Jump to content
The Education Forum

Question for Jim DiEugenio


Glenn Viklund
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jim,

A couple of months ago you argued that there are as much (or more..) evidence about a conspiracy in the JFK case than there is about the Holocaust taking place. Subsequently we had a rather heated debate about this claim of yours.

Now, perhaps I was a bit too judgmental about the wording used by you. But if that is so, I would like to hear about your version of what happened in Dealey Plaza - who were the shooters and how many shots where fired? And above all, who were the people behind this?

I think that on the basis of your statement about the slam dunk case, these are fair questions.

(needless to say, anyone should feel free to chip in..)

//GV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always seemed to me that Sprague and Prouty had a unique view of the assassination and surrounding events...

I find it very difficult to believe what these men open our eyes to is just more propoganda...

Does ToA standup over the years?

Sprague was fired for appearing as if he was going to actually investigate something...

Thank goodness he did get some of the work done and continued it on his own...

Add to this the desciption of at least 6 shots seen on the Zfilm at NPIC that night and Homer's declaration about seeing 6-8 shots

and I believe Sprague is not so far off from what happened.

Cheers

DJ

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp17.html

The CIA's problem

Given this background of the HSCA status in late 1976, it can easily be seen that the CIA was up against much more serious opposition than it ever had been before in the JFK murder and cover-up. They had ruined Jim Garrison's reputation and curtailed his investigation by various dirty trick means. They had been in solid control of the Warren Commission by the simple expedient of having four of the Commissioners belonging to them; Dulles, Ford, McCloy and Russell. They were also able to kill enough people who knew the truth, to slow down any truth-seeking that might have taken place. They also hid documents, destroyed and altered evidence, lied about other evidence, and bald facedly (Dulles) admitted that they wouldn't tell the President or the Commission if Lee Harvey Oswald had been a CIA agent (which he had been). In the Rockefeller Commission situation they were in complete control of that attempt to reinforce the Warren Commission's findings. And in the Church Committee investigation, the Schweiker/Hart subcommittee on the JFK case was very limited and controlled in what they could do.

But in the new situation, in Richard A. Sprague and his professionals with so much knowledge of the CIA's role in the murder and the cover-up, they faced a crisis. They knew they had to do several things to turn it around and to continue to keep the American public from realizing what was happening. Here is what they had to do:

Get rid of Richard A. Sprague.

Get rid of Henry Gonzalez.

Get rid of Sprague's key men or keep them away from CIA evidence or keep them quiet.

Install their own chief counsel to control the investigation.

Elect a new HSCA chairman who would go along, or who could be fooled.

Cut off all Sprague's investigations of CIA people. Make sure none of the people were found or bury any testimony that had already been found, or murder CIA people who might talk.

Keep the committee members from knowing what was happening and segregate the investigation from them.

Create a new investigative environment whose purpose would be to confirm all of the findings of the Warren Commission and divert attention away from the who-did-it-and-why approach.

Control the committee staff in such a way as to keep any of them from revealing what they already knew about CIA involvement.

Control committee consultants in the same way, and staff members who might leave or who might be fired.

Continue to control the media in such a way as to reinforce all of the above.

Continue to murder witnesses or assassins in emergency situations if necessary.

The CIA successfully did all twelve of these things. The techniques they used were much more subtle and devious than those they had used before, although they did continue with murders of potential HSCA witnesses and with media control

Chapter 5

The Assassination of John Kennedy http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp5.html

The assassination of President Kennedy can be considered one of a series of acts by the Power Control Group to regain the control they had lost when Nixon was defeated in 1960 and Kennedy threatened their existence. The evidence pointing toward intelligence involvement and the use of a variety of intelligence techniques in the assassination is substantial. Until and unless an investigation is conducted by a group with power and money equivalent to that of the Power Control Group, with the power to issue subpoenas and to protect witnesses, it will be very difficult to draw a completely accurate picture of the conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I recall saying is that, in the face of all the evidence we have today about JFK's death, denying it was a conspiracy is like denying that there was a Holocaust.

And yes I think that is accurate. And I consider men like John McAdams, David Von Pein and David Reitzes to be the academic and moral equivalents of say David Irving. Who lost a libel suit in London over this issue.

But what you are asking me to do goes beyond that statement. And I cannot believe you do not understand why. Because if you do not then you are not a very good student of history, and you do not know this case very well.

The Holocaust was not a clandestine operation. In fact, the US government knew about it as early as 1943. And there were discussions of whether or not to try and stop it in 1943-44. To which Warren Commissioner John McCloy famously objected to. (McCLoy later helped the Butcher of Lyons, Klaus Barbie, escape to South America. The man who emptied an orphanage of 43 kids aged three to sixteen and sent them to Auschwitz. From this, one can see that he sympathized much more with the Nazis than with their victims.)

Further, there was actually a formal meeting to plan this at a little town outside of Berlin. Enough is known of this meeting to actually make a film of it. Beyond that, the Nazis kept fairly good records of the people going into the death camps.

After the war, the surviving Nazis were actually placed on trial. And they were provided with lawyers and there were judges involved and rules of legal procedure were followed.

Now, in Dealey Plaza, what you had was a classic clandestine operation. That is, one which was meant to be temporarily disguised in order for the perpetrators to escape the consequences for their actions. Further, you had the preconceived setting up of a fall guy who would further disguise and then stop the legal process--by also blaming him for being a cop killer. For all intents and purposes, once Oswald was apprehended, the inquiry was over by both the DPD and FBI. This means that, roughly speaking, the inquiry stopped about an hour and twenty minutes after the crime was committed. This is how well the operation was planned.

The icing on the cake was what happened at Bethesda that night. Knowing that any real autopsy would reveal a conspiracy, the operation included having three military doctors, who were not practicing pathologists, do the post mortem. With something like 45 spectators in the gallery controlling what they did. And Curtis LeMay being paged that afternoon. Incredibly, there was no sectioning of the two wounds into Kennedy. That is, the back wound was not dissected to see if was a through and through wound or if it was one of exit or entrance; and the brain was not sectioned to trace the directionality of that wound. In fact, the pictures we have of the brain today are provably not Kennedy's brain. We have that, from among other sources, the man who took them, John Stringer. He told the ARRB under oath that he could not have taken those photos.

Now, what followed after this, with the FBI and WC controlling the inquiry, I won't even go into that. It has been exposed by way too many authors to be enumerated here. It was a ludicrous farce, which would be funny if it was not tragic. We have literally spent nearly a half century trying to sort through the mess those 26 volumes created. Being obstructed every step of the way.

So, considering those two comparative conditions, how can one ask me to tell you what happened in Dealey Plaza? The Holocaust has been universally condemned by almost everyone. Investigations have been done by government forces, and in some cases, are still being done. David Marwell came from that investigatory unit, if I recall.

In this case, its just about the opposite. The WC and FBI deliberately DID NOT INVESTIGATE the crime. And the autopsy was so obstructed that one cannot even tell with precision precisely what happened to President Kennedy. And in fact, the medical evidence was continually being dabbled with all the way up to the HSCA, 15 years later. This is when Michael Baden told Ida Dox to falsify the rear head wound for a illustration in the HSCA volumes: to make a dab of blood look more like a real entrance wound. And we did not find out about that piece of subterfuge until the ARRB, which was 15 years after Baden's act occurred.

So with these kinds of circumstances, to ask a private citizen without any kind of subpoena powers or immunization powers or perjury powers to explain what happened in one of the most cleverly designed and brilliantly executed clandestine operations in US history, well I think that is a bit much. And to compare those circumstances and the aftermath with the Holocaust, well I think that is a bit ridiculous.

But, because of the ARRB, with the new evidence we have, combined with the old, we can show with reams of documents, interviews, exhibits etc, that Oswald did not kill Kennedy. And for anyone to be shown this, and to still say that the WC was correct, yes, he belongs with the likes of Irving and Faurisson, Noam Chomsky's buddy.

Thanks Jim ( and thanks Martin and Joseph also).

I just arrived back from a late nite dinner, I will respond tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

A couple of months ago you argued that there are as much (or more..) evidence about a conspiracy in the JFK case than there is about the Holocaust taking place. Subsequently we had a rather heated debate about this claim of yours.

Now, perhaps I was a bit too judgmental about the wording used by you. But if that is so, I would like to hear about your version of what happened in Dealey Plaza - who were the shooters and how many shots where fired? And above all, who were the people behind this?

I think that on the basis of your statement about the slam dunk case, these are fair questions.

(needless to say, anyone should feel free to chip in..)

//GV

Glenn,

One does not have to know who was involved to see the overwhelming evidence of conspiracy.

Glenn - Really, consult Larry Hancock's "Someone Would Have Talked" for conspiracy evidence. Also Gaeton Fonzi's book on his HSCA work, "The Last Investigation."

Edited by David Andrews
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...