Best of the Year 2019?

[David Andrews]

18 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Regarding books from last year I stumbled across this title.  It looks interesting to me, I had heard of Forrestal and his "suicide" but was unaware he as anti Israel.  Wondering if maybe anyone else on here might have read it and offer an opinion.  The reviews are pretty well all positive but when it's recommended by Phillip Nelson and Fetzer I have to wonder.  For nine bucks I may take a gander.

https://www.amazon.com/Assassination-James-Forrestal-David-Martin/dp/0967352126/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3UTZX5H3JRC9P&keywords=the+assassination+of+james+forrestal&qid=1578608259&s=books&sprefix=the+assassination+of+%2Cstripbooks%2C177&sr=1-1

The David Martin book on Forrestal could have used a good editor, but contains some interesting digested information from other sources about how Forrestal (among many in Washington) was under threats and pressure from the Israelis, and was also disturbed by the influence of Communist sympathizers in the Truman admin who were holdouts from FDR's govt.  Any influence of the former upon the latter?

The version of the [Forrestal] diaries edited by FDR apologist and New York Herald Tribune journalist, the Yale graduate Walter Millis, was a severely edited version of the original. By the time Millis had done his chopping the diaries had been gone over by both the White House and the Pentagon and there can be little doubt that they took out the most damaging and revealing things about the administration, the most important of which […] would have been how their policies were consciously aiding the Communist cause.

The original diaries would very likely have named names like Harry Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie, people within the Roosevelt and Truman administrations who were doing the bidding of the Communists. Not only did Millis take a lot out, but he also put into the published version as much of his own analysis as that which came from Forrestal, often taking issue with Forrestal when he went against the approved “leftist line.”

Put into perspective, it helps one see how JFK was labeled a comsymp by his own subordinates, who were still holding grudges from FDR's prosecution of WW II and the post-war peace   Makes you think also about how Forrestal's son, Michael, chose to side with JFK's opponents in the Vietnam crisis.  No 13th floor exit for this war baby.

Others chose to tar Forrestal with anti-Semitism when they spotted a chance to distort his stand on the Palestine partition issue. Forrestal was not anti-Semitic; he had simply urged that Truman not play domestic politics with the Palestine question and had explained his position as follows:

'If we are to safeguard western civilization in this crisis, the British and American fleets must have free access to Near Eastern oil. That is a fact, however unpleasant it may be.... I am interested in justice in Palestine, but this interest must remain secondary to my primary interest, which is the protection of America and the West from the gravest threat we have ever faced [Soviet Russia]. No minority has the right to jeopardize this nation for its own selfish interest.'

Forrestal gave everything he had to the war, and couldn't stand the realignment of influence during the peace.  It's a wonder no one over at State went bat-sh*t crazy by 1948-1949.

 

Edited January 10, 2020 by David Andrews

[Ron Bulman]

So Forrestal opposed the creation of Israel. He jumped out of a pantry window with his bathrobe sash tied around his neck and a radiator at Bethesda, where JFK was autopsied.  I guess the knot slipped.  He landed many stories below (14-20?) on top of the crossover between that building and the next.

JFK opposed Israel obtaining nuclear weapons.  

After he died Angleton had the door left open and told them where to find the enriched stuff.  Literally. 

[David Andrews]

He didn't oppose the creation of Israel, he opposed undue Israeli influence on US politics and US govt. departmental operations and policies.

Edited January 10, 2020 by David Andrews

[Ron Bulman]

4 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

He didn't oppose the creation of Israel, he opposed undue Israeli influence on US politics and US govt. departmental operation and policies.

So he still jumped out the window, like Frank Olson a few years later.

[David Andrews]

Well, Olson was dropped out a window, if you believe Eric Olson and Seymour Hersh in the docudrama Wormwood.  I might almost say that Forrestal jumped, because he probably did want to end his life -- but go look at your own bathrobe.  If you knotted the cord around your neck, would there be enough length left to tie to a radiator and hang yourself by jumping out a window?  And who in government office would want to make that splashy an exit, dangling out a Bethesda tower window in front of God and President Truman and everybody?  Seems unseemly for a man reading Sophocles just before the plunge.

Monsignor Sheehy said that when he hurried to the hospital several hours after Forrestal hurtled to his death to try to learn what he could of the circumstances of the tragedy, a stranger approached him in the crowded hospital corridor. The man was a hospital corpsman [...] a warrant officer wearing stripes attesting to twenty years of service in the navy. He said to Monsignor Sheehy in a low, tense voice: 'Father...you know Mr. Forrestal didn't kill himself, don't you.'

But before Monsignor Sheehy could reply or ask the man's name, he said, others in the crowded corridor pressed about him closely, and the veteran warrant officer, as if fearful of being overheard, quickly disappeared.

David Martin's book speaks a lot about ways that a concerted effort might have been made in govt. and media to paint Forrestal as more disturbed than he was.  The trouble is there's a lot of smoke obscuring the fire, and even the Monsignor Sheehy incident is hearsay.

David Martin on Trump. the Mob and the CIA:

http://dcdave.com/article5/160310.htm

Edited January 10, 2020 by David Andrews

[Guest]

On 1/2/2020 at 10:58 AM, Pat Speer said:

The Hosty notes are not notes per se, but are a first draft of a report. His actual notes were published in his book partly wrong, and have long been available on the Lancer site. Wrong

This draft is important but not for the reason most believe Wrong (and I am expressing myself mildly here). He mentions in this draft that he confronted Oswald about contacting the Soviet Embassy. He wasn't supposed to ask Oswald Wrong about this because the only way he could have known about this at the time was if he'd been told the FBI had been reading the embassy's mail--which was a closely guarded secret. This put the FBI in deep. Speculation.

Well, lo and behold, the very next day Mrs. Paine presents Hosty with a copy she'd supposedly made of Oswald's letter to the embassy. This got Hosty off the hook Speculation. The commission would then proceed to pretend the FBI found out about Oswald's letter through Mrs. Paine, and the Soviets themselves. If I recall, it would be decades before anyone realized Hosty knew about Oswald's letter BEFORE the assassination. 

So...the timing of all this makes Mrs. Paine's withholding of the letter from the DPD, and then handing it over to Hosty, INCREDIBLY suspicious. She was almost certainly working as an informant, IMO. Speculation. I suspect Hosty asked her to pretend she'd copied Oswald's letter, and she did as he requested. More speculation and none of this matters to the thread's subject.

And it also draws a spotlight back on Hosty's report on the initial interrogation of Oswald. There was no report. Instead Yes there was, the draft remember? , there was a joint report written on this interrogation--supposedly by Bookhout and Hosty, even though Bookhout also submitted a separate report, as I recall. Which made an even bigger mess of that first interrogation. Well, this indicates Hosty's report was thrown in the circular filing cabinet, or, more likely, shredded, and that a bogus HQ-generated Bookhout/Hosty report was submitted instead. That makes the handwritten Hosty document even more pivotal, even though you are busy denying it.

Pat Speer one would think you make posts like these purely with an agenda in mind. I only see a diversion in your speculative point(s) with regards to the thread's subject. 95% of what you wrote is utterly irrelevant to this thread. But we know why this is don't we? Trying to diminish the document's importance, out of jealousy? Spite? Or is it just wilful denial?. Not that I give a toss, it had its desired effect already one year ago.  Other people have tried to do this, with the most ridiculous arguments such as that irrelevant fabricating twit Brain Doyle, Yours is a tad more refined but still it doesn't wash at all. Whether it is a draft is a non-issue and you are actually missing the point with your remark.  The header of this thread is: Best of the Year 2019? Now then, is any BS  of the swamp called MC the best of 2019? I don't think so. No amount of innuendo and make believe  from you is going to change that.

The note that you are talking about on the Lancer website through the Haarpanen article is here: http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/haappanen-notes.pdf But it is not shown at Lancer, it is only shown in the Assignment Oswald book. And it is incomplete. Even that one looks like giving away Oswald's location during the shooting. You can see this once you compare that note with the Feb 2019 find. 

I discuss this in a brand new post at my website.

The sheet above comes from Hosty's handwriting and clearly states what Oswald did just before he went to lunch (got a coke and therefore killed off the 2nd fl lunchroom encounter) and also went outside to watch the P. Parade. That by itself is as strong if not better than Fritz's notes which were not contemporary.

Deep sixing this document was not because of M.C. it was because what Oswald had said and his alibi was destroyed in that first interrogation session. 

The differences between the joint Hosty/Bookhout and solo Bookhout report are huge and they concern that very same 1st interrogation only. Put them next together and see for yourself. Sean Murphy mentioned this already 6.5 years ago.

The rest of the pages. I do not know its sequence, all I know is like the one above they are written on the back of blank DPD affidavit paper. I have highlighted this on the pix and they are at that same blog post. I am not going to discuss these pages as it will deviate from this thread. 

Then in a follow post Speer says: From re-reading what I've previously written on this issue, I realize that Hosty returned to his desk after the shooting (but before he'd interviewed Oswald) and found a memo regarding Oswald's writing the embassy...and that after confronting Oswald on this he went back to his office only to discover that the memo was missing and that he was in trouble for mentioning it to Oswald. 

According to Hosty's book, he went to the Trade Mart, then to Parkland then to his office. He does not arrive at HQ until 13:25. At 14:15 he hears the name Lee Oswald as the person arrested, after which they try to find Oswald's file. In that file they see the intercepted letter to the Soviet embassy.

Hosty himself mentions I had read something about this Mexico City meeting in October, but had been forbidden by FBI policy from questioning Oswald about it, as it would tip off Oswald, and presumably the Soviets, to our intelligence sources and methods in Mexico. Now either that is in relation to the so called planned interview of Oswald before the assassination or this is complete rubbish. If he had been forbidden why the hell did he ask about it any way.?

He then takes the paperwork to SAC Gordon Shanklin after which the following is being said “I got Belmont on the phone. He wants you, Hosty, to get down to the police department and take part in the interrogation of Oswald. Also, Belmont wants you to cooperate fully with the police and give them any information we have on Oswald. Get going. Now.”

After that interrogation and the first line-up Hosty is told that Belmont's order is countermanded. Too little too late. What got Hosty in hot water is the Revill matter that led Curry to quack in front of the press about it. Revill shafted him as they had a huge fallout the day before. What shafted Hosty as well was Patterson of the SS relaying Hosty's chat w Sorrells just after Sorrells was done questioning Oswald. Not the Airtel. That it disappeared is small potatoes compared to what is really going on in this thread. One could speculate that it evaporated for a while due to Ruth Paine's action. But then you can explain why it re-appeared, that is without any speculation please!

During the Schweiker Committee hearings Hosty is interviewed and the Mexico City matter is being discussed

How about some more killer documentation as a favour to the crowd? Thanks to Malcolm Blunt. 

 

And

 

 

 

And.

 

 

I have to thank you for making these posts as you got me into researching the material found by me in Malcolm's archives and which fortified Oswald being on the first floor, and outside watching the P. parade as I explain in my latest blog post.

Life's too short but your post warranted a reply.

[Ed LeDoux]

Coming into the final stretch, and its Bart for the win.

Cheers, Ed

[B. A. Copeland]

A masterful rebuttal Barto. Thanks for sharing and educating as always.

I swear along with the original thread and Dane’s amazing book, Murphy’s analysis of Lee and the false 2nd Flr encounter is a must read at least once a year for me.

So the fine points of that document (Hosty’s note) is Lee went to the 2nd flr. to get a coke to eat with his lunch on the 1st flr. (without ever encountering Baker & Truly) and then went out to watch the presidential parade (please correct me if I’m wrong). That is astounding evidence that only more firmly supports the PM argument. May the focus always be solely that when we examine the highlighted portion by you (Bart) in Hosty’s newly discovered notes.

Edited January 16, 2020 by B. A. Copeland

[B. A. Copeland]

Deleted

Edited January 15, 2020 by B. A. Copeland