The Biggest Lies.... Untangled

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, Glenn Nall said:

Jim, at the top left corner of the NYTimes article by Arthur Krock (didn't he create McDonald's restaurants, too?), what does it say in the parentheses after New York Times, (________?);...

Something like 1857-Current file; ... ? what's that mean, if you have any idea?

I think it says “(!857-Current file)”, though I’m not sure about the “!”

What difference does it make?  It’s probably a slug line from the electronic archive it was taken from.

There is no question about the genuineness of the article.  You can read it at the NYTimes' own archive here:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9500E0DB1030EF3BBC4B53DFB6678388679EDE

This is supposedly behind a paywall, but I went right to the article without an NYT subscription.  If for any reason that doesn’t work for you, just go to the Wikipedia article on Arthur Krock and click on the hyperlink in footnote # 4.

Here’s the Wikipedia link to the Krock article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Krock

Better hurry, though.  Someone in the article discussion is already trying to delete the CIA reference from the Wikipedia piece.  

[Glenn Nall]

36 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I think it says “(!857-Current file)”, though I’m not sure about the “!”

What difference does it make?  It’s probably a slug line from the electronic archive it was taken from.

There is no question about the genuineness of the article.  You can read it at the NYTimes' own archive here:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=9500E0DB1030EF3BBC4B53DFB6678388679EDE

This is supposedly behind a paywall, but I went right to the article without an NYT subscription.  If for any reason that doesn’t work for you, just go to the Wikipedia article on Arthur Krock and click on the hyperlink in footnote # 4.

Here’s the Wikipedia link to the Krock article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Krock

Better hurry, though.  Someone in the article discussion is already trying to delete the CIA reference from the Wikipedia piece.  

- chill, Jim, I was just curious. I ask a lot of questions.

I'm totally behind the idea of the CIA getting beyond Kennedy's  grip (and more so today); am kind of excited to see this warning as far back as that - the line just after the last highlighted section, "the greater will grow its potentials of hampering the real war against the Viet Cong..." seems to me loaded with insinuation of something was neither considered nor possible in Oct of 1963, that there are - as we now surmise pretty safely - "unpatriotic" government shadow powers that actually do indeed wish to start - and lengthen - wars, for reasons that were not so obvious back then. (Regardless of whichever sitting President at the time wishes.) Eisenhower's warning of the Mil-Ind-(Congressional?) Complex was a new and unique idea at that point. 

The fact that the subsequent President just as soon as he was in office escalated the damn thing, in light of the hidden implication in this article and the line I quoted, makes one wonder just how many people LBJ WAS in bed with.

I already consider him a primary, if not singular, candidate for the ultimate execution of "the plan." In whatever form "the plan" really was. Not at all surprising to read something like this, but in that period, from others besides John Kennedy, is a little surprising.

Just how close WAS LBJ to the CIA...? 

i place my finger on my chin, scowl my eyebrows and go "h-h-m-m-m-m."

[Jim Hargrove]

An English fellow (sorry I'm forgetting his name at the moment) wrote about the Krock piece and the story that prompted it at length on this forum some years years ago.  Here's the original Richard Starnes piece from 10/2/63 the Englishman provided that sent Krock to Def Con 1.

 

The Washington Daily News, Wednesday, October 2, 1963, p.3

'SPOOKS' MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE

'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam

By Richard T. Starnes

SAIGON, Oct.2 - The story of the Central Intelligence Agency's role in South Viet Nam is a dismal chronicle of bureaucratic arrogance, obstinate disregard of orders, and unrestrained thirst for power.

Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, according to a high United States source here.

In one of these instances the CIA frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought with him from Washington because the agency disagreed with it.

This led to a dramatic confrontation between Mr. Lodge and John Richardson, chief of the huge CIA apparatus here. Mr. Lodge failed to move Mr. Richardson, and the dispute was bucked back to Washington. Secretary of State Dean Rusk and CIA Chief John A. McCone were unable to resolve the conflict, and the matter is now reported to be awaiting settlement by President Kennedy.

It is one of the developments expected to be covered in Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's report to Mr. Kennedy.

Others Critical, Too

Other American agencies here are incredibly bitter about the CIA.

"If the United States ever experiences a 'Seven Days in May' it will come from the CIA, and not from the Pentagon," one U.S. official commented caustically.

("Seven Days in May" is a fictional account of an attempted military coup to take over the U.S. Government.)

CIA "spooks" (a universal term for secret agents here) have penetrated every branch of the American community in Saigon, until non-spook Americans here almost seem to be suffering a CIA psychosis.

An American field officer with a distinguished combat career speaks angrily about "that man at headquarters in Saigon wearing a colonel's uniform." He means the man is a CIA agent, and he can't understand what he is doing at U.S. military headquarters here, unless it is spying on other Americans.

Another American officer, talking about the CIA, acidly commented: "You'd think they'd have learned something from Cuba but apparently they didn't."

Few Know CIA Strength

Few people other than Mr. Richardson and his close aides know the actual CIA strength here, but a widely used figure is 600. Many are clandestine agents known only to a few of their fellow spooks.

Even Mr. Richardson is a man about whom it is difficult to learn much in Saigon. He is said to be a former OSS officer, and to have served with distinction in the CIA in the Philippines.

A surprising number of the spooks are known to be involved in their ghostly trade and some make no secret of it.

"There are a number of spooks in the U.S. Information Service, in the U.S. Operations mission, in every aspect of American official and commercial life here, " one official - presumably a non-spook - said.

"They represent a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone," he added.

Coupled with the ubiquitous secret police of Ngo Dinh Nhu, a surfeit of spooks has given Saigon an oppressive police state atmosphere.

The Nhu-Richardson relationship is a subject of lively speculation. The CIA continues to pay the special forces which conducted brutal raids on Buddhist temples last Aug. 21, altho in fairness it should be pointed out that the CIA is paying these goons for the war against communist guerillas, not Buddhist bonzes (priests).

Hand Over Millions

Nevertheless, on the first of every month, the CIA dutifully hands over a quarter million American dollars to pay these special forces.

Whatever else it buys, it doesn't buy any solid information on what the special forces are up to. The Aug. 21 raids caught top U.S. officials here and in Washington flat-footed.

Nhu ordered the special forces to crush the Buddhist priests, but the CIA wasn't let in on the secret. (Some CIA button men now say they warned their superiors what was coming up, but in any event the warning of harsh repression was never passed to top officials here or in Washington.)

Consequently, Washington reacted unsurely to the crisis. Top officials here and at home were outraged at the news the CIA was paying the temple raiders, but the CIA continued the payments.

It may not be a direct subsidy for a religious war against the country's Buddhist majority, but it comes close to that.

And for every State Department aide here who will tell you, "Dammit, the CIA is supposed to gather information, not make policy, but policy-making is what they're doing here," there are military officers who scream over the way the spooks dabble in military operations.

A Typical Example

For example, highly trained trail watchers are an important part of the effort to end Viet Cong infiltration from across the Laos and Cambodia borders. But if the trailer watchers spot incoming Viet Congs, they report it to the CIA in Saigon, and in the fullness of time, the spooks may tell the military.

One very high American official here, a man who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy, likened the CIA's growth to a malignancy, and added he was not sure even the White House could control it any longer.

Unquestionably Mr. McNamara and Gen. Maxwell Taylor both got an earful from people who are beginning to fear the CIA is becoming a Third Force co-equal with President Diem's regime and the U.S. Government - and answerable to neither.

There is naturally the highest interest here as to whether Mr. McNamara will persuade Mr. Kennedy something ought to be done about it.

[Glenn Nall]

Damn.

God I hope Paul Bronco doesn't see this. He'll go apesh**.

Edited October 12, 2017 by Glenn Nall

[Paul Brancato]

10 hours ago, Glenn Nall said:

Paul, you sure make great efforts at defending the CIA, I've noticed. That's kind of embarrassing. IMHO.

Really? Show me how. I think the conspiracy was run by men from several branches, including CIA, and I don't see the clear demarcations between Military and CIA that many do. 

Should I start referring to you as Glenn Nail? My name is Brancato, not Bronco. 

[Jim Hargrove]

I agree with you, Paul.  Note this paragraph from the Starnes article above:

An American field officer with a distinguished combat career speaks angrily about "that man at headquarters in Saigon wearing a colonel's uniform." He means the man is a CIA agent, and he can't understand what he is doing at U.S. military headquarters here, unless it is spying on other Americans.

[Pat Speer]

On 10/11/2017 at 6:09 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

I. LIES OF THE FBI

The FBI’s malfeasance in this case was legion and is well known by most members of this forum.  The short (3 minute) YouTube video below demonstrates quite clearly how the FBI altered the observations of three critical Dealey Plaza witnesses who believed shots may have been taken at JFK from outside of the Texas School Book Depository, thus contradicting the official story.

 

 

The FBI went to extraordinary lengths to suppress evidence of what CIA accountant James Wilcott called the “Oswald Project,” including sending out agents within hours of the assassination to confiscate original school and teen-aged employment records of “Lee Harvey Oswald.” In the wee hours of the night of Nov 22-23, 1963, the FBI secretly took “Oswald's Possessions” from the Dallas Police Department, transported them to Washington, D.C. altered them, and then secretly returned them to Dallas, only to publicly send them to Washington. D.C. a few days later. Among a great many other alterations, a Minox “spy camera” became a Minox “light meter.” Tax records, not found by Dallas police who said they initialed each scrap of paper, magically appeared without DPD initials.  FBI agent James Cadigan inadvertently spilled the bean about the secret transfer during his sworn WC testimony, which was altered by the WC.

 

The FBI falsified so much testimony that it even had a process in place for routinely doing so, including over the objections of Warren Commission attorneys.  

 

For more about how the FBI altered evidence, see this link:

Manipulated, Fabricated, and Disappearing Evidence

It is clear that the FBI was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to hide the truth about the Kennedy Assassination and “Lee Harvey Oswald.”  So was the CIA....
 

While cleaning some old files from my desk top, I came across a 7-6-64 memo from the FBI's Roy Jevons to Ivan Conrad, in which Cadigan's testimony (the testimony presented above), among other items, is discussed. Jevons informs his boss that "Mr. Willens stated that it would not be necessary go over these transcripts as he was going to send them to Mr. Melvin Eisenberg and if there were any questions, the commission would contact us."

So, holy moly! Eisenberg questioned Cadigan, and received a long-winded response which could be used to fuel conspiracy theories. So he changed the answer!

W-H-I-T-E-W-A-S-H

Edited October 13, 2017 by Pat Speer

[Jim Hargrove]

Pat,

Any chance you could post a scan of that 7/6/64 memo?  I found an OCRd text version of it, but it was filled with typos and strange characters.

 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Pat,

Any chance you could post a scan of that 7/6/64 memo?  I found an OCRd text version of it, but it was filled with typos and strange characters.

 

I found it in the Armstrong collection, on page 3, here

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/614/rec/1

 

Note: in re-reading this memo, it appears I got it wrong. Willens said it wasn't necessary for HIM to review the changes, which had presumably already been made by the FBI. Now, that's generous!

Edited October 13, 2017 by Pat Speer

[David Josephs]

From that notebook we get the name JAMES MALLEY...

From a reading of MALLEY's testimony...  He was in charge of the FBI investigation despite them having sent Rogge and Thompson...

Malley in control of evidence - given the work of the other FBI agents in Dallas - seems to imply duplicity again... 

J. Edgar Hoover's testimony does not include the name James MALLEY while Hosty is of course mentioned numerous times

FWIW

 

Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Malley, regarding Rogge and Thompson, you just said that they worked closely with you on the case. 
Mr. MALLEY. They did in the early stages. They were the two individuals who were sent to Dallas to write the first two memorandums that I told you about
 

Mr. MALLEY. As far as the actual assassination is concerned, it was definitely in the General Investigative Division. When you say who is responsible, are you referring to what section it was being handled and what supervisor was primarily responsible? 
Mr. MCDONALD. Which person was primarily responsible at the top to begin with? 
Mr. MALLEY. Well, because of what happened when I got back from Dallas I would say that I had to be. 
 

Mr. McDONALD. You were asking for additional agent personnel, and as reflected in these memos, at the top level, at least there was an opinion being formed that the case essentially was wrapped up. 
Mr. MALLEY. I won't agree with you because I don't know what they were doing in Washington. I know where I was and I know what had been done, and I think you may be interpreting remarks about wanting to get something out to the public to let them know what had been developed up to that time as a misinterpretation of what the Bureau intended to do later. 
Mr. McDONALD. I will quote one more memorandum to you, and that is dated 29 November 1963, which is found in the Senate Intelligence Committee's, the Church Committee's, Book 5 Report on page 34. In it, the memorandum is by Mr. Hoover, recounting a telephone conversation he had that day with President Johnson. And he says, "I advised the President that we hoped to have the investigation wrapped up today but probably won't have it before the first of the week, as another angle had developed. Again we are getting an example of at the top level the case being in a sense completed. 
Now, again, from your Dallas perspective does this jibe with what you were doing in Dallas? 
Mr. MALLEY. Well, again, I say that when people say that they hoped to have it completed and so on, I don't think for a minute they were talking about having every facet fully and exhaustively investigated. I think what they are saying is that, based on the information that was available at that time, the essential facts of the investigation had been developed. It doesn't mean it was over by any means. 

[Glenn Nall]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Pat,

Any chance you could post a scan of that 7/6/64 memo?  I found an OCRd text version of it, but it was filled with typos and strange characters.

 

Jim, Pat, and anyone else using Windows, here's a free app that will convert an image of a document to text, which you can save to a text file: doc, docx, txt, etc.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/p/photo-to-text-ocr/9nblggh6hrzh it's a nice little app.

It works terrific, clean text as long as the image file is crisp. And you can save any pdf to a jpg with the free version of Adobe Acrobat, I believe. 

EDIT >> Oh, and this one says it'll convert a pdf to text, not sure tho. But it's free from MS. FWIW. >> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/p/a9t9-free-ocr-software/9nblgggz5nsn

* See me for all your PDF conversion-to-anything needs using Acrobat Pro. *

** No charge for Conspiracy Theorists. **

*** Lone Gunman theorists get a $200 discount all this week. ***

Edited October 13, 2017 by Glenn Nall

[Jim Hargrove]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I found it in the Armstrong collection, on page 3, here

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/614/rec/1

Megathanks, Pat!  Let’s put it right here to be sure we’re all on the same page.

A reasonable assumption is that the following change to “SA Cadigan’s transcript” is one of the “recommended changes” these FBI personnel were recommending.

 

 

How easily these s.o.b.’s conspired to change history!  They sent this referral to Belmont and Sullivan, top FBI brass under Hoover.  Isn’t it interesting that Belmont, Sullivan, Cadigan, and three or four other important FBI officials all died soon before any of them could testify to the HSCA?  That was the infamous FBI HSCA wipe-out!

And what could these FBI men have told the HSCA?  The alteration in Cadigan’s testimony was made to hide the fact that the FBI had secretly transferred “Lee Harvey Oswald’s possessions” from Dallas to DC the night of November 22/23, 1963, so that a Minox spy camera could become a Minox light meter, so that Oswald “tax records” could be planted, and so much more.  The vastly expanded Oswald “possessions” were then secretly returned to Dallas a few days later, and officially sent back to DC soon after that.  At the very same time, a complete history of a certain Italian carbine was being invented.

It’s all finally untangling!
 

[Gene Kelly]

Jim and All:

This is a great thread .... very illuminating.  It pulls many things together (FBI, evidence, CIA struggles with the Administration, Vietnam, Warren/HSCA sabotage, Sullivan's death)

Gene

 

[Jim Hargrove]

16 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Jim and All:

This is a great thread .... very illuminating.  It pulls many things together (FBI, evidence, CIA struggles with the Administration, Vietnam, Warren/HSCA sabotage, Sullivan's death)

Gene

 

Thank you, Gene.  I was hoping we could get the majority of people on this forum to kind of agree with all this.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jim, My compliments on a confined and poignant series of presentations.

I posted, I believe it was also one of Gil Jesus's clips which look to be identical but extends to capture the accounts of Sam Holland. I've always assumed by Dodd's account "I seen what we all seen" that Simmons, Dodd and Holland were together or very close to each other. These witnesses seemed to be very credible, accounting the same thing. They were all modest men, who seemed completely without guile, who never wrote a book afterwards. I was very impressed with their accounts and asked as to any claims about their credibility. I remember DVP discredited it  because in his opinion, that rifle couldn't have smoked, and that's all I've heard.

About Krock, there's been some discrediting about Krock that  Krock long before was  being used by JFK's father to further his ambitions, and was very sympathetic to the Kennedy family. However true that might have been. There can be no doubt that  Krock's article was "'inside" and accurately reflected the views of JFK, and the story was made with the purpose of outing his current conflicts with the CIA.

 

 

On 10/12/2017 at 5:47 AM, Glenn Nall said:

Paul, you sure make great efforts at defending the CIA, I've noticed. That's kind of embarrassing. IMHO.

Glenn I know you've been here many times before. I don't know if you associate people's posts with their names.  But I do  and I have absolutely no idea why you saw fit to say that Paul B. has gone to great efforts "defending the CIA." Good one!

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway