Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Your reply makes no sense whatsoever.

TIM, I DON'T MAKE SENSE TO YOU AND YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.

Have you even read the transcript of the Hoover telephone call to LBJ on the morning of the 23rd? It sure does not appear that you have.

YES AND HOVER TELLS LBJ THAT LHO WENT TO CUBA - I DON'T EVEN LIST THAT ONE.

You refuse to even say whether you believe Oswald actually met Kostikov.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT I BELIEVE OR SAY ABOUT THAT, WHAT MATTERS IS THAT OSWALD'S RECORDS REFLECTED THAT AS A FACT.

As Michael pointed out, no way did LBJ say at 4:15 p.m. that there was a Communist conspiracy. He was careful not even to label Oswald as a Communist.

It must be sad and difficult to defend a pet theory unsupported by the facts.

WHAT'S MY PET THEORY AGAIN?

I AM NOT DEFENDING A THEORY, I AM TRYING TO VERIFY SOMEONE ELSE'S THEORY.

I AM MERELY APPLYING THE CIA'S PSYCHWAR EXPERT PAUL LINEBARGER'S THEORY THAT PROPAGANDA CAN BE READ AND DECIPHERED AND ITS PERPATRATORS IDENTIFIED AS WELL AS THEIR MOTIVES AND INTENTIONS.

AND THAT THOSE INSTANCES IN WHICH CASTRO/CUBA ARE BLAMED FOR THE ASSASSINATION CAN BE TRACED BACK TO GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE OPERATIVES AND ASSETS.

And again no answer why there was no REAL smoking gun and why the CIA could not even produce photos of LHO in Mexico City, Some black op!

I DON'T KNOW WHY THE CIA COULD NOT PRODUCE PHOTOS OF OSWALD IN MEXICO CITY.

AND TIM, MY ANALYSIS OF THESE BLACK PROP OPS IS JUST BEGINNING.

STICK AROUND, IT'S GOING TO GET EVEN MORE INTERESTING. WAIT TILL WE GET TO ITEMS #15/16 -

AND YOU WILL PROBABLY GET EVEN MORE TWISTED.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Your reply makes no sense whatsoever.

J. Edgar Hoover occupied a near-mythical position in American life in 1963,

such that his word on the guilt of Castro would have been sufficient to establish

a pre-text for war, given the amount of ginned up "evidence" already prepared

in the CIA "black op."

Seems abundantly clear to me, so I'd have to put it down as your problem

alone.

Have you even read the transcript of the Hoover telephone call to LBJ on the morning of the 23rd? It sure does not appear that you have.

The transcript only covers about half of the time of the phone call.

In the transcript Hoover expresses his "confusion" over the reports

coming out of Mexico City, and doesn't seem happy with his assignment

to frame one man for the job.

Why do you ask?

Why do you continue to ignore my citation of 7PM 11/22/63 as the moment

the Official Scenario was laid down by Harriman?

You refuse to even say whether you believe Oswald actually met Kostikov.

As Michael pointed out, no way did LBJ say at 4:15 p.m. that there was a Communist conspiracy.

LBJ was on Air Force One at that time. Earlier, he said he didn't want to

leave Dallas until he found out "if it was a communist conspiracy."

(See Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked).

LBJ didn't leave Dallas until after Oswald was arrested.

According to Vincent Salandria, McGeorge Bundy from the White House

Situation Room informed Johnson on AF1 that a lone nut was the killer.

See, the Yale boys called the shots.

Anything different these days?

He was careful not even to label Oswald as a Communist.

It must be sad and difficult to defend a pet theory unsupported by the facts.

American foriegn policy has been hijacked by a criminal enterprise called the

Harriman-Bush Crime Family for over 80 years.

I've so argued and you haven't offered a single rebuttal.

And again no answer why there was no REAL smoking gun and why the CIA could not even produce photos of LHO in Mexico City, Some black op!

They weren't allowed to bring out all the ginned up intel.

Harriman said no.

It's right there in the record, in a book by a LNer no less.

Harriman called the shots, and the "black op" continued to twitch

even in death.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, I appreciate your "admission" that you cannot explain why the CIA could not produce photos of LHO at the Communist embassies in MC. It just seems to me that had there been a "black op" in progress the men running the op would have had all their ducks in a row prior to November 22nd.

And I await your answer to why if there was a "black op" it did not include things such as money deposited into an "Oswald" bank account; a faked transcript of a LHO meeting with a Communist in either of the embassies, and on and on ad infinitum. I mean, if you or I were running it don't you think we could have planted absolutely damning evidence either at LHO's rooming house or in Mrs. Paine's garage?

So far, no one has even tried to respond to this rather obvious question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill, I appreciate your "admission" that you cannot explain why the CIA could not produce photos of LHO at the Communist embassies in MC. It just seems to me that had there been a "black op" in progress the men running the op would have had all their ducks in a row prior to November 22nd.

And I await your answer to why if there was a "black op" it did not include things such as money deposited into an "Oswald" bank account; a faked transcript of a LHO meeting with a Communist in either of the embassies, and on and on ad infinitum. I mean, if you or I were running it don't you think we could have planted absolutely damning evidence either at LHO's rooming house or in Mrs. Paine's garage?

So far, no one has even tried to respond to this rather obvious question.

So far, Tim has a perfect record of ignoring the answers given him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff, you still have not answered MY question.

Did Oswald meet with Kostikov from KGB Dept 13 or didn't he?

And you believe LBJ would have gone to war merely because Hoover reached a conclusion without any evidence for it?

With respect, I think your bio is wrong. You must be living in Disneyland.

Your argument is that the CIA was running a "black op" but it was single-handedly derailed by Harriman? Apparently Angleton thought Harriman was a Commie agent. Regardless of that, why would the CIA suspend its "Black op" merely because Harriman said there was no conspiracy?

Your allegation of a Harriman/Bush "crime family" is so wacko it is unworthy of a reply. No wonder the mainstream media wants to avoid discussion of a possible conspiracy. You can believe what you want when your beliefs need not be anchored in reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Setting up Oswald as the patsy was intended to pin the tail on Castro/Cuba, and that was the game plan until, in PDS's terminology, Phase One was replaced by Phase Two, the lone nut scenario.

With all due respect to Peter Dale Scott, an infinitely simpler interpretation of events is that the handful of incidents related, and purportedly related, to Oswald that were orchestrated with a Cuban rhythm never were anything at all but a further development by CIA of the lone nut scenario, which included, of course, such 100% conga-free numbers as backyard snapshots, a romantic vacation back in the US... back in the US... back in the USSR, and a purported pot-shot at General Edwin Walker.

The central theme of all of the above Oswald "lone nuttiness," though, that seems to be rather consistently overlooked in a classic case of "can't see the forest for the trees" is the theme of Communism.

Even the text of the DRE's celebrated propaganda rag with the photos of Oswald and Castro primarily pounds the Communist drum, with Oswald quoted as claiming he was a Marxist. While some have made much of the apparent dichotomy of Oswald being depicted holding both The Worker and The Militant in the infamous backyard photos, it is entirely consistent with the overlay of claims of Oswald being a Communist and Marxist in the DRE rag, and this same confusion by overlay is seeded elsewhere in the lore.

The sliced-and-diced distinctions were not the province of the work-a-day and bide-a-wee man or woman in the street or at the lunch counter or hanging out the laundry. Not three in a hundred could have distinguished between a Communist and a Marxist if they'd had sandwich board signs identifying them.

These distinctions certainly were, however, the province of the Ivy League boys that we've all come to know and love.

The Cuban missile crisis had welded Castro and Cuba to the Soviet Union and the Cold War threat of Communism in the public mind. Castro and Cuba were the terrifying toehold of Communism in the Western Hemisphere. Of course the CIA staged the events necessary to link their patsy to Cuba.

The CIA wasn't looking to pin the assassination on Castro and Cuba; it set up a patsy who was the living embodiment of what CIA styled itself as being in eternal valiant and heroic struggle against in justification of its obscene budgets: the omnipresent creeping threat of Communism, no matter what shade, degree, or flavor.

And that is the propaganda message of the rag published by the CIA stooges in the DRE. Put it to a conga beat with claves and maracas.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cliff, you still have not answered MY question.

Did Oswald meet with Kostikov from KGB Dept 13 or didn't he?

All I know is what I read in SWHT, and other books.

Since I was an 8 year old in Petaluma, CA, I wouldn't have

been in a position to know that for a fact or not, now, would I?

And you believe LBJ would have gone to war merely because Hoover reached a conclusion without any evidence for it?

No, I don't agree with your characterization of my argument. But thanks

for asking.

With respect, I think your bio is wrong. You must be living in Disneyland.

Sure sign yer stuck when ya gotta bend over backwards for lame insults.

Your argument is that the CIA was running a "black op" but it was single-handedly derailed by Harriman? Apparently Angleton thought Harriman was a Commie agent. Regardless of that, why would the CIA suspend its "Black op" merely because Harriman said there was no conspiracy?

The CIA worked for Harriman.

From George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography by Webster Tarpley

and Anton Chaitkin:

http://www.tarpley.net/bush4.htm

A central focus of the Harriman security regime in Washington (1950-53) was the

organization of covert operations, and `` psychological warfare. '' Harriman, together

with his lawyers and business partners, Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles, wanted

the government's secret services to conduct extensive propaganda campaigns and

mass-psychology experiments within the U.S.A., and paramilitary campaigns abroad.

This would supposedly ensure a stable world-wide environment favorable to

Anglo-American financial and political interests.

Your allegation of a Harriman/Bush "crime family" is so wacko it is unworthy of a reply.

So debunk Tarpley and Chaitkin. And isn't it funny that if I called

Joe Kennedy for what he was -- a Hitler supporting, bootlegging

gangster -- you wouldn't have a problem with that construct, would

you, Tim?

No wonder the mainstream media wants to avoid discussion of a possible conspiracy. You can believe what you want when your beliefs need not be anchored in reality.

And yet there it is, this discrepancy you can't answer and can't face:

Max Holland's The Kennedy Assassination tapes, pg 57:

At 6:55 p.m. Johnson has a ten-minute meeting with Senator J. William Fulbright (D-Arkansas) and diplomat W. Averell Harriman to discuss possible foreign involvement in the assassination, especially in light of the two-and-a-half-year Soviet sojourn of Lee Harvey Oswald...Harriman, a U.S. ambassador to Moscow during World War II, is an experienced interpreter of Soviet machinations and offers the president the unanimous view of the U.S. governments top Kremlinologists. None of them believe the Soviets had a hand in the assassination, despite the Oswald association.

No way this determination of Soviet innocence could have legitimately

taken place in less than six hours, and you know it, Tim.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff, well I agree completely with your last declaration. Although it is clear that the "Kremlinologists" were rendering a judgment about what the Soviet hierarchy might do.

Re the Kostikov meeting, if you believe it probably occured (as I take it you do) you can hardly believe it was a "black op" unless you believe the CIA sent LHO to meet with Kostikov.

You wrote:

The CIA worked for Harriman.

All I can say is "Huh?" Where the heck do you get that from?

Webster Tarpley's rants are both paranoid and puerile. It surprises me you fall for them.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cliff, well I agree completely with your last declaration. Although it is clear that the "Kremlinologists" were rendering a judgment about what the Soviet hierarchy might do.

Re the Kostikov meeting, if you believe it probably occured (as I take it you do) you can hardly believe it was a "black op" unless you believe the CIA sent LHO to meet with Kostikov.

You wrote:

The CIA worked for Harriman.

All I can say is "Huh?" Where the heck do you get that from?

In light of the fact I cited my source and a relevant passage therein, and

you are pretending that I didn't, I'd have to say that this discussion has

ground to an end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All you posted was what Tarpley said. He cites no source. It's worthless as any support for anything.

I can write anything I want also. But the fact that something appears in print does not make it so. He cites no books or other references on that point. He apparently never conducted a single interview with anyone. Some historian!

I note also that Tarpley cites not a SINGLE EXAMPLE of how Harriman supposedly "controlled" the CIA or the Dulles brothers.

And the simple fact is that Harrimasn's views were leftist whilst those of the Dulles brothers were moderate-to-right.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me reiterate a "black op" scenario I could accept.

There was a government-sanctioned "failed assassination attempt" to occur in DP. There may then have been plans by the sponsors (presumably CIA) to provide real (real fake) proof tying the failed attempt to Cuba. Perhaps LHO, if he was party to the plan, was even going to confess that he acted on Cuban orders.

If there was a first shot that missed, it could be explained as part of the "failed attempt".

But the "failed attempt" was hijacked by the real assassins.

Therefore, all previous plans were off and a cover up had to be effected.

This scenario explains how LHO could be induced to help "frame" himself.

Absent this scenario, I only see two possibilities: 1. Oswald was indeed a participant in a real assassination attempt. 2. Or if he was framed it had to be a very elaborate effort and it had to even include inducing false testimony by Marina. But how could the conspirators have counted on Marina's cooperation?

For several reasons 2 seems unlikely to me. I therefore believe that either LHO was part of an assassination attempt designed to fail or he in fact was a witting part of the conspiracy.

I know Messrs. Kelly, Charles-Dunne and Gray will not accept this because they are desperate to pin it on the CIA. But again the lack of a planted "smoking gun" and CIA efforts to debunk "Cuba-did-it" stories after the fact make it clear IMO that went down in Dallas was not a CIA "black op" operation--but it MAY have been a complicated CIA "black op" intended not to hurt the President that was, tragically, hijacked.

My version fits best, I believe, with the facts of the case. It explains why, in Peter Dale Scott's view, a "blame it on Castro" plan suddenly shifted to the "loine assassin" story. My version would explain for instance why IF the Cia orchestrated the LHO confrontation with the DRE in NO, it tried to turn the DRE propoaganda machine off afterward.

What would have happened to the CIA if it came out it had planned such a dangerous opertation that claimed the life of the President? No wonder the "lone gunman" story had to be nailed down ASAP.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to point out an obvious inconsistency in Cliff's analysis.

He says that the CIA "worked for Harriman".

He claims that it was Harriman who effectively scotched the CIA "black op" to blame the assassination on Castro.

But if Harriman's "control" of the CIA was as effective as Cliff asserts why would the CIA have started the "black op" without Harriman's consent?

Or does Cliff believe that Harriman was in fact the "big fish" in the assassination since he controlled the CIA?

If Harriman controlled the CIA and IF the CIA killed John (which it did not but never mind that for purposes of this argument) then obviously Harriman sanctioned the assassination. If he did not so sanction it, that fact clearly establishes that Harriman did not in fact "control" the CIA.

So only one of these propositions can be true:

1. The CIA killed John but Harriman did not control the CIA.

2. The CIA killed John and Harriman approved it.

3. The CIA did not kill John and Harriman controlled the CIA

4. The CIA did not kill John and Harriman did not control the CIA.

What Cliff presumably asserts is: 1. Harriman controlled the CIA. 2. The CIA killed JFK. AND 3. Harriman was not "the big fish". But those three items don't fit together.

Cliff, if as you say the CIA worked for Harriman, then either Harriman was the ultimate sponsor of the assassination, or the CIA did not do it. Those are your only choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill, I appreciate your "admission" that you cannot explain why the CIA could not produce photos of LHO at the Communist embassies in MC. It just seems to me that had there been a "black op" in progress the men running the op would have had all their ducks in a row prior to November 22nd.

And I await your answer to why if there was a "black op" it did not include things such as money deposited into an "Oswald" bank account; a faked transcript of a LHO meeting with a Communist in either of the embassies, and on and on ad infinitum. I mean, if you or I were running it don't you think we could have planted absolutely damning evidence either at LHO's rooming house or in Mrs. Paine's garage?

So far, no one has even tried to respond to this rather obvious question.

So far, Tim has a perfect record of ignoring the answers given him.

And he will continue to ignore, twist, convolute, repeat questions already answered, nick pick....anything to continue what it appears he must continue to believe in order to remain "himself". And I would not dare attempt to speculate on what that means. A purposeful disimformationist? Or simply delusional? Whatever the answer long ago he CHOOSE to believe the CIA planted lie, cover story number two, that Castro was behind the assassination of JFK. All the proof, logic, testimony, transcripts, research etc. to the contrary will not change his position, imho.

Dawn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawn, can you explain Gilberto Policarpo Lopez's convenient return to Cuba immediately after the assassination?

Certainly no one had a greater motive (self defense) to kill JFK than Fidel. Are you aware of anyone else our government was attempting to murder in November of 1963?.

If I am deluding myself, if Gilbertpo Policarpo Lopez and Dr. Rolando Cubela are simply figments on my imagination, why then I guess I betterr see a shrink.

But I know where Lopez lived in Key West and I have seen photos of Cubela in the 1950s, 1960s and now. So perhaps it is not me who is delusional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to point out an obvious inconsistency in Cliff's analysis.

He says that the CIA "worked for Harriman".

He claims that it was Harriman who effectively scotched the CIA "black op" to blame the assassination on Castro.

But if Harriman's "control" of the CIA was as effective as Cliff asserts why would the CIA have started the "black op" without Harriman's consent?

Why would we assume they did?

Or does Cliff believe that Harriman was in fact the "big fish" in the assassination since he controlled the CIA?

One of the "big fish," yes. But not the only one.

If Harriman controlled the CIA and IF the CIA killed John (which it did not but never mind that for purposes of this argument) then obviously Harriman sanctioned the assassination.

Let's say he was "feeling adventuresome enough."

If he did not so sanction it, that fact clearly establishes that Harriman did not in fact "control" the CIA.

So only one of these propositions can be true:

1. The CIA killed John but Harriman did not control the CIA.

2. The CIA killed John and Harriman approved it.

3. The CIA did not kill John and Harriman controlled the CIA

4. The CIA did not kill John and Harriman did not control the CIA.

5. Harriman and other transportation tycoons and criminal

syndicate chiefs conspired to kill Kennedy in such a way as to establish a pre-text

for the invasion of Cuba. Their ultimate goal was the re-establishment of the

Havana-to-Florida smuggling routes that flourished pre-Castro. When Oswald

was captured the plan was foiled (the plot required "irrevocable proof of Castro

involvement," not a live patsy) and Harriman cut his losses by scotching the

Castro-did-it scenario.

What Cliff presumably asserts is: 1. Harriman controlled the CIA. 2. The CIA killed JFK. AND 3. Harriman was not "the big fish". But those three items don't fit together.

See above.

Cliff, if as you say the CIA worked for Harriman, then either Harriman was the ultimate sponsor of the assassination, or the CIA did not do it. Those are your only choices.

One of the ultimate sponsors. Other than the Kennedys, of course,

the big loser on Eleven Twenty Two was Averell Harriman.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...