William Kelly Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Allen Dulles WAS the loop. No, you are quite mistaken. Dulles' own basic training was primarily as a lawyer. Even as DCI Dulles did not give orders, he took them. Dulles' experience was primarily as a Nazi operative and financier. And you are worse than mistaken. You ought to be lobotomized. "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy." Michael, Have you read either of the biographies of Allen Dulles? And Greg is certainly an educated student of the Cold War history and not mistaken as to Dulles' limits as a lawyer and DCI. His brother, as Sec State, was more powerful and publicly influential. Do you know that his primary experience with Nazis was in Switzerland during WWII when he participated in the Valkyrie Plot to kill Hitler, which was a coup as well as an assassination? Sure he also permitted PAPERCLIP, which brought in the Nazi scientists to USA to begin NASA, and rehabilitated Gehlen and utilized his Operation WRINGER against the commies, but its certainly a great stretch to say that his primary experience was as a Nazi operative and financer. BK JFKcountercoup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Schweitzer Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Even his references to Prouty appear to be tainted by his own subjective mis-interpretation. Prouty was one of my best sources, provided I did my own homework and sought clarification from him regarding context and the like. While it's easy to put words into the mouth of a dead person, it is ill advised. I did not quote, mis-quote, interpret or mis-interpret Fletcher Prouty. I referenced his captions opposite page 60 of his 2009 revised edition of "JFK." Period. The photo on page 60 shows Fletch (left side) standing with Captains Ed Clark and Harry Rogers at the Tokyo International Airport in 1954 beneath the nose of a USAF "MATS" air plane. In my copy, I see no "captions" opposite page 60, but there is one below the photo. However, on page 61 Fletch goes into some detail as regards the role of the Saigon Military Mission in Vietnam and he explains the tremendous amount of MILITARY SUPPORT that the CIA enjoyed in those years and in that part of the world. Please understand, I am not attempting to exonerate CIA for its many violations. I am stating a simple fact: The CIA needs military support to pull off military operations, even the ambush of a chief executive. They tend to screw up operations in which they do not have such support and even get caught in the process. In Col. Prouty's revised 2009 edition of "JFK," there are 3 photographs opposite page 60: a U-2 spy plane, pilot Francis Gary Powers, and President Eisenhower. The caption under the first photograph states: "The C.I.A.'s U-2 spy plane. President Eisenhower's hopes for a 'Crusade for Peace' were dashed when the CIA – against Ike's specific order – sent a U-2 spy planes [sic] on a long-range overflight of the Soviet Union from Pakistan to Norway. On May 1, 1960, it made a forced landing near Sverdlovsk. Despite Soviet claims and news reports, the U-2 was not shot down. Allen Dulles himself testified to that fact before the Senate, and Eisenhower has written the true story in his memoirs. It suffered engine failure that may have been induced by a pre-planned shortage of auxiliary hydrogen fuel." The caption next to the second photograph states: "Captain Francis Gary Powers, pilot of the U-2, landed alive and well and in possession of a number of most remarkable identification items, survival kit materials, and other things spies are never allowed to carry. Did he know he had them in his parachute pack, or did someone who knew the U-2 had been prepared to fail put them there to create his 'CIA spy' identity?" The caption next to the third photograph states: "President Eisenhower had ordered all overflights to cease during the pre-summit conference period. The author, supporting a major CIA overflight program in Tibet, grounded all aircraft involved. Why was one U-2 ordered on its longest-ever overflight at that time?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Schweitzer Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Even his references to Prouty appear to be tainted by his own subjective mis-interpretation. Prouty was one of my best sources, provided I did my own homework and sought clarification from him regarding context and the like. While it's easy to put words into the mouth of a dead person, it is ill advised. I did not quote, mis-quote, interpret or mis-interpret Fletcher Prouty. I referenced his captions opposite page 60 of his 2009 revised edition of "JFK." Period. The photo on page 60 shows Fletch (left side) standing with Captains Ed Clark and Harry Rogers at the Tokyo International Airport in 1954 beneath the nose of a USAF "MATS" air plane. In my copy, I see no "captions" opposite page 60, but there is one below the photo. However, on page 61 Fletch goes into some detail as regards the role of the Saigon Military Mission in Vietnam and he explains the tremendous amount of MILITARY SUPPORT that the CIA enjoyed in those years and in that part of the world. Please understand, I am not attempting to exonerate CIA for its many violations. I am stating a simple fact: The CIA needs military support to pull off military operations, even the ambush of a chief executive. They tend to screw up operations in which they do not have such support and even get caught in the process. In Col. Prouty's revised 2009 edition of "JFK," there are 3 photographs opposite page 60: a U-2 spy plane, pilot Francis Gary Powers, and President Eisenhower. The caption under the first photograph states: "The C.I.A.'s U-2 spy plane. President Eisenhower's hopes for a 'Crusade for Peace' were dashed when the CIA – against Ike's specific order – sent a U-2 spy planes [sic] on a long-range overflight of the Soviet Union from Pakistan to Norway. On May 1, 1960, it made a forced landing near Sverdlovsk. Despite Soviet claims and news reports, the U-2 was not shot down. Allen Dulles himself testified to that fact before the Senate, and Eisenhower has written the true story in his memoirs. It suffered engine failure that may have been induced by a pre-planned shortage of auxiliary hydrogen fuel." The caption next to the second photograph states: "Captain Francis Gary Powers, pilot of the U-2, landed alive and well and in possession of a number of most remarkable identification items, survival kit materials, and other things spies are never allowed to carry. Did he know he had them in his parachute pack, or did someone who knew the U-2 had been prepared to fail put them there to create his 'CIA spy' identity?" The caption next to the third photograph states: "President Eisenhower had ordered all overflights to cease during the pre-summit conference period. The author, supporting a major CIA overflight program in Tibet, grounded all aircraft involved. Why was one U-2 ordered on its longest-ever overflight at that time?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Schweitzer Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Your disassociation from reality is staggering. Are you talking to yourself or is this a reply to someone or something you don't like? I accidentally erased the reference to the post to which I responded. And rudeness elucidates nothing. That's great but I still have no clue who your post was aimed at. I'm wondering though - your claim that "rudeness elucidates nothing" is quite illuminating considering you previously wrote to some unknown member that they were "disassociated from reality." Funny... I am new to this Forum. I responded to a post but erased the link. And yes, I think your reaction is rude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Schweitzer Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Allen Dulles WAS the loop. No, you are quite mistaken. Dulles' own basic training was primarily as a lawyer. Even as DCI Dulles did not give orders, he took them. Dulles' experience was primarily as a Nazi operative and financier. And you are worse than mistaken. You ought to be lobotomized. "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy." Michael, Have you read either of the biographies of Allen Dulles? And Greg is certainly an educated student of the Cold War history and not mistaken as to Dulles' limits as a lawyer and DCI. His brother, as Sec State, was more powerful and publicly influential. Do you know that his primary experience with Nazis was in Switzerland during WWII when he participated in the Valkyrie Plot to kill Hitler, which was a coup as well as an assassination? Sure he also permitted PAPERCLIP, which brought in the Nazi scientists to USA to begin NASA, and rehabilitated Gehlen and utilized his Operation WRINGER against the commies, but its certainly a great stretch to say that his primary experience was as a Nazi operative and financer. BK JFKcountercoup He sounds like a mockingbird to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Allen Dulles WAS the loop. No, you are quite mistaken. Dulles' own basic training was primarily as a lawyer. Even as DCI Dulles did not give orders, he took them. Dulles' experience was primarily as a Nazi operative and financier. And you are worse than mistaken. You ought to be lobotomized. "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy." Michael, Have you read either of the biographies of Allen Dulles? And Greg is certainly an educated student of the Cold War history and not mistaken as to Dulles' limits as a lawyer and DCI. His brother, as Sec State, was more powerful and publicly influential. Do you know that his primary experience with Nazis was in Switzerland during WWII when he participated in the Valkyrie Plot to kill Hitler, which was a coup as well as an assassination? Sure he also permitted PAPERCLIP, which brought in the Nazi scientists to USA to begin NASA, and rehabilitated Gehlen and utilized his Operation WRINGER against the commies, but its certainly a great stretch to say that his primary experience was as a Nazi operative and financer. BK JFKcountercoup He sounds like a mockingbird to me. Have you read either of the biographies of Allen Dulles? Do you know where he was at the time of the assassination? Thanks, BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Schweitzer Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Allen Dulles WAS the loop. No, you are quite mistaken. Dulles' own basic training was primarily as a lawyer. Even as DCI Dulles did not give orders, he took them. Dulles' experience was primarily as a Nazi operative and financier. And you are worse than mistaken. You ought to be lobotomized. "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy." Michael, Have you read either of the biographies of Allen Dulles? And Greg is certainly an educated student of the Cold War history and not mistaken as to Dulles' limits as a lawyer and DCI. His brother, as Sec State, was more powerful and publicly influential. Do you know that his primary experience with Nazis was in Switzerland during WWII when he participated in the Valkyrie Plot to kill Hitler, which was a coup as well as an assassination? Sure he also permitted PAPERCLIP, which brought in the Nazi scientists to USA to begin NASA, and rehabilitated Gehlen and utilized his Operation WRINGER against the commies, but its certainly a great stretch to say that his primary experience was as a Nazi operative and financer. BK JFKcountercoup He sounds like a mockingbird to me. Have you read either of the biographies of Allen Dulles? Do you know where he was at the time of the assassination? Thanks, BK Have you read "The Secret War Against the Jews" by John Loftus and Mark Aarons? It is a good introduction to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Schweitzer Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Your disassociation from reality is staggering. Are you talking to yourself or is this a reply to someone or something you don't like? I accidentally erased the reference to the post to which I responded. And rudeness elucidates nothing. That's great but I still have no clue who your post was aimed at. I'm wondering though - your claim that "rudeness elucidates nothing" is quite illuminating considering you previously wrote to some unknown member that they were "disassociated from reality." Funny... I am new to this Forum. I responded to a post but erased the link. And yes, I think your reaction is rude. Do you think I should be "lobotomised"? If you deny the Nazi history of Allen Dulles, I would consider you a candidate. If you deny the Holocaust, I would rush you to emergency surgery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Fordiani Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) Allen Dulles WAS the loop. No, you are quite mistaken. Dulles' own basic training was primarily as a lawyer. Even as DCI Dulles did not give orders, he took them. Dulles' experience was primarily as a Nazi operative and financier. And you are worse than mistaken. You ought to be lobotomized. I really do not understand, Mr. Schweitzer. Your post opening this thread seemed intelligent and well-thought out. While I don't necessarily agree 100% with everything that you wrote, it was good reading. I don't always agree 100% with Mr. Burnham, or Mr. Kelly or anyone else. And I think that is probably true for everyone on this forum: everyone probably disagrees with everyone about one thing or another. I happen to agree with you about Allen Dulles in that I have a hard time believing that he was out of the loop. I just do not think that one could be DCI for as long as he was and not maintain serious contacts. On the other hand, I do also tend to agree with Mr. Burnham that the military played a major part, if not the major part, in the overall operation. You resort to name-calling. I find it all so demeaning and childish. To suggest that Mr. Burnham should be lobotomized: what purpose does it serve? It just makes you look foolish, in my opinion. Do you know Mr. Kelly and all the work he does to try to get to the facts and the truth of this whole nasty business? To suggest he is a "mockingbird" also makes you look foolish in my opinion. For sure, you are not the only person here who resorts to name-calling when their opinion is challenged. We have all seen the large number of threads that have degenerated. But you are new here; maybe I am foolishly hopeful that some of the new members could work to raise the standard of discourse. We have a lot of intelligent and dedicated people here, and this forum contains an enormous wealth of information. Unfortunately too many times the valuable information is lost in the name-calling noise. Can't we all do better than that? Edited December 20, 2011 by Al Fordiani Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Allen Dulles WAS the loop. No, you are quite mistaken. Dulles' own basic training was primarily as a lawyer. Even as DCI Dulles did not give orders, he took them. Dulles' experience was primarily as a Nazi operative and financier. And you are worse than mistaken. You ought to be lobotomized. I really do not understand, Mr. Schweitzer. Your post opening this thread seemed intellegent and well-thought out. While I don't necessarily agree 100% with everything that you wrote, it was good reading. I don't always agree 100% with Mr. Burnham, or Mr. Kelly or anyone else. And I think that is probably true for everyone on this forum: everyone probably disagrees with everyone about one thing or another. I happen to agree with you about Allen Dulles in that I have a hard time believing that he was out of the loop. I just do not think that one could be DCI for as long as he was and not maintain serious contacts. On the other hand, I do also tend to agree with Mr. Burnham that the military played a major part, if not the major part, in the overall operation. You resort to name-calling. I find it all so demeaning and childish. To suggest that Mr. Burnham should be lobotomized: what purpose does it serve? It just makes you look foolish, in my opinion. Do you know Mr. Kelly and all the work he does to try to get to the facts and the truth of this whole nasty business? To suggest he is a "mockingbird" also makes you look foolish in my opinion. For sure, you are not the only person here who resorts to name-calling when their opinion is challenged. We have all seen the large number of threads that have degenerated. But you are new here; maybe I am foolishly hopeful that some of the new members could work to raise the standard of discourse. We have a lot of intelligent and dedicated people here, and this forum contains an enormous wealth of information. Unfortunately too many times the valuable information is lost in the name-calling noise. Can't we all do better than that? Ditto. Some new kid on the block comes here and begins calling serious researchers names. No one is down playing the Nazi connection to the CIA. And Mae did tell us all we needed to know decades ago. As did Carl Oglesby and others. For a lawyer - if indeed you are/were -your logic is most strange. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Allen Dulles WAS the loop. No, you are quite mistaken. Dulles' own basic training was primarily as a lawyer. Even as DCI Dulles did not give orders, he took them. Dulles' experience was primarily as a Nazi operative and financier. And you are worse than mistaken. You ought to be lobotomized. Where is your bio? Is that no longer a rule here? Dawn Merry Christmas everyone....almost.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Mr. Schweitzer, There are many researchers on this forum who have been at this for decades. We all can learn from the fresh, non-jaded, ideas of the novice, as well as the wisdom and experience of the seasoned researcher. Many of the items that you mention as your sources were actually released to the public as a result of the efforts put forth by members of this forum. We are very aware of the contents and significance of those documents and we welcome your interpretation of their significance even if it is at odds with our own. That said, do not expect to go unchallenged when you offer a pet theory that has been re-hashed countless times by the critical community. Perhaps you will offer something new to the arguments that we have already considered and perhaps you will persuade. So far, you have offered nothing new and you have not persuaded. The burden is on you. We are not required to accept your conclusions merely because "you say it is so" without your having provided a solid foundation upon which to base your assertions. Colonel Prouty was my friend. I have a box full of dozens of correspondences from him. I have hours of recorded conversations with him. I have been to Alexandria Virginia where he lived and was with him for the last time at Arlington National Cemetery when he was laid to rest. I can assure you that much of your interpretation of Prouty--as presented here--is inconsistent with his work. Perhaps you will appreciate this 30 minute video presentation from last year's COPA conference as it is based on Prouty's communications with me. It is regarding NSAM's 263 and 273: http://justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com/2010/12/greg-burnham-copa-2010-presentation.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) Allen Dulles WAS the loop. No, you are quite mistaken. Dulles' own basic training was primarily as a lawyer. Even as DCI Dulles did not give orders, he took them. Dulles' experience was primarily as a Nazi operative and financier. And you are worse than mistaken. You ought to be lobotomized. I really do not understand, Mr. Schweitzer. Your post opening this thread seemed intellegent and well-thought out. While I don't necessarily agree 100% with everything that you wrote, it was good reading. I don't always agree 100% with Mr. Burnham, or Mr. Kelly or anyone else. And I think that is probably true for everyone on this forum: everyone probably disagrees with everyone about one thing or another. I happen to agree with you about Allen Dulles in that I have a hard time believing that he was out of the loop. I just do not think that one could be DCI for as long as he was and not maintain serious contacts. On the other hand, I do also tend to agree with Mr. Burnham that the military played a major part, if not the major part, in the overall operation. You resort to name-calling. I find it all so demeaning and childish. To suggest that Mr. Burnham should be lobotomized: what purpose does it serve? It just makes you look foolish, in my opinion. Do you know Mr. Kelly and all the work he does to try to get to the facts and the truth of this whole nasty business? To suggest he is a "mockingbird" also makes you look foolish in my opinion. For sure, you are not the only person here who resorts to name-calling when their opinion is challenged. We have all seen the large number of threads that have degenerated. But you are new here; maybe I am foolishly hopeful that some of the new members could work to raise the standard of discourse. We have a lot of intelligent and dedicated people here, and this forum contains an enormous wealth of information. Unfortunately too many times the valuable information is lost in the name-calling noise. Can't we all do better than that? Ditto. Some new kid on the block comes here and begins calling serious researchers names. No one is down playing the Nazi connection to the CIA. And Mae did tell us all we needed to know decades ago. As did Carl Oglesby and others. For a lawyer - if indeed you are/were -your logic is most strange. Dawn I think he should voluntarily remove himself from the JFK Assassination Debate forum and go to some other assassination forum where virulent name-calling is more acceptable. --Tommy Edited December 20, 2011 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Schweitzer Posted December 20, 2011 Author Share Posted December 20, 2011 Mr. Schweitzer, There are many researchers on this forum who have been at this for decades. We all can learn from the fresh, non-jaded, ideas of the novice, as well as the wisdom and experience of the seasoned researcher. Many of the items that you mention as your sources were actually released to the public as a result of the efforts put forth by members of this forum. We are very aware of the contents and significance of those documents and we welcome your interpretation of their significance even if it is at odds with our own. That said, do not expect to go unchallenged when you offer a pet theory that has been re-hashed countless times by the critical community. Perhaps you will offer something new to the arguments that we have already considered and perhaps you will persuade. So far, you have offered nothing new and you have not persuaded. The burden is on you. We are not required to accept your conclusions merely because "you say it is so" without your having provided a solid foundation upon which to base your assertions. Colonel Prouty was my friend. I have a box full of dozens of correspondences from him. I have hours of recorded conversations with him. I have been to Alexandria Virginia where he lived and was with him for the last time at Arlington National Cemetery when he was laid to rest. I can assure you that much of your interpretation of Prouty--as presented here--is inconsistent with his work. Perhaps you will appreciate this 30 minute video presentation from last year's COPA conference as it is based on Prouty's communications with me. It is regarding NSAM's 263 and 273: http://justiceforken...esentation.html Greg, please accept my apology for losing my cool. I know and respect your many contributions to assassination research. My mention of Col. Prouty was limited to referencing the captions of three photographs in a more recent edition of his book "JFK" than you appear to have, as supporting my proposition the CIA has sabotaged peace attempts. I do not consider that to be an interpretation, but a citation, and at no other point do I even mention, much less interpret, the work of your late friend. Did Col. Prouty ever tell you anything about the U-2 incident that is inconsistent with the captions opposite page 60 of the 2009 edition of his book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 (edited) Mr. Schweitzer, There are many researchers on this forum who have been at this for decades. We all can learn from the fresh, non-jaded, ideas of the novice, as well as the wisdom and experience of the seasoned researcher. Many of the items that you mention as your sources were actually released to the public as a result of the efforts put forth by members of this forum. We are very aware of the contents and significance of those documents and we welcome your interpretation of their significance even if it is at odds with our own. That said, do not expect to go unchallenged when you offer a pet theory that has been re-hashed countless times by the critical community. Perhaps you will offer something new to the arguments that we have already considered and perhaps you will persuade. So far, you have offered nothing new and you have not persuaded. The burden is on you. We are not required to accept your conclusions merely because "you say it is so" without your having provided a solid foundation upon which to base your assertions. Colonel Prouty was my friend. I have a box full of dozens of correspondences from him. I have hours of recorded conversations with him. I have been to Alexandria Virginia where he lived and was with him for the last time at Arlington National Cemetery when he was laid to rest. I can assure you that much of your interpretation of Prouty--as presented here--is inconsistent with his work. Perhaps you will appreciate this 30 minute video presentation from last year's COPA conference as it is based on Prouty's communications with me. It is regarding NSAM's 263 and 273: http://justiceforken...esentation.html Greg, please accept my apology for losing my cool. I know and respect your many contributions to assassination research. My mention of Col. Prouty was limited to referencing the captions of three photographs in a more recent edition of his book "JFK" than you appear to have, as supporting my proposition the CIA has sabotaged peace attempts. I do not consider that to be an interpretation, but a citation, and at no other point do I even mention, much less interpret, the work of your late friend. Did Col. Prouty ever tell you anything about the U-2 incident that is inconsistent with the captions opposite page 60 of the 2009 edition of his book? Apology accepted, Michael. Thank you. In my copy of the book the photos and attendant captions you reference are located between pages 156 and 157 in the glossy photos section. I agree with you that the CIA did indeed attempt and many times succeed in derailing the peace process, including, but not limited to Eisenhower's "Crusade For Peace" among others. Fletch emphasized his conviction that Gary Powers' U-2 flight was sabotaged by the intentional dilution of his fuel supply (it lacked sufficient hydrogen). In my view, your having made statements that assert "the CIA did it" and that "Dulles was the loop" in the context of Prouty's work is misleading, albeit unintentional. Additionally, you also mentioned the Gold Key Club in your opening paragraph. That is a Prouty euphemism. So, you did "interpret" Prouty in more areas than you admit. Edited December 20, 2011 by Greg Burnham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now