 277) Was another reason because Oswald was now about to enter the fray, along with the CIA and FBI, against the FPCC in New Orleans? (p. 289)

The two finest parts of this distinguished work are the sections on New Orleans and, especially, Mexico City. Newman notes that the official story is that the FBI lost track of Oswald while he was organizing his FPCC group in New Orleans under the name of Hidell. This is when many credible witnesses place him in league with Guy Banister and Sergio Arcacha Smith at 544 Camp Street. But even though FBI agents Regis Kennedy and Warren DeBrueys were specialists on the anti-Castro beat in New Orleans, the FBI holds that Hosty did not know that Oswald moved to New Orleans until June 26th. In this book, the author demonstrates with a chart why this is so hard to believe. On page 300 he lists seven different events between May 14th and June 5th that should have caused the Bureau to realize that Oswald had moved. If you believe the Bureau, it wasn't enough.

The author suspects this methodical obtuseness was due to the fact that Oswald was in, what Newman calls, his "undercover" phase in New Orleans. That is, he has visited Jones Printing to order flyers with two different stamps applied, neither of them in his name. The first is under the name Hidell, and the second is addressed 544 Camp St. Newman believes that Banister was using Oswald to smoke out leftwing students and liberal professors at Tulane, like Prof. Leonard Reissman. Newman also brings out the fact that in a memo to the Bureau from New Orleans, the information that several FPCC pamphlets contained the 544 Camp St. address was scratched out. (p. 310)

The next discovery made by the author is also arresting. The FBI says they discovered Oswald was in New Orleans at the end of June. (p. 317) Yet they did not verify where he lived until August 5th. As Newman notes, the latter is the same day that Oswald broke out of his undercover mode and contacted some Cuban exiles, using his real name. Or as the author puts it: " ... the FBI's alleged blind period covers-to the day-the precise period of Oswald's undercover activity in New Orleans." (Ibid)

On August 5th, Oswald begins to play an overt role as an agent provocateur with Carlos Bringuier of the anti-Castro exile group, the DRE. The Warren Commission never knew that the DRE had a CIA code name, AMSPELL. When Oswald is arrested on Canal Street after his famous altercation with Bringuier, he actually had the Corliss Lamont booklet, "The Crime Against Cuba" with him. This had the "FPCC 544 Camp Street" stamp on it. (As I showed in my first book, this particular pamphlet was very likely provided to Banister through the CIA itself. See Destiny Betrayed, p. 219) Newman then details Oswald's arrest, his court date, his activities in front of the International Trade Mart-with flyers in his own name with his own address, and how Oswald now goes to the papers to get ads published for his cause. Oswald was attracting so much attention that J. Edgar Hoover requested a memorandum on him in late August with a detailed summary of his activities. This went to the CIA. When Oswald debated Bringuier on a radio program, the moderator Bill Stuckey offered the tape to the FBI. And the DRE reported the incident to the CIA. As Newman builds to his climax, all of this is important in light of what will happen next.

After creating a lot of bad publicity for the FPCC in New Orleans, Oswald now lowers his profile again. At the Mexican consulate in New Orleans, he and CIA operative Bill Gaudet get visas to go to Mexico on September 17th .Why is the date important? Because on the day before, the 16th, the CIA told the FBI they were considering countering FPCC activities in foreign countries. A week later, Oswald leaves New Orleans on a bus to Mexico.

What Newman does with the legendary Oswald trip to Mexico is, in some respects, revolutionary. Greatly helped by the release of the finally declassified Lopez Report, he actually goes beyond that magnificent document. According to the Warren Commission, Oswald was in Mexico City from Friday September 27th to Wednesday October 3rd. The ostensible reason was to acquire an in-transit visa from the Cuban consulate so he could travel from Cuba back to the Soviet Union. But as Newman notes, this story makes little sense and is likely a ruse. (p. 615) Oswald already had a passport to Russia, but the stamp warned that a person traveling to Cuba would be liable for prosecution. If he really wanted to go to Russia, Oswald could have gone the same roundabout route he had in 1959. The route he was choosing this time actually made it much harder, if not impossible, to get to Russia in any kind of current time frame.

When Oswald first shows up at the Cuban consulate it allegedly is at 11:00 AM on Friday. (p. 356) Yet as the author notes on his chronological chart, he is supposed to have already called the Soviet Consulate twice that morning. (Ibid) The problem with those two calls is that they were both in Spanish which, as the Lopez Report notes, the weight of the evidence says Oswald did not speak. He tells receptionist Silvia Duran he wants an in-transit visa for travel via Cuba to Russia. But he has no passport photos. He leaves to get the pictures taken. When he returned with the photos, Duran told him that he now had to get his Soviet visa before she could issue his Cuban visa. (p. 357)

Oswald now went to the Soviet Consulate. But here we find another problem with what is supposed to be his third call there. The time frames for the call and the visit overlap. He cannot be outside calling inside when he is already inside. (Ibid) Further, this call is also in Spanish, which creates a double problem with the call. Once inside, Oswald learns he cannot get a visa to give to Duran unless he requested it from Washington first. And the process would take weeks. Oswald now makes a scene and is escorted out. He goes back to the Cuban consulate. Oswald tells Duran there was no problem with the Soviet visa. She does not buy his story and calls the Soviet consulate. They tell her they will call her back. Embassy official and KGB secret agent Valery Kostikov calls back. Oswald's attempt falls apart since Oswald knows no one in Cuba and the routing to the Russian Embassy in Washington will take too long. (p. 359) This call seems genuine. But as the author notes, and as we shall see, there was one problem with it: neither Duran nor Kostikov mentioned Oswald by name.

Oswald creates another scene and quarrels with Cuban counsel Eusebio Azcue. Now, and this is important, Duran insists that this is the last time she saw or spoke to Oswald. This created a serious problem because the Warren Commission reported that she did talk to him again.(p, 408) The apparent source for this is an FBI memo of Dec. 3, 1963. The HSCA realized this was a problem. So they grilled Duran on this point. They tried three different ways to get her to admit she could be wrong. She stuck by her story. (pgs 409-410)

Why is this so problematic? Because on the next day, Saturday September 28th, the Lopez Report says there was a call from a man and a woman to the Soviet Consulate. Further, in his interviews, Newman discovered that the Russians maintain that the switchboard was closed on Saturday. (p. 368) From this and other evidence, Newman concludes that the man in this call is not Oswald. Duran says the woman is not her. Further evidence of this impersonation is that Oswald had visited the Russian Consulate earlier that day. And this phone conversation has little, if any, connection to what he discussed there. From information in the Lopez Report, from CIA Station Chief's Winston Scott's manuscript, and interviews with the transcribers, there was also a call made on Monday, the 30th, from Oswald to the Soviet Consulate. This call is apparently lost today.

Finally, on Tuesday, October 1st, there are two calls from Oswald to the Soviet Consulate. Right off the bat, these are suspicious because they are in poor Russian. Yet Oswald was supposed to have spoken fluent Russian. So again, these two calls appear to have been made by an imposter.

But why? In the new Epilogue written for this edition, Newman writes it is because when Duran originally called the Soviet Consulate, Oswald's name was not specifically mentioned. When Oswald then went to the Soviets on Saturday, and created another scene, this was the last of the actual encounters. The specific problem was this: There was no direct record made between Oswald and Kostikov. As we shall see, this could not be allowed. So the two calls on Tuesday had to be made. And the necessity was such that the risk was run of exposing the charade by not having Oswald's voice on the tapes. Why was this so important?

Prior to Oswald's Mexican odyssey, the FBI reports on his FPCC forays in New Orleans went into a new operational file at CIA, which did not merge with his 201 file. (p. 393) According to the author, this file eventually contained almost a thousand documents. Newman dates the bifurcation from September 23rd: shortly after Oswald goes to the Mexican consulate, and right about when he leaves New Orleans. The FBI report goes to Oswald's CI/SIG soft file and his Office of Security file. (p. 394) But after the assassination, all the FBI reports suddenly revert back to Oswald's 201 file. Only two compartments in the Agency had all of Oswald's file-CI/SIG and Office of Security. As we shall see, there is a method to all this meandering.

At CIA HQ, after the information about Oswald in Mexico City arrives, a first cable is sent on October 10. This cable is meant for the FBI, State Department and the Navy. This cable describes a man who does not resemble Oswald. He is 35 years old, has an athletic build, and stands six feet tall. (p. 398)

At almost the same time this cable was sent, a second cable from CIA HQ goes to Mexico City. This one has the right description of Oswald. So therefore, in a normal situation, the officers in Mexico City could match the description to their surveillance take. But it was missing something crucial. It said that the latest information that CIA had on Oswald was a State Department Memorandum dated from May of 1962. This was not true. For just one example, the Agency had more than one FBI report about Oswald's FPCC activities in New Orleans. Yet, for some reason, the file used to draft this cable was missing the FBI New Orleans reports. What makes these two varyingly false cables even more interesting is that Angleton's trusted assistant Ann Egerter signed off on both of them for accuracy. (p. 401) Apparently, she didn't know what she was signing, or if they contradicted each other. Further, Egerter sent Oswald's 201 file, which was restricted, to the HQ Mexico City desk until November 22nd. (Ibid)

For the first cable, Jane Roman was the releasing officer. She also participated in the drafting of the second cable. What makes her participation in all this so interesting is that she had read the latest information about Oswald in New Orleans on October 4th, less than a week before she signed off on the first cable. When Newman confronted her with these contradictory documents, she said: "I'm signing off on something that I know isn't true." (p. 405) She went on and tried to explain it with this: "I wasn't in on any particular goings-on or hanky-panky as far as the Cuban situation ... to me it's indicative of a keen interest in Oswald, held very closely on a need-to-know basis." (p. 405) Note her reference to the "Cuban situation". For it was Oswald's activities with the Cubans in New Orleans that was left out of the second cable to Mexico City. Therefore Mexico City chief Win Scott could not coordinate Oswald's New Orleans activities with what Oswald had done on his home turf.

For the second cable, the releasing officer was Tom Karemessines who was deputy to Richard Helms. It has never been explained why this cable had to go so high up into officialdom for permission to release it.

There is one last piece to this mosaic that is necessary for its deadly denouement to be fully comprehended. Ann Egerter testified that their counter-intelligence group knew Kostikov was a KGB agent. But the story is that they did not know he was part of Department 13, which participated in assassinations, until after Kennedy's assassination. (p. 419)

All of this is absolutely central to the events that occur on November 22, 1963. Consider: Here you have a defector who was in the Soviet Union for almost three years. He returns and then gets involved confronting anti-Castro Cubans in New Orleans. He then goes to Mexico City, and visits both the Cuban and Soviet embassies trying to get to Russia from Cuba. He creates dramatic scenes at both places, and here is the capper: He talks to the KGB's officer in charge of assassinations in the Western Hemisphere. By the time Oswald returned to Dallas, the alarm bell should have been sounding on him throughout the intelligence community. Especially in view of Kennedy's announced visit to Texas. He should never have been allowed to be on the motorcade route. The Secret Service should have had the necessary information about him and he should have been on their Security Index.

This did not happen. In fact, at the time his profile should have been rising, these false cables within the CIA and to the FBI, State, and Navy were actually lowering it. The final masterstroke, which made sure the information would be concealed until November 22nd, was not discovered until after the book's initial publication. As stated above, the FBI had issued a FLASH warning on Oswald back in 1959. After four years, this was removed on October 9, 1963! This was just hours before the first CIA cable mentioned above was sent. (The Assassinations p. 222)

As Newman notes, "the CIA was spawning a web of deception". (p. 430) When JFK is killed, and Hoover tells President Johnson about Oswald's trip to Mexico City and his visits to both the Cuban and Russian embassies, the threat of nuclear war quickly enters the conversation. But when the FBI discovers that the voice on the tapes are not really Oswald's it does two things: 1.) It points to something even more sinister, therefore throwing the intelligence community into a CYA mode, and 2.) It forces the Agency to hatch a cover story: the tapes were routinely destroyed days after they were made. The result of all this was an investigation that was never allowed to investigate. A presidential commission whose leader was told beforehand that millions of lives were at risk because the Cubans and Russians might be involved. And it exposed an intelligence community that was asleep at the switch, therefore allowing the alleged assassin to be moved into place by the KGB. The result was therefore preordained: a whitewash would follow. And Newman presents written evidence from both J. Edgar Hoover and Nicolas Katzenbach demonstrating that the subsequent inquiry was curtailed at its inception. Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach wrote that speculation about Oswald had to be "cut off" and the idea that the assassination was a communist conspiracy had to be rebutted. (p. 632) Newman later discovered that Hoover realized he had been duped by the CIA about Oswald in Mexico City. (The Assassinations, p. 224)

In his new Epilogue for this 2008 edition, Newman explains why only someone who a.) Understood the inner workings of the national security state, and b.) Understood and controlled Oswald's files, could have masterminded something as superhumanly complex as this scheme. One in which the conspiracy itself actually contained the seeds that would sprout the cover-up.

In this new chapter, Newman names James Angleton as the designer of the plot. (p. 637) He also names Anne Goodpasture, David Phillips' assistant in Mexico City, as the person who hatched the internal CIA cover up by saying the ersatz tapes had been destroyed in October. This is evidenced in a cable she sent on 11/23 (pgs 633-634). Yet she probably knew this was false. Because she later testified to the ARRB that a voice dub of a tape had been carried to the Texas border on 11/22/63, the night before she sent the cable (p. 654). Further, Win Scott had made his own voice comparison after the assassination. He could not have if the tapes had been destroyed. (p. 635) Angleton made sure Scott's voice comparison never became public by swooping into Mexico City and confronting, nearly threatening, Win Scott's widow after he died. Once he was inside the house, he removed four suitcases of materials from Scott's office. This included the contents of his safe where the Mexico City/Oswald materials had been stored. (p. 637)

This remarkable book could never have been composed or even contemplated without the existence of the Assassination Records Review Board. No book takes us more into Oswald's workings with the intelligence community than this one. And his section on Mexico City is clearly one of the 5 or 6 greatest discoveries made in the wake of the ARRB. The incredible thing about the case he makes for conspiracy and cover up is this: The overwhelming majority of his evidence is made up of the government's own records. Its not anecdotal, its not second hand. In other words, its not from the likes of Frank Ragano, Billy Sol Estes, or Ed Partin. It is material that could be used in a court of law. And it would be very hard to explain away to a jury. Imagine the kind of witness Jane Roman would make.

Which is why it all had to be concealed for over thirty years. So much for there being nothing new or important in those newly declassified files. Angleton knew differently. Just ask Win Scott's widow. Or read this book.

_{Posted 06 September 2012 - 12:40 AM}

Vallee, it turns out, was driving a car with a license plate whose registration information was classified; that is, “restricted to U.S. intelligence agencies.”// ERNIE LAZAR

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mr. Lazar Vallee's car was not a national security issue. (SEE LINK RED BELOW)

HOWEVER THE CHICAGO PLOT MAKES THE WALKER THEORY AS MASTERMIND INVALID.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

LARRY HANCOCK POST

Vallee, Thomas Arthur

(4614 N. Paulina and 1725 N. Wilson - Chicago IL)

327-30- 4015; b: 11-15-33 (Chicago); d: 03-26-88 (Chicago)

8/12/49 = Enlisted in Marine Corps in Green Bay WI

11/28/53 = honorably discharged

2/55 = re-enlisted in Marine Corps Reserve

11/28/55 = called to active duty while in Chicago and honorably discharged 9/14/56 due to physical disability (army doctors classified him as schizophrenic)

5/63 = Arrested in Knoxville TN for DWI

10/30/63 = interviewed by US Secret Service prior to JFK visit to Chicago; employed by IPP Printing Co. as lithographer

11/2/63 = Chicago PD arrested him and discovered guns/ammo in his car; had California driver’s license with address in Oakland

JBS member

Secret Service master file on Thomas Arthur Vallee, memorandum of Nov. 6, 1963, p. 2 (JFK Document 008581).

======================================= end post

==

Reviewed by James DiEugenio

Abraham Bolden was a Secret Service agent who had asked to leave the White House in 1961. He did not care for the lackadaisical practices of the White House detail. (p. 200) On October 30, 1963 Bolden was in Chicago when the local agents were briefed on what they knew about an attempt being planned on JFK's life there. After Vallee's arrest and the foiling of the plot, Bolden felt a foreboding about Kennedy's upcoming trip to Dallas. When Kennedy was killed, Bolden noted the similarities between what had occurred in Dallas and what almost occurred in Chicago. In May of 1964 he was in Washington for a Secret Service training program. (p. 215) He tried to contact the Warren Commission about what he knew. The day after his call to J. Lee Rankin, he was sent back to Chicago. Upon his arrival he was arrested. The pretense was that he was trying to sell Secret Service files to a counterfeiter. Upon his arraignment he was formally charged with fraud, obstruction of justice, and conspiracy. (Ibid) Needless to say, Bolden was convicted based upon perjured testimony. (The phony witness later admitted this himself.) He was imprisoned at Springfield where he was placed in a psychiatric unit. (p. 216) He was given mind-numbing drugs. But other inmates alerted him to the nature of the drugs in advance. So he knew how to fake taking the pills. While in prison, his family endured a bombing of their home, setting fire to their garage, and a sniper shooting through their window. Mark Lane, while working for Garrison, visited him in 1967. Lane then wrote about Bolden's knowledge of the plot in Chicago. When the prison authorities learned about this, they placed Bolden in solitary confinement. He was finally released in 1969.

==

Posted October 29, 2013

The designated patsy for the assassination plot in Chicago was a disgruntled ex-Marine named Thomas Arthur Vallee (ibid). As the author explains to the reader, there are many similarities between the Chicago plot and the assassination in Dallas, and between Oswald and Vallee. There are so many that no objective researcher (which Bugliosi is not) could possibly dismiss all of them as meaning nothing. For example, as James W. Douglass, the author of the fine book JFK and the Unspeakable discovered, the President's motorcade in Chicago would have taken him past the building in which Vallee was working, in a similar slow turn in which his motorcade made in Dallas from Houston Street onto Elm Street (ibid). As far as Oswald and Vallee are concerned, both of them had been US Marines, and both of them had been stationed in a U2 base in Japan while in the Marines. Also, just like Oswald, the cover unit for Vallee's probable CIA recruitment was allegedly called the Joint Technical Advisory Group. Like the Oswald who appeared at Sylvia Odio's, Vallee had actually spoken bitterly about President Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs invasion failed (ibid). Yet Bugliosi never mentionsd any of the above in Reclaiming History. . He does however, snidely describe Black's magazine article as follows; "For a long magazine article trying to make something of the Vallee story ... see HSCA record 180-10099-10279..." (ibid). This about what is perhaps the most crucial essay written on the JFK case at that time.

===

http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-plot-chicago

President Kennedy had been due to appear at Soldier Field, the American football stadium just south of Grant Park in Chicago, on Saturday 2 November 1963. Three days before Kennedy’s arrival, the FBI in Washington, DC, contacted the Secret Service office in Chicago and informed them of a plot to assassinate JFK on his journey to the stadium.

According to the FBI, a group of four right–wing extremists, armed with rifles, would probably attempt the assassination while the president’s car was on the Northwest Expressway between O’Hare Airport and downtown Chicago.

Secret Service investigators followed two leads:

• On Thursday 31 October, a landlady telephoned the Chicago police, telling them that she had discovered four rifles in one of her rooms which was rented to a group of four men. The police informed the Secret Service, who took two of the four men into custody the next day. There are no records of any weapons having been discovered. The two men were interrogated, but refused to admit to being part of a conspiracy to murder the president.
• An unknown source accused a man named Thomas Arthur Vallee of threatening to assassinate JFK. Although Vallee was not associated with the two men in custody, he appeared to be a right–wing extremist and he certainly owned several guns and a large quantity of ammunition. At about 9 o’clock on Saturday morning, two hours before Kennedy was due to land at O’Hare, Vallee was stopped by the police on the pretext of having committed a minor driving offence, and was arrested.

Kennedy’s trip to Chicago was called off at the last moment, ostensibly because of the need for the president to monitor the progress of the military coup d’état in South Vietnam, which had taken place the previous day. The two men in custody were released without charge, and have never been identified.

Threats of violence against political figures happen all the time. The significance of the Chicago plot, if there was one, rested on its apparent similarities to the events in Dallas three weeks later. In particular, there were several similarities between the career of Lee Harvey Oswald and Thomas Arthur Vallee’s account of his own career:

• Both were former Marines.
• Both had served at Marine bases in Japan that hosted the U–2 spy plane: Oswald at Atsugi, Vallee at Camp Otsu.
• Both had been involved with anti–Castro Cubans: Oswald in New Orleans, Vallee at a training camp at Levittown on Long Island, New York.
• Both had recently started working at premises that overlooked the routes of presidential parades: Oswald at the Texas School Book Depository on Elm Street in Dallas, Vallee at IPP Litho–Plate at 625 West Jackson Boulevard in Chicago.

There were two other curious coincidences:

• The tip–off to the FBI about the assassination plot in Chicago came from an informant identified only as ‘Lee’. In the first few weeks after the assassination, there were rumours that Lee Oswald had been a paid informant of the FBI.
• Thomas Vallee was arrested at 9:10am Chicago time, having been under constant surveillance since the previous day. Five minutes later, at 10:15 Washington time, President Kennedy’s press spokesman, Pierre Salinger, announced that the visit to Chicago had been cancelled. The decision to cancel the trip had presumably been made several minutes earlier. The timing has led some commentators to conclude that Vallee was allowed to remain on the streets until he was no longer required to perform his unwitting role as designated patsy.
• ===========
• 
• ba·lo·ney WALKER MASTERMIND THEORY

  THE CHICAGO PLOT MAKES THE WALKER THEORY AS MASTERMIND INVALID.

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Dear Senator Church:
  
  The Warren Commission found and concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to assassinate the undersigned at his home, at 9pm. on April 10, 1963. The initial and immediate investigation at the time of the incident reported two men at my home, one with a gun, seen by an eye-witness -- a neighbor. Within days I was informed by a Lieutenant on the Dallas City Police Force that Oswald was in custody by 12pm that night for questioning. He was released on a higher authority than that in Dallas. There were two men, not a "Lonely Loner". Please inform me if the CIA was involved in this attempted assassination?
  
  Yours sincerely,
  Edwin A. Walker
  

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^