My New Book, A Heritage of Nonsense: Jim Garrison's Tales of Mystery and Imagination

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Benjamin Cole-I appreciate the attitude you have expressed in this post and I agree that everyone should be skeptical of everything. Regarding the files, I have the answer to your question but most people won't like it. Biden and Trump could not release all of the records simply because the US government has a duty to safeguard names of individuals who worked for the CIA or other agencies and certain methods of intelligence gathering. 

I'll give you an example. In the late nineties, the testimony of John Scelso was made public. Only that was not his real name. Some people bemoaned the fact that his real name was not known as they were sure this would have some bearing on their understanding of the JFK case. After Scelso (real name John Whitten) died the name was made public. Whitten lived in retirement in Europe (singing for a choir IIRC) and naturally preferred that his previous CIA employment remain secret. The knowledge of his true identity did nothing for the understanding of the JFK case but the withholding of it did much to make him feel safer.

So, that is the answer to your question and one that will be very unpopular here. But it is the reality. Eventually, I believe 95 percent (just a guess) of the names will be known. A few extremely sensitive operations/names may be withheld longer.

WTP--

Thank you for your collegial commentary. 

Well, we are on different pages on the JFKA, and the Biden Snuff Job on the JFK Records Act. Maybe we are in different books! 

That is fine, that is what the EF-JFKA is for. 

When I get time, I will post again on the timing of the shots that struck JFK and JBC. 

I hope you give my post a fair reading. IMHO, I make a compelling case. 

BTW, the tumbling bullet explanation, favored by the HSCA, has been completely crushed. 

Stay tuned, and thanks again for your collegial style. 

 

[W. Niederhut]

      Is there a more interesting thread in the history of the Education Forum than John Simkin's 2005 thread entitled, "Operation Mockingbird?"   

Operation Mockingbird - Page 5 - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

      Mr. Simkin has been quite intellectually curious, and knowledgeable, about the history of CIA Operation Mockingbird.

      He also openly referred to John McAdams, on his 2005 "Mockingbird" thread, as a CIA propagandist whose JFKA disinformation was surfacing at the top of Google searches-- directly contradicting Pat Speer's stated belief (above) that McAdams was not a CIA disinformation asset.

       It is evident that Mr. Simkin also believed, as early as 2005, that CIA disinformation ops were occurring on the internet-- on Google, in particular.

      Who'd have thunk?  🙄

      See, for example...

John Simkin

• 
• Admin
• •  15.7k
• Gender:Male

• Author

•  

Posted June 14, 2005

I am pleased to announce that my campaign against the blocking of my page on Operation Mockingbird at Google has been successful. It has been restored to the Google database. (It now appears at 3rd in the ranking). So also has my page on Frank Wisner, the man who established Mockingbird. Another person blocked, Mary Pinchot Meyer, is also back in (although John McAdams’ CIA disinformation page is still ranked at number 1).

As I expected, the publicity being generated by this was causing Google more problems than it was worth. Especially my journalist friends who took up my case with Google.

What is important in all this is that the CIA thought it necessary to pressurize Google into removing these pages from its database. I am obviously on the right track in my research.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwisner.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmeyerM.htm

Edited Monday at 05:03 AM by W. Niederhut

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Question to you Pat. Bottom line, in your opinion, there is no CIA propaganda program aimed at the JFKA Education Forum? 

I think you know my answer although there are claims put forth by certain members here (you know who they are) accusing those members here that do believe Oswald murdered the President are engaged in CIA propaganda operations. 

If I misunderstood, please qualify. 

At this point, I find it highly unlikely. The JFK research community has been in a state of chaos for decades. And that's largely chaos of its own making, IMO. So I don't think the CIA would waste its time and energy sowing chaos in the research community. I mean, that would be like trying to disrupt the ocean by throwing a rock at a tidal wave. 

Now, do I think the CIA was involved in covering up the case in the sixties and seventies? Yes, but they weren't alone. A close examination of that period shows that most every element of the government assisted in a cover-up, and utilized their contacts in the media to perpetuate this cover-up. 

But I don't think much of it was because someone behind a curtain was planning it or controlling it.

My understanding of history and media is that most people suck up to power, and most journalists both suck up to power and engage in groupthink. 

I mean, there were several brief stretches in out history where the mainstream media seemed interested in pursuing a new investigation, but these stretches either quickly passed or were cut off by the issue of some report...that the media just regurgitated as fact...when the least bit of real investigation would have shown them otherwise.

I cite as one example the issuance of the Clark Panel's report, which "explained" the problem with the head wound trajectory pointed out by Thompson by claiming the autopsy doctors were incompetent fools who placed the entrance wound on the wrong bone--four inches from its actual location. The mainstream media--all of it--just reprinted sections of the report, along with its conclusion everything was fine. NOT ONE newspaper noted that the entrance wound had been moved, nor that the brain was not examined, even thought that should have been clear to anyone even pretending to be a journalist.

Now, here's where William and I differ. I'm guessing he assumes this lack of response from the media was by design and that some baddy told them not to double-check the results of the Clark Panel.

When I think they were just lazy suck-ups who had other things they wanted to write about... 

Edited Monday at 05:07 AM by Pat Speer

[Ron Bulman]

On 10/5/2024 at 7:20 PM, Steve Roe said:

Going off memory here too, it seems they did take Melba to Big Sandy first, at a doctor's clinic. Then she was transported to the Gilmer hospital who was more equipped to deal with her injury. 

I have no idea if this man had been drinking, but it seems odd that he was on Hwy 155 in those hours. Whatever happened, it was nothing more than an accident. As you say, not a devious snuff job to silence her because of her claims, which came out later, about foreknowledge of the Kennedy assassination. 

Inaccurate and incomplete.  They took her to a doctor's house where on his front porch he noted a punctuate stellate wound (see RFK/Noguchi) in the hairline.  Which was confirmed at the Gladewater hospital.  Kind of misleading actually.

[Ron Bulman]

12 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

This is outrageous. Are you now the sole arbiter of what constitutes "propaganda?" How is this being allowed from a forum moderator? We are treading back into Sandy Larsen territory here, which I never thought was possible..

Yep.  Propaganda is in the eye of the moderator.  Administrator Mark Knight has said before this is not a democracy.  Though we're trying to be transparent here.  He pops in occasionally, but W and I are all you got otherwise for now.

You know the rules by now Jonathan.

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

      Is there a more interesting thread in the history of the Education Forum than John Simkin's 2005 thread entitled, "Operation Mockingbird?"   

Operation Mockingbird - Page 5 - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

      Mr. Simkin has been quite intellectually curious, and knowledgeable, about the history of CIA Operation Mockingbird.

      He also openly referred to John McAdams, on his 2005 "Mockingbird" thread, as a CIA propagandist whose JFKA disinformation was surfacing at the top of Google searches-- directly contradicting Pat Speer's stated belief (above) that McAdams was not a CIA disinformation asset.

       It is evident that Mr. Simkin also believed, as early as 2005, that CIA disinformation ops were occurring on the internet-- on Google, in particular.

      Who'd have thunk?  🙄

      See, for example...

John Simkin

• 
• Admin
• •  15.7k
• Gender:Male

• Author

•  

Posted June 14, 2005

I am pleased to announce that my campaign against the blocking of my page on Operation Mockingbird at Google has been successful. It has been restored to the Google database. (It now appears at 3rd in the ranking). So also has my page on Frank Wisner, the man who established Mockingbird. Another person blocked, Mary Pinchot Meyer, is also back in (although John McAdams’ CIA disinformation page is still ranked at number 1).

As I expected, the publicity being generated by this was causing Google more problems than it was worth. Especially my journalist friends who took up my case with Google.

What is important in all this is that the CIA thought it necessary to pressurize Google into removing these pages from its database. I am obviously on the right track in my research.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwisner.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmeyerM.htm

Yes, John Simkin was suspicious of John McAdams, as was I. But I joined McAdams' newsgroup and spent years arguing with him and trying to understand his thinking. And the guy was most definitely not pro-government. He was an ultra-right Catholic who thought Big Oil and Big Tobacco had been unfairly targeted by crazed leftists within the government, and that Catholic Universities had been ruined by an invasion of feminists.

He was a religious nut, IMO, and not a paid disinformation agent. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

To answer Roe's question. I'm not an LN'er and  I myself have been accused of being CIA! First I was accused of being a "CIa rooter" by Brancato then more recently I was badgered by Cotter about my having some imagined CIA liaison in Romania! The only thing that may have set these ideas going in his head is that I did mention being on a trip to Southern Europe and the Balkans a couple of years ago. And that's all it takes..                                       But has anyone asked Di Eugenio if the Russians have approached him? heh heh I don't think so. 

From what I've seen coming into this cold 10 years ago, without any direct conspiracy online experience. There's definitely tendencies for some Cter's to think they're doing very important(even God's )work and the idea that very evil  CIA or government forces are monitoring  them  and maybe planting agents to counteract their work could be very  appealing to them. Particularly in the last 7 years with the advent of Trump.. So it's not uncommon to hear suspicions about that. But as Pat has said, they're too nuts to be paid disinformation agents.

Morrow is right,  there is a frightful insecurity about defending topics such as Rose Cheramie, because it's seen as a "JFK conspiracy given" now. Whether that's merited or not. 

I'm no expert on Rose Cheramie. I read about it first many years ago. But to get seasonal about it, it's really not a home run IMO. Certainly now it's been way too long. It involves too many people with too much hearsay and relies on people with no real certainty of honesty or credibility, and requires a lot of acceptance. But I don't begrudge anybody for their opinion on it.

I'd only caution that most of these sort of  stories  have a "low hanging fruit" aspect to it. Like we're to assume that everybody passing in and out of the Carousel Club got wind of a plot to kill the President? Can anybody keep their mouth shut?

And that's why we're still puzzled about who killed JFK after 60 years?

On one level, everyone marvels at say, the CIA pulling this off. But then lunges at these very amateurish flubs?.

Am I to assume that this sort of relinquishing of control to amateurs is rationalized because they are just assets on  a "need to know basis?" If so, it's a real loose way to pull off an assassination! Just too much left to chance!

Those are just my thoughts.

 

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Pat Speer thinks that some posters on this forum

are "anti-American." Perhaps he could define

what he means by that.

Greetings, Joe. I don't recall saying any posters here were anti-American but wouldn't be shocked if I did. I do believe that some people here are overly focused on the CIA and this focus blinds them to other suspects, such as LBJ and the MIC. And I do believe with good reason that forces beyond the CIA (Russia...Iran...perhaps even China) have an interest in spreading propaganda on this forum, and that those unwilling to concede this point are naive, or worse. 

 

[Joseph McBride]

Pat, I am quoting your post from only 11 hours ago: ". . . The first is that you seem really really concerned about Op Mockingbird on this forum. If you go back into the archives on this forum you will see that John Simkin wrote about this extensively, and pretty much introduced the term into the CT lexicon, and that I was a major contributor to those threads, and supporter of those threads. 

"But it baffles me as to why you seem to have no concern for the dissemination of anti-American propaganda on this forum. IF, as you claim, those continuing to stick to the LN mythology are knowing misinformants, what do you have to say about those pushing utter nonsense--such as Hickey did it or Greer did it--which ultimately undermine the credibility of the research community? . . ."

[Joe Bauer]

On 10/5/2024 at 8:46 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Although Fruge had discounted the Cheramie story on November 20th, the events of the 22nd made him a believer. Right after JFK's murder, Fruge "…called that hospital up in Jackson and told them by no way in the world to turn her loose until I could get my hands on her."

I think most here accept that Fruge did indeed call up the hospital in Jackson and told them to "not" turn Rose Cheramie loose right after JFK was killed.

And that he did suspend his regular duties to drive there to see and talk to her one-on-one just days later.

To me, this proves something important.

That Fruge did hear something so remarkably intriguing ( ominously so? ) from Cheramie during his personal time with her on November 20th, that he felt compelled to seeing her in person again asap when JFK was gunned down on the 22nd.

And to "tell" the hospital not to release Rose is a pretty aggressive and out-of-the ordinary action on Fruge's part as well.

What motivated Fruge to take this extra duty action?

What other part of Rose Cheramie's story tidbits she shared with Fruge while they were together days before 11,22,1963 could be so important for Fruge to want to know more and right away?

It's definitely more reasonable than not, to consider Rose told Fruge something so shocking ( way more so than her mistreatment by her two "Italian" escorts ) to motivate him to do what he did regards his call to the hospital and rushing back to see her in person there.

Even Rose's revelation of a drug deal going down in Galveston in the following days wouldn't be that motivating to inspire Fruge's call to the hospital to hold her until he could talk to her personally imo.

If it was, wouldn't have Fruge reacted to Rose's drug deal story ( informing his superiors ) much sooner than 4 or 5 days later?

Fruge didn't call and go back to the hospital where Rose was being treated because of the Galveston drug deal. He had no plans to do so "until" JFK was shot and killed in Dallas.

And isn't it also a proven fact that Fruge and his superior officer did contact the Dallas PD about Cheramie and her pre- and post JFKA claims?

Does anyone here think Fruge would have bothered Fritz ( and Curry? ) with a Galveston drug deal plot ( alone ) knowing that Curry and Fritz were frantically immersed in the biggest American crime event of the century right in their own city?

The Dallas PD couldn't have given two hoots about a drug deal "possibly" going down in Galveston 300 miles away especially right at that chaotic time.

Fruge and his boss contacted Fritz because of what Rose Cheramie shared about the JFKA and probably Jack Ruby as well.

Can anyone here offer some other strong reasons besides JFK's murder on the 22nd, to explain Fruge's aggressive Rose Cheramie and Dallas PD contacting actions right after that event?

 

 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by Joe Bauer

[Jean Ceulemans]

5 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Pat, I am quoting your post from only 11 hours ago: ". . . The first is that you seem really really concerned about Op Mockingbird on this forum. If you go back into the archives on this forum you will see that John Simkin wrote about this extensively, and pretty much introduced the term into the CT lexicon, and that I was a major contributor to those threads, and supporter of those threads. 

 

"But it baffles me as to why you seem to have no concern for the dissemination of anti-American propaganda on this forum. IF, as you claim, those continuing to stick to the LN mythology are knowing misinformants, what do you have to say about those pushing utter nonsense--such as Hickey did it or Greer did it--which ultimately undermine the credibility of the research community? . . ."

IMO, Pat said - as you quote - "IF, as you claim, those..." etc.  So, IF... etc that would be anti-American.  He was simply following Dr. Niederhut-logic, reacting heavy on some, leaving others alone, while both COULD be considered misinformants (according Dr.N. that would be).

 

Edited Monday at 01:59 PM by Jean Ceulemans

[Steve Roe]

8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Inaccurate and incomplete.  They took her to a doctor's house where on his front porch he noted a punctuate stellate wound (see RFK/Noguchi) in the hairline.  Which was confirmed at the Gladewater hospital.  Kind of misleading actually.

Ron, thanks for refreshing my faulty memory. It's been a couple of years since I did a dive into Melba Youngblood's life. So yes, you are correct about the Doctor's house, and it was the Gladewater Hospital, not Gilmer. I stand corrected. 

I will have to pull up all those files again, especially the punctuate stellate controversy. 

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Pat, I am quoting your post from only 11 hours ago: ". . . The first is that you seem really really concerned about Op Mockingbird on this forum. If you go back into the archives on this forum you will see that John Simkin wrote about this extensively, and pretty much introduced the term into the CT lexicon, and that I was a major contributor to those threads, and supporter of those threads. 

 

"But it baffles me as to why you seem to have no concern for the dissemination of anti-American propaganda on this forum. IF, as you claim, those continuing to stick to the LN mythology are knowing misinformants, what do you have to say about those pushing utter nonsense--such as Hickey did it or Greer did it--which ultimately undermine the credibility of the research community? . . ."

Got it. That was not a reference to a specific person or specific post. That was an observation regarding the concerns of some about CIA propaganda...that these same individuals seem unconcerned about anti-American propaganda. As stated in an earlier post, this website and its members have been used for propaganda purposes--by Russia, Iran, and adherents to the Church of Scientology. But some see no problem with this. I do. I think we should be concerned about any use of this website or its members for propaganda purposes. 

But to be clear, those spewing lone-nut factoids on this website are not the problem. This website exists because there is a long ongoing dispute about what happened on 11-22-63 and why. It was formed so people from both sides of the conspiracy/no conspiracy divide could make their case. It's clear moreover that the health of the forum depends on having members with a divergence of opinion. If one chooses to participate here--but avoid the endless repeats of lone-nut factoids--one should steer clear of threads in which those factoids are likely to be repeated, IMO.

Now that's my take anyway. I came to this case a bit later than some, and realized there was a mountain of excrement to sift through on both sides of the divide. 

As a result, I appreciate it when someone makes a deep dive, to see if a cherished nugget on one side or the other is true. My main complaint then is not that someone like Fred Litwin will offer up his own take on something which some have come to accept, but that he seems only interested in debunking conspiracy nonsense. IOW, I think people on this forum--if they are to be considered researchers--should delite in the debunking of nonsense on either side of the conspiracy-no conspiracy divide. 

I am not ashamed to admit it, but my role model in my approach is Tink Thompson. Some here may not know this--but he was widely denounced by a number of prominent figures on our side of the divide, because he wouldn't play along with Z-film alteration, body alteration, etc. He thought the official evidence suggested a conspiracy and spent years explaining why in his books. 

I am also a friend of Robert Wagner's, who resides on the non conspiracy side of the fence, but not because he worships Warren or Bugliosi, etc. In fact, he spends chapters in his books explaining why he thinks the single-bullet theory is crap. He gives me hope. if people can break from the orthodoxy on their side of the fence, they will see that there are many issues on which both sides can agree, IMO. And that it will then come down to a few facts, such as the single-bullet theory trajectory not being in alignment, and the president's wounds not supporting the official story. The true divide will then be clear. But as it is, there is so much smoke--with people claiming you're not a "true" LN if you don't subscribe to the single-bullet theory or a "true" CT if you don't feel certain the Z-film was faked, etc, that newbies and historians see our ongoing  dispute as a catfight, and choose to look away. 

 

Edited Monday at 03:57 PM by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Steve Roe said:

Ron, thanks for refreshing my faulty memory. It's been a couple of years since I did a dive into Melba Youngblood's life. So yes, you are correct about the Doctor's house, and it was the Gladewater Hospital, not Gilmer. I stand corrected. 

I will have to pull up all those files again, especially the punctuate stellate controversy. 

Props to Ron and Steve for actually discussing the case and agreeing on a fact. Yeah!

[Jean Ceulemans]

In the end it seems Litwin got the best deal, thousands of views here, thanks to 16 pages of people telling others not to buy the book, accusations included.  This is like the old priests telling people not to go to socialist meetings, guess what happened... or... were those in on it, one would almost suspect it... I guess a bit like one needing the other (hey, in those days).

And again, I do not 100% agree with Litwin. 

But this is all so damn ironic..., and I'm pretty sure Dr. N. knows Jack Brehm 😇

Edited Monday at 06:17 PM by Jean Ceulemans