Edwin Walker

[Mark Knight]

Paul Trejo is accusing Tommy Graves of "only guessing," when his OWN best estimate of what Volkmar Schmidt is trying to say is preceded by the word "arguably."

Well played, Paul...if you pull that one off.

[Thomas Graves]

But according to what Volkmar Schmidt said in 1993, Oswald wasn't angry at JFK for "messing up" the Bay of Pigs Invasion, but for authorizing the Bay of Pigs Invasion in the first place!

VOLKMAR SCHMIDT: Lee Harvey Oswald brought up in the conversation with me the fact that he really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union. And he was just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1205.html

So, unfortunately for your theory, Volkmar's Schmidt's anti-Kennedy Oswald doesn't jibe with Silvia Odio's anti-Kennedy "Oswald".

--Tommy

PS Dick Russel also writes on Oswald's view of the Bay of Pigs Invasion.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XJQX-4khd2QC&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=%22bay+of+pigs+as+a+symbol+of+american+imperialism%22&source=bl&ots=qp-EMJME_A&sig=uq7Q4vr48QtWvp0KumrLqwxEHbo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xiNgVKWXKbD2iQKW7oGIBQ&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22bay%20of%20pigs%20as%20a%20symbol%20of%20american%20imperialism%22&f=false

As did that great Dallas liberal, George de Mohrenschildt, himself.

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22lee+thought+that+president+kennedy%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp#rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=np&q=%22lee+thought+president+kennedy+should+not+[have]+allowed+any+invasion+of+cuba%22

But note that, contrary to what you've written, de Mohrenschildt says that Oswald was not vehement or violent in his views on the BOP Invasion.

Well, Tommy, again I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my views on this arcane topic.

I would first point out that we are now at the level of fine-tuning the finer points of my theory, and that is in-itself some progress.

I would secondly point out that I respect your perspective, because you're the one who last year asked a key question in JFK research, namely, if Lee Harvey Oswald was truly a full-fledged member of the US Intelligence Community, then how could he have been made into the Patsy for the JFK murder?

That was, IMHO, one of the most astute questions about the JFK murder in the past fifty years. So, despite our frequent disagreements, I genuinely respect your sincerity, your scholarship and your insight.

OK, that said, let's look at your latest objections to my theory that Edwin Walker was the central plotter of the JFK murder:

(1) In our generic context so far, it's a minor point to distinguish between "messing up" the Bay of Pigs and "authorizing" the Bay of Pigs. One can argue that JFK "messed up" by "authorizing" the Bay of Pigs. Stated in that way, there is no contradiction. It's minor.

However -- we rightly ask what Lee Harvey Oswald actually said, remembering that Volkmar Schmidt was not above putting his own spin on events, especially if he could absolve himself a little more.

Let's take Volkmar's words sentence by sentence: "Lee Harvey Oswald...really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion."

Now, you might argue that such "support" means strictly that JFK "authorized" the Bay of Pigs invasion in the first place -- but actually there are different ways to interpret the word, "support."

Right-wing (and US Marines) would use that word "support" in the context of "air support", and it was often said that JFK "failed to provide air support" for the Bay of Pigs invaders. So, that word "support" is ambiguous.

Next, Volkmar Schmidt said: "It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union."

Note that if Oswald idealized Cuban socialism while being critical of USSR socialism, that Oswald was really an individualist, because even Fidel Castro himself supported USSR socialism!

So, regarding Cuba, Lee Harvey Oswald was an individualist, just like Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Frank Sturgis -- because all of these men fought next to Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra in Cuba -- hoping to make the Cuban revolution VERY DIFFERENT from the Russian revolution. After they failed miserably, they quickly switched sides to try to kill Fidel Castro.

• So, Volkmar Schmidt is arguably just projecting his own political opinions onto Oswald. What Oswald truly believed about Cuba can be best seen in his behavior in New Orleans -- faking membership in a Fake FPCC run by Guy Banister. Volkmar Schmidt evidently had no clue that Oswald was capable of this degree of deception.

What is unambiguous, however, is Volkmar's final sentence, that Lee Harvey Oswald was "just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy."

Surely that must remind every reader of what Sylvia Odio heard from "Leopoldo," namely, that "Leon Oswald says you Cubans don't have any guts because President Kennedy should have been assassinated after the Bay of Pigs."

Compare that with Volkmar's words: Lee Harvey Oswald was "just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy." That statement TOTALLY jibes with Silvia Odio's anti-Kennedy "Oswald".

(2) Dick Russell says this about Oswald's view of the Bay of Pigs Invasion: "Oswald claimed to see the Bay of Pigs as a symbol of American imperialism." However, in that same paragraph, Dick Russell also speaks at length about Larrie Schmidt, while Larrie Schmidt told me personally that Dick Russell's writings about CUSA and about himself specifically was "totally backassward." So, just because Dick Russell expressed an opinion, that can hardly be taken as accepted History.

(3) George de Mohrenschildt (DM) wrote: "Lee thought President Kennedy should not have allowed any invasion of Cuba, but he was not vehement or violent in his views on this subject, himself."

Yet we must take this with a large grain of salt. First, notice that he contradicts his friend, Volkmar, who said that Oswald was "just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy."

Secondly, George DM felt guilty his whole life long because of how he arguably pushed Lee Harvey Oswald over the edge with regard to Edwin Walker.

In his book, "I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!" which is the source of that passage, George DM tried to reverse all of his insulting remarks about Lee Harvey Oswald that we find so often in the pages of his Warren Commission testimony. It was an apologetic work. George DM was back-pedaling as fast as he could.

Furthermore, we should remember that both in his Warren Commission testimony AS WELL AS in his "Patsy" book, George DM insisted that Lee Harvey Oswald was FRAMED and that Oswald would NEVER have shot at JFK.

On this point George DM never wavered. He was sincere on this point, and I find him believable here.

George DM truly believed -- and he told the Warren Commission this -- that the right-wing in Dallas killed JFK and FRAMED Lee Harvey Oswald.

Notice, too, that George DM also fully accepted that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to assassinate Ex-General Edwin Walker.

In his "Patsy" book, George DM made a partial confession about the Dallas engineer community pushing Oswald to the brink regarding Edwin Walker. George DM then wrote the final falsehood of his life, when he wrote that he couldn't remember the name of the man who tried to "manipulate" Oswald -- and that he was probably "Jewish".

George DM knew good and well that his very good friend, Volkmar Schmidt, was that man, and that he was clearly "German."

What George DM didn't know was that Volkmar Schmidt was never so ashamed of his role to hide it for the rest of his life. Volkmar Schmidt admitted the truth several times, in audio as well as video interviews (e.g. Frontline: Who Was LHO, available on Youtube).

So, again, we must take George DM's word about the Bay of Pigs with a grain of salt.

What we can say for sure is that George DM also acknowledged, along with Volkmar Schmidt, that Lee Harvey Oswald complained bitterly about JFK's role in the Bay of Pigs.

This COMPLETELY agrees with what "Leopoldo" told Silvia Odio.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

bumped with emphasis

PS Thanks for pointing that out, Mark Knight.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo is accusing Tommy Graves of "only guessing," when his OWN best estimate of what Volkmar Schmidt is trying to say is preceded by the word "arguably."

Well played, Paul...if you pull that one off.

That's right, Mark, I'm not saying that I have a crystal ball and can read Voikmar Schmidt's mind -- I'm only certain that Tommy doesn't have one, either.

It is debatable what Volkmar Schmidt was saying -- he didn't give us enough words to conclude with finality.

Volkmar Schmidt only said that Oswald was angry about JFK's support of the Bay of Pigs operation -- but his word "support" is ambiguous. Did he actually want (like most Marines) JFK to have given the rebels MORE support? Was his complaint that it wasn't ENOUGH support?

Now, if one argues, like Tommy does, that Oswald objected that JFK gave ANY support to the Bay of Pigs operation -- that's one interpretation. Maybe Oswald thought that, and maybe he didn't. Then, Tommy tries to confirm this from an opinion from Dick Russell -- that Oswald called the Bay of Pigs operation "American Imperialism."

Okay -- that's a complete argument -- but it's not conclusive. That's all I'm saying. Lee Harvey Oswald was a complex character. He can't be classified so easily as a Liberal or a Conservative.

His older brother was a Marine and he never met his father. So, his first tendency was towards Conservatism. Yet Oswald was also a reader, and he read Karl Marx at the public library, and it (along with the TV show, I Led Three Lives) influenced young Oswald.

So, Lee Oswald seems to have lived out both trends, and made his personal, LHO-brand compromise. "I'd definitely say that I'm a Marxist, but that doesn't mean, however, that I'm a COMMUNIST."

Oswald was complex. I think Tommy's scenario makes Oswald seem simplistic and one-sided.

I think Oswald was working for Guy Banister in order to kill Fidel Castro. (I think the CIA was probably aware of that effort, but let Guy Banister direct it, personally.) The fact that Oswald took his Fake FPCC credentials with him to Mexico City practically proves my case. This was possibly related to Operation Mongoose.

Yet Oswald failed in his mission to kill Fidel Castro. He quietly left New Orleans and Guy Banister, and after he returned to Dallas we never saw even one more FPCC leaflet in his hands. Why not? Because it wasn't his personal ambition, that's why -- it was Guy Banister's ambition.

LHO really wasn't a COMMUNIST or an FPCC officer in the first place. He was just a Marine again, with his second baby on the way.

So, Oswald was finished with the FPCC by October 1963, but Edwin Walker wasn't yet finished with Lee Harvey Oswald -- not by a long shot.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited November 10, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

I think Paul that everything you say about Oswald rests on your assumption that he was a right winger posing as a leftist. What Thomas seems to be arguing is that the people who tried to lay the groundwork for Oswald being capable of assassinating JFK were actually just setting Oswald up as a patsy. No one here believes that Oswald was serious about setting up a FPCC branch. The question is how to interpret that action, and the street confrontation, in the context of Banister and Bringuier. You interpret it as Oswald being aligned with these New Orleans operatives, and likewise aligned with Odio's visitors. You rely on Volkmar Schmidt, who likewise was part of the setting up of Oswald, not to become a murderer, but to be blamed for a murder he was not part of. I realize that you think you can nuance yourself out of this dilemma by saying that Oswald was blackmailed, after being found out to be the shooter of Walker, to participate in Banister's operations, including being sent to MC to try to gain access to Cuba for a try at assassinating Castro. You have constructed a very complex view of Oswald based on the words of character assassins after the fact. You continue to assert that Walker knew who shot at him within a day of that attempt, but you know that there is no documentation for that theory that dates from before Nov 22. And you also know that there exists no proof even now that Oswald was Walker's shooter. The words and actions of Ruth Paine and Marina and DeMohrenschildt do not constitute proof.

The simplest explanation for for the post assassination words of Schmidt, Walker, Hall, Ruth Paine, etc is that they were conveniently piling on to the character assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald. And the best reason to accept this is that the shot that killed JFK did not come from the TSBD. Oswald did not fire a rifle that day, at least not the rifle that he supposedly owned. So since you seem to think that the key lies in identifying the ground crew, you should start by looking somewhere other than LHO.

I also entirely agree with Thomas when he argues that there is a huge difference between being angry at JFK for BOP and being angry at the failure of that operation. But in order for your theory to hold together you are forced to twist these words and conflate the two interpretations as if they are really not so different. Everything in Oswald's personal life and writings points to his being sympathetic to Castro. The question is who was he working for when he set up the FPCC branch? Was he working for Banister, trying to draw communist sympathizers out of the woodwork? Was he working for the CIA trying to discredit the FPCC by tying it to a communist like himself? Was he piggybacking his own ideology onto one of those operations? I lean towards the last one - that his personal interest was in drawing radical right out of the woodwork and infiltrating their plans while officially working with them. And I would not draw a hard a fast line between guys like Banister and Walker, and government intelligence, whose footprints were all over Oswald from the time he joined the Marines and possibly before. I don't pretend to fully understand who Oswald was. But I am pretty certain that he was innocent of being part of an assassination operation.

[Thomas Graves]

That's right, Mark, I'm not saying that I have a crystal ball and can read Voikmar Schmidt's mind ...

Yes you are, Trejo.

And It seems a bit hypocritical of you to accuse me of "guessing" about why Oswald was angry at JFK at Volkmar Schmidt's party when it's obvious to everyone that you're guessing (and arguing and hoping beyond hope) that Volkmar Schmidt really meant "lack of air support" by the word "support" in a well-constructed, unambiguous sentence!

VOLKMAR SCHMIDT: Lee Harvey Oswald brought up in the conversation with me the fact that he really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ripts/1205.html

It's also obvious that you're guessing (and arguing and hoping beyond hope) that Volkmar Schmidt was just projecting his own political beliefs onto Oswald when he said, "It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union."

The problem for you is that it would have been contradictory for Oswald to have "idealized the socialism of Cuba" and at the same time to have been angry at JFK for his "lack of support" or "lack of air support" to the Bay of Pigs invasion.

--Tommy

Edited November 10, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Steven Gaal]

Thomas Graves

Steven,

Has anyone besides Bruce Adamson seen the letter he claimed to have received from John S. Minary?

Also, how does your JFK assassination researcher Bruce Adamson know that "[George H. W.] Bush knew George de Mohrenschildt since 1942"?

(Bush was 18 years old in 1942 and de Mohrenschildt was 31 in 1942 and in that year was turned away by the CIA because he was considered to be a Nazi agent.)

http://jfk.hood.edu/...rge/Item 62.pdf

###########################################

Linda Minor

Linda Minor

Advanced Member

Posted 16 January 2009 - 04:55 PM

John Simkin, on Jan 15 2009, 06:20 PM, said:

There is some good information on George de Mohrenschildt in Russ Baker's book, Family Secrets. He points out that on 11th May, 1978, Jeanne de Mohrenschildt gave an interview to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, where she said that she did not accept that her husband had committed suicide. She also said that she believed Lee Harvey Oswald was an agent of the United States, possibly of the CIA, and that she was convinced he did not kill John F. Kennedy. She then went onto say: "They may get me too, but I'm not afraid... It's about time somebody looked into this thing."

In response to this thread:

• First, Adamson is a great researcher, but not a great writer. He has numerous volumes of self-published manuscripts for sale, which I purchased 8 or 9 years ago, that are loaded with information--much of it overlapping and poorly edited. But it was thorough, boldly acquired by him from interviews, requests for documents and all sorts of research that necessitated travel and other expenses most of us don't have the time or inclination to pursue. The caveat is: Don't expect flowing prose from Adamson; just the facts, ma'am. It was ground-breaking work that many have relied upon, whether they give him credit or not. (It's sort of like the LaRouche research in that sense.)

• Second, Russ Baker brings out many, many details about George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt too numerous to go into here.

1. One is the fact that George DeM.'s brother Dimitry was married to the mother of George Bush's roommate, Edward Hooker--who became George DeM's partner in oil business in Colorado (Adamson originally dug up this information in his research).

2. Edward Hooker introduced George DeM to his wife, Lynn Sharples, who was very connected to Philadelphia social set and to the Sharples oil family.

3. Edward Hooker died young after financing George DeM in Colorado oil ventures; years later when his daughter married, Hooker's widow got George H.W. Bush to give their daughter away at the wedding to Ames Braga, son of one of the wealthiest sugar families living in New York--Rionda Braga company based in Cuba.

George_HW_gives_away_Hooker__s_daughter.pdf 149.49KB 8 downloads

##################

GAAL

NOT CIA but OSS. BTW he was roommates with two Navy officers in 1942 (somewere on this forum this was discussed) ((pure speculation on my part ,maybe he was turned from NAZI to ONI. The DEMoh naval base sketches and the lady he was with all smell of ONI to me. Dont recall her name but she dated brother of Mexican President. Said brother was a ladies man and he died two weeks before he was going to announce his canadency for the Mexican Presidency))

==

DeMoh visted Hooker in Collage and met GHWB.As to Paley secretary letter I dont think that was published in the Adamson volumnes but Bruce told me that (before mentioning said letter in his volumnes) that he had talked to the secretary on the phone about it (RE DEMoh hired by CBS Paley). Bruce did publish a Dulles -Paley letter in said volumes and its obvious they were very very close friends.

#################################################################################

That DeMoh was connected to CBS does not seem a far fetched idea. (GAAL)

#################################################################################

The CIA and the Media

by Carl Bernstein

Rolling Stone, Oct. 20, 1977

In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America's leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.

Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty-five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters.

Some of these journalists' relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services -- from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go-betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors-without-portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested it the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles, and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements America�s leading news organizations.

The history of the CIA's involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception . . . .

Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were William Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Time Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the Louisville Courier-Journal and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, The Miami Herald, and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald-Tribune. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with The New York Times, CBS, and Time Inc.

.......The Columbia Broadcasting System -- CBS was unquestionably the CIA's most valuable broadcasting asset. CBS president William Paley and Allen Dulles enjoyed an easy working and social relationship. Over the years, the network provided cover for CIA employees, including at least one well-known foreign correspondent and several stringers; it supplied outtakes of newsfilm to the CIA; established a formal channel of communication between the Washington bureau chief and the Agency; gave the Agency access to the CBS newsfilm library; and allowed reports by CBS correspondents to the Washington and New York newsrooms to be routinely monitored by the CIA. Once a year during the 1950s and early 1960s, CBS correspondents joined the CIA hierarchy for private dinners and briefings.

... At the headquarters of CBS News in New York, Paley's cooperation with the CIA is taken for granted by many news executives and reporters, despite the denials. Paley, 76, was not interviewed by Salant's investigators. "It wouldn't do any good," said one CBS executive. "It is the single subject about which his memory has failed."

===========

The Alex Constantine Article

Tales from the Crypt

The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD

by Alex Constantine

Who Controls the Media?

On the domestic front, an abiding relationship was struck between the CIA and William Paley, a wartime colonel and the founder of CBS. A firm believer in "all forms of propaganda" to foster loyalty to the Pentagon, Paley hired CIA agents to work undercover at the behest of his close friend, the busy grey eminence of the nation's media, Allen Dulles. Paley's designated go-between in his dealings with the CIA was Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

==========================

This book Steinbeck: Citizen Spy: - Google Books Result states that Sig Mickelson had direct phone to CIA.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

========================

The Nazi Hydra in America: Suppressed History of a Century - Google Books Result

books.google.com/books?isbn=0930852435

Glen Yeadon - ‎2008 - Biography & Autobiography

The media is riddled with close ties to the CIA. William Paley, a wartime colonel,

founded CBS. Paley hired CIA agents to work undercover at the bidding of his ...

Edited November 10, 2014 by Steven Gaal

[Mark Knight]

I just wish Jim Root was still commenting on this thread.

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

#################################################################################

That DeMoh was connected to CBS does not seem a far fetched idea. (GAAL)

#################################################################################

The CIA and the Media

by Carl Bernstein

Rolling Stone, Oct. 20, 1977

In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America's leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.

Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty-five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters.

Some of these journalists' relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services -- from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go-betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors-without-portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested it the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles, and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements America�s leading news organizations.

The history of the CIA's involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception . . . .

Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were William Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Time Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the Louisville Courier-Journal and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, The Miami Herald, and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald-Tribune. By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with The New York Times, CBS, and Time Inc.

.......The Columbia Broadcasting System -- CBS was unquestionably the CIA's most valuable broadcasting asset. CBS president William Paley and Allen Dulles enjoyed an easy working and social relationship. Over the years, the network provided cover for CIA employees, including at least one well-known foreign correspondent and several stringers; it supplied outtakes of newsfilm to the CIA; established a formal channel of communication between the Washington bureau chief and the Agency; gave the Agency access to the CBS newsfilm library; and allowed reports by CBS correspondents to the Washington and New York newsrooms to be routinely monitored by the CIA. Once a year during the 1950s and early 1960s, CBS correspondents joined the CIA hierarchy for private dinners and briefings.

... At the headquarters of CBS News in New York, Paley's cooperation with the CIA is taken for granted by many news executives and reporters, despite the denials. Paley, 76, was not interviewed by Salant's investigators. "It wouldn't do any good," said one CBS executive. "It is the single subject about which his memory has failed."

===========

The Alex Constantine Article

Tales from the Crypt

The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA's Operation MOCKINGBIRD

by Alex Constantine

Who Controls the Media?

On the domestic front, an abiding relationship was struck between the CIA and William Paley, a wartime colonel and the founder of CBS. A firm believer in "all forms of propaganda" to foster loyalty to the Pentagon, Paley hired CIA agents to work undercover at the behest of his close friend, the busy grey eminence of the nation's media, Allen Dulles. Paley's designated go-between in his dealings with the CIA was Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

==========================

This book Steinbeck: Citizen Spy: - Google Books Result states that Sig Mickelson had direct phone to CIA.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

========================

The Nazi Hydra in America: Suppressed History of a Century - Google Books Result

books.google.com/books?isbn=0930852435

Glen Yeadon - ‎2008 - Biography & Autobiography

The media is riddled with close ties to the CIA. William Paley, a wartime colonel,

founded CBS. Paley hired CIA agents to work undercover at the bidding of his ...

Steven,

Are you sure this should be on this thread?

Regardless, I gotta ask you a few questions.

What did George de Mohrenschildt do for CBS?

Was he a reporter?

Do you believe he was a Nazi spy?

A Communist spy?

A CIA spy?

Or just a Garden Variety Liberal?

Do you think Edwin Walker masterminded the assassination of JFK?

--Tommy

Edited November 10, 2014 by Thomas Graves

[Steven Gaal]

Steven,

Are you sure this should be on this thread? #####

Reply was in response to several questions YOU asked me.Which you have deleted quoting in your post.. If someone only saw what you have quoted and not the thread posts between you and I it would seem to an outsider that the thread is off tract. DEMoh is relevant to Walker issue. Tom you asked me,"Has anyone besides Bruce Adamson seen the letter he claimed to have received from John S. Minary? "

Gave you my best reply.

########################################

THOMAS GRAVES states, " Regardless, I gotta ask you a few questions."

++++++++++++++++++++++++

What did George de Mohrenschildt do for CBS? ##### Zero

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Was he a reporter?##### Zero

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you believe he was a Nazi spy? ##### Maybe. The White Russians had a anti-CCCP network since about 1919-1920. He could have wanted to work for them but was diverted to working for NAZI.

========================

A Communist spy? ##### never

=========================

A CIA spy? ##### On occasion he did some low level work for them in Yugoslavia and from there it seems he recruited into Dulles private CIA (Examples Lansdale/Casey). Please note DeMoh had the number of Calif. oil man Pauley FOUR times in his phone volumes. Pauley/Casey/Lansdale were part of WWII Japanses stolen cold project. The amonut diverted to anti communist/CIA purposes was immense. The logical quess would be Pauley paymaster for DEMoh. ++++ FOUR TIMES DeMoh had the Pauley phone number written down. Im (DEMoh) gonna-get-paid !!. ++++ Dulles had his own CIA inside CIA and a private outside CIA. Remember Dulles had to coverup his own NAZI connections via Sullivan and Cromwell and this may have been his rational for starting his own private network.Later said private Dulles CIA network metamorhized intio whatever he needed. Another example: Dulles had to coverup his role in creating the Republican parties ethnic committees.

=================================

Or just a Garden Variety Liberal? ##### never

==================================

Do you think Edwin Walker masterminded the assassination of JFK? ##### An absurd notion. As stated in Dulles #1 suspect thread ,perfect murder is one when you make the other person believes he did it.

--Tommy

Edited November 10, 2014 by Steven Gaal

[Paul Trejo]

I think Paul that everything you say about Oswald rests on your assumption that he was a right winger posing as a leftist. What Thomas seems to be arguing is that the people who tried to lay the groundwork for Oswald being capable of assassinating JFK were actually just setting Oswald up as a patsy. No one here believes that Oswald was serious about setting up a FPCC branch. The question is how to interpret that action, and the street confrontation, in the context of Banister and Bringuier. You interpret it as Oswald being aligned with these New Orleans operatives, and likewise aligned with Odio's visitors. You rely on Volkmar Schmidt, who likewise was part of the setting up of Oswald, not to become a murderer, but to be blamed for a murder he was not part of. I realize that you think you can nuance yourself out of this dilemma by saying that Oswald was blackmailed, after being found out to be the shooter of Walker, to participate in Banister's operations, including being sent to MC to try to gain access to Cuba for a try at assassinating Castro. You have constructed a very complex view of Oswald based on the words of character assassins after the fact. You continue to assert that Walker knew who shot at him within a day of that attempt, but you know that there is no documentation for that theory that dates from before Nov 22. And you also know that there exists no proof even now that Oswald was Walker's shooter. The words and actions of Ruth Paine and Marina and DeMohrenschildt do not constitute proof. The simplest explanation for for the post assassination words of Schmidt, Walker, Hall, Ruth Paine, etc is that they were conveniently piling on to the character assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald. And the best reason to accept this is that the shot that killed JFK did not come from the TSBD. Oswald did not fire a rifle that day, at least not the rifle that he supposedly owned. So since you seem to think that the key lies in identifying the ground crew, you should start by looking somewhere other than LHO. I also entirely agree with Thomas when he argues that there is a huge difference between being angry at JFK for BOP and being angry at the failure of that operation. But in order for your theory to hold together you are forced to twist these words and conflate the two interpretations as if they are really not so different. Everything in Oswald's personal life and writings points to his being sympathetic to Castro. The question is who was he working for when he set up the FPCC branch? Was he working for Banister, trying to draw communist sympathizers out of the woodwork? Was he working for the CIA trying to discredit the FPCC by tying it to a communist like himself? Was he piggybacking his own ideology onto one of those operations? I lean towards the last one - that his personal interest was in drawing radical right out of the woodwork and infiltrating their plans while officially working with them. And I would not draw a hard a fast line between guys like Banister and Walker, and government intelligence, whose footprints were all over Oswald from the time he joined the Marines and possibly before. I don't pretend to fully understand who Oswald was. But I am pretty certain that he was innocent of being part of an assassination operation.

OK, Paul B., I'll respond to your challenges point by point.

(1) Again, Oswald was a complex character. To understand him requires NUANCES. He wasn't 100% rightist and he wasn't 100% leftist. He was an individual mixture of the two.

(2) When it came to shooting at Edwin Walker, we see the leftist tendencies of Lee Harvey Oswald shining through.

(3) When it came to the Fake FPCC in New Orleans for Guy Banister, we see the rightist tendencies of Lee Harvey Oswald shining through.

(4) I realize that for decades now, people have argued that ANY TALK about Oswald shooting his rifle at ANYONE is merely an attempt to FRAME Oswald for the JFK murder. That's just inaccurate. Ron Lewis (FLASHBACK, 1996) said that he was Lee's friend in New Orleans in 1963, and that he knows for a fact that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot at JFK -- however, Ron Lewis also says that Lee Oswald told him PERSONALLY that he surely did shoot at Edwin Walker. Ron Lewis also says that Guy Banister was blackmailing Lee Oswald for precisely the crime of shooting at Walker.

(5) If Tommy claims that if Oswald didn't shoot at JFK, then he COULDN'T HAVE shot at Edwin Walker, then I find that ridiculous. It tries to make Lee Harvey Oswald into a PACIFIST, which is just absurd. Oswald was a MARINE. He liked rifles and other weapons. There is no way in the world that Oswald was a PACIFIST.

(6) I agree with you, Paul B., the the key question is how to interpret the activity of Oswald setting up a Fake FPCC branch in New Orleans. I'm open to reasonable theories. We know that the street-fight was STAGED. We know that for a FACT because Oswald wrote to the FPCC headquarters that he had a street fight with a Cuban Exile over the FPCC, and was arrested -- but he sent that letter SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

(7) Since the street-fight with Carlos Bringuier was staged, we have hard evidence that Oswald was cooperating with the extreme right-wing Cuban Exiles. Guy Banister worked with Carlos Bringuier and his group, DRE, and Banister also worked with Ed Butler and his group, INCA, which was a technical propaganda office run by Ed Butler and financed in part by the CIA. Ed Butler was the one who ensured that cameras were on site to film Lee Harvey Oswald passing out FPCC leaflets on the street.

(8) Jim Garrison asked the right questions -- who ever heard of newspaper men filming one single COMMUNIST handing out COMMUNIST leaflets in the street? Also, Oswald literally *hired* a boy from the unemployment line for $20 (in today's dollars) to help him hand out those FPCC fliers. We KNOW this because Jim Garrison recognized that boy and called his father right away. He was a local boy who knew zero about politics, but only wanted the $20. Real Communists never hire help.

(9) So, the whole FPCC filming, fighting episode was political THEATER. It's not merely my theory that says that Oswald was aligned with the rightwing in New Orleans -- it is first and foremost the discovery of Jim Garrison in 1967 that says it. Jim Garrison's work is rock solid on this point.

(10) As for Odio's visitors, it's not only my theory, but Gaeton Fonzi originally claimed that Leopoldo and Angelo were Loran Hall and Larry Howard. (The fact that Harry Dean also claimed this is apparently too controversial for this Forum, so I'll set that aside for now.) Anyway, the FBI quickly picked up Loran Hall in the context of Silvia Odio's report, and initially, anyway, Loran Hall confessed. So, it's not a wild guess, Paul B., but my theory rests on some hard evidence.

(11) I think, Paul B., that you misunderstand my position on Volkmar Schmidt. I don't say that Volkmar set up (framed) Oswald for ANYTHING. Volkmar admitted that he used a powerful psychological technique to transfer Oswald's anger from JFK onto Edwin Walker. That's it. That's all. Volkmar insists that he had no clue that Oswald was so unstable that he would actually go out and try to KILL Walker.

(12) It makes perfect sense to me that General Walker would lead the cause to FRAME Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK, starting on Easter Sunday 1963 -- but again, that isn't just my guess. I'm also relying on data from Ron Lewis, who claims that Guy Banister was BLACKMAILING Lee Oswald precisely because he bragged to the wrong people about the Walker shooting.

(13) The connection between the Fake FPCC of New Orleans and the Mexico City incident is rock solid because Lee Harvey Oswald took his Fake FPCC credentials with him to Mexico City, and laid them out on the desk of the Cuban consulate there, and demanded an instant Visa to Cuba.

(14) I do realize that I have no material evidence that Walker knew who shot at him before the JFK assassination -- unless we can validate the Jack Martin Film. Yet my explanation is that for the past 50 years, JFK researchers have been looking everywhere else EXCEPT toward Edwin Walker. The Edwin Walker theory of the JFK murder is in its infancy. It started early in 1963, and was partly laid out by the Warren Commission itself -- but since J. Edgar Hoover insisted on his "Lone Nut" theory, Edwin Walker got a free pass. It never seems to occur to Jim Garrison -- who ultimately FAILED to solve the JFK murder, and sadly ended by blaming the CIA willy nilly. (In the coming year I expect the evidence we have on Edwin Walker to DOUBLE at the very least.)

(15) While the testimony of Michael Paine, Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald, George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt don't constitute PROOF that Lee Oswald shot at Walker, we have all that sworn testimony to deal with. It's up to the detractors of my theory to explain how all these people who HATED Edwin Walker would somehow make a plot with him to lie about Lee Oswald's shooting at Edwin Walker. I can only laugh.

(16) As for Lee Oswald shooting at JFK from the TSBD building, Paul B., you and I have no disagreement whatsoever. We agree on this point. Lee Harvey Oswald never fired that rifle from the TSBD. He was FRAMED for that, deliberately.

(17) Sadly, Lee Oswald was stupid enough to place his own Manlicher-Carcano rifle into the hands of his Framers -- Lee Oswald knew who they were, and he foolishly trusted them with ANYTHING. He never guessed that they would use his own rifle against him in that way.

(18) As for the words of Volkmar Schmidt that Lee Oswald was "obsessed with his anger at JFK" over his Bay of Pigs support, I deny twisting any words. I point out an ambiguity in the words, and leave it at that.

(19) You say, Paul B., that "everything in Oswald's personal life and writings points to his being sympathetic to Castro." That is the cornerstone of your own theory, Paul B., and I challenge that cornerstone directly. Lee Harvey Oswald was heading up a Fake FPCC in New Orleans through the offices of Guy Banister, a true HATER of Fidel Castro. So your attempt to make Oswald look like a Fidel-lover simply falls flat in the face of the material evidence. GUY BANISTER'S OFFICE ADDRESS WAS STAMPED ON THOSE FPCC FLIERS. CIA MONEY WAS USED TO PRINT THOSE CIA FLIERS. So, not "everything" in Oswald's personal life suggests sympathy for Castro.

(20) The question isn't "who" he was working for with the Fake FPCC branch. We know it was Guy Banister. Jim Garrison figured that out in 1967. The REAL question is WHAT WERE THEY DOING WITH IT?

You think, Paul B., that they were "trying to draw communist sympathizers out of the woodwork." No, that hardly scratches the surface. Nor were they "trying to discredit the FPCC by tying it to a communist like himself." No, because it was already well-established that the FPCC was Red Communist.

The most logical reason for the Fake FPCC was that FPCC Officers got "instant Visas" to Cuba from the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. That was a FACT. That was what Lee Oswald was told by Guy Banister (most likely) because it was simply a FACT. What Guy Banister didn't tell Lee Oswald, and what Lee Oswald failed to check himself, was that an official list of FPCC Officers was sent to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City from the FPCC headquarters in New York whenever there was any change at all.

It was like a bouncer's list at a posh nightclub -- if you weren't on the list, you got bounced. Lee Oswald's name wasn't on the FPCC Officer's list, so there was NO WAY that Lee Oswald was going to get his instant Visa to Cuba that weekend. This took Oswald by surprise, and he screamed, he howled, he even cried, he even took a loaded pistol to the USSR consulate -- but he still didn't get his instant Visa. He acted like a fool. This is best explained by presuming that Oswald was FOLLOWING ORDERS and trusting in Guy Banister's strategy, which had worked so well up to that point. (Guy Banister was probably laughing his ass off in New Orleans at this precise time.)

(21) Finally, Paul B., you "would not draw a hard a fast line between guys like Banister and Walker, and government intelligence, whose footprints were all over Oswald from the time he joined the Marines and possibly before."

Actually, I will stand with you on that point. Edwin Walker, especially, had a LIFETIME of US Military contacts. He was a decorated US General, for heaven's sake!

Also, you are "pretty certain that he (Oswald) was innocent of being part of an assassination operation." If you mean the JFK murder operation, then I can stand with you. Lee Harvey Oswald was only the PATSY of that assassination plot, but of course he HAD NO IDEA that he was the PATSY.

On the other hand, if you mean *any* assassination operation, then I disagree, since I firmly believe that Lee Harvey Oswald believed until the day before he died that he was part of an ongoing plot to assassinate Fidel Castro.

If you can't see the signs of that from Oswald's close cooperation with Guy Banister, Paul B., then there's nothing more I can say.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited November 13, 2014 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

I guess you didnt read what I wrote carefully. My whole point is that Oswald working with Banister does not mean he and Banister were on the same side. What I said was that while Oswald appears to be doing so, its the rightists that he is pretending to work with, that he is staging incidents with, who are really the focus of his actions. He was no rightist. To say he was is to deny everything we know about his personal life and friendships.

[Paul Trejo]

I guess you didnt read what I wrote carefully. My whole point is that Oswald working with Banister does not mean he and Banister were on the same side. What I said was that while Oswald appears to be doing so, its the rightists that he is pretending to work with, that he is staging incidents with, who are really the focus of his actions. He was no rightist. To say he was is to deny everything we know about his personal life and friendships.

Well, Paul B., I challenge you to explain this cogently. You're suggesting (roughly) that from April 1963 through September 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald was building a Fake FPCC in New Orleans through the offices of Guy Banister -- BUT HE WAS NOT WORKING FOR GUY BANISTER????

You're just going to have to explain how something like that works -- AND SHOW EVIDENCE. It won't be good enough just to make something up out of thin air. Let's see your logic.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

You're just going to have to explain how something like that works -- AND SHOW EVIDENCE. It won't be good enough just to make something up out of thin air. Let's see your logic.

Heck, Mr. Trejo...I'm still waiting for YOU to show evidence. Oh, wait...your theory is just a theory, so you don't need to show ACTUAL evidence. But anyone else's theory REQUIRES evidence.

Sorry...I must've missed that ONE WAY STREET sign...

[Larry Hancock]

The basic scenario is very simple. Oswald agreed to provide the FBI with information on any foreign or suspect contacts that were made with him...he did so in his first FBI interview in Texas following his return. While basically a populist and advocate of socialist causes he was in no way a Communist (as demonstrated by his complete lack of interest in actually participation in Party activities in either the US or more specifically in Russia). Oswald spoke adamantly against Russian Communism in his manuscript and accused it of controlling its parties and groups overseas for its own nationalist agenda. Yet after doing so in his manuscript he began an ongoing series of communications with both the CPUSA and SWP (if that doesn't convince anyone that he had started cooperating with the FBI as some sort of dangle or provocateur then stop reading at this point). His communications became more and more provocative, by later summer he was writing about actually going underground. Yet we know he actively contacted the subversive desk of the FBI in NO and more specifically a subversive desk agent - by name. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to show he was an FBI source, and that a NO field office file on him existed. To be a real informant he would have had to work his way inside a targeted organization - which he never did. But in that respect, both the Cuban exile groups were FBI targets (for weapons violations and engaging in missions against Cuba) and so would have been any Cuban agents, especially double agents - and some of those contacting Oswald in NO had been suspected by both CIA and FBI of being Castro double agents.

As to Bannister, his office had been evaluated by the CIA as a cover back in early 1961, we don't know the official results. We do know that the FBI routinely used former agents PI firms as covers without providing them much information. And we also know both FBI and CIA were engaged in joint anti-FPCC and Cuban penetration efforts beginning in late spring 1963. Bannister's office could have been used as a home base (and mailing address) for a number of Oswald's "dangle" activities towards several potential targets with no more than knowledge on Bannister's part that Oswald was not a "commie" and that his actions were on the side of the good guys. Which is really all he told some of his street guys, simply that Oswald was "one of us". Oswald using Bannister's office and address would have been very basic domestic trade-craft for FBI subversive operations which often used PI's and businesses - much as the CIA did both domestically and overseas.

[Paul Brancato]

Larry - this view of Oswald is much more grounded in reality, based on what we know of his actions and contacts, than the view that Trejo puts forward, namely that Banister and co. blackmailed Oswald into a series of actions in NO MC and Dallas that ended with his non-shooting participation in the assassination and becoming the patsy. It is a more nuanced view which takes into account what we actually know about his personal beliefs, and his interactions with a series of FBI and CIA contacts stretching over several years in the military, in the USSR, in Dallas, and in New Orleans.