Martin Blank Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Biased against the CIA? Well Paul, consider this. Unlike the rightwing crazies you propose Oswald was aligned with, certain CIA were provably following Oswald' movements and actions for at least 3 years, a fact they tried hard to conceal both during Oswald's short life and after his death, even to the present day. Well, Paul B., I have always recognized that LHO was tracked by the CIA, starting with his trek into the USSR in 1959. LHO was moving in Intelligence Circles since 1959, IMHO, but not as an important figure, rather, only as a trainee. I believe it went back farther than that (1959) IMHO, former CIA Agent Victor Marchetti is right when he says that Oswald went to the USSR as a "dangle" in a large system of dozens of "dangles" organized by the ONI. some of that may have been part of a molehunt. was there a connection to john paisley? IMHO, LHO pissed off the ONI by quitting on them -- abandoning his post, getting married and having a baby, and then rushing back to the USA before completing his trainee "dangle" mission. maybe that was his mission That explains, IMHO, why the Marines lowered LHO's discharge status. even in the land of make believe things must be made to look real After that, the FBI did interview him, and the CIA admitted that it considered "laying on of interviews" with regard to LHO. But LHO never got hired. I think" laying on of interviews" is more of a debriefing kind of procedure. how do we know he never got hired? listen to allen dulles (who this time at least is telling the truth) Allen Dulles: This is a hard theory to disprove, you know. How do you disprove a fellow was not your agent? How do you disprove it? Hale Boggs: You could disprove it, couldn't you? Allen Dulles: No...I never knew how to disprove it. and REP. [HALE] BOGGS: Let's say [u-2 pilot Gary] Powers did not have a signed contract but he was recruited by someone in CIA. The man who recruited him would know, wouldn't he? MR. [ALLEN W.] DULLES [FORMER CIA DIRECTOR]: Yes, but he wouldn't tell. THE CHAIRMAN [EARL WARREN]: Wouldn't tell it under oath? MR. DULLES: I wouldn't think he would tell it under oath, no. THE CHAIRMAN: Why? MR. DULLES: He ought not tell it under oath. Maybe not tell it to his own government but wouldn't tell it any other way. [sic] MR. [JOHN J.] McCOY: Wouldn't he tell it to his own chief? MR. DULLES: He might or might not. If he was a bad one then he wouldn't ... I would tell the President of the United States anything, yes, I am under his control. He is my boss. I wouldn't necessarily tell anybody else, unless the President authorized me to do it. We had that come up at times. LHO was bright enough to learn Russian at a young age, as well as radar secrets and perhaps "micro-dots", but LHO was also too independent to be a Team Player. Neither the FBI, CIA nor ONI hired him full time (but possibly gave him "informant" status and some chump change). i grew up with lots of kids (eastern european immigrants after world war ii who oddly speak russian, ukranian, polish, etc what they learn at home at home was bolstered by schools (yes there were polish schools, etc.) and nationalist youth organizations. again you have to give oswald a character that fits him. you are not going to send him to a country club LHO really got into trouble with the FBI and CIA, however, when, at the urging of George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt (and possibly Michael Paine), LHO tried to murder General Walker at his Dallas home, IMHO. i don't think so myself Dick Russell (1992) says Mrs. Igor Voshinin told the FBI about Oswald-as-a-Walker-suspect only four days later. This corresponds with many of Walker's personal papers, for example, his letter to Senator Frank Church in 1975: http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf After the Walker shooting, I feel certain that the FBI, CIA and ONI scratched Oswald off their prospect lists, and only put him on their watch lists as just another crackpot mixed up with Guy Banister in New Orleans. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Blank Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 i agree with all that - sure. i think the term pawn has been bandied about of late... my one hesitancy is the word 'hire', asint if there's a human resources department who checks to see of you've ever stolen a snickers from Six Flags with two friends who threw you under the bus like an empty styrofoam spaghetti box - not that i've ever experienced that - i think in this game of cloak and dagger there's an extremely large chasm between "hired" and "no longer employed", etc.... usefulness comes in all shapes and colors. i tend to agree that LHO had the perfect balance of intelligence and abject idiocy, which probably made him invaluable to intel types. hell, they probably discovered his rare trait in Atsugi. i agree with all that - sure. i think the term pawn has been bandied about of late... my one hesitancy is the word 'hire', asint if there's a human resources department who checks to see of you've ever stolen a snickers from Six Flags with two friends who threw you under the bus like an empty styrofoam spaghetti box - not that i've ever experienced that - i think in this game of cloak and dagger there's an extremely large chasm between "hired" and "no longer employed", etc.... usefulness comes in all shapes and colors. i tend to agree that LHO had the perfect balance of intelligence and abject idiocy, which probably made him invaluable to intel types. hell, they probably discovered his rare trait in Atsugi. maybe he had that perfect balance because he was two people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) maybe that was his mission ... even in the land of make believe things must be made to look real ... I grew up with lots of kids (eastern european immigrants after world war ii who oddly speak russian, ukranian, polish, etc what they learn at home at home was bolstered by schools (yes there were polish schools, etc.) and nationalist youth organizations. again you have to give oswald a character that fits him. you are not going to send him to a country club Well, Martin, your view reflects the majority here, and perhaps the majority of CTers generally -- that LHO was basically working for the CIA in his role as Patsy (if not assassin) in the JFK murder. Yet the evidence that you cite is typically weak. I'm not a LNer, and I feel certain there was a JFK conspiracy -- still, the evidence offered by CTers with a CIA-did-it theory is typically weak, and has been since Jim Garrison. (1) Yes, the ONI was interested in Oswald before 1959, when Oswald turned 20 -- they were probably interested in Oswald in 1957, because as a teenage Radar operator he might prove useful. Jim Garrison thought LHO took Russian lessons offered by the ONI. But ONI training is no GUARANTEE that one would get a full-time job in the Intelligence Community. (2) You suspect that LHO's coming back to the USA with a Russian bride was his "mission?" What *possible* mission? He was useful in the USSR as part of a dangle operation requiring dozens of dangles. He clearly quit early, IMHO, when he became a husband and a father. (3) You suspect that LHO's lowered Marine discharge was also part of his "mission?" Again, who else would even care? Nobody would have even known unless LHO himself blabbed it all around. Also, LHO himself worked continually to upgrade his undesirable status. (4) The evidence that LHO never got hired by the CIA, FBI or ONI is that he could hardly pay his rent. He lived in the cheapest apartments in town, and his wife went around in rags (or charity clothes), with tooth and gum disease, and they had no car. Sorry -- that's just rank poverty -- and I'm surprised that anybody would think rank poverty was any sort of "cover." (5) As for Allen Dulles admitting that CIA Agents were under orders to LIE UNDER OATH if it jeopardized a CIA mission, of course that was the truth -- this policy is clearly intelligent and good for National Security. If a Judge has a CIA agent as a witness, the Judge should also take extra steps to contact the CIA for further information. That's just common sense. It's a matter of life and death in many cases -- certainly of National Security. There's nothing sinister about it in the slightest. (6) Your suggestion that LHO's poverty could have been a "character given by the CIA" or FBI or ONI, is absurd, IMHO, because nobody would really know or care if a family was living merely frugally or truly poverty-stricken. Poverty as a cover is a theory I haven't heard before -- probably because it's REACHING. (7) Aside from the fact that LHO was dirt poor after he returned from the USSR, the best evidence that LHO was never an FBI, CIA or ONI agent is that LHO was made into a PATSY. No FBI, CIA or ONI agent is so poverty-stricken or clueless that he would be made into a PATSY. (8) One of the reasons that LHO could be manipulated into the role of PATSY was precisely because he was always desperate for money -- ever since he became a husband and a father with no skills and no job. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited October 16, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Paul - since the subject of this thread is Bill Kelly's review of Talbot's new book, not Caulfield's, perhaps you could restrict your discussions of your theories please to Caulfield's thread or Walker threads so those of us who want to see the Dulles Brothers clearly could discuss the book without distraction. That goes for any thread on The Devil's Chessboard. If you want to talk about Dulles and tell us all why he was a hero and was just being pragmatic when he made deals with the Nazis feel free to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Paul - since the subject of this thread is Bill Kelly's review of Talbot's new book, not Caulfield's, perhaps you could restrict your discussions of your theories please to Caulfield's thread or Walker threads so those of us who want to see the Dulles Brothers clearly could discuss the book without distraction. That goes for any thread on The Devil's Chessboard. If you want to talk about Dulles and tell us all why he was a hero and was just being pragmatic when he made deals with the Nazis feel free to do so. Fair enough, Paul B. Yes, about Allen Dulles and his deals with the Nazi's AFTER THE WAR, let us be clear that Dulles was making deals with the DEFEATED Nazis. Actually, the only alternative with making deals with the DEFEATED Nazis would have been -- what? I mean, they're defeated, so they have no more power. It's just like, at the end of the US Civil War, after Robert E. Lee surrendered to the North, the North then began making deals with the DEFEATED South. That's just common sense. In the case of the Cold War, the issue after the surrender of Germany to the Allies was an immediate clash of the West with the USSR. The USSR wanted to take more and more of Europe, and Europe didn't want to be taken. So, the Cold War began. Winston Churchill was a leader in the first moments of the Cold War, but soon the clash with the USSR became so heated that the USA and Western Europe needed INFORMATION about Soviet spies. Enter Allen Dulles. His first problem was to get QUICK information about Soviet spies -- and where would he get it? The answer is OBVIOUS. Allen Dulles would go to the DEFEATED Nazi Intelligence Department, and make a deal so that the USA could get their computerized database of Soviet spies. It was really an act of brilliance and courage -- except to the Communists who really wanted the USSR to win. For anybody to criticize Allen Dulles for that deal with the DEFEATED Nazi's is, even today, a political opinion of the left-wing, IMHO. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 I think you could read the preface and first chapter. Might change your point of view real quick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) I think you could read the preface and first chapter. Might change your point of view real quick What did you have in mind, specifically, Paul B. How about just one example? --Paul T. Edited October 16, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 I ask all here to consider carefully whether the known facts support the proposition that Allen Dulles had a hand in killing JFK. I don't believe they do. It's easy to imagine Allen Dulles's loyalty to the CIA was strong. So strong that if he believed the CIA would be damaged by a full-blown investigation of the JFK assassination, he would have thwarted any such investigation. I don't believe Allen Dulles knew who killed JFK. I believe he knew a lot of hanky panky, meaning gross misbehavior on the part of the CIA, which he would not have wanted to be revealed. The U.S. Government does not til this day continue to block the uncovering of truth about the JFK assassination just to protect Allen Dulles. Talbot may be right that Allen Dulles did bad things. It's out to lunch to maintain that therefore Allen Dulles had a hand in JFK's killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) I ask all here to consider carefully whether the known facts support the proposition that Allen Dulles had a hand in killing JFK. I don't believe they do. It's easy to imagine Allen Dulles's loyalty to the CIA was strong. So strong that if he believed the CIA would be damaged by a full-blown investigation of the JFK assassination, he would have thwarted any such investigation. I don't believe Allen Dulles knew who killed JFK. I believe he knew a lot of hanky panky, meaning gross misbehavior on the part of the CIA, which he would not have wanted to be revealed. The U.S. Government does not til this day continue to block the uncovering of truth about the JFK assassination just to protect Allen Dulles. Talbot may be right that Allen Dulles did bad things. It's out to lunch to maintain that therefore Allen Dulles had a hand in JFK's killing. Can you explain your alternative? Did Dick Helms have any responsibility? If so, it's partly through Dulles' influence. Edited October 16, 2015 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 David Talbot wrote on Facebook today: I've been told that the Washington Post is refusing to even review "The Devil's Chessboard" -- after reviewing my two previous books. Major newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times have historically been far too cozy with U.S. intelligence, particularly throughout the Dulles regime at the CIA. One would hope, for the good of press freedom and our democracy, that the Washington media establishment -- after all the government manipulation and lies of the Cold War and now the War on Terror -- would FINALLY be growing a backbone in its coverage of the national security state. In the meantime, read "The Devil's Chessboard" -- the book that the CIA and the media elite don't want you to read. the press and backbone; two words i don't think we'll ever see in the same sentence outside of platforms like this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 i agree with all that - sure. i think the term pawn has been bandied about of late... my one hesitancy is the word 'hire', asint if there's a human resources department who checks to see of you've ever stolen a snickers from Six Flags with two friends who threw you under the bus like an empty styrofoam spaghetti box - not that i've ever experienced that - i think in this game of cloak and dagger there's an extremely large chasm between "hired" and "no longer employed", etc.... usefulness comes in all shapes and colors. i tend to agree that LHO had the perfect balance of intelligence and abject idiocy, which probably made him invaluable to intel types. hell, they probably discovered his rare trait in Atsugi. i agree with all that - sure. i think the term pawn has been bandied about of late... my one hesitancy is the word 'hire', asint if there's a human resources department who checks to see of you've ever stolen a snickers from Six Flags with two friends who threw you under the bus like an empty styrofoam spaghetti box - not that i've ever experienced that - i think in this game of cloak and dagger there's an extremely large chasm between "hired" and "no longer employed", etc.... usefulness comes in all shapes and colors. i tend to agree that LHO had the perfect balance of intelligence and abject idiocy, which probably made him invaluable to intel types. hell, they probably discovered his rare trait in Atsugi. maybe he had that perfect balance because he was two people yes, i've become, er, "interested" in this approach. very intriguing, at least. i just wish i weren't so busy having to make a living and sh** like that so i could spend some time with this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 David Andrews, I'll say this. I believe the murder of JFK was orchestrated by an intelligence service. In 1963, many countries had intelligence services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 I ask all here to consider carefully whether the known facts support the proposition that Allen Dulles had a hand in killing JFK. I don't believe they do. It's easy to imagine Allen Dulles's loyalty to the CIA was strong. So strong that if he believed the CIA would be damaged by a full-blown investigation of the JFK assassination, he would have thwarted any such investigation. I don't believe Allen Dulles knew who killed JFK. I believe he knew a lot of hanky panky, meaning gross misbehavior on the part of the CIA, which he would not have wanted to be revealed. The U.S. Government does not til this day continue to block the uncovering of truth about the JFK assassination just to protect Allen Dulles. Talbot may be right that Allen Dulles did bad things. It's out to lunch to maintain that therefore Allen Dulles had a hand in JFK's killing. i'm thinking you're not reading the same stuff i'm reading. don't you get The National Enquirer? The New York Post...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 David Andrews, I'll say this. I believe the murder of JFK was orchestrated by an intelligence service. In 1963, many countries had intelligence services. exactly, and to the best of my inside information, the United States had quite a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) I ask all here to consider carefully whether the known facts support the proposition that Allen Dulles had a hand in killing JFK. I don't believe they do. It's easy to imagine Allen Dulles's loyalty to the CIA was strong. So strong that if he believed the CIA would be damaged by a full-blown investigation of the JFK assassination, he would have thwarted any such investigation. I don't believe Allen Dulles knew who killed JFK. I believe he knew a lot of hanky panky, meaning gross misbehavior on the part of the CIA, which he would not have wanted to be revealed. The U.S. Government does not til this day continue to block the uncovering of truth about the JFK assassination just to protect Allen Dulles. Talbot may be right that Allen Dulles did bad things. It's out to lunch to maintain that therefore Allen Dulles had a hand in JFK's killing. Well, Jon, I fully agree with you that the empirical facts fail to show that Allen Dulles had any hand in the murder of JFK. However, I disagree with your conclusion that Allen Dulles was ignorant of the real killers of JFK. Since the Warren Commission admitted that they had to withhold the Truth about the JFK murder from the American people for 75 years, then I propose that Allen Dulles (like Earl Warren, LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover) truly knew who killed JFK. Insofar as the higher echelon of the US Government (including Allen Dulles) knew who killed JFK, but did not pursue the JFK Killers in court, I presume that the US Government dealt with the JFK killers "under the table". I propose that the US Government to this day keeps JFK assassination data Top Secret strictly because of bureaucratic inertia. After the USSR fell in 1990, there was no real urgency in keeping the data Top Secret, so President Bush signed the JFK Records Act of 1992. The ARRB will reveal all Top Secret documents in the JFK case by October 26, 2017. In fact, I see no reason why the ARRB doesn't just release all of the records TODAY. Why bother with another 1.5 years, when we've already waited more than 50 years? Simple bureaucracy, is all. Simple inertia. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited October 16, 2015 by Paul Trejo 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