Muckrock: A brief debunking of the “James Angleton’s World War III virus” thesis

[Douglas Caddy]

Muckrock: A brief debunking of the “James Angleton’s World War III virus” thesis

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2017/oct/26/jfk-angleton-world-war-iii/

[Michael Clark]

Thanks Douglas. It is very interesting area of research by Dr. Newman. What the article focuses upon, however, is Newman's point of speculation while avoiding the compelling observations that led to that speculation about the WW3 virus.    

Whereas I have tended to disccunt the risk of nuclear war in the Western Hemisphere as  a result of any BOPI type of operation, (even one of overt US involvement),  the CMC or the JFKA, I have asked myself what alternate conclusion could one come to in answer to the question of why would Angleton be "dimming the lights" on Oswald and playing with "marked cards" in the weeks prior to 11-22-63.

My alternate hypothesis is that Angleton was being played by those in control of the 2 Oswald game (ONI, MI?). Angleton was trying to figure out what was going on while the conspirators were setting up a situation that would guarantee Angleton's and, perhaps,  Dullles' silence, inaction and complicity in the cover-up.

Newman has said that a researcher has to be prepared to be wrong, so I don't think that he would be too hurt by this article. 

Edited August 19, 2018 by Michael Clark

[James DiEugenio]

He thinks its bunk.

Muckrock is a very weird site that spends an inordinate amount of time going after people like us.  And then asking for money for declassification process.

[Michael Clark]

46 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

He thinks its bunk.

Muckrock is a very weird site that spends an inordinate amount of time going after people like us.  And then asking for money for declassification process.

Does Newman have stronger convictions about his WW3 Virus theory these days? That theory is what the writer of the article is going after, and she seems to make some good points. It would be good to hear a good critical analysis of this critical article; from a critic, or Newman himself, rather that just calling it “bunk”.

[James DiEugenio]

I did not say that.  John said it to me.

He was originally going to reply at K and K.  But he ended up thinking so little of it, he did not.

Too busy working of his five volume set.

[Gene Kelly]

I agree with Jim.  This lead-in has the effect of a back-handed compliment:

While most conspiracy theories aren’t worth individually debunking, this is worth notice both because of the extensive citations in Newman’s 600+ page book, his background in intelligence, and his history professorship all lend his reporting an air of authenticity. This debunking of his concluding speculation isn’t meant to denigrate his work, or address the full text of Oswald and the CIA, but only the conclusions Newman offers in the epilogue and elsewhere. Newman, for his part, has the clarity to call these conclusions what they are - speculation. Yet it is because his speculation is respected by so many readers that it bears addressing.

Gene

[Michael Clark]

13 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

I agree with Jim.  This lead-in has the effect of a back-handed compliment:

While most conspiracy theories aren’t worth individually debunking, this is worth notice both because of the extensive citations in Newman’s 600+ page book, his background in intelligence, and his history professorship all lend his reporting an air of authenticity. This debunking of his concluding speculation isn’t meant to denigrate his work, or address the full text of Oswald and the CIA, but only the conclusions Newman offers in the epilogue and elsewhere. Newman, for his part, has the clarity to call these conclusions what they are - speculation. Yet it is because his speculation is respected by so many readers that it bears addressing.

Gene

Yup, I forgot about that intro at the beginning. Yet our theories stand or fall on their merits, and the article wasn't, as a whole, an attack on conspiracy theorists and researchers. I am also not saying that she discredited Newman's theory. I wail say that it didn't strike me as a poor hack-job though.

I am still interested in commentary on the nuts and bolts of the article.

[David Andrews]

Just to clarify: isn't the establishing quotation in Best's article - points 1. and 2. - from Nicholas Katzenbach's DOJ memo to RFK, not from a CIA document?

Edited August 25, 2018 by David Andrews

[Anthony Thorne]

Emma Best's work is usually fairly solid, and not to be easily dismissed, but I'm kind of dumbfounded that this line appears in the article

Quote

Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union and lived there before returning to the U.S., he had campaigned for Cuba and called himself a Marxist - and then he shot the President.

If Best is going to go over things related to the JFK assassination forensically, I can think of at least one section of the above quote that probably isn't as watertight as she thinks it is.

[James DiEugenio]

Everyone should welcome Anthony.

He is a very well read and astute student of the case who I know from DPF.

I hope he stays on.

BTW, did that British reporter ever publish his book?

[Anthony Thorne]

Chris Lightbown’s book is reportedly imminent, and due out in October. I’ll be getting it. It’s a hardcover, and the publisher has also scheduled a future paperback edition for next year, so I’m presuming it’s a real thing and we’ll be seeing it in October. Lightbown is a forum member from the Simkin days, and the book is called THE STRANGE DEATH OF JFK.

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Chris Lightbown’s book is reportedly imminent, and due out in October. I’ll be getting it. It’s a hardcover, and the publisher has also scheduled a future paperback edition for next year, so I’m presuming it’s a real thing and we’ll be seeing it in October. Lightbown is a forum member from the Simkin days, and the book is called THE STRANGE DEATH OF JFK.

Thank you for the tip.   I believe it was Jim who mentioned an upcoming book by Lisa Pease about RFK I'm looking forward to but don't know when it's due or remember a title.  

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/23/2018 at 10:43 PM, Anthony Thorne said:

Emma Best's work is usually fairly solid, and not to be easily dismissed, but I'm kind of dumbfounded that this line appears in the article

Quote

Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union and lived there before returning to the U.S., he had campaigned for Cuba and called himself a Marxist - and then he shot the President.

I can't trust the judgement of any researcher who believes that Oswald shot Kennedy.

Had Emma Best said that Oswald MAY have shot the president, I would feel differently. (Though I would disagree with that particular belief.)

 

[Michael Clark]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I can't trust the judgement of any researcher who believes that Oswald shot Kennedy.

Had Emma Best said that Oswald MAY have shot the president, I would feel differently. (Though I would disagree with that particular belief.)

 

Hi Sandy,

I had to give this a re-read. When I first read your quote I read it as a "so the story goes" kind of statement. I felt that she was just not heading in that direction for this paper, and she did not have to.  On a re-read, and given your statement, I have to agree. Her judgement should not be trusted.

I was definitely reading this with an eye towards looking for an alternative The the WW3 virus. I think Angleton's "dimming of the lights" observations are important, most importantly because it speaks to the high level interest and awareness of LHO. I do think that Newman's speculation that JJA had to be the one to do this because he is the only one that could have; because he had the "diabolical" genius to do so; begs for a rigorous vetting. One problem with the theory is that WW3 did not happen; and, in my thinking, a nuclear confrontation with Russia would not have happened over Cuba. Furthermore, a Castro-Communist conspiracy, without an American involved, would have more assuredly prompted a Cuban invasion. The setting-up of LHO as the lone gunman is the very thing that kept an invasion from happening. For those reasons I think that Newman's WW3 conclusion, derived from his very astute and valuable observations and questions about what JJA was up to in the period in question, is just incorrect.

So I guess I was reading Best's article looking for support of my hunch that the WW3 virus theory is incorrect, and I think she offered some valuable points to that end. 

Furthermore, I don't see many (none?) members a researchers posting support for, or incorporating the WW3 virus theory into any other findings. I am pretty sure that I posted a thread when I first joined, asking what people thought of this theory, and I got no replies. Indeed I only received a few questions as to what I was talking about. It seemed to not be on anyone's radar.

What is on everyone's radar, however, is that JJA was the diabolical mastermind behind the assassination. I tentatively assume that this is in large part due to John Newman. If it is not correct, if it is not true, then we have a real impedement to reaching our whodunnit answers.

Reearchers have great deal of power, sometimes. Newman definitely does, and Emma Best points this out in her article. It is important to be careful about what we accept as truth. I am certainly more credulous than your average CT'er. So I'll repeat once more that Newman's findings and observations are invaluable. I think that his admittedly speculative conclusion is incorrect and is perhaps doing quite a bit of damage; at least as far as this theory has any traction, I don't see it being very popular or important accept for the position it plays in the damning of JJA.

[Gene Kelly]

Ron

Lisa's book "A Lie Too Big to Fail" is scheduled for release on November 20th.

Mike:

One logical and obvious thing that always occurs to me when I ponder the role and actions of James Angleton is that he had past experience and connections to many of  the principals whom one suspects had a hand in the planning of the assassination (Harvey, Dulles, Phillips, Italy, CMC, Mafia, Mossad).   And, if he didn't somehow orchestrate the operation, he surely must have known something was going on.  For a senior official in a federal agency (one responsible for the counterintelligence of such plots) to have this knowledge - and not divulge or stop it - is treasonous in itself.

Connect the dots; The Italian bank (Credito Commerciale e Industriale) is run by one Valerio Borghese, who is connected to Angleton because his intervention at the end of WWII which saved Borghese from  the death penalty for his fascist activities. Then we see Trujillo provide a large amount of money to this Italian bank, which disappeared, and is apparently is the financial support for the assassination ... a triangulation of money from Italy to Haiti, and from Haiti to Dallas. This same bank was previously in the hands of Michele Sindona, a member of CMC-Permindex (along with Clay Shaw) and an OSS trustee when Angleton was Chief of the OSS X-2 Branch in Rome because of his "knowledge of the Italian language and culture". 

Gene