COUP IN DALLAS

[Allen Lowe]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

200 pages?

There were 24 volumes in the Warren Report. 

The Warren Commission, the Mueller Report, the old HUAC committee hearings---any state investigation that does not have meet court standards, and in which there is a stout defense---becomes a prosecutorial fantasy. 

Who calls witnesses? What evidence is presented? Who controls the narrative? Who controls a compliant media (through leaks and other goodies). Remember, there is no judge to even begin to help set a level playing field.

State investigations played out in the media are essentially show trials. 

This does not exonerate Trump, anymore than the WC exonerated LHO. 

It is something to think about. 

I am not sure of your point relative to my post. Many congressional hearings have been quite substantial and evidential, from the Army-McCarthy hearings to the Church Committee. Also, January 6; and even the HSCA hearings, when all was released (well, not all but a lot), were revelatory.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Allen Lowe

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

I am not sure of your point relative to my post. Many congressional hearings have been quite substantial and evidential, from the Army-McCarthy hearings to the Church Committee. Also, January 6; and even the HSCA hearings, when all was released (well, not all but a lot), were revelatory.

Nice work Allen. Black and white thinking is endemic, more so these days than ever. All politicians are corrupt, all hearings for show, there is no objective truth. The Party of mostly white folks accuses the other of playing identity politics. Democrats are book burners. Black is white, white is black, shades of meaning are lost, complexities of human behavior are reduced to sound bites. 
it’s ironic that this particular thread was waylaid. 

Edited August 9, 2022 by Paul Brancato

[Anthony Thorne]

For anyone wishing to chime in with additional posts about contemporary politics, please move it to another thread, otherwise anyone reading this thread to discuss COUP IN DALLAS will eventually be hit with a growing number of pages that are focused on other stuff. Thanks.

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

I am not sure of your point relative to my post. Many congressional hearings have been quite substantial and evidential, from the Army-McCarthy hearings to the Church Committee. Also, January 6; and even the HSCA hearings, when all was released (well, not all but a lot), were revelatory.

My point is a state investigation, especially one conducted in public, can become a show trial, for the reasons I cited: 

1. The evidence is selected only by prosecutors. 

2. The witnesses are selected only by prosecutors. 

3. The narrative is controlled by prosecutors. 

4. The media, which may be compliant anyway, generally can only report on the witnesses and evidence presented. 

5. There is no judge. 

6. Many appeals are made to emotions, or patriotism, which generally play well in the media. 

-----

Sure, maybe there have been good state investigations done in the past. It is hard to tell, since we are never told what was left out of a state investigation.  

But if I wanted to conduct a serious investigation into any particular event, I would not choose a show trial. 

The format of the Warren Commission, the 9/11 commission, the old HUAC hearings, or the 1/6 committee are all the same: Prosecutorial and state fantasies. 

Ponder this: The 1/6 committee has presented a hearsay witness (the Trump steering-wheel grab event) but not the actual witnesses to the event. Then they say, "The Secret Service is not cooperating."

However, when Bannon refused to cooperate, they arranged to have Bannon jailed (pending). Fine by me. 

But why no subpoenas under penalty of jail time for the Secret Service agents? 

My prediction: You will never see the Secret Service agents testify; they do not fit into the narrative. 

Side note: I doubt we will ever see the Secret Service missing texts either. 

 

 

[Allen Lowe]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

My point is a state investigation, especially one conducted in public, can become a show trial, for the reasons I cited: 

1. The evidence is selected only by prosecutors. 

2. The witnesses are selected only by prosecutors. 

3. The narrative is controlled by prosecutors. 

4. The media, which may be compliant anyway, generally can only report on the witnesses and evidence presented. 

5. There is no judge. 

6. Many appeals are made to emotions, or patriotism, which generally play well in the media. 

-----

Sure, maybe there have been good state investigations done in the past. It is hard to tell, since we are never told what was left out of a state investigation.  

But if I wanted to conduct a serious investigation into any particular event, I would not choose a show trial. 

The format of the Warren Commission, the 9/11 commission, the old HUAC hearings, or the 1/6 committee are all the same: Prosecutorial and state fantasies. 

Ponder this: The 1/6 committee has presented a hearsay witness (the Trump steering-wheel grab event) but not the actual witnesses to the event. Then they say, "The Secret Service is not cooperating."

However, when Bannon refused to cooperate, they arranged to have Bannon jailed (pending). Fine by me. 

But why no subpoenas under penalty of jail time for the Secret Service agents? 

My prediction: You will never see the Secret Service agents testify; they do not fit into the narrative. 

Side note: I doubt we will ever see the Secret Service missing texts either. 

 

 

That’s just all  nonsense. The January 6 hearings were detailed and complicated and well planned and presented like a really fine prosecutors brief. Try watching it next time. Of course there was some hearsay. But there was tons of first person firsthand testimony. Read the transcript.

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

That’s just all  nonsense. The January 6 hearings were detailed and complicated and well planned and presented like a really fine prosecutors brief. Try watching it next time. Of course there was some hearsay. But there was tons of first person firsthand testimony. Read the transcript.

Keep in mind, that was sentiment regarding the Warren Report.  Initially it was regarded as comprehensive and above reproach.

The Warren Report was, of course, a state prosecutorial fantasy. 

I am happy to accept a finding of guilt for anybody who goes through the court system. I also regard anyone as innocent until proven guilt in a court of law. 

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

For anyone wishing to chime in with additional posts about contemporary politics, please move it to another thread, otherwise anyone reading this thread to discuss COUP IN DALLAS will eventually be hit with a growing number of pages that are focused on other stuff. Thanks.

OK, sorry. Love Coup in Dallas. 

[Charles Blackmon]

15 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

nope. That's not the way it was back then. It would have all faded into oblivion. 

 

 

Maybe you are referring to stonewalling by the MSM and the federal government but no, I do not agree that such a thing would be overlooked. Its your opinion and thats fine. 

[Joe Bauer]

There was no coup in Dallas on 11,22,1963.

A lovelorn loner loser minimum wage book sorting worker in a building that just happened to be in the perfect turkey shoot location along the Presidential motorcade route that day decided on his own just days before that he was going to take on a massive security force and in front of hundreds of bystanders directly below his full sun illuminated and opened upper floor window perch, take three booming loud shots at JFK "after he had passed" his location and was traveling away on a downward slope ( and with JFK's upper body and head moving sideways by two feet at the same time) while lining up his defective scope to then get a perfect bullseye on a 7 to 8 inch wide moving target at 265 feet after two earlier closer range shots resulted in one complete miss and another non-fatal hit.

Really?

This amazingly accurate shooter then tosses his cheapest bad reputation old WWII rifle and runs or walks fast down 4 flights of stairs and goes into a company common use lunch room, pulls out a quarter and selects his favorite soda ( Dr. Pepper ) to quench his sweat run thirst and is standing still there in closed eye "ahhh" relief just as a big frantic Dallas Cop bursts in the room and thrusting a loaded gun at him and after company super Roy Truly tells the officer the soda drinking man was an employee, then saunters down to the lobby, guides a future fame journalist to the nearest pay phone, walks out and goes a few blocks to board a city bus....

All after just making an incredible, hard to duplicate ( even by world class marksmen ) bullseye accurate rifle shot into an 8 inch moving target at 265 feet away under two miss physical and mental stress, sweaty palmed urgency way beyond anything close to shooting range target practice conditions. 

The point being ... what part of the word "preposterous" meaning definition do you not think applies to this WC finding scenario?

12 points of incredible luck, one after the other for lovelorn lowest wage Lee Oswald to pull off and simply walk away from the crime of the century?

If true, history has missed the boat regards not referring to Lee Harvey Oswald as "LUCKY LEE" all these last 59 years.

IMO anyways.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

On 11/24/2021 at 10:01 AM, Andrew Prutsok said:

This quote from her essay stills stands a good chance of playing out. Did Hungary or Poland beat us to it?

As William L. Shirer, author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, put it in speaking of the excesses of the Nixon administration, "We could become the first country to go fascist through free elections."

 

[Michael Griffith]

On 11/24/2021 at 2:55 AM, Greg Doudna said:

I have respected the work of Albarelli but I see a serious issue of authenticity versus forgery in the Pierre Lafitte datebook which is central to this posthumously published Coup in Dallas. I think a better explanation of basis for belief that those datebook pages were written in 1963 prior to the assassination is needed than the explanation offered by Leslie Sharp in the only part of the book I can see which addresses this most fundamental starting question of authenticity: pp. 571-574, "Coauthor's Statement on the Provenance and Authenticity of the Lafitte Datebook".

This statement merits careful reading. In it, coauthor Sharp tells of her own earlier serious doubts as to authenticity and reasons why, before ending with a full endorsement of its authenticity. 

Sharp recounts that her original reaction to seeing the datebook shown her by Albarelli was "a mixture of awe and skepticism, both of which I did not hesitate to share with Hank". She determined "that this instrument and the contents therein are either a brilliant fraud, or a miraculous find". 

Sharp continues, "After Hank passed away, I experienced levels of doubt and uncertainty equal to the most severe critic". She lists a series of reasons which prima facie call authenticity into serious doubt.

• "During one phase, I realized that the timeline Hank left in his Frank Olson book, A Terrible Mistake, reflects dates tied to the Lafitte material that sometimes contradicted my understanding of the trajectory of events."

In other words, minor chronological errors (apparently) in A Terrible Mistake are echoed in the supposed Pierre Lafitte datebook. But Albarelli did not know of the Pierre Lafitte datebook when he wrote A Terrible Mistake. A Terrible Mistake was published in 2011. Although Leslie Sharp does not directly say so, the question is raised whether A Terrible Mistake written in 2011 was a source utilized by the author of the Pierre Lafitte datebook, since it reflects the same chronological peculiarities (though Leslie Sharp does not give specifics). But if so, that would mean the Pierre Lafitte datebook was written some time after 2011, and not in 1963.

• Albarelli before his death had arranged for a London-based professional handwriting/document analysis as well as an international ink expert, to study the physical artifact and render a professional opinion. There were "issues" unresolved at the time Albarelli died, and Leslie Sharp reports that there is no disclosure of results or findings and no known prospect of any, by contractual agreement with the owners of the datebook (not named but presumably family members). "The London professional would only state that he remains under a Nondisclosure Agreement and could not comment".

This is not encouraging. One possible interpretation is an outside professional opinion was sought but the opinion or initial provisional opinion rendered was not to the liking of the customer, and therefore that finding will never be known. Reference is made to the handwriting analysts requesting further samples of Pierre Lafitte's handwriting than initially provided and such samples not being provided.

• "Of deep concern were those parties in a position to confirm the provenance but refused to cooperate; every feasible effort to secure a definitive statement has gone unfulfilled."

Again, not encouraging. 

What then changed Leslie Sharp's mind, tipped it in her assessment, convinced her that it was genuine? She gave two reasons: (1) Hank Albarelli could not have been duped. "He would not be a victim of fraud". This is simply asserted, explained with this non-explanatory statement: "In my relatively informed opinion, Hank would never have subjected himself to ridicule were the datebook to be determined to be the equivalent of the 'Hitler Diaries'. That is, Albarelli would never willingly subject himself to ridicule if it was fraudulent, therefore the datebook is genuine. Some might find this syllogism less than satisfying.

In my own field, the Dead Sea Scrolls, there have been high-profile cases in recent years of major-name senior scholars and prestigious museums taken in by forgeries--forgeries done by professionals who are very good at it. It is not the original Dead Sea Scrolls of the late 1940s and 1950s I am referring to here--those were genuine. I am referring to a series of alleged later secretly-privately-owned Dead Sea Scroll fragments of biblical manuscripts, as well as other sensational alleged archaeological finds from the legal and illegal antiquities market, sold to collectors and museums in the 2000s and 2010s (or appraisal obtained at high dollar value for tax deductions when donated, a more sophisticated mechanism for profit through charitable giving) which finally became exposed as large-scale, industrial-strength fraud. Similarly a "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" manuscript discovery in 2012 was endorsed by a Harvard professor as genuine and received much attention and learned discussion until a brilliant piece of investigative-detective work exposed it as a con job in 2016, with much professional embarrassment (https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-catholic-porn-producer-scammed-harvard-professor-with-gospel-of-jesus-wife). Many more examples could be cited. 

There is that saying in the investment world: "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is", and the same high bar of skepticism is merited toward a document which purports to give sensational diary-like cryptic entries with names and dates of the JFK assassination plot, first discovered over fifty years later, whose argument for authenticity is confidence that "Hank Albarelli would not be a victim of fraud". 

But Leslie Sharp gave a second explanation of basis, in addition to confidence that Albarelli would not be a victim of fraud: (2) "I have studied the contents of the datebook for more than two years and find it persuasive for similar (although more in-depth) reasons outlined by Dick Russell".

Dick Russell's reasons would be found in several pages of introductory material at the beginning of Coup in Dallas written by Dick Russell, "The Lafitte Datebook: A Limited Analysis", pp. ix-xiii. So I--we--go to there to find what reasons persuaded Dick Russell that it was authentic. And the answer is: no reason is given apart from a listing of ways in which if it is authentic then it is very significant. Well yes, but is it authentic is the prior question. Here is Dick Russell:

"Pending verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts, I have carefully reviewed the 1963 datebook allegedly written by Jean Pierre Lafitte. Based on the entries I have seen, cryptic as many of them are (no doubt intentionally), this is a crucial piece of new evidence indicating a high-level conspiracy that resulted in the assassination that November 22 of President John F. Kennedy. Many of the names mentioned are familiar to me (. . .) A number of these names, however, were not known publicly in 1963 and for more than a decade thereafter. Thus, assuming the datebook entries were indeed set down at that time by Lafitte, this adds substantial credibility to the likelihood that the document contains never-before-revealed information about a conspiracy involving accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as well as his own killer, Jack Ruby. (. . .) I believe that this datebook fills in many gaps about what really happened on November 22, 1963 (. . .) I believe, presuming the datebook is verified as having been  written by Lafitte in 1963, that this constitutes probably the strongest evidence that has ever come to light of a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy."

In the "Foreward" to the book by Dick Russell (pp. v-vi), the authenticity of the Pierre Lafitte 1963 datebook is assumed, not argued, and its importance emphasized:

"The book you are about to read contains the strongest evidence ever published of a high-level conspiracy by the military-industrial complex and its ultra-right-wing-allies to assassinate President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. As an author who has spent years researching and writing three books on the subject, I state that unequivocally. The narrative by H. P. Albarelli Jr., coauthored with Leslie Sharp and Alan Kent, is based upon a 1963 datebook, or desk diary, kept by a mysterious, deep-cover intelligence operative named Jean Pierre Lafitte (. . .) I'll let the authors describe how he gained access to the datebook. It is eerie to see this come to light after all these years--a template, albeit intentionally cryptic, for the diabolical planning resulting in a coup d'etat that haunts our national psyche (. . .) Lafitte's datebook, a faux leather-bound red volume with a vintage N azi coin taped to the inside front cover, is of immeasurable importance toward unraveling the takeover that took place that terrible day in Dallas (. . .)"

To cut to the chase, Dick Russell gives no reason for believing it is genuine other than it contains important information if it is. Based on that--the significance of its contents if true--Dick Russell concludes "this is a crucial piece of new evidence", i.e. genuine, not forged. (The apparent logic being that surely no forgery would have such interesting content, therefore it is genuine.) Leslie Sharp says her reasons for believing are similar to Dick Russell's. None of the other writers in the book address the issue of authenticity.

My reaction is it sounds too good to be true.

I hope that Sharp or Kent will be able to obtain forensic confirmation of the Lafitte datebook's authenticity. I decided to recommend Coup in Dallas because of the large amount of corroboration of the datebook's entries that Albarelli, Sharp, and Kent present. If the datebook is a forgery, it is an amazingly detailed forgery that would have taken years to write. Where would the forgers have obtained the new information in the datebook that Albarelli, Sharp, and Kent were able to corroborate or support?

Another factor that leads me to believe the datebook is genuine is the manner in which Albarelli became aware of it, i.e., accidentally in the course of other research, and the reluctance of Lafitte's widow to share it with him. It's not like anyone leaked it to him.

Edited August 11, 2022 by Michael Griffith

[Chuck Schwartz]

Benjamin, when you say you love  "Coup in Dallas" ,   do you agree that Tracy Barnes (very high up in the CIA at the time of the Big Event} was the hands-on leader of the JFK assassination team?

[Chuck Schwartz]

This is from Spartacus (written by J. Simkin),,"

In November, 1954, Barnes replaced General Lucian Truscott as head of CIA headquarters in Frankfurt. Several other CIA agents worked in Germany at this time including William Harvey, Ted Shackley, David Morales and Tom Parrott.

After working in Germany (1954-1956) Barnes was made CIA station chief in London (1957-1959). He returned to the United States in 1960 to serve with the Directorate for Plans (the CIA's clandestine service and covert action arm) and helped Richard Bissell organize the Bay of Pigs operation. Within seventy-two hours all the invading troops had been killed, wounded or had surrendered. Bissell had a meeting with John F. Kennedy about the operation. Kennedy admitted it was his fault that the operation had been a disaster. Kennedy added: "In a parliamentary government, I'd have to resign. But in this government I can't, so you and Allen (Dulles) have to go."

As Evan Thomas points out in The Very Best Men: "Bissell had been caught in his own web. "Plausible deniability" was intended to protect the president, but as he had used it, it was a tool to gain and maintain control over an operation... Without plausible deniability, the Cuba project would have turned over to the Pentagon, and Bissell would have have become a supporting actor."

John F. Kennedy asked Maxwell Taylor to investigate what went wrong during the Bay of Pigs operation. Taylor asked Lyman Kirkpatrick, the CIA's inspector general, to write a report on the failed project. Kirkpatrick was highly critical of both Bissell and Barnes. He claimed that they had misled the president and that "plausible deniability was a pathetic illusion".

In 1962 Barnes was placed in charge of Domestic Operations Division. Robert Morrow later claimed that Barnes recruited Richard Case Nagell and sent him to New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Barnes also asked Morrow to purchase several weapons: "I was told specially to get good ones, 7.35mm Mannlicher-Carcanos. A 6.5mm was not an accurate rifle at all, and not to be considered. I remember going to Sunny's Surplus up in Towson, Maryland. They had a whole wall of Mannlichers, Mausers, and other rifles. I picked out four, which I felt were pretty good." Morrow claimed that the rifles were picked up by David Ferrie in a private plane and taken to New Orleans."

[Benjamin Cole]

17 minutes ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

This is from Spartacus (written by J. Simkin),,"

In November, 1954, Barnes replaced General Lucian Truscott as head of CIA headquarters in Frankfurt. Several other CIA agents worked in Germany at this time including William Harvey, Ted Shackley, David Morales and Tom Parrott.

After working in Germany (1954-1956) Barnes was made CIA station chief in London (1957-1959). He returned to the United States in 1960 to serve with the Directorate for Plans (the CIA's clandestine service and covert action arm) and helped Richard Bissell organize the Bay of Pigs operation. Within seventy-two hours all the invading troops had been killed, wounded or had surrendered. Bissell had a meeting with John F. Kennedy about the operation. Kennedy admitted it was his fault that the operation had been a disaster. Kennedy added: "In a parliamentary government, I'd have to resign. But in this government I can't, so you and Allen (Dulles) have to go."

As Evan Thomas points out in The Very Best Men: "Bissell had been caught in his own web. "Plausible deniability" was intended to protect the president, but as he had used it, it was a tool to gain and maintain control over an operation... Without plausible deniability, the Cuba project would have turned over to the Pentagon, and Bissell would have have become a supporting actor."

John F. Kennedy asked Maxwell Taylor to investigate what went wrong during the Bay of Pigs operation. Taylor asked Lyman Kirkpatrick, the CIA's inspector general, to write a report on the failed project. Kirkpatrick was highly critical of both Bissell and Barnes. He claimed that they had misled the president and that "plausible deniability was a pathetic illusion".

In 1962 Barnes was placed in charge of Domestic Operations Division. Robert Morrow later claimed that Barnes recruited Richard Case Nagell and sent him to New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Barnes also asked Morrow to purchase several weapons: "I was told specially to get good ones, 7.35mm Mannlicher-Carcanos. A 6.5mm was not an accurate rifle at all, and not to be considered. I remember going to Sunny's Surplus up in Towson, Maryland. They had a whole wall of Mannlichers, Mausers, and other rifles. I picked out four, which I felt were pretty good." Morrow claimed that the rifles were picked up by David Ferrie in a private plane and taken to New Orleans."

 

57 minutes ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Benjamin, when you say you love  "Coup in Dallas" ,   do you agree that Tracy Barnes (very high up in the CIA at the time of the Big Event} was the hands-on leader of the JFK assassination team?

CS-

 

Well, I am out of my ken with this possible side of the JFKA. My limited understanding is that John Newman is working on what might be called a "European angle" or Army-Pentagon angle of the JFKA. 

Let's all stay tuned. My best guess is that the JFKA was an exile-Miami Station job, but I am opened minded. 

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Benjamin, when you say you love  "Coup in Dallas" ,   do you agree that Tracy Barnes (very high up in the CIA at the time of the Big Event} was the hands-on leader of the JFK assassination team?

Was that Hank Albarelli’s conclusion? My recollection is that diaries used an alias for someone high up the chain, and that the authors speculated it might have been Barnes, but no conclusion was drawn.