Jump to content
The Education Forum

James Jesus Angleton


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, you apparently like Trento's "Prelude to Terror". If Trento's judgments in those book are, in your opinion, correct, why are his judgments about Angleton so erroneous?

Just because I disagree with Joe Trento about James Angleton does not mean that I disagree with him about everything. You obviously live in a very black and white world. Just because you believe Joe on the JFK assassination, does it follow that you believe his theory on 9/11?

However, I do believe that Joe’s belief in Angleton has clouded his judgement on other issues. This can be seen by the dialogue between Joe and I concerning Prelude to Terror.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5753

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 December 2005

Happy Birthday, James Angleton!

If he could avail himself to civil procedure I wonder if he would file suit for libel. Probably something he would not do even if he could.

Alas, dead men tell no tales (nor are they able to defend themselves).

History has been written....but not by the infallible.

Some things we're never know.

These facts alone should guard against the "absolutes" of others and are essential elements behind the concept behind benefit of doubt.

One thing history is certainly right about - since it didn't happen - Angleton never received due process. He was forced to retire for his "incompetence," so adjudges astute, wise men.

WW

Through absolute fluke, I chanced upon something that might be of interest to those who've read Forum member William Wallace's panegyrics to James Angleton. It seems that William's avocation is to edit a website devoted to rehabilitating the public's perception of Angleton. His work can be seen at:

http://www.thefinalphase.com/Angleton%20Myths.htm

Like Angleton, William seems to have taken very seriously the notion proposed by Golitsyn: that the Sino-Soviet split was a ruse designed to disarm and vanquish the west. In fact, the website's title "the final phase" seems to devolve from a warning issued by Golitsyn, as articulated by William at his website:

As explained by Golitsyn, the ascension of this younger Russian leader would mark the beginning stage of the deceptive plan's most dangerous phase, "the final phase."

William's website gives much space to former CIA operatives who, no surprise, sing Angleton's praises.

I think we should be highly flattered that William thinks this website is worthy of his contributions. It is not every website that can boast the participation of such unreconstructed Cold Warrior contributors.

Robert,

Thanks for the plug (although I didn't intend for this information it to be released to the general public prematurely, while it's still in development....now, alas, I will have to kill you):

Special Edition on James Angleton at http://www.TheFinalPhase.com

I am flattered that you should deem to be highly flattered.

__

You know, when we think we know everything so much that it leads us to attempt to ridicule others because they are so unwashed in intellect and understanding, we become very wise fools indeed.

In thinking of the thinking of the Tom Mangold's and others in this world who so smugly assume they hold the keys to truth in their intellect pockets, I've been formulating a fitting quote that might describe this mindset, although it, too, is not quite fully developed yet:

Cynicism is the bastard offspring of distortion and dishonesty. It is intellectual bigotry. It absorbs the mind in black wherein light is smothered and dies.

__

For those able to read without bias, I invite you to read these two pieces:

"The Undead Again," by J.R. Nyquist: http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/g.../2005/1223.html

"Drugs, Russia & Terrorism," by Dr. Joseph D. Douglass: http://www.thefinalphase.com/DouglassDrugs...a&Terrorism.htm

p.s. I've done a spelt-check to ensure intellectual creditibility.

Edited by William Wallace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

Thanks for the plug (although I didn't intend for this information it to be released to the general public prematurely, while it's still in development....now, alas, I will have to kill you):

And when they find my body, William, my finger will be pointing at you. As a member of the general public, might I pose a question? If your website isn't yet considered ready for public consumption, isn't putting it on the internet the "premature" part of the equation?

Special Edition on James Angleton at http://www.TheFinalPhase.com

I am flattered that you should deem to be highly flattered.

__

You know, when we think we know everything so much that it leads us to attempt to ridicule others because they are so unwashed in intellect and understanding, we become very wise fools indeed.

Funny you should mention that. I keep thinking that same thing every time you disparage Tom Mangold, David Wise, David Martin, and all the others whose 'take' on JJA makes your skin crawl and gives you involuntary shudders.

In thinking of the thinking of the Tom Mangold's and others in this world who so smugly assume they hold the keys to truth in their intellect pockets, I've been formulating a fitting quote that might describe this mindset, although it, too, is not quite fully developed yet:

Cynicism is the bastard offspring of distortion and dishonesty. It is intellectual bigotry. It absorbs the mind in black wherein light is smothered and dies.

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have

not got it . -- George Bernard Shaw.

__

For those able to read without bias, I invite you to read these two pieces:

"The Undead Again," by J.R. Nyquist: http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/g.../2005/1223.html

"Drugs, Russia & Terrorism," by Dr. Joseph D. Douglass: http://www.thefinalphase.com/DouglassDrugs...a&Terrorism.htm

p.s. I've done a spelt-check to ensure intellectual creditibility.

As an alternative to oats and barley, or for those keeping kosher, spelt is highly recommended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In thinking of the thinking of the Tom Mangold's and others in this world who so smugly assume they hold the keys to truth in their intellect pockets, I've been formulating a fitting quote that might describe this mindset, although it, too, is not quite fully developed yet:

Cynicism is the bastard offspring of distortion and dishonesty. It is intellectual bigotry. It absorbs the mind in black wherein light is smothered and dies.

[Counterpoint offered by Robert Charles-Dunne]:

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have

not got it . -- George Bernard Shaw.

Here are some some other views on cynicism - few hold it to be a virtue:

The cynic is one who never sees a good quality in a man, and never fails to see a bad one. He is the human owl, vigilant in darkness and blind to light, mousing for vermin, and never seeing noble game. - Henry Ward Beecher

The cynic never grows up, but commits intellectual suicide. – Dean Charles R. Brown

Cynicism is the humor of hatred. – Sir Herbert Beerbohm

Cynicism is the intellectual cripple's substitute for intelligence. – Russell Lynes

Cynicism is the only form in which base souls approach honesty – Evil Nietzche

It takes a clever man to turn cynic and a wise man to be clever enough not to. – Fannie Hurst

A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin. - H.L. Mencken

The only deadly sin I know is cynicism. – Henry Lewis Stimson

Cynicism is humor in ill health. H.G. Wells

What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Oscar Wilde

Edited by William Wallace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Here's an impromtu reply about "the final phase" by Jeff Nyquist from some questions posed by a member of another forum that some of you may find interesting:

__

http://www.eoffshore.com/tfp.htm

Historical examples of our current situation

from The Final Phase forum

I [JR Nyquist] have written a number of things on this forum to update readers on my current thinking. I will cut and paste as follows in case you missed it:

We mustn't think that the Golitsyn methodology is always right. Clearly, reality is much too complex to be satisfactorily comprehended by Golitsyn, by Golitsyn's critics in the mainstream, or by five other theories all thrown together.

People don't realize at all, that I come at the Golitsyn material from a skeptical point of view. I totally disbelieved the man at the outset, when I read his book in 1984. Then, in 1987 I was reading Jan Sejna's book and was suddenly struck by the similarities in the given descriptions of the Soviet long range strategy. This caused me to reread Golitsyn. I then went through the literature on strategic deception and disinformation carefuly. I read the history of Operation Trust under Lenin and Dzerzhinsky (an earlier "fake" collapse of communism known as the New Economic Policy or NEP) and I concluded that large-scale deceptions were workable. I then looked at U.S. defense intellectuals and began discussing Russian history with them. Their reactions were of interest. They simply dismissed the idea of Soviet strategic deception with prejudice, without a second thought. The Soviets never really deceive anyone, at least not any more. This was the red flag that got me going.

How are the defense intellectuals of a country -- liberal and conservative -- conditioned to dismiss a possible line of deception when that line has, historically, been successful in the past? This brought me to what is called "the sociology of knowledge." That is, how social conditioning prevents the acknowledgement of certain facts. There are natural tendencies to blindness due to cultural peculiarities. If these are reinforced by enemy disinformation, propaganda, influence operations, etc., then you have a kind of "perceptions management" taking place.

You read the whole history of the Stalin period and the mainstream press in the West didn't understand what was happening. Well, we now know that leading journalists tasked with covering the Soviet Union were Soviet agents -- like Walter Duranty. Meanwhile, inside the U.S. there were others, like I.F. Stone who covered for Moscow. Our perceptions of the Stalin Constitution, our alliance with "Uncle Joe" who "dissoved the Commintern" were shaped by an enemy playing the role of ally. When the Cold War began many were slow to accept reality. Anti-communism was "hysteria" and Joseph McCarthy was on a "witch hunt." And just as Uncle Joe's cover was blown by the Berlin crisis and the Korean War, Khrushchev emerged to take the wind out of the West's sails by admitting Stalin's evil and outlining a new, "kinder gentler" Soviet Union.

The Russian leaders are always reinventing themselves. The pattern is clear. You can see this from any brief snapshot of Soviet history, taken from any decade; the East-West game has a character all its own. Just as a dog or a cat has a unique character, the Russian communists have a unique character. And once you get to know this character you know what to expect. You don't miss the forest for the trees. You look at Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Putin, etc. and after studying the many devils in the detail you realize that it is, indeed, a case of "New Lies for Old." They can call Golitsyn a clown because of the 6 percent he got wrong, but how does one account for the 94 percent he got right?

So you take a general understanding of Soviet history, of Russian character and method, and you put it together with Golitysn's methodology and you look at what is happening in the War on Terror. You read books, magazines and newspapers. Pretty soon you are disturbed to find a number of striking linkages between al Qaeda and Russians like Victor Bout. You find linkages between al Qaeda's No. 2 man and China, Bulgaria, the Russian FSB; so you scratch your head and look back at Golitsyn's methology; then you look into the Chechen thing and find scholars cautiously noting Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev's GRU background (and his work as a Soviet paratrooper), and Chechen President Dudayev's work as a Soviet bomber commander who carpet-bombed Afghan Muslims prior to "getting religion" and leading the Chechen's to liberty then dying mysteriously (even though his death has not been publicly established). Even the scholars rub their eyes and admit the whole thing has the character of a classic KGB provocation. It really is a puzzle and you cannot figure it out.

Then you stop cold upon reading Yossef Bodansky's claim that Osama bin Laden has Russian nukes purchased through Chechnya. You look back at Golitsyn once more. The old man has to be smiling now. How is one to explain so many bizarre linkages between the terrorists and the "former" communist bloc? It's just too many linkages, and its far too convenient that Russian nuclear warheads end up being used against the United States. (And THAT is precisely what all this information is readying us to accept).

Everything fits together. And then I have the personal recollection of standing alone with a Russian GRU defector who tells me, years before the Twin Towers came crashing down, that if I ever hear that Arab terrorists have attacked America with nuclear weapons that I shouldn't believe it. The attack would be from Russia.

None of this is proof, to be sure. But it is powerfully suggestive, and deserves much more attention than it has received to date. The most interesting item in all of this is the TOTAL lack of curiosity on the part of our leaders and intellectuals about this subject, about the terror-East Europen linkages and the fraudulent changes in Eastern Europe and Golitsyn's warnings and Sejna's warnings and Suvorov's warnings. It is not that our intellectuals and leaders don't know about the linkages I write of. They don't want to know. They don't want to consider. Their minds are shut, not to be confused by facts. And here is where I am left blinking in unbelief. The next question is: Did I miss something? At least this subject should be discussed. It should be argued. But there is no argument. There is only the poor "discredited" defector with his 94 percent predictive accuracy and the whole CIA/intelligence oligarchy standing around like grade schoolers with their fingers in their ears.

I'm psychologist enough to know groupthink when I see it. I can recognize pathological denial within the blessed circle because I'm standing outside the circle. I'm not caught in the spell. I don't have a dog in this fight. And so I know when I'm seeing something significant, something BIG, something that gives the whole game away (and not the Russian game, but the American game -- the self-deception game).

The rot in our society that I have previously described is not simply moral rot, or bureaucratic rot. It is also intellectual rot. To deny a decline in intellectual integrity in our day amounts to snoring.

I happen to have Laurie Mylroie's new book in front of me, "Bush Vs. the Beltway." She writes something that I've heard from Washington insiders before. A Middle East expert told Mylroie, "Everyone must do what he must do for his career." According to Mylroie this signifies the fact that "behavior that was very self-serving became acceptable, irrespective of its possible implications for the country's security."

Consider the logic of the careerist. If he is not paid well to occupy a post as advisor or analyst, then he is NOTHING. His intellectual work amounts to NOTHING. This logic ends by standing everything on its head because the "loser," by definition, is someone who doesn't have a good job with the CIA or DIA or some Ivy league university. I suppose these same individuals would have looked down on Einstein while he was a patent clerk.

There is only one thing to say about such people and their attitude: Any intellectual who puts career ahead of truth, who judges propositions on the scales of money and status, is not a serious person but a clown whose ideas are of no account. They might draw a six figure salary and attend the most fashionable parties. But a well-paid, stylish clown is still a clown. Without morale courage, without intellectual integrity, the only constructive possibility for such a life is manual labor under someone else's direction, or proof-reading someone else's manuscript. Any other course is a train wreck with floppy shoes and spiked orange hair.

The same can be said for journalists in the media, for academics and researchers. If they imagine there is a blessed circle of light and truth that one enters upon being employed by prestigious media organizations, then they have confused their own personal advancement with wisdom. With regard to this error, the resulting blindness is near-total when it comes to distinguishing the important from the trivial, the significant from the popular. And here we find the richest soil, the most wonderful insights, because a society's blind spots harbor the Great Secret of where that society is headed -- just as the blind spots of an individual help us to understand the fate of that individual.

The mainstream pundits of our day cannot explain why Russia should continue to violate arms control agreements, align with China, send secret support to Saddam, give nuclear technology to Iran, criticize U.S. policy, encourage U.S. allies to an independent course, etc.

The political algebra here is simple. It is basic. It is easy to read if one is familiar with history. I've been waiting for somebody to explain what is wrong with my algebra. So far, the explanation has not been forthcoming.

Perhaps what reinforces me more than anything is the testimony of Poles, Russians, Czechs, Romanians and Hungarians on the very real conditions that obtain in the "former" communist countries.

To be sure, our every paranoid imagining is not gospel. But there is something to this "final phase" business.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question for JR

I located the article in question since you gave me the time frame. This does make it easier for me. Please understand, I have archives at Newsmax, WorldNetDaily, Financial Sense, Sierra Times and my own Web site. I have written about 400 internet articles and it takes me a half hour just to go through the WorldNetDaily archive.

You may not understand what a person goes through when they write and carry on extensive correspondence. I receive 1000 emails every 3 to 4 days. I write 10 to 30 email replies a day. I post long replies like this one on the forum weekly, I've written 19 columns, a feature article for a Brazilian publication, approximately 900 email replies (some of them lengthy) and three essays for the seminar since I wrote "Waiting for the Big One." Add to this the mental burden of reading hundreds of emails, a dozen books and hundreds of articles since last September and you will understand how things might run together in my mind.

For those with lighter mental loads, remembering is doubtless easier -- I don't think its an illness or any dishonesty or evasion on my part. So please excuse my slowness. Also, I am sometimes short on patience when baffling questions are asked and I cannot immediately remember what is referred to.

I reread my article "Waiting for the Big One" and note, with care, that I did not say bin Laden has nukes, but that Yossef Bodansky alleges that bin Laden has nukes, and bin Laden also says this. My own skepticism follows from the following: a Russian defector said to me on Nov. 23, 1998, when we were standing outside a television station in Washington, D.C. "If you ever hear that Arab terrorists have attacked an American city with nuclear weapons, don't believe it."

"Why not?" I asked.

"Because it will be my people, Spetsnaz, Russia."

It may be that bin Laden has nukes. It may be that my Russian friend has understood, much better than anyone in the West, what the Russian General Staff means by "diversionary operations."

In the middle of THIS month Russia will be conducting a nuclear war exercise that simulates a mass nuclear strike against America. One might ask why Moscow would do this, especially as America is waiting for the "other" al Qaeda shoe to drop.

Are the basic concepts of military strategy so arcane, so unthinkable, that Americans are incapable of lifting their heads from the shelves of their overstocked stores long enough to notice something dangerous in the combination before us?

I will conclude my answer to you with a quote from Russian GRU defector Viktor Suvorov (Vladimir Rezun).

"[Widespread terrorist and sabotage operations in advance of World War III] are known officially in the GRU as the 'preparatory period,' and unofficially as the 'overture.' The overture is a series of large and small operations the purpose of which is, before actual military operations begin, to weaken the enemy's morale, create an atmosphere of suspicion, fear and uncertainty, and divert the attention of the enemy's armies and police forces to a huge number of different targets, each of which may be the object of the next attack.

"The overture is carried out by agents of the secret services of the Soviet satellite countries and by mercenaries recruited by intermediaries. The principal method employed at this stage is 'gray terror,' that is, a kind of terror which is not conducted in the name of the Soviet Union. The Soviet secret services do not at this stage leave their visiting cards, or leave other people's cards. The terror is carried out in the name of already existing extremist groups not connected in any way with the Soviet Union, or in the name of fictitious organizations."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Richard Helms initially appointed Whitten to undertake the agency's in-house investigation. After talking to Winston Scott, the CIA station chief in Mexico City, Whitten discovered that Lee Harvey Oswald had been photographed at the Cuban consulate in early October, 1963. Scott had not reported this matter to Whitten, his boss, at the time. Nor had Scott told Whitten that Oswald had also visited the Soviet Embassy in Mexico. In fact, Whitten had not been informed of the existence of Oswald, even though there was a 201 pre-assassination file on him that had been maintained by the Counterintelligence/Special Investigative Group.

Whitten and his staff of 30 officers, were sent a large amount of information from the FBI. According to Gerald D. McKnight "the FBI deluged his branch with thousands of reports containing bits and fragments of witness testimony that required laborious and time-consuming name checks." Whitten later described most of this FBI material as "weirdo stuff". As a result of this initial investigation, Whitten told Richard Helms that he believed that Oswald had acted alone in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

On 6th December, Nicholas Katzenbach invited John Whitten and Birch O'Neal, Angleton's trusted deputy and senior Special Investigative Group (SIG) officer to read Commission Document 1 (CD1), the report that the FBI had written on Lee Harvey Oswald. Whitten now realized that the FBI had been withholding important information on Oswald from him. He also discovered that Richard Helms had not been providing him all of the agency's available files on Oswald. This included Oswald's political activities in the months preceding the assassination.

Whitten had a meeting where he argued that Oswald's pro-Castro political activities needed closer examination, especially his attempt to shoot the right-wing General Edwin Walker, his relationship with anti-Castro exiles in New Orleans, and his public support for the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Whitten added that has he had been denied this information, his initial conclusions on the assassination were "completely irrelevant."

Helms responded by taking Whitten off the case. James Jesus Angleton was now put in charge of the investigation. According to Gerald McKnight (Breach of Trust) Angleton "wrested the CIA's in-house investigation away from John Whitten because he either was convinced or pretended to believe that the purpose of Oswald's trip to Mexico City had been to meet with his KGB handlers to finalize plans to assassinate Kennedy."

This extract comes from MI5's Peter Wright's book Spycatcher (after a long court battle it was eventually published in 1987). It shows that Angleton was deeply involved in the plans to kill Castro. As it is now believed that the team employed to kill Castro were turned on JFK, this seems to be highly significant.

Harvey listened to my Cyprus experiences, he was struck by the parallel between the two problems: both small islands with a guerrilla force led by a charismatic leader. He was particularly struck by my view that without Grivas, EOKA would have collapsed.

"What would the Brits do in Cuba?" he asked.

I was a shade anxious about being drawn into the Cuban business. Hollis and I had discussed it before I came to Washington, and he made no secret of his view that the CIA were blundering in the Caribbean. It was a subject, he felt, to steer clear of if at all possible. I was worried that if I made suggestions to Angleton and Harvey, I would soon find them being quoted around Washington by the CIA as the considered British view of things. It would not take long for word of that to filter back to Leconfield House, so I made it clear to them that I was talking off the record.

I said that we would try to develop whatever assets we had down there-alternative political leaders, that kind of thing.

"We've done all that," said Harvey impatiently, "but they're all in Florida. Since the Bay of Pigs, we've lost virtually everything we had inside . . ."

Harvey began to fish to see if I knew whether we had anything in the area, in view of the British colonial presence in the Caribbean.

"I doubt it," I told him, "the word in London is steer clear of Cuba. Six might have something, but you'd have to check with them." "How would you handle Castro?" asked Angleton. "We'd isolate him, turn the people against him ..."

"Would you hit him?" interrupted Harvey.

I paused to fold my napkin. Waiters glided silently from table to table. I realized now why Harvey needed to know I could be trusted.

"We'd certainly have that capability," I replied, "but I doubt we would use it nowadays."

"Why not?"

"We're not in it anymore, Bill. We got out a couple of years ago, after Suez."

At the beginning of the Suez Crisis, M16 developed a plan, through the London Station, to assassinate Nasser using nerve gas. Eden initially gave his approval to the operation, but later rescinded it when he got agreement from the French and Israelis to engage in joint military action. When this course failed, and he was forced to withdraw, Eden reactivated the assassination option a second time. By this time virtually all MI6 assets in Egypt had been rounded up by Nasser, and a new operation, using renegade Egyptian officers, was drawn up, but it failed lamentably, principally because the cache of weapons which had been hidden on the outskirts of Cairo was found to be defective.

"Were you involved?" Harvey asked.

"Only peripherally," I answered truthfully, "on the technical side."

I explained that I was consulted about the plan by John Henry and Peter Dixon, the two M16 Technical Services officers from the London Station responsible for drawing it up. Dixon, Henry, and I all attended joint M15/MI6 meetings to discuss technical research for the intelligence services at Porton Down, the government's chemical and biological Weapons Research Establishment. The whole area of chemical research was an active field in the 1950s. I was cooperating with M16 in a joint program to investigate how far the hallucinatory drug lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) could be used in interrogations, and extensive trials took place at Porton. I even volunteered as guinea pig on one occasion. Both M15 and M16 also wanted to know a lot more about the advanced poisons then being developed at Porton, though for different reasons. I wanted the antidotes, in case the Russians used a poison on a defector in Britain, while M16 wanted to use the poisons for operations abroad.

Henry and Dixon both discussed with me the use of poisons against Nasser, and asked my advice. Nerve gas obviously presented the best possibility, since it was easily administered. They told me that the London Station had an agent in Egypt with limited access to one of Nasser's headquarters. Their plan was to place canisters of nerve gas inside the ventilation system, but I pointed out that this would require large quantities of the gas, and would result in massive loss of life among Nasser's staff. It was the usual M16 operation-hopelessly unrealistic and it did not remotely surprise me when Henry told me later that Eden had backed away from the operation. The chances of its remaining undeniable were even slimmer than they had been with Buster Crabbe.

Harvey and Angleton questioned me closely about every part of the Suez Operation.

"We're developing a new capability in the Company to handle these kinds of problems," explained Harvey, "and we're in the market for the requisite expertise."

Whenever Harvey became serious, his voice dropped to a low monotone, and his vocabulary lapsed into the kind of strangled bureaucratic syntax beloved of Washington officials. He explained ponderously that they needed deniable personnel, and improved technical facilities-in Harvey jargon, "delivery mechanisms." They were especially interested in the SAS. Harvey knew that the SAS operated up on the Soviet border in the 1950s tracking Russian rocket signals with mobile receivers before the satellites took over, and that they were under orders not to be caught, even if this meant fighting their way out of trouble.

"They don't freelance, Bill," I told him. "You could try to pick them up retired, but you'd have to see Six about that."

Harvey looked irritated, as if I were being deliberately unhelpful. "Have you thought of approaching Stephenson?" I asked. "A lot of the old-timers say he ran this kind of thing in New York during the war. Used some Italian, apparently, when there was no other way of sorting a German shipping spy. Probably the Mafia, for all I know ..."

Angleton scribbled in his notebook, and looked up impassively. "The French!" I said brightly. "Have you tried them? It's more their type of thing, you know, Algiers, and so on."

Another scribble in the notebook.

"What about technically - did you have any special equipment?" asked Harvey.

I told him that after the gas canisters plan fell through, M16 looked at some new weapons. On one occasion I went down to Porton to see a demonstration of a cigarette packet which had been modified by the Explosives Research and Development Establishment to fire a dart tipped with poison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Nothing really new here.

OSS-CIA figure Angleton had the goods on those in power

By Paul L. Allen

Tucson Citizen

November 11, 2006

James Jesus Angleton, the most shadowy and enigmatic figure in the Central Intelligence Agency's history, was a periodic Tucson visitor for 40 years before he died in 1987. His widow, Cicely, maintains a home here.

Angleton joined his father as an operative in the the Office of Strategic Services, the CIA's predecessor, in 1943.

The younger Angleton, a very private man and insomniac, was a chain-smoker who died of lung cancer - undoubtedly an inspiration for the fictitious and sinister "cigarette-smoking man" character in the TV series "The X-Files."

......Conspiracy theorists believe there is evidence to link Angleton, directly or indirectly, with involvement in the John F. Kennedy assassination; the slaying of a JFK mistress, Mary Pinchot Meyer; and the suspicious "suicide" of a senior CIA official by carbon monoxide poisoning, among others.

Angleton was considered by some to have become increasingly paranoid - perhaps clinically so - by the 1970s, believing several leaders of other nations, including Canadian prime ministers Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, Swedish prime minister Olof Palme, West German chancellor Willy Brandt and British prime minister Harold Wilson to be Soviet agents.

Full article: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/32253.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone think Angleton was the the mastermind behind the JFK assassination? given the order from a single source, and he took care of the rest?

Unlikely. However, he played an important role in the cover-up after he took over the CIA investigation into Lee Harvey Oswald from John Whitten. In 1996, Whitten's 192-page deposition to the House Select Committee on Assassinations was finally declassified by the Assassination Records Review Board. However, the board did not then declassify his true name and he continued to be known as John Scelso.

John Moss Whitten died in a Pottstown nursing home on January 2000. Minnesota federal judge John Tunheim, the chairman of the JFK Assassinations Records Review Board, argued that John Scelso's 1978 testimony "was perhaps the single most important document we uncovered". However, this statement was not released until 2001. The year after Whitten had died. Richard Helms died on 22nd October, 2002. Seven days later, the CIA declassified John Whitten's name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minnesota federal judge John Tunheim, the chairman of the JFK Assassinations Records Review Board, argued that John Scelso's 1978 testimony "was perhaps the single most important document we uncovered". However, this statement was not released until 2001.

The Kennedy Assassination

A Decisive Moment in America’s History

November 15-22, 2006

The Cathedral of St. Paul

St. Paul, Minnesota

http://www.cathedralsaintpaul.org/pdf/SymposiumBrochure.pdf

Monday, November 20, 2006 • 7:00 p.m.

The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: Opening Its History for Public Review

U.S. District Judge John Tunheim

From 1994 to 1998, Judge Tunheim served as chair of the U.S. Assassination Records Review Board, an independent federal agency that reviewed all assassination documents. At the conclusion of its work, the Board made over 4 million pages of material open to public review at the National Archives. The talk focuses on the need for the review, the personalities involved, and a showing of the Zapruder film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
Tim,

What is your source on Godell? Google turns up nothing. I also tried Goodell.

At the 1996 November in Dallas Conference, Hemming named "Godell" or "Goodell" as one of the people who should have been arrested in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. Having never heard of the Godell you refer to, I thought Hemming must be referring to Charles Goodell, the NY senator. I asked Hemming on this forum why he named Goodell, but he never responded. Your info at least tells me the actual person he was apparently referring to.

Ron

_________________________

An interesting and potentially important question, in my humble opinion.

--Thomas

_________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...