Jump to content
The Education Forum

Discussing The Mindset Of Conspiracy Theorists


Recommended Posts

Cliff, reading The Ends of Power is one of the things that led me to study the JFK assassination. While reading it, I never thought, even for a second, that Haldeman (as well as other pols like Johnson, Connally, Ford, and Bush who thought there was more to the story than had been uncovered by the WC) thought the CIA killed Kennedy in a coup.

So? That says something about you, but nothing about THE ENDS OF POWER.

Hunt and the Watergate Cubans did not lead back to Castro.

Richard Helms was not a man to project "turmoil," as Haldeman put it.

And Haldeman directly questions the denial that Oswald was a CIA agent.

There is no "pure dynamite" in either the Mafia-plot or Castro-did-it stories.

I think you mis-read the book.

They thought--or at least so it appeared to me at that time based on their statements and behavior--that the CIA attempts on Castro, when coupled with Oswald's pro-Castro stance--was too much a coincidence, pure and simple. As the ONLY newspaper articles linking these two events were those by Pearson/Anderson, and were almost certainly coordinated with Johnson and designed to blame BOBBY for JFK's death, moreover, it is easy to see, in retrospect, why they found this so intriguing.

I love the way you spin other folk's conclusions out of thin air. You mistake your personal impressions for the conclusions of others.

Now, you want me to re-read The Ends of Power and envision that H.R. BOB Haldeman, as conservative a man as has ever served a president, believed the CIA killed Kennedy, and that Nixon knew about this, and was using it to his own advantage. Sorry, I just don't have the time.

I didn't ask you to "re-read" anything. I asked you to make an argument based on the actual writings of

Haldeman et al, instead of regurgitating your un-supported contentions.

The notion that Richard Helms would lose his temper -- something he never did according to all accounts of the man I've read -- over the Mafia-plots or the Castro-did-it scenario is ludicrous.

You really need to go back and read the old articles and watch the old programs on the assassination, IMO. The majority of those presenting a case for conspiracy presented a case where the Russians or the Cubans were somehow behind it.

You really need to cite actual facts. So you've taken an inventory of "old" articles and programs

and determined that "the majority" of conspiracy views put the crime on the Russians or the Cubans?

I think you're just making this up. Besides, if it were such a common sentiment why did Richard Helms blow up at the very mention of it?

I spent years on this forum arguing against these scenarios with Gratz. So I doubt them as much as you do. Although those scenarios are no longer viable, we shouldn't forget that they were once quite prevalent, and that there'd almost certainly never have been an HSCA if some of those voting to re-open the case weren't thinking it would lead to Castro.

Which doesn't account for Nixon saying that Hunt and the Watergate Cubans led back to 11/22/63 as per the BOP code, doesn't account for Haldeman suggesting that Angleton was lying about Oswald's connection to the CIA, and doesn't account for Richard Helms' explosive reaction to Nixon playing the BOP card.

Which brings me back to Anderson. He was among them. If he was as respected as you claim then you should also acknowledge that those following his lead would suspect that Castro turned a hit team around to kill Kennedy, in other words...that Oswald was caught up with PRO-Castro Cubans.

It wasn't Anderson who suggested Angleton was lying about Oswald being CIA.

It was Haldeman. In a book you read with little understanding.

There are no "pro-Castro Cubans" anywhere in the vicinity of this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 139
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

+ If he wanted to tell his readers Oswald was a CIA agent why did he do so in such roundabout way?

Haldeman was telling his alert readers that he suspected the CIA had a hand in Kennedy's killing.

Suspicion is not the same as conviction.

<snip>

+ You seem to have lost sight of the fact the book was aimed at the general public not the assassination community. Based on what they wrote the interpretation that LHO was CIA is one only likely to be reached by the latter.

What you think "likely" has no weight in argument. You have no idea what "the general public" is "likely" to think.

The facts are that Haldeman tied Hunt and the Watergate Cubans to the Kennedy assassination, Haldeman suspected Oswald was CIA, and Richard Helms -- a man known for his unflappable demeanor -- reacted to Nixon's "Bay of Pigs"

card with considerable agitation, described by Haldeman as "violent" and "turmoil."

+ Saying “the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA” would be an incredible understatement if he thought they were covering up the fact they had orchestrated his murder.

More contentless rationalization. The statement is significant as it stands, your "incredible understatement" crack is nothing but smoke.

+ You can’t see how the CIA repeatedly failing to kill the leader of a small Third World country and that leading to that leader assassinating the president of the most powerful country on earth would be "detrimental"?

Not detrimental to the country, no. There would have been a host of right-wingers who would have been happy

to promote that argument. The revelation that the CIA tried to kill Castro didn't have any dramatic detrimental

consequences, and I'm sure lots of people were making the connection of the Mafia plots and the Castro-did-it line.

The subject certainly wouldn't have set Richard Helms' hair on fire.

It definitely would NOT have been a boon to the CIA. Although word about the attempts may have gotten out years before but obviously it was news to Hardermona and he expected it to be news to his readers because he described them as being “according to Schorr” rather than established.

I dare say it wasn't news to Richard Helms in 1972 -- since it had been written about in '67 and '71 -- and

certainly wouldn't have caused this most impassive of spooks to start shouting and gripping his armchair.

Haldeman's reference to Oswald as a CIA agent and Nixon's connection of Hunt and the Watergate Cubans to 11/22/63

indicates Haldeman's suspicions about CIA involvement.

Your ideology prevents you from grasping the obvious subtext in THE ENDS OF POWER.

=If he Nixon meant that the CIA had killed Castro he would have said something like “for their own good” because they would be face life in prison or the death penalty.

I had no idea you were so intimate with Richard Nixon that you can speak for the man. Where did you have the opportunity to become so familiar with him, Colby?

"For the good of the country" obviously doesn't refer to the kill-Castro plots, which were public knowledge, or to the Castro-did-it scenario, which had been broadcast far and wide before JFK's body was cold.

The "for the good of the country" comment only makes sense if Nixon thought Hunt and the Watergate Cubans were involved in 11/22/63.

+ See above.

See above nothing. The exposure of the Mafia-plots wasn't "bad for the country" and the notion that

mis-fired CIA plots led Castro to kill Kennedy wasn't "bad for the country," either.

The CIA having a hand in Kennedy's murder -- yes, I can see where Nixon would consider such a revelation "bad for the country."

+Halderman suggested that LHO was a Castro sympathizer much more directly than he (supposedly) suggested he might have been CIA.

So? Pro-Castro activities by a man suspected of being a CIA agent aren't the same as pro-Castro activities by a man suspected of being a Castro agent.

It's too bad Haldeman was too subtle for you, Colby.

Nixon’s comments more easily could be interpreted as suggesting Hunt and the Cubans were tied to the BoP, which was tied to the attempts which lead to 11/22.

Only when you take the comments out of context and spin them to fit your world view.

= If that was what he meant to suggest then explain why he wrote “Unfortunately, Castro knew of the assassination attempts all the time”

I take it to mean Haldeman felt it was unfortunate that Castro wasn't assassinated, due to the fact Fidel knew of the plots against him.

The sequence of the text make this unlikely, the next thing he mentions was Castro’s threat and the next sentence begins “After Kennedy was killed….”

Castro didn't issue a threat. He clearly issued a warning:

"Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves, since they, too, can be the victims of an attempt

which will cause their death."

Fidel admonishes the Kennedys to "take care," since the same people unleashed on Castro now had their sights on Kennedy.

Then he goes over LHO ties to Castro. So it goes:

1) The CIA tried to kill Castro

2) Castro found out about them

3) He threatened JFK

4) JFK was killed

5) The CIA covered up their attempts on Castro.

6) The assassin was a Castro sympathizer.

Now you're trying to re-write the sequence of the text. Anyone can go back to the passages I posted

and see this.

I'm done with your slimey tactics, Colby.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

My latest

+ If he wanted to tell his readers Oswald was a CIA agent why did he do so in such roundabout way?

Haldeman was telling his alert readers that he suspected the CIA had a hand in Kennedy's killing.

Suspicion is not the same as conviction.

So he was sending a coded message because he wasn't sure? Your desperate rationalizations are amusing!

[...]

Then he goes over LHO ties to Castro. So it goes:

1) The CIA tried to kill Castro

2) Castro found out about them

3) He threatened JFK

4) JFK was killed

5) The CIA covered up their attempts on Castro.

6) The assassin was a Castro sympathizer.

Now you're trying to re-write the sequence of the text. Anyone can go back to the passages I posted

and see this.

I didn't "re-write" anything, show which parts of the sequence above were inaccurate.

I'm done with your slimey tactics, Colby.

I still won't stoop to your level, your resort to insults is a sign of your desperation and if you are going to keep tossing out the same insult at least learn how to spell it, there is no 'e' slimy.

I'll reply to the rest of your nonsense later

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites

My latest

+ If he wanted to tell his readers Oswald was a CIA agent why did he do so in such roundabout way?

Haldeman was telling his alert readers that he suspected the CIA had a hand in Kennedy's killing.

Suspicion is not the same as conviction.

So he was sending a coded message because he wasn't sure? Your desperate rationalizations are amusing!

Of course he wasn't sure. He said he was intrigued by all the theories surrounding the case and wanted Nixon to get to the bottom of it. I'm sure the Castro-did-it scenario was one of those theories that intrigued Haldeman. CIA-did-it was another.

According to Haldeman, "Nixon turned me down." But did Nixon proceed with such an investigation anyway?

Three times Nixon asked the CIA for the files on the Bay of Pigs, the overthrow of the Diem brothers, and the assassination of Trujillo in the Dominican Republic.

Three times the CIA stonewalled Nixon. The President of the United States couldn't get government files from a government agency.

No, Haldeman wasn't sure if the CIA hit Kennedy or if Castro hit Kennedy. You want to restrict Haldeman's thinking to the latter to the exclusion of the former, Colby.

Haldeman's reference to Angleton's denial about Oswald being CIA put the CIA-did-it scenario into the realm of consideration. This is un-mistakable. Why else would he make a reference to Oswald as a CIA agent if he didn't think such a thing was possible?

[...]

Then he goes over LHO ties to Castro. So it goes:

1) The CIA tried to kill Castro

2) Castro found out about them

3) He threatened JFK

4) JFK was killed

5) The CIA covered up their attempts on Castro.

6) The assassin was a Castro sympathizer.

Now you're trying to re-write the sequence of the text. Anyone can go back to the passages I posted

and see this.

I didn't "re-write" anything, show which parts of the sequence above were inaccurate.

Your mis-characterization of Castro's comments as a "threat", and your continued blind eye to the rehearsed Angleton denials of conspiracy in the murder of JFK and Oswald's possible involvement with the CIA.

You simply cannot process this information. It will not stick with you, so you continue to ignore it, or make some lame rationalization about it.

I'm done with your slimey tactics, Colby.

I still won't stoop to your level, your resort to insults is a sign of your desperation and if you are going to keep tossing out the same insult at least learn how to spell it, there is no 'e' slimy.

It's a special spelling for especially slimey rhetoric, as your guilt by association Morrow sex smear indicates.

I'll reply to the rest of your nonsense later

This discussion is over. Let's take an inventory of what you have conceded.

You no longer argue that Matthews was on a show called Hardball in December of 1995.

You can't argue that America's Talking, a failing news network with low ratings in December 1995, was as high a profile gig as Hardball on CNBC in 1997 and MSNBC in 1999, both successful networks.

You can't argue that DiMona changed "a sentence or two" when obviously he had to make up whole conversations

and lines of thought for Haldeman -- an absurd contention.

All you're left arguing for is that the "Bay of Pigs thing" referred to a pro-Castro plot to kill Kennedy. In order to make this argument you have to ignore Haldeman's suggestion that Oswald may have been CIA.

Good luck with all that, Colby. I'm sick of your slimey tactics. I'm good for a discussion with you once every two years or so. In 2013 we can have another go around and you can end up arguing minor points, as per usual.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've added some comments in italics.

Cliff, reading The Ends of Power is one of the things that led me to study the JFK assassination. While reading it, I never thought, even for a second, that Haldeman (as well as other pols like Johnson, Connally, Ford, and Bush who thought there was more to the story than had been uncovered by the WC) thought the CIA killed Kennedy in a coup.

So? That says something about you, but nothing about THE ENDS OF POWER.

Hunt and the Watergate Cubans did not lead back to Castro.

P.S. Nixon no doubt thought they were involved in the assassination attempts on Castro. Hunt, as I recall, was involved in talks of killing Castro long before Kennedy was elected, and knew that Nixon had signed off on it. Nixon's probable concern was that HE was responsible for getting Kennedy killed, and that Hunt knew about this. Barker worked with Hunt. Barker ran Sturgis. Sturgis claimed he was asked to perform assassinations. Martinez was part of Mongoose, blah blah blah. It all led back to Castro.

Richard Helms was not a man to project "turmoil," as Haldeman put it.

And Haldeman directly questions the denial that Oswald was a CIA agent.

There is no "pure dynamite" in either the Mafia-plot or Castro-did-it stories.

P.S. I think you're forgetting a lot. When Helms created the IG report on assassinations, on behalf of Johnson, he destroyed all copies and limited access to the one copy to the DCI. It was considered that dangerous. He clearly believed that widespread dissemination of this information would destroy the CIA. And he was nearly correct. I think you're forgetting that, when the heat was really on him during the Church Committee investigation, he attack Daniel Schorr in the halls of congress, and called him a "killer," etc. He was a temperamental fellow...VERY protective of the CIA's right to do as it pleased, without the likes of us having a clue.

I think you mis-read the book.

They thought--or at least so it appeared to me at that time based on their statements and behavior--that the CIA attempts on Castro, when coupled with Oswald's pro-Castro stance--was too much a coincidence, pure and simple. As the ONLY newspaper articles linking these two events were those by Pearson/Anderson, and were almost certainly coordinated with Johnson and designed to blame BOBBY for JFK's death, moreover, it is easy to see, in retrospect, why they found this so intriguing.

I love the way you spin other folk's conclusions out of thin air. You mistake your personal impressions for the conclusions of others.

P.S. The blame it on Bobby spin is right there in Pearson's original article, written after he'd had a private meeting with Johnson. The article was published the day AFTER Bobby came out against Johnson's Vietnam policies, and was clearly a blow below the belt.

Now, you want me to re-read The Ends of Power and envision that H.R. BOB Haldeman, as conservative a man as has ever served a president, believed the CIA killed Kennedy, and that Nixon knew about this, and was using it to his own advantage. Sorry, I just don't have the time.

I didn't ask you to "re-read" anything. I asked you to make an argument based on the actual writings of

Haldeman et al, instead of regurgitating your un-supported contentions.

The notion that Richard Helms would lose his temper -- something he never did according to all accounts of the man I've read -- over the Mafia-plots or the Castro-did-it scenario is ludicrous.

P.S. He attacked Schorr in the halls of congress... The man had a temper. If you've ever seen footage of his HSCA testimony, you'd see that both his arrogance and his thin-skinnedness were readily apparent. He was not as cool, calm, and collected as you think he was.

You really need to go back and read the old articles and watch the old programs on the assassination, IMO. The majority of those presenting a case for conspiracy presented a case where the Russians or the Cubans were somehow behind it.

You really need to cite actual facts. So you've taken an inventory of "old" articles and programs

and determined that "the majority" of conspiracy views put the crime on the Russians or the Cubans?

I think you're just making this up. Besides, if it were such a common sentiment why did Richard Helms blow up at the very mention of it?

P.S. Let's remember hear that Angleton had Helms wondering if there wasn't something to it, and that Nosenko was a plant designed to convince us the Russians weren't involved, when they really were. Helms' concern, apparently, was that the CIA's attempts on Castro were linked to the assassination, and were indirectly responsible, and that the public's awareness of this colossal boo-boo would lead to the CIA's dissolution. It almost happened. If you recall, Carter wanted to totally re-do the CIA, and tried to get Sorensen made DCI. If those students hadn't captured our Iranian embassy, and given Reagan the political capital to let his boy Casey run wild, lasting changes may have come.

I spent years on this forum arguing against these scenarios with Gratz. So I doubt them as much as you do. Although those scenarios are no longer viable, we shouldn't forget that they were once quite prevalent, and that there'd almost certainly never have been an HSCA if some of those voting to re-open the case weren't thinking it would lead to Castro.

Which doesn't account for Nixon saying that Hunt and the Watergate Cubans led back to 11/22/63 as per the BOP code, doesn't account for Haldeman suggesting that Angleton was lying about Oswald's connection to the CIA, and doesn't account for Richard Helms' explosive reaction to Nixon playing the BOP card.

P.S. It all makes sense to me. Hunt was involved in the BOP...and assassinations. As were Barker and Sturgis. Angleton was rehearsing testimony--which happens in almost every case of substance. Neither Sullivan nor Haldeman ever said that Angleton was lying--merely that he was acting a bit suspicious. Helms was trying to save the CIA. He knew Nixon was up to no good. He quite possibly had heard from Hunt that Nixon was having Hunt create fake documents re the Diem assassination, and was concerned Nixon was gonna do the same to hide his own involvement in the BOP. From his perspective, Nixon's bringing up the BOP thing could only be seen as blackmail.

Which brings me back to Anderson. He was among them. If he was as respected as you claim then you should also acknowledge that those following his lead would suspect that Castro turned a hit team around to kill Kennedy, in other words...that Oswald was caught up with PRO-Castro Cubans.

It wasn't Anderson who suggested Angleton was lying about Oswald being CIA.

It was Haldeman. In a book you read with little understanding.

P.S. Hogwash. Oswald's being CIA does not indicate the CIA ordered the assassination. It could mean either that he was set up or went rogue.

There are no "pro-Castro Cubans" anywhere in the vicinity of this case.

P.S. Not according to those claiming they were behind the assassination. They'd have us believe the head of Cuban intelligence was in Dealey Plaza.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you examine the Oswald file--as John Newman did--and you couple that with the Otepka case, and the Hurt call, plus myriad other things, its pretty conclusive today that Oswald was an Angleton agent.

Please cite the page number in John Newman's book where he claims (never mind PROVES) that Lee Oswald was an agent of Angleton.

Newman's book proves (conclusivly, IMO) that Angleton was spying on Oz, but I cannot see where Newman claims that Oz was spying ON BEHALF of Angleton.

Maybe you can help me here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question for David Lifton......

If JFK's body was stolen off of Air Force One and was altered between Dallas and Bethesda, why do you think the conspirators were so unbelievably stupid to have placed the President into a BODY BAG after the covert body alterations were completed, instead of simply wrapping the body back up IN THE SHEET that he was wrapped in when he left Parkland Hospital?

Do you have ANY kind of a logical (believable) explanation for why the body-alterers would have done something so amazingly silly and inane?

Same goes for the casket ----

Why on Earth would the goofy body-alterers decide to throw JFK's body into a very cheap pink "shipping" casket, when those same plotters HAD TO HAVE KNOWN that they had stolen the body out of a very expensive mahogany ornamental casket?

Did they WANT their covert plan to be exposed as quickly as possible by blatantly switching around BOTH the body wrappings AND the casket?

DVP:

If you think this is an answer to the evidence, it is not. To the contrary, it is an absurd rebuttal.

For what you are in effect saying is:

(1) If you do not have evidence, then you have no case; but, on the other hand. . .

(2) If you DO have evidence, then my defense to your evidence is that "the plotters could not have been so stupid."

Just think about the absurdity of what you are proposing:

Obviously, if there was a conspiracy, and if there was no evidence, then by definition, it would have been a perfect crime.

But the fact is, there is evidence; so from that we may reasonably infer that this was a crime which, however it was planned, was bungled in execution.

So we are back at square one: the evidence stands.

A man cannot come into court and, as a defense, say, "Sure, your honor, there is evidence against me. But all of it can be ignored, for how can I have been so stupid to have left such a trail of evidence?"

That's exactly what you, and your pal Bugliosi, are attempting to foist off as an "argument" here.

The plotters could not have been so stupid, therefore, the evidence can be ignored.

I'd like to see anyone who gets caught attempting to rob a bank invoke an argument like that in court. Believe me, it wouldn't work; and a lawyer who tried that would be admonished by the court.

The same goes here: setting aside (in this internet post) the blatant evidence that President Kennedy's wounds were altered, prior to autopsy, the evidence of interception is obvious and just as blatant.

The body left Dallas wrapped in sheets; it arrived at Bethesda in a body bag.

The body left Dallas in a $4,000 ceremonial casket; it arrived at Bethesda in a shipping casket.

Those are unavoidable facts--unavoidable, that is, to anyone whose psyche is not wrapped up in denial.

You cannot make "the evidence" go away by saying, "Gee, how could the plotters have been so stupid to leave a trail evidence like that? Ergo, I shall ignore the evidence."

What a nonsensical argument.

Have you cleared this argument with your buddy, Bugliosi, before posting it? Or does he inhabit some alternate universe where such "logic" is permitted?

DSL

3/9/10; 6:30 PM

Los Angeles, CA

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read the Afterword to the reissue.

Thank you for the 2-minute response. That deserves to get you in the Guinness book of world records.

I have gone back to look at Newman's 2008 epilogue (which I keep at my bedside), but the best I can find is his statement on page 614 of the Carroll & Graf edition:

I do not know who directly handled Oswald in 1963, but someone involved in the murder of JFK did

Call me old-fashioned, if you like, but this is not EVIDENCE!

Plus, he told me this at a hotel in San Francsico right before the book first came out.

I have the greatest respect for John Newman as a SCIENTIFIC historian, but this is not EVIDENCE either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A man cannot come into court and, as a defense, say, "Sure, your honor, there is evidence against me. But all of it can be ignored, for how can I have been so stupid to have left such a trail of evidence?"

That's exactly what you, and your pal Bugliosi, are attempting to foist off as an "argument" here.

Bravo, David. That summarizes the arguments that David Von Pein makes in defense of the KILLERS of JFK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray:

The above reply is a perfect example of why so many people have so many doubts about who you are and why you are here.

So once again the great Garrison admirer calls me a xxxx. Since your hero Garrison was one of the BIGGEST LIARS of all time, I am not surprised. All power tends to corrupt, and Garrison was CORRUPTED entirely. Since you are a Garrison admirer, and since you call me corrupt, let me return the favor. In accusing me, you are as CORRUPT as Garrison!

I won't bother to respond to the body of your accusations, but I will say this: Garrison accused a completely innocent man, LEE OSWALD, of plotting to kill JFK, and Di Eugenio repeats this BASELESS accusation on this forum, so Jim, YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN THE WARREN Commission!

Goodnight to you and your nutty friend Millicent Cranor!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cranor is five times the researcher you will ever be.

I met Ms. Cranor twice, each time very briefly, so I barely know the lady.

We both presented at Fredonia, in 1996. In my presentation I predicted many years ahead of time that Dr. Guinn's bullet lead theories would be rejected by the courts, and I was proven correct by state & FEDERAL COURTS, beginning in 2003.

At the same conference your guru Millicent presented a MOST RIDICULOUS theory about the number of shots fired by Jack Ruby, and everyone in attendance is still laughing at your friend Millicent

She does not deliberately ignore the key points to isolate one irrelevant sentence and try to pass if off as the whole truth.

TO be more precise, your friend Millicent DOES NOT HAVE THE SLIGHTEST CLUE!

Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP's point about the stupidity of any alleged conspirators has some merit to it. That's why I have long subscribed to Vince Salandria's thesis that the murderers of JFK willfully set up an easily transparent conspiracy and coverup. They WANTED the public to know what they did. Apparently they like playing mind games.

Obviously, these powerful conspirators were sophisticated enough to know that if one plants a bullet that supposedly caused seven wounds to two victims, then one ought to plant something that looks as if it could have done just that. You wouldn't plant a pristine bullet, unless you wanted to advertise what you were doing. The same goes for any body alteration theory; of course it sounds ridiculous, but it's par for the course for the official story.

Look at how obviously shadowy Oswald's background was. How his lack of marksmanship was readily discoverable. Look at the weapon they chose- cheap, defective shims, etc. Look at the Hidell alias, especially; the phony Select Service card alone gives the game away immediately. How could any conspirator think that anyone, anywhere, would accept a fake card with a photograph on it, when legitimate Select Service cards didn't feature photographs?

They clearly could have done a much, much better job. They didn't want to, for their own reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Three points here:

1. Everyone understands that Helms silly broadside to Schorr was a bit of play acting to help turn the tide against both him and the press and contain the Church Committee investigation. Which, along with help from Ford and Phillips, it did. Everything those guys did was choreographed to neuter Frank Church. I deal with this in Bugliosi Part 8, near the end in my discussion of Ford.

They went after Schorr since he actually reported that the Rockefeller Committee was a cover up to conceal CIA assassination plots. Ford actually admitted this in a private meeeting with the NY TImes.

2."Let's remember here that Angleton had Helms wondering if there wasn't something to it, and that Nosenko was a plant designed to convince us the Russians weren't involved, when they really were."

Are you serious about this? The Russians were really involved? How?

Everyone who has studied the Nosenko case and Angleton's career understands today that Nosenko was a genuine defector. He may have exaggerated his position a bit, but that was it. Angleton then took advantage of that to put the guy through three years of inhuman confinement to break his will. This was so stupid that it was one cause of the split between the CIA and FBI (the other being Mexico City). There has never been any evidence surfaced before or since that says Oswald was recruited by the KGB in Russia. In fact, the record says the opposite: they suspected he was CIA from the start. And therefore spied on him.

Now why would Angleton do such an idiotic thing? It leads to Point 3.

3. "P.S. Hogwash. Oswald's being CIA does not indicate the CIA ordered the assassination. It could mean either that he was set up or went rogue."

Today, with the work of John Newman, Lisa Pease, John Armstrong, and Phil Melanson, plus the release of the Lopez Report, the idea that Oswald was set up by someone else or "went rogue" is simply untenable. With the work done on Mexico City, the actions of Phillips and Angleton in that regard, are very hard to explain as accidental. In fact, you can't. And if you examine the Oswald file--as John Newman did--and you couple that with the Otepka case, and the Hurt call, plus myriad other things, its pretty conclusive today that Oswald was an Angleton agent.

And this is the way to explain Nosenko--as part of Angleton's diversion in Mexico CIty with Kostikov. In order to put together a phony KGB plot as a fallback in order to disguise his own culpability.

Let's put it this way: Colby thought Angleton had gone off the range on this and deliberately had his secret operations exposed to get rid of him. But Angleton clung to this story since he knew the Church Committee would be looking at the JFK case, and this might lead to a reopening of the Kennedy case. Which it did.

This is when he made one of the most eerie and spectacular statements ever about that case: "A mansion has many rooms. I was not privy to who struck John."

Oh yes he was.

We're actually on the same page. When I wrote "Let's remember here that Angleton had Helms wondering if there wasn't something to it, and that Nosenko was a plant designed to convince us the Russians weren't involved, when they really were" the "when they really were" part was a continuation of what Angleton had Helms wondering, not what I personally believe. I think the odds are FAR GREATER that Oswald had ties with US intelligence, and that he was set up by anti-Castro Cubans in coordination with a small number of CIA agents, than that Oswald had any ties to Russian intelligence. I'm just not convinced Haldeman would have agreed. When one goes back and reads old magazines and papers one can find amazing things. One of the things I read a few years back that led me to re-assess the myth that right-wingers are LN and left-wingers CT, and that it's ALWAYS been that way, was an article from 1966 in which WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY called for a re-investigation of the Kennedy assassination. I'd read so much about his CIA ties, and his ties to Hunt, etc, I just couldn't fathom why he would push for a new investigation, and briefly align himself with the likes of Mark Lane.

Well, in time it became obvious: he was hoping a new investigation would 1) lead back to Castro and/or the Soviets, and 2) be politically damaging to Johnson and make liberals look soft on communism. And he was not alone. A number of other conservatives were of the same mind, Ronald Reagan included. Here is Reagan pushing as much in the late 70's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P_k2qGadFU

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

= My latest

My latest

+ If he wanted to tell his readers Oswald was a CIA agent why did he do so in such roundabout way?

Haldeman was telling his alert readers that he suspected the CIA had a hand in Kennedy's killing.

Suspicion is not the same as conviction.

So he was sending a coded message because he wasn't sure? Your desperate rationalizations are amusing!

Of course he wasn't sure. He said he was intrigued by all the theories surrounding the case and wanted Nixon to get to the bottom of it. I'm sure the Castro-did-it scenario was one of those theories that intrigued Haldeman. CIA-did-it was another.

According to Haldeman, "Nixon turned me down." But did Nixon proceed with such an investigation anyway?

Three times Nixon asked the CIA for the files on the Bay of Pigs, the overthrow of the Diem brothers, and the assassination of Trujillo in the Dominican Republic.

Three times the CIA stonewalled Nixon. The President of the United States couldn't get government files from a government agency.

=Any evidence of this other than Halderman's sayso?

No, Haldeman wasn't sure if the CIA hit Kennedy or if Castro hit Kennedy. You want to restrict Haldeman's thinking to the latter to the exclusion of the former, Colby.

Haldeman's reference to Angleton's denial about Oswald being CIA put the CIA-did-it scenario into the realm of consideration. This is un-mistakable. Why else would he make a reference to Oswald as a CIA agent if he didn't think such a thing was possible?

= So your position now is that Halderman only hinted at LHO being CIA because he wasn’t sure. And if we take away LHO being CIA the most logical reading of the passage is that someone in the Cuban government put him up to it

[...]

Then he goes over LHO ties to Castro. So it goes:

1) The CIA tried to kill Castro

2) Castro found out about them

3) He threatened JFK

4) JFK was killed

5) The CIA covered up their attempts on Castro.

6) The assassin was a Castro sympathizer.

Now you're trying to re-write the sequence of the text. Anyone can go back to the passages I posted

and see this.

I didn't "re-write" anything, show which parts of the sequence above were inaccurate.

Your mis-characterization of Castro's comments as a "threat", and your continued blind eye to the rehearsed Angleton denials of conspiracy in the murder of JFK and Oswald's possible involvement with the CIA.

You simply cannot process this information. It will not stick with you, so you continue to ignore it, or make some lame rationalization about it.

= So I’m slimy because I don’t accept your interpretations? The notion that Castro’s comment was a warning to R & JFK that the CIA might kill them would only make sense if were to suppose he knew more about the internal dynamics of the agency then they did and even you admit Har.lderman did not clearly say LHO was CIA

I'm done with your slimey tactics, Colby.

I still won't stoop to your level, your resort to insults is a sign of your desperation and if you are going to keep tossing out the same insult at least learn how to spell it, there is no 'e' slimy.

It's a special spelling for especially slimey rhetoric, as your guilt by association Morrow sex smear indicates.

= LOL this coming from the guy who recently claimed he admits error when shown to be wrong. The Morrow comment was an obvious joke, unfortunately you have no sense of humor.

I'll reply to the rest of your nonsense later

This discussion is over. Let's take an inventory of what you have conceded.

You no longer argue that Matthews was on a show called Hardball in December of 1995.

= You continue to obsess on the name, Politics with Chris Matthews which many consider to be Hardball with another name debuted well before Dec. ‘95

You can't argue that America's Talking, a failing news network with low ratings in December 1995, was as high a profile gig as Hardball on CNBC in 1997 and MSNBC in 1999, both successful networks.

= You have failed to show it was lower profile than Hardball on CNBC the latter seems to have been discussed less by the press. Your only source that A-T had low ratings was Wikipedia (no source cited) but even if that’s true the best rated programs on a weak channel could have better of similar ratings to less well rated programs on a stronger channel.

You can't argue that DiMona changed "a sentence or two" when obviously he had to make up whole conversations and lines of thought for Haldeman -- an absurd contention.

= Why absurd he was the co-author? In any the only part I think he might have made or sexed up was the one in question.

All you're left arguing for is that the "Bay of Pigs thing" referred to a pro-Castro plot to kill Kennedy. In order to make this argument you have to ignore Haldeman's suggestion that Oswald may have been CIA.

= No I’m arguing `that the "Bay of Pigs thing" referred to’ the assassination plots which were closely tied to the BoP.

Good luck with all that, Colby. I'm sick of your slimey tactics. I'm good for a discussion with you once every two years or so. In 2013 we can have another go around and you can end up arguing minor points, as per usual.

= LOL you said a couple of days ago you said you were done as well. I doubt you mean it this time either, prove me wrong!

Edited by Len Colby
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...