Jump to content
The Education Forum

NYT puts CIA's Max Holland on Op Ed


Recommended Posts

Thanks for that one Nate,

Mad Max is at it again.

Of course this new insight doesn't change anything, Oswald still did it, alone.

And of course he's not the greatest assassin in history, but just a no-good, dispicable, loner who beat his wife and couldn't hold a job.

And now Max, having abandoned the Miller Center Neo-Cons Natzis, has hooked up with one Johann Rush, who had the forsight to film the accused assassin during another covert op - handing out FPCC leaflets and scuffling with DRE terrorists in the streets of New Orleans in August, 1963 - months before Zapruder did his thing at DP.

I wonder how Zapruder had the same forsight Johann Rush did, anticipating something and being there to film it?

And now, thanks to Jeff Morley's article in Playboy, we have DRE's New Orleans operative creating a Press Release in August of 1963 calling for a Congressional investigation of the accussed assassin months before the assassination.

Now I can't wait to read more about Max's new sidekick Johann Rush.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatsa matter Bill?

Every time I get into an argument on the street with an individual, a TV reporter shows up, and then later I am invited onto a radio show to debate my views on the topic that I had discussed on the street.

Isn't this what makes our media so democratic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatsa matter Bill?

Every time I get into an argument on the street with an individual, a TV reporter shows up, and then later I am invited onto a radio show to debate my views on the topic that I had discussed on the street.

Isn't this what makes our media so democratic?

Johann Rush is one of Professor Ken Rahn's NonCons - who was in the radio broadcast room with Psych-Warrior Ed Butler when Oswald declared he was a "Marxist," and films him during Oswald's street operations.

Bill Davey quotes Johann Rush as saying Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg are "leftists sympathetic to Marxist idealogy."

The NonCons have signed on to Rahn's Manifisto that declares that the assassination was a series of chance coincidences," to which I have only one thing to add:

"The intelligence profession does not encourage one to accept coincidence as an explanation for events." - David Atlee Phillips

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatsa matter Bill?

Every time I get into an argument on the street with an individual, a TV reporter shows up, and then later I am invited onto a radio show to debate my views on the topic that I had discussed on the street.

Isn't this what makes our media so democratic?

Johann Rush is one of Professor Ken Rahn's NonCons - who was in the radio broadcast room with Psych-Warrior Ed Butler when Oswald declared he was a "Marxist," and films him during Oswald's street operations.

Bill Davey quotes Johann Rush as saying Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg are "leftists sympathetic to Marxist idealogy."

The NonCons have signed on to Rahn's Manifisto that declares that the assassination was a series of chance coincidences," to which I have only one thing to add:

"The intelligence profession does not encourage one to accept coincidence as an explanation for events." - David Atlee Phillips

BK

Bill, et al,

After the holiday, I'll post some intriguing information relating to possible motives for Rahn's perfidy and the "good" professor's position on the Holocaust.

This will be FUN!

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whatsa matter Bill?

Every time I get into an argument on the street with an individual, a TV reporter shows up, and then later I am invited onto a radio show to debate my views on the topic that I had discussed on the street.

Isn't this what makes our media so democratic?

Johann Rush is one of Professor Ken Rahn's NonCons - who was in the radio broadcast room with Psych-Warrior Ed Butler when Oswald declared he was a "Marxist," and films him during Oswald's street operations.

Bill Davey quotes Johann Rush as saying Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg are "leftists sympathetic to Marxist idealogy."

The NonCons have signed on to Rahn's Manifisto that declares that the assassination was a series of chance coincidences," to which I have only one thing to add:

"The intelligence profession does not encourage one to accept coincidence as an explanation for events." - David Atlee Phillips

BK

And now, direct from Dallas, Texas, Gary Mack sets the record straight:

Well, you've gotten ahold of bogus information again. Johann Rush was NOT in the WDSU control room during Oswald's radio debate with Butler and Bringuier. Rush worked for WDSU-TV, not the radio side, and he wasn't present. However, Rush and a WLW-TV photographer both filmed Oswald handing out leaflets at the Trade Mart. Oswald had called all the newsrooms in town to say what he was going to do and invited reporters to cover it. Most of them ignored Oswald, but WDSU and WLW did not. In other words, Oswald's actions were nothing more than a publicity stunt. The reason behind his action remains unknown.

GARY IS SO GOOD AT CORRECTING THE POSTS OF SO-CALLED CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, BUT MY SOURCE IS KEN RAHN'S LIST OF NONCON PROFILES:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Noncons/list.html

Johann W. Rush was the WDSU TV news cameraman who photographed Lee Harvey Oswald and Carlos Bringuier at the New Orleans courthouse on August 12, 1963, after their "disturbing the peace" trial, and he photographed the WDSU film of Oswald handing out leaflets at the New Orleans Trade Mart on August 16, 1963. He was present in the WDSU newsroom when Oswald made his "I am a Marxist" statement during the Bill Slatter film interview. As a cameraman and news producer, he has had many film reports on various television networks since the early 1960s. In the 1980s Mr. Rush investigated the assassination and produced a series of special reports about it, including an analysis of the Zapruder film (with Dr. Michael West) that was shown at the 1993 AMA Symposium, at the 1992 annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and at the FBI Academy in 1992. The program was studied by Gerald Posner and mentioned in his book Case Closed.

I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THE FACTS PRESENTED BY THE NONCONS THAT INDICATE LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS THE LONE GUNMAN, IT'S JUST THEIR BLATENT ATTEMPTS TO IGNORE ALL OF HIS INTELLIGENCE CONNECTIONS AND PAINT HIM OFF AS A MALCONENT.

AND THEIR FAILURES TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IS MOST SERIOUS, AND THE REASON IS THE SAME THE CIA USES FOR REFUSING TO RELEASE THE JMWAVE/JOANNIDES/ FILLINTHEBLANK - RECORDS - NATIONAL SECURITY.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another article, with more details, Holland/Rush penned together. - BK

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:h5vSZZhdPwkJ:hnn.us/articles/35445.html+Johann+Rush+JFK&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&

gl=us://http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...cd=2&

gl=us://http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...cd=2&

gl=us

And here's a note from Gary Buel's excellent blog, which puts JWRush in the same category as Max Holland in stretching the Castro/Cuba did it cover story to the Soviets.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:mpLwp...cd=23&gl=us

Back in 2005 I received a CD of images from Johann W. Rush. Mr. Rush was the camera man who filmed Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans as he passed out pro-Castro flyers. Rush seems to be quite conservative and believes that conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination had their origins in Soviet propaganda. In 1991 he went to the Soviet Embassy in Washington D.C. and inquired if they had any English translations of 1963 Tass or Soviet press reports. They referred him to the Library of Congress where he was given a roll of microfilm covering that period.

I have just begun to go through the news stories on the CD. I do not agree with Rush's interpretation. It seems to me that there is ample evidence that the Soviet's, first of all, genuinely believed that Kennedy was the victim of right-wing forces, and that, secondly, they were probably correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BK wrote:

And now, thanks to Jeff Morley's article in Playboy, we have DRE's New Orleans operative creating a Press Release in August of 1963 calling for a Congressional investigation of the accussed assassin months before the assassination.

That was indeed a new revelation and it rather conclusively refutes your scenario that Dallas was U.S. intelligence operation black op, doesn't it, Bill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BK wrote:

I have just begun to go through the news stories on the CD. I do not agree with Rush's interpretation. It seems to me that there is ample evidence that the Soviet's, first of all, genuinely believed that Kennedy was the victim of right-wing forces, and that, secondly, they were probably correct.

Bill, interestingly, you make the same error here that VB does in "Reclaiming History": you assume, as he does, that the "Soviets" were a monolithic society where all thought the same and all acted the same. It would be as if a foreign observor thought that all Americans had the same view of the assassination, lumping together VB, myself and, say, Charles Drago and arguing that the views of any one of us represented the views of "Americans".

In his book VB devotes pages to arguing that the KGB did not kill JFK. Yet the most articulate description of a plot originating in the SU to kill JFK is found in Joseph Trento's "The Secret History of the CIA." in that book, Trento states that a faction in the Politburo which was plotting to overthrow Khruschev first found it necessary to kill JFk. Trento even names the Politburo members involved in the plot--the same members who he says did succeeed in deposing Khruschev less than a year later. The KGB had nothing to do with it. Now, despite the fact that VB lists Trento's book on his bibliography, he does not offer a single sentence refuring the Trento scenario, at least in the book itself. His entire chapter on possible Soviet involvement is thus irrelevant since it fails to consider the theory of the most prominent writer arguing involvement bySOME Soviets.

You cannot argue that NO ONEin the Soviet Union was behind the assassination merely because SOME Soviets genuinely believed that JFK was the victim of a right-wing plot.

I do not want this thread to become an argument over the correctness of the Trento scenario. I just wanted to point out the fallacy in your logic. Even if the then Soviet leadership, including Nikita, genuinely mourned JFK and assumed a domestic right-wing plot, that does not exclude Trento's theory that other factions in the SU were involved in the assassination. And the Soviet Union leadership had clear reason to want to absolve Oswald and blame it on right-wingers rather than on a "nut" who, even if not a Soviet agent, at least apparently was sympathetic to Communist causes.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now, direct from Dallas, Texas, Gary Mack sets the record straight:

Well, you've gotten ahold of bogus information again. Johann Rush was NOT in the WDSU control room during Oswald's radio debate with Butler and Bringuier. Rush worked for WDSU-TV, not the radio side, and he wasn't present. However, Rush and a WLW-TV photographer both filmed Oswald handing out leaflets at the Trade Mart. Oswald had called all the newsrooms in town to say what he was going to do and invited reporters to cover it. Most of them ignored Oswald, but WDSU and WLW did not. In other words, Oswald's actions were nothing more than a publicity stunt. The reason behind his action remains unknown.

GARY IS SO GOOD AT CORRECTING THE POSTS OF SO-CALLED CONSPIRACY THEORISTS, BUT MY SOURCE IS KEN RAHN'S LIST OF NONCON PROFILES:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Noncons/list.html

Johann W. Rush was the WDSU TV news cameraman who photographed Lee Harvey Oswald and Carlos Bringuier at the New Orleans courthouse on August 12, 1963, after their "disturbing the peace" trial, and he photographed the WDSU film of Oswald handing out leaflets at the New Orleans Trade Mart on August 16, 1963. He was present in the WDSU newsroom when Oswald made his "I am a Marxist" statement during the Bill Slatter film interview. As a cameraman and news producer, he has had many film reports on various television networks since the early 1960s. In the 1980s Mr. Rush investigated the assassination and produced a series of special reports about it, including an analysis of the Zapruder film (with Dr. Michael West) that was shown at the 1993 AMA Symposium, at the 1992 annual meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and at the FBI Academy in 1992. The program was studied by Gerald Posner and mentioned in his book Case Closed.

I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THE FACTS PRESENTED BY THE NONCONS THAT INDICATE LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS THE LONE GUNMAN, IT'S JUST THEIR BLATENT ATTEMPTS TO IGNORE ALL OF HIS INTELLIGENCE CONNECTIONS AND PAINT HIM OFF AS A MALCONENT.

AND THEIR FAILURES TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IS MOST SERIOUS, AND THE REASON IS THE SAME THE CIA USES FOR REFUSING TO RELEASE THE JMWAVE/JOANNIDES/ FILLINTHEBLANK - RECORDS - NATIONAL SECURITY.

BK

And after his broadcasting experience, one might think that Gary Mack, above most other people, would know that WLW was a station in Cincinnati, OH[a "clear-channel" station at 700 on the AM dial]...and it was WWL [my memory fails me here...were they at 770 or 780 on the AM dial?] in New Orleans. In fact, by the 1970's WWL was know--at night--as one of the major stations listened to by long-distance truckers in the eastern US, because of their wide coverage area [not sure if they were designated a "clear channel" station or not...seems they were, but I can't swear to it]. Anyone who ever listened to Cincinnati Reds baseball broadcasts with Al Michaels [and later with Marty Brennaman] and the recently-deceased Joe Nuxhall on WLW, or anyone who listened to the all-night "Charlie Douglas Road Gang" on WWL--as I did, in both cases--would know the difference.

Not trying to go off on a tangent here; just trying to set the record straight, that WLW was/is NOT in New Orleans, but WWL was [is?].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To bad I was working a charity event Thursday and did not see the Holland piece until last night.

I am going to try to submit this rebuttal to the NY Times but would encourage comments before I do:

The “new paradigm” for the ballistics in the Kennedy assassination argued by Max Holland in his Nov 22, 2007 Op-Ed piece (that the first shot that was fired and, he believes, missed, occurred during a gap in the Zapruder film when he was not shooting) is not only replete with problems (what happened to that missile?) it also does nothing to resolve the primary ballistics problem of the Warren Commission Report: its theory that the second shot (the bullet that is designated as CE399) hit JFK in the back, exited his throat and proceeded to inflict the several wounds suffered by Gov. Connally. (Holland’s “new paradign” still posits a “single bullet” that wounded Kennedy and Connally.) It has been discovered that three of the seven members of the WC could not accept the single bullet theory. The problems with the single bullet theory include the testimony of both Gov Connally and his wife that JFK was hit by the first shot and Connally was hit by the second shot; that the wound in JFK’s back was lower than the wound in his throat; that the wound in the throat was too small to represent the exit of an intact bullet, and that CE399 was not sufficiently deformed to have inflicted all of the damage to Governor Connally. The Warren Commission engaged a panel of four ballistics experts. What the Warren Commission did not report was that three of its own four ballistics experts refused to believe that CE399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on Gov. Connally. What Mr. Holland fails to tell readers is that the neutron activation analysis, to date the strongest evidence that CE399 was in fact the bullet that wounded both JFJ and Gov. Connally, referred to as the “linchpin” of the single bullet theory, has now been demonstrated to be based on an erroneous methodology, a fact conceded by defenders of the Warren Commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To bad I was working a charity event Thursday and did not see the Holland piece until last night.

I am going to try to submit this rebuttal to the NY Times but would encourage comments before I do:

The “new paradigm” for the ballistics in the Kennedy assassination argued by Max Holland in his Nov 22, 2007 Op-Ed piece (that the first shot that was fired and, he believes, missed, occurred during a gap in the Zapruder film when he was not shooting) is not only replete with problems (what happened to that missile?) it also does nothing to resolve the primary ballistics problem of the Warren Commission Report: its theory that the second shot (the bullet that is designated as CE399) hit JFK in the back, exited his throat and proceeded to inflict the several wounds suffered by Gov. Connally. (Holland’s “new paradign” still posits a “single bullet” that wounded Kennedy and Connally.) It has been discovered that three of the seven members of the WC could not accept the single bullet theory. The problems with the single bullet theory include the testimony of both Gov Connally and his wife that JFK was hit by the first shot and Connally was hit by the second shot; that the wound in JFK’s back was lower than the wound in his throat; that the wound in the throat was too small to represent the exit of an intact bullet, and that CE399 was not sufficiently deformed to have inflicted all of the damage to Governor Connally. The Warren Commission engaged a panel of four ballistics experts. What the Warren Commission did not report was that three of its own four ballistics experts refused to believe that CE399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on Gov. Connally. What Mr. Holland fails to tell readers is that the neutron activation analysis, to date the strongest evidence that CE399 was in fact the bullet that wounded both JFJ and Gov. Connally, referred to as the “linchpin” of the single bullet theory, has now been demonstrated to be based on an erroneous methodology, a fact conceded by defenders of the Warren Commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got a PM from Gary Mack that it WAS radio station WWL in New Orleans, at 870 kHz on the AM dial.

Just wanting to keep the record here correct, Gary, in case someone wants to research further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...