Jump to content
The Education Forum

Joan Mellen: A Farewell to Justice


Recommended Posts

An unwitting asset? An oxymoron if I ever heard one.

Is not a "CIA asset" a journalist who is pledged to do the bidding of the CIA regardless of anything?

How can one be a CIA asset and not know it?

I suggest there is a difference between a "CIA asset" and a journalist whose views are generally sympathetic to the position of the CIA.

And I think it reasonable for a historian to check with a person before writing that he is a "CIA asset". Would you agree, Owen?

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 203
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Owen, first, there are instances of Chrisman using government stationary, entirely different

from the Easy papers (although those are indeed positioned to be official papers regardless

of the lack of stationary); however, it seems to me that you've satisfied yourself on these issues

so I don't intend to belabor the point. You probably have Beckham's actual police arrest

record, the details of his going AWOL from Fort Leonard Wood and a host of other documents

pertaining to the Beckham and Chrisman scams....my intent was to advise readers to check

into such things and draw their own conclusions. Looks like you have, your'e satisfied and

I'll leave it to others to pursue or not...

-- Larry

uote name='Owen Parsons' date='Nov 24 2005, 04:59 PM' post='46273']

Owen wrote:

Of course Beckham was involved in the conspiracy, in so far as he was being setup as a backup patsy. Having him deliver the plans can only further implicate him should the need ever arise for a "limited hang-out." Being implicated in this manner can also have a silencing effect, I would think. Beckham was always very cooperative as this group supported him and helped his music career. The significance and purpose of the assignment didn't even become clear to him until after the assassination. I would also note that the material Beckham delivered agrees well with material Ferrie had in his possession. The whole scenario is also supported by the activity in Gill's office after Ferrie was taken into custody.

The first point I wish to make is that if what Beckham says is true, it implicates Marcello (through Gill) not Shaw. Any evidence linking Marcellos or Gill to Shaw is doubtful at best.

So Beckham's story is really consistent with my conclusions re who the conspirators were (Trafficante and Marcello).

I think you should note that Beckham also places Shaw in Gill's offices at the time the assignment was given. I don't really know how you can say his story doesn't implicate Shaw.

First, I do not think the Mafia normally involves its attorneys in its criminal enterprises. If the attorney is good, the Mafia wants to keep him clean so he is available for legal defense.

People don't always think ahead or operate at the peak of their mental faculties.

Second, your argument that Beckham was being set up as a backup patsy sounds good at first, but not if you give it any thought. Beckham was going to be set up as an alternate patsy through his delivery of the documents? How so? Who was going to prove that he had delivered such documents? Only another conspirator could so so. So do you think Gill of Ferrie was going to come forwward and say, "I did it, but Beckham helped"? How would that make him a patsy?

Beckham was also being endowed with a dubious profile through his checking into mental hospitals at Jack Martin's urging, part of the "sheep dipping" process. If Beckham were to come forward, he could easily be discredited with this information. This is what I am getting at when I talk about him being set up as a backup patsy.

Third, why would the conspirators set Beckham up by giving him the plans for the assassination, thereby risking ruination of the plan if Beckham was caught? I am sure that if indeed (as I and most suspect) Oswald was a patsy: 1) he had not met the actual conspirators; and 2) had he for whatever reason been "caught" before November 22nd, I am sure he had no documents on him from which the assassination plans could have beeb inferred.

I don't think that there is a great deal of chance that he would be caught for delivering an envelope. And even if he was "caught" the conspirators had already succeeded in making him look like a nut. I think Beckham would be a pretty safe bet. Also, there is quite a bit of evidence placing Oswald in the presence of conspirators. As an example, I think most researchers credit the Antonio Veciana story, and you yourself have said that Mellen did good work on the Clinton incident.

Fourth, you state Beckham lied before the jury because Chrisman had threated his life. But the only substantiation to that threat comes from Beckham himself. You can hardly use the statement of the man himself to bolster his credibility.

I didn't say it bolstered his credibility, but its a perfectly feasible answer to your objection.

Finally, you stated that "the whole scenario is also supported by the activity in Gill's office after Ferrie was taken into custody". If by that you are refering to the Gill client who claimed she saw Gill's attorney going through his desk drwer to clean it up of incriminating documents, that story is, I submit, as preposterous as Beckham's. An attorney as skillful as Gill would leave in his desk documents incriminating him in a murder? And even if he had, rather than disposing of the documents himself he has his secretary do it, and do it in front of a witness? For heaven's sake, Owen, if you can believe that, I can now understand how you could belive Shaw was guilty.

Read her story again. It is Ferrie's material that is being cleaned out of the office, not Gill's. Gill apparently went into panic mode after Ferrie was taken into custody, and quickly moved to sweep everything relating to Ferrie up. Apparently it occured to him that Ferrie might not have been so careful as he was. I am also impressed with how well this story supports Beckham's, though it is independent of it.

Larry: Oh, believe me, I'm quite familiar with Crisman's various activities and life story. I have a few thoughts on it. I think its quite likely that the UFO-spewing-molten-slag story was just cover for something more prosaic, namely the dumping of toxic waste. Mellen suggests this and I think Crisman himself later said as much. I would also note that his tales of fighting robots ("Deros") in underground caverns sent via letter to one of Raymond Palmer's magazines, came right on the heels of the UFO story, before any real investigation of it had started, and were later mocked in a major magazine, Harper's, seemingly to impeach the value of his UFO testimony further.

I don't know about his demonstrated ability to forge documents on government stationary (I wouldn't put it past him), but I assume you are talking about the "Easy Papers," which speak of Crisman's alleged efforts to undermine the Tacoma School Board on behalf of the CIA. First, these aren't, to my knowledge, on government stationary, second, though probably written by him, they have not been successfully linked to him. I would note that the Easy Papers seem to have been produced shortly after he was called before the Grand Jury in Re: Garrison's investigation and after Garrison's office had called him an "industrial espionage agent," or something to that effect. It would appear to me that the purpose of this document is to make suggestions that he is an intelligence agent appear absurd. Crisman actually talks about these (probably self-perpetuated) allegations in his autobiography, Murder of a City, Tacoma, noting how silly they are. It seems to me that there is quite a bit of method in Crisman's madness.

Crisman's whereabouts on November 22 are really only of importance if one believes Crisman was one of the tramps (which I don't). Crisman had always maintained that he was in school on November 22. Beckham's story does not place him elsewhere, nor does Crisman need to be elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd hoped to see this thread go off into some of the hugely important implications of Joan's

work such as the Silva interview, the Clinton implications, Oswald's FBI and customs

associations, etc.

However since it has veered off into Beckham and Chrisman I would strongly encourage

anyone following that path to do some real homework (a friend of mine out in Washington

State and I spent about three years on those two so I claim a bit of experience). It is

clear that Beckham had some association with Bannister's crew and with Oswald (I

pointed out Beckham in the lefleting photo to Joan some time ago...a broader version

of the photo shows three young Latin girls, one of whom I belive to be his wife....she

was young enough that he had a rape conviction related to that marriage).

REPLY:

With all due respect to Larry, a good researcher and a good guy, it has been no secret for a long time that Beckham was acquainted with Martin and Banister in 1961. Beckham said as much in his 1968 grand jury testimony. (And Banister indicated an acquaintence with him in his 1963 testimony at Ferrie's EAL hearing.) But Beckham's 1968 testimony UNDER OATH and under danger of a perjury rap is dramatically different than what he says today, not under oath or legal danger. One of the two accounts must be a lie.

And Beckham does seem to lie on occasion. If Gus Russo's account is accurate, that Beckham lied to him about composing a classic song, then admitted his lie, this would indicate an inclination to lie to puff up his own importance.

I don't agree that it is clear that Beckham had a relationship with Oswald. The people in the ITM films have not been identified, and I don't see enough resemblance with Beckham to make a definitive ID. That leaves us with Beckham's identification of himself in the films. IF his 1968 testimony is true, and his current account (and the reasons for the discrepancy between the 1968 and current accounts) are not true, then his identification of himself in the ITM film is suspect. I can't swear that it's NOT him, but I am not convinced that it is an undisputed fact.

And this IS an issue, as Beckham plays a substantial role in the book.

Many of us in this field have seen people peripherally connected to this case (and some not), who have seen the Stone film, read the books, seen the notoriety that sometimes comes to claimants, come forward with exaggerated claims. It happens, and we need to use a fine filter to insure that we are not diverted in wrong directions.

I suggest that interested persons go to History Matters and read Beckham's 1968 Grand Jury testimony. His current explanation, that he lied in 1968 because he was fearful, may be true. But it may not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the defenders of this book have yet responded to my Post 37 in this thread, so I will repeat them and renew my request for a response from Professor Mellen, Owen, Howard or anyone else:

In the last chapter of the review copy of "A Farewell to Justice" Professor Mellen writes:

"The CIA's efforts in the cover-up continue. At the millenimum a committee of archivists and librarians was convened by the National Archives. Its purpose was to examine some sealed records relating to the Kennedy assassination and recommend whether they should be open to the public. Before the group could make any determinations, they were visited by a representative identifying himself as representing the CIA. He warned them that under no circumstances must they reveal to anyone what they had viewed in those documents. His visit was perceived as a threat by them all. No one talked."

I assume before the book went to press someone rectified the grammatical problem in the fourth paragraph (refering to a group as "they"). But I have some substantive comments:

What group is she possibily talkling about?

It sounds like the Assassinations Records Review Board. But the AARB commenced its work in the mid-nineties, not at the millenium.

"No one talked"? Well, at least one person did. She cites her source as an employee of a major research library who prefers to remain anonymous.

If she is refering to the ARRB, she is incorrect, as you all know, that its purpose was solely to make recommendations re what documents should be made public. It had the authority to order documents made public and it did so--millions of pages of records.

Obviously, the unidentified representative of the CIA (did he or she not identify himself or herself to the board members?) was not warning the board not to discuss records it ordered opened to the public. If the representative was warning the board members not to disclose the contents of records that the board decided not to declassify, well, that was certainly a legitimate request that no one can legitimately characterize as part of a continuing cover-up.

It sounds like she is attempting to convert a legitimate request that the the members of the ARRB maintain the confidentiality of records that it had decided still required confidentiality for purposes of natiional security or other legitimate purpose into a "cover-up". It is a bit hard to tell because the book does not identify the group to which she refers.

"His visit was perceived as a threat by them all." What does this mean? Did she talk to more than one member? The citation seems to indicate an interview with only that one anonymous member. Did he tell her they all felt threatened? Why did she not talk to the other board members to confirm if they all felt this way? There were less than ten members if I recall correctly.

"His visit was percveived as a threat by them all. No one talked." Apparently the board was not intimidated: it voted to release millions of pages of records, often over the objection of the CIA.

What in the world is going on here? I am hoping Professor Mellen will elaborate on this paragraph and my questions without breaching her apparent pledge of confidentiality to the research librarian. I am tempted, however, to write to every board member to try to get to the bottom of this claim.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An unwitting asset? An oxymoron if I ever heard one.

Is not a "CIA asset" a journalist who is pledged to do the bidding of the CIA regardless of anything?

How can one be a CIA asset and not know it?

I suggest there is a difference between a "CIA asset" and a journalist whose views are generally sympathetic to the position of the CIA.

And I think it reasonable for a historian to check with a person before writing that he is a "CIA asset". Would you agree, Owen?

A CIA media asset isn't pledged to do whatever the CIA tells them. The CIA is satisfied that they will report in the way the CIA wants them to and feeds them information accordingly. The issue of whether or not Bohning was being paid by the CIA or whether or not his editors knew and approved of his CIA contacts is pretty irrelevant. Bohning had a cryptonym (AMCARBON-3), Covert Security Approval, and was DDP approved. If this doesn't make someone at least "CIA linked" (which is the actual word Mellen uses) or "CIA sponsored" (the original word), I don't know what does.

Ayton doesn't mention any of this and trys to make it sound like Mellen has made a totally baseless, McCarthyite charge, supposedly because Bohning is inconvenient to her thesis (which he isn't). His entire review (and just about everything else he has written relevant to the JFK, MLK, and RFK assassinations) is like this. Mel likes to ignore inconvient information (like when he talks about the LAPD and Sandy Serrano re: the RFK case) and make emotional appeals (he talks about Mellen "play[ing] with people's lives..." in alt.assassination.jfk). He also calls Mellen's book, in one of his posts, "a complete fabrication from start to finish." :rolleyes:

None of the defenders of this book have yet responded to my Post 37 in this thread, so I will repeat them and renew my request for a response from Professor Mellen, Owen, Howard or anyone else:

The simplest answer to this is that she is not talking about the ARRB. There are quite a few difference between this National Archives effort and the ARRB. Its as easy as reading the paragraph and yet its exactly that hard. I didn't bother responding to this before because I thought it would be fairly obvious to the casual reader, nothing to do with avoiding it. Talking to ARRB members would probably get you nowhere.

"Before the group could make any determinations, they were visited by a representative identifying himself as representing the CIA. He warned them that under no circumstances must they reveal to anyone what they had viewed in those documents. His visit was perceived as a threat by them all. No one talked." This passage makes it quite clear that the warning was given before any declassifying work had started. It is not about the ARRB, and it is not a request to ARRB members to keep quiet about documents they had not declassified. "No one talked" means that this abortive National Archives declassification effort was not made public, obviously. Try paying closer attention to what you are reading.

I too would welcome more information from Mellen, however.

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An unwitting asset? An oxymoron if I ever heard one.

Is not a "CIA asset" a journalist who is pledged to do the bidding of the CIA regardless of anything?

How can one be a CIA asset and not know it?

I suggest there is a difference between a "CIA asset" and a journalist whose views are generally sympathetic to the position of the CIA.

And I think it reasonable for a historian to check with a person before writing that he is a "CIA asset". Would you agree, Owen?

A CIA media asset isn't pledged to do whatever the CIA tells them. The CIA is satisfied that they will report in the way the CIA wants them to and feeds them information accordingly. The issue of whether or not Bohning was being paid by the CIA or whether or not his editors knew and approved of his CIA contacts is pretty irrelevant. Bohning had a cryptonym (AMCARBON-3), Covert Security Approval, and was DDP approved. If this doesn't make someone at least "CIA linked" (which is the actual word Mellen uses) or "CIA sponsored" (the original word), I don't know what does.......I too would welcome more information from Mellen, however.

Owen, thanks for your reasoned responses re: CIA media assets.

When I was checking out the source of numerous CIA leaked stories thru Scripps-Howard, I found a recent one in which the reporter couldn't believe that the CIA had leaked a report through them - they must consider SHNS a virtual pipeline, except the report said the Al Quada suicide bombers were getting better from experience, which if not an oxymoron is something eqilivant.

As for more info from JM,

I emailed Joan Mellen, requesting a formal, on the record interview, and she's agreed, but needs to wait a few weeks until school is out, as she is a prof (Teacher of the Year, 2004). While she is still promoting her book and keeping up teaching duties, I hope she can check in with this forum in the meantime.

Bill Kelly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An unwitting asset? An oxymoron if I ever heard one.

Is not a "CIA asset" a journalist who is pledged to do the bidding of the CIA regardless of anything?

How can one be a CIA asset and not know it?

I suggest there is a difference between a "CIA asset" and a journalist whose views are generally sympathetic to the position of the CIA.

And I think it reasonable for a historian to check with a person before writing that he is a "CIA asset". Would you agree, Owen?

A CIA media asset isn't pledged to do whatever the CIA tells them. The CIA is satisfied that they will report in the way the CIA wants them to and feeds them information accordingly. The issue of whether or not Bohning was being paid by the CIA or whether or not his editors knew and approved of his CIA contacts is pretty irrelevant. Bohning had a cryptonym (AMCARBON-3), Covert Security Approval, and was DDP approved. If this doesn't make someone at least "CIA linked" (which is the actual word Mellen uses) or "CIA sponsored" (the original word), I don't know what does.......I too would welcome more information from Mellen, however.

Owen, thanks for your reasoned responses re: CIA media assets.

When I was checking out the source of numerous CIA leaked stories thru Scripps-Howard, I found a recent one in which the reporter couldn't believe that the CIA had leaked a report through them - they must consider SHNS a virtual pipeline, except the report said the Al Quada suicide bombers were getting better from experience, which if not an oxymoron is something eqilivant.

As for more info from JM,

I emailed Joan Mellen, requesting a formal, on the record interview, and she's agreed, but needs to wait a few weeks until school is out, as she is a prof (Teacher of the Year, 2004). While she is still promoting her book and keeping up teaching duties, I hope she can check in with this forum in the meantime.

Bill Kelly

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

Bill:

It is quite evident that we have very few "C-SPAN "Junkies" amongst the members on this Forum !!

However, "I be one of dose" and this addiction goes back almost 25 years.

Last month I twice watched the "Q & A" segment hosted by Brian Lamb. This is the replacement for the previous "Book Notes" series. [on C-SPAN-1 - which was moved to C-SPAN-2 and is unavailable here].

This segment had Lamb doing an "in-depth" interview of the Director of the N.A.R.A., who has held this post for many years. Evidently, Lamb was quite interested in exactly how he [or the "staff"] handles very highly classified documents.

He inquired as to the protocols and "formalities" "they" utilized when faced with deciding to declassify or NOT declassify, sensitive government documents? Said inquiry included the personal ["private"] diaries, letters, journals, etc. -- of Presidents; and many of the other VIP members of ALL branches -- especially wherein said items in the collection might have impinged upon the necessary requirements of LAWS and/or REGULATIONS !!

[Pursuant to the Federal Adminstrative Procedures Act: When an Agency of government has been delegated "specific authority" by the Congress, ALL of said "Rules", "Policies", etc. are considered (by SCOTUS) "....To effectively carry the full weight of the Law...and ARE comparable to, and carry the full weight and authority of....any "Act or Law"....which has been enacted and signed into Law by the President...!!"]

I would respectfully suggest that the FEW [law school graduate] members of this Forum reacquaint themselves with this utterly boring, tiring, and definitely non-remunerative specialty area of legal practise !!

Brian Lamb made very specifically interested inquiries of this gentleman, and amongst the many: He asked whether "his" board members did convene in the fashion of the Supreme Court justices, especially where it when it came time to "deliberate" on decisions, i.e., all of the SCOTUS law clerks are not permitted to remain in the chamber, and participate in those forums ??!!

Upon Lamb's amending this question, with the use of the words "voting to declassify"; the NARA "Bossman" retorted quite strongly that: The statutes controlling both the NARA and "Intelligence Community" agencies/ bureaus -- mandated that HE ALONE is the person authorized with this responsibility. Moreover, he insisted that: He was lawfully delegated to be the only entity which decided whether to continue archiving files, douments, etc. as classified -- or make a determination whether to fully and/or partially declassify ANY and ALL such materials.

Moreover, he insisted that: Despite the fact that many of his "staff" held high security clearances, there was never a legal requirement that he even request nor take any "collective" judment decisions; but that the sole authority rested with him, and him ALONE !!

So where is this aforementioned "Board" coming from?? And since this long-term "Director" has stated elsewhere that: The only way that any of his employees [or advisory parties] learn of HIS decisions -- is only after he issues his "Edicts" on those respective issues.

As for all of this "Op Mockingbird" bullxxxx; I would also direct my contemporaries to the nearest Law Library and, and thereup, and without-a-doubt, and for the first time in their "confused" lives -- might well read the entirety of the 1947 "Government Re-Organization Plan", including ALL of the rarely read "Statutes-at-Large" components of same. Said "Plan" culminated in the 1947 Defense Act which, inter alia, created the US Air Force. the CIA, etc. !!

As amended by the Congress since 1947, the parameters of ALL agencies of the "Executive Branch"

are quite explicit -- and save for the sections wherein the broad jurisdiction and charters were "Explicitly" drafted [and enacted as law] are requireed to be read as "Implicitly Authorized"!!

Long before I was "Outed" by Miami Herald reporter Dom Bonafede [May 1961], I had been at extremely strong "odds" with the CIA; and not just with the WH desk, but even more bitterly with the REMFs at JM/WAVE.

[bonafede was not just some "scribbler" who collaborated with the CIA as many "police beat" reporters continue to do with law enforcement personnel. And moreover, he didn't have an "AM" Digraph as I did, and quite possibly -- was the case with the Herald's Al Burt, Jim Buchanan, John Dorschner, et al.!!

That this was the case with our fellow member Don Bohning, remains subject to speculation -- as I have yet to see a sworn statement [or Congressional testimony], not even some "Agee" type "Fessin' up" for that matter. Bonafede was one of the "few" who had a "JM" Digraph, and this was NOT the equivalent of a 'AM/CARBON" type cryptonym, but this definitely identified Bonafede as a CIA employee, not just some CIA "asset" utilizing "journalistic cover"!!]

In fact, the pogues at the Miami Station put several of our lives at risk, as we became the focus of many of the both "friendly" and "hostile" intelligence services. We were forced to spend an inordinate amount of time "checking-out" our associate's and a considerable number of the trainee's bona fides -- and where necessary, communicate our suspicions to the FBI, ONI, or other agencies.

When it became very obvious that the goverment field employees weren't abiding by the regulations and the laws, I went to D.C. to brief HUAC, Subversives Activities Control Board, etc. folks [1962]. When they reported frequent episodes of "stonewalling", I went to some Senators, Congressmen, and other VIP "Insiders" to finally gain some resolution.

You, who have made the CIA [and other Intel/Community agencies, law enforcement, and the military] "your personal & preferred enemies" -- will go no further than the gullible masses!! This is especially so for those who have made Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Mohammed. Hubbard, Smith, Manson, Jones, or some rock or tree "their personal Savior"!! You will fail miserably in your endeavors, and thereafter that will be the case with your repetitive and continuing "realizations".

You will be reduced to the existance of frustrated and "nay saying", self-appointed gadflies; destined to sink ever deeper into paranoia, and ultimately to "burnout". As was the case with Whitaker Chambers, Koestler, et al.!! The "fortunate? amongst your ranks will: And without a doubt, jump the seeming "vast-crevasse" to the opposite polarity, and thereafter join with the neo-con right-wing "whackos"!!

Unfortunately, and far too often, I have "witnessed" these trials & tribulations over the last 40+ years. Yet, even today -- I feel empathy for those close colleagues who: On a daily basis, habitually look over their shoulders, into the rear-view mirror, listening for clicking sounds on their telephones, giving one another "code names" ["handles"]; and wondering all-the-while: Why their physicians are prescribing even more analgesics, palliatives, and intestinal remedies.

Typically, you have an urgent need and desire for: "Enemies", because any effort at trying to "live" without the "self-inventing" of a few "Hostile Entities", you are forced to grapple with the grim reality that:

[A] You are a "Nobody", and in even with the drastic reduction in the circle of your "friends/associates" you inevitably are forced to face the realization that -- you are NOT an essential factor in "anybody's" life; and,

You continue, on a daily basis, to have "encounters-of-the-3rd-kind" -- with the reality that : Not only were you never "a contender" -- but that in NOT having the guts to enter "The Ring"; you have forfeited the "Right" to even be a "Spectator" in, what you have foolishly attempted to make into a game of "SPORT" !!

Get a "Life"!! It is never too late.

Chairs,

Gerry Patrick hemming

__________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YO! GERRY, YOU TALKIN' ABOUT ME HERE?

....You, who have made the CIA [and other Intel/Community agencies, law enforcement, and the military] "your personal & preferred enemies"

IF SO, YOU GOT ME PEGGED WRONG. I'M NOT OUT AGAINST THE CIA, SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE NAVY SEALS, I PERSONALLY KNOW F-16 PILOTS WHO WENT UP ON 9/11, AND I LIVE NEXT TO FORT DIX/MACGUIRE AFB/LAKEHURST, THE FIRST ARMY/AF/NAVY SUPERBASE, WHERE ALMOST ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS WORK, AND MY FATHER WAS A CAMDEN, N.J. POLICE DET./LT./WWII 8TH AF VET, SO MY PWERSONAL AND PREFERRED ENEMIES ARE NOT CIA, ITEL, LAW ENF. OR MIL., SO GET THAT STRAIGHT RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

-- will go no further than the gullible masses!! This is especially so for those who have made Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Mohammed. Hubbard, Smith, Manson, Jones, or some rock or tree "their personal Savior"!! You will fail miserably in your endeavors, and thereafter that will be the case with your repetitive and continuing "realizations".

WHILE I CAN'T THINK OF ANY PERSOANL SEAVIORS, MY MENTORS ARE MORE HUMAN - PETER DALE SCOTT, BILL TURNER, TONY SUMMERS, VINCE SALANDRIA, JOHN SIMPKIN....

You will be reduced to the existance of frustrated and "nay saying", self-appointed gadflies

I NAMED THE FIRST UNDERGROUND NEWSPAPER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON THE GADFLY - SO YOU GOT THAT RIGHT

; destined to sink ever deeper into paranoia,

I'M NOT THREATENING ENOUGH, YET, TO BE PARANOID. WHEN THAT COMES I'LL NOW I STRUCK A NERVE AND AM ON THE RIGHT TRACK.

and ultimately to "burnout". As was the case with Whitaker Chambers, Koestler, et al.!! ARTY KOESTLER? I'M HONORED THAT YOU MENTION HIM IN THE SAME THREAD AS ME.

The "fortunate? amongst your ranks

MY RANKS? WHO ELSE IS WITH ME? I DON'T KNOW OF ANYONE WHO HAS SIGNED ON TO MY MISSION.

will: And without a doubt, jump the seeming "vast-crevasse" to the opposite polarity, and thereafter join with the neo-con right-wing "whackos"!!

Unfortunately, and far too often, I have "witnessed" these trials & tribulations over the last 40+ years. Yet, even today -- I feel empathy for those close colleagues who: On a daily basis, habitually look over their shoulders, into the rear-view mirror, listening for clicking sounds on their telephones,

I DON'T CARE IF MY PHONE IS TAPPED - MAYBE THEY - WHOEVER THEY ARE, WILL LEARN SOMETHING.

giving one another "code names" ["handles"]; and wondering all-the-while: Why their physicians are prescribing even more analgesics, palliatives, and intestinal remedies.

WHOSE GOT GOOD DRUGS AND ARE HOLDING OUT?

Typically, you have an urgent need and desire for: "Enemies", because any effort at trying to "live" without the "self-inventing" of a few "Hostile Entities", you are forced to grapple with the grim reality that:

I DON'T CONSIDER THOSE WHO KILLED JFK ENEMIES. MY GOAL IS TO SLIP UP TO THE BAR NEXT TO THOSE WHO I SUSPECT AND CONFRONT THEM AND ASK THEM WHY THEY DID IT, NOT TO MAKE HOSTILE ENTITIES.

[A] You are a "Nobody", and in even with the drastic reduction in the circle of your "friends/associates" you inevitably are forced to face the realization that -- you are NOT an essential factor in "anybody's" life; and,

MAYBE SO, AND I KIND OF LIKE BEING A NOBODY BUT MY CIRCLE OF FRIENDS/ASSOCIATES HAS BEEN GROWNING QUIETLY AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT THEY WILL BE THERE WHEN WE ARE READY TO MAKE A MOVE.

You continue, on a daily basis, to have "encounters-of-the-3rd-kind" -- with the reality that : Not only were you never "a contender" -- but that in NOT having the guts to enter "The Ring"; you have forfeited the "Right" to even be a "Spectator" in, what you have foolishly attempted to make into a game of "SPORT" !!

Get a "Life"!! It is never too late.

NOW YOU'RE HITTING BELOW THE BELT, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHO I AM OR WHAT I'M ABOUT. I MAY NOT BE IN THE SAME RING AS YOU ARE, BUT I'M KEEPING SCORE AND I HAVE A GOOD MEMORY, AND I DON'T PREJUDGE PEOPLE BEFORE I GET TO KNOW THEM.

AND THANKS FOR BEING SO UP FRONT AND FORTHRIGHT, INSTEAD OF HIDING LIKE THE OTHER RATS IN THIS GAME.

BK

BKJFK3@YAHOO.COM

Chairs,

Gerry Patrick hemming

__________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill wrote:

I DON'T CONSIDER THOSE WHO KILLED JFK ENEMIES. MY GOAL IS TO SLIP UP TO THE BAR NEXT TO THOSE WHO I SUSPECT AND CONFRONT THEM AND ASK THEM WHY THEY DID IT, NOT TO MAKE HOSTILE ENTITIES.

Come on, now, Bill, your stated goal is to indict the bastards, is it not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YO! GERRY, YOU TALKIN' ABOUT ME HERE?

....You, who have made the CIA [and other Intel/Community agencies, law enforcement, and the military] "your personal & preferred enemies"

IF SO, YOU GOT ME PEGGED WRONG. I'M NOT OUT AGAINST THE CIA, SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE NAVY SEALS, I PERSONALLY KNOW F-16 PILOTS WHO WENT UP ON 9/11, AND I LIVE NEXT TO FORT DIX/MACGUIRE AFB/LAKEHURST, THE FIRST ARMY/AF/NAVY SUPERBASE, WHERE ALMOST ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS WORK, AND MY FATHER WAS A CAMDEN, N.J. POLICE DET./LT./WWII 8TH AF VET, SO MY PWERSONAL AND PREFERRED ENEMIES ARE NOT CIA, ITEL, LAW ENF. OR MIL., SO GET THAT STRAIGHT RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

-- will go no further than the gullible masses!! This is especially so for those who have made Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Mohammed. Hubbard, Smith, Manson, Jones, or some rock or tree "their personal Savior"!! You will fail miserably in your endeavors, and thereafter that will be the case with your repetitive and continuing "realizations".

WHILE I CAN'T THINK OF ANY PERSOANL SEAVIORS, MY MENTORS ARE MORE HUMAN - PETER DALE SCOTT, BILL TURNER, TONY SUMMERS, VINCE SALANDRIA, JOHN SIMPKIN....

You will be reduced to the existance of frustrated and "nay saying", self-appointed gadflies

I NAMED THE FIRST UNDERGROUND NEWSPAPER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON THE GADFLY - SO YOU GOT THAT RIGHT

; destined to sink ever deeper into paranoia,

I'M NOT THREATENING ENOUGH, YET, TO BE PARANOID. WHEN THAT COMES I'LL NOW I STRUCK A NERVE AND AM ON THE RIGHT TRACK.

and ultimately to "burnout". As was the case with Whitaker Chambers, Koestler, et al.!! ARTY KOESTLER? I'M HONORED THAT YOU MENTION HIM IN THE SAME THREAD AS ME.

The "fortunate? amongst your ranks

MY RANKS? WHO ELSE IS WITH ME? I DON'T KNOW OF ANYONE WHO HAS SIGNED ON TO MY MISSION.

will: And without a doubt, jump the seeming "vast-crevasse" to the opposite polarity, and thereafter join with the neo-con right-wing "whackos"!!

Unfortunately, and far too often, I have "witnessed" these trials & tribulations over the last 40+ years. Yet, even today -- I feel empathy for those close colleagues who: On a daily basis, habitually look over their shoulders, into the rear-view mirror, listening for clicking sounds on their telephones,

I DON'T CARE IF MY PHONE IS TAPPED - MAYBE THEY - WHOEVER THEY ARE, WILL LEARN SOMETHING.

giving one another "code names" ["handles"]; and wondering all-the-while: Why their physicians are prescribing even more analgesics, palliatives, and intestinal remedies.

WHOSE GOT GOOD DRUGS AND ARE HOLDING OUT?

Typically, you have an urgent need and desire for: "Enemies", because any effort at trying to "live" without the "self-inventing" of a few "Hostile Entities", you are forced to grapple with the grim reality that:

I DON'T CONSIDER THOSE WHO KILLED JFK ENEMIES. MY GOAL IS TO SLIP UP TO THE BAR NEXT TO THOSE WHO I SUSPECT AND CONFRONT THEM AND ASK THEM WHY THEY DID IT, NOT TO MAKE HOSTILE ENTITIES.

[A] You are a "Nobody", and in even with the drastic reduction in the circle of your "friends/associates" you inevitably are forced to face the realization that -- you are NOT an essential factor in "anybody's" life; and,

MAYBE SO, AND I KIND OF LIKE BEING A NOBODY BUT MY CIRCLE OF FRIENDS/ASSOCIATES HAS BEEN GROWNING QUIETLY AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT THEY WILL BE THERE WHEN WE ARE READY TO MAKE A MOVE.

You continue, on a daily basis, to have "encounters-of-the-3rd-kind" -- with the reality that : Not only were you never "a contender" -- but that in NOT having the guts to enter "The Ring"; you have forfeited the "Right" to even be a "Spectator" in, what you have foolishly attempted to make into a game of "SPORT" !!

Get a "Life"!! It is never too late.

NOW YOU'RE HITTING BELOW THE BELT, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHO I AM OR WHAT I'M ABOUT. I MAY NOT BE IN THE SAME RING AS YOU ARE, BUT I'M KEEPING SCORE AND I HAVE A GOOD MEMORY, AND I DON'T PREJUDGE PEOPLE BEFORE I GET TO KNOW THEM.

AND THANKS FOR BEING SO UP FRONT AND FORTHRIGHT, INSTEAD OF HIDING LIKE THE OTHER RATS IN THIS GAME.

BK

BKJFK3@YAHOO.COM

Chairs,

Gerry Patrick hemming

__________________________

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

Bill:

Of course this was NOT directed at you. You had quotes from "The Kid?, Gratz, and these were continuations of the bullxxxx about Bohning !! So what if a news scribbler has a "201 File", or better yet, a "cryptonym", e.i. "AM/CARBON-69" ??!!

Maybe you just haven't noticed this "Stalinist" ranting against either specific individuals, or an agency in general. And where is the "solid" evidence ?? All of this rant about the "Evil doers",and the "Rogues", and it is so very easy to forget about what our enemies were all about -- the Gulags, psycho experimention [so-called "mental institutions"]; and what exactly is the big bitch?? Oh ! We started operating just like the "Bad Guys"!! The problem here is that far too many have identified themselves with the "Heroic Soviet Forces" that alone won WWII; and we nasties dropped "The Bombs" on the poor innocent Japs -- who, according to the latest "wet dream"; were just begging to surrender ??!!

NOT that the "Code of Bushido" General's weren't about to stage a coup even immediately after Hiroshima; and which involved the assassination of Hirohito -- and that the Soviets slaughtered Jap Army divisions when they were attempting to surrender in Manchuria and northeast China -- and that Soviet troops sat across the river and allowed the Wehrmacht to slaughter the rare warrior Jews of the Warsaw Uprising, and on, and on !!

The ONLY current debate I might have with you is: Exactly how to proceed with a multiple grand jury operation on these matters [JFK, RFK, MLK. Jr., et al.] -- and why in the end you might face some situations that have never appeared in public heretofor, and are of current interest with regard to the Geneva Protocols, detainees, The Rules of Land Warfare, International treaties, and why our Contitutions forbids specific compacts with foreign nations, yet permit "pre-emptive military actions !!

Let me know if you are interested. Leave the diatribe to be absorded by those antagonist who have posted absolutely NADA, and just are here to xxxxx !!

Chairs,

Gerry

______________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post, Gerry.

It is indeed interesting that it would seem that to several Forum members the CIA was the focus of evil in the Cold War. Scant attention is paid to the KGB, the intelligence arm of what Ronald Reagan correctly designated "the evil empire". The Soviet dictators killed more people than Hitler did. Which of course is no defense of Hitler. Both Naziism and Communism were totally evil dictatorships that crushed the liberties and often the lives of their subjects. But the focus here on the misdeeds and excessivies and in some cases criminal acts of some officers of the CIA while totally ignoring the KGB would be similar to a focus on the misdeeds of the OSS to the exclusion of the SS and Nazi storm troopers.

Freedom and democracy were as much at stake in the Cold War as they were in the war against Nazi Germany. We ought not forget that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill:

Of course this was NOT directed at you. You had quotes from "The Kid?, Gratz, and these were continuations of the bullxxxx about Bohning !! So what if a news scribbler has a "201 File", or better yet, a "cryptonym", e.i. "AM/CARBON-69" ??!......

The ONLY current debate I might have with you is: Exactly how to proceed with a multiple grand jury operation on these matters [JFK, RFK, MLK. Jr., et al.] -- and why in the end you might face some situations that have never appeared in public heretofor, and are of current interest with regard to the Geneva Protocols, detainees, The Rules of Land Warfare, International treaties, and why our Contitutions forbids specific compacts with foreign nations, yet permit "pre-emptive military actions !!

Let me know if you are interested. Leave the diatribe to be absorded by those antagonist who have posted absolutely NADA, and just are here to xxxxx !!

Chairs,

Gerry

GERRY,

I KIND OF LIKE THE KID. HE'S GOT WISDOM BEYOND HIS AGE AND EXPERIENCE.

AND I'M SURE I'M GOING TO FIND MYSELF IN SOME SITUATIONS IF MULTIPLE GRAND JURIES PROCEEDINGS SUCCEED, BUT GRATZ WILL PROTECT MY REAR.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DARN RIGHT I WILL, BILL!

And I agree with you 100% that what is needed is a legal proceeding in which an honest prosecutor will ask the necessary questions to the witnesses and suspects who are still living--and indict when appropriate.

How to accomplish that is the ultimate question, of course. One would think that almost any prosecutor would like to have a place in history as the person who solved the "crime of the century" but the countervailing consideration would be to fail and subject oneself to public ridicule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill:

Of course this was NOT directed at you. You had quotes from "The Kid?, Gratz, and these were continuations of the bullxxxx about Bohning !! So what if a news scribbler has a "201 File", or better yet, a "cryptonym", e.i. "AM/CARBON-69" ??!!

Maybe you just haven't noticed this "Stalinist" ranting against either specific individuals, or an agency in general. And where is the "solid" evidence ??

Oh, give it a rest Gerry. There is nothing "Stalinist" about what I posted. I just pointed out that there is no reason why Bohning shouldn't be called "CIA linked," in answer to Tim's objections. I don't think that makes Bohning, or anyone else the CIA wants to utilize, a bad person. Nothing to do with "Enemies" or "Evil doers."

Edited by Owen Parsons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill:

Of course this was NOT directed at you. You had quotes from "The Kid?, Gratz, and these were continuations of the bullxxxx about Bohning !! So what if a news scribbler has a "201 File", or better yet, a "cryptonym", e.i. "AM/CARBON-69" ??!!

Maybe you just haven't noticed this "Stalinist" ranting against either specific individuals, or an agency in general. And where is the "solid" evidence ??

Oh, give it a rest Gerry. There is nothing "Stalinist" about what I posted. I just pointed out that there is no reason why Bohning shouldn't be called "CIA linked," in answer to Tim's objections. I don't think that makes Bohning, or anyone else the CIA wants to utilize, a bad person. Nothing to do with "Enemies" or "Evil doers."

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

Yeah, and we should send this "Kid?" to Stanford, or maybe "Hashbury-Berkeley". You seem to forget that it wasn't that long ago that the big "slur" was that LHO had a "201 File"; and that, according to Weberman and his fellow snitches -- this was sufficient enough proof that: "Indeed LHO was NOT just an informant [or had been the subject of a "00" Domestic Contact Service interview]; but had been an salaried employee [viz: Contract Agent"] -- or even a "Career Intelligence Officer" !!

Those fantasizing whacko CT clowns discovered that: While an enlisted Marine has an S.R.B. [service Record Book] -- only officers of the Corps have "201 Files"; which contain the almost complete history of their USMC and/or other branch previous military service. NOT amazing at all that we continue to hear very similar rants [from identical-twin] eminating flatulently from multiple orifices.

NOW, it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that: Should an individual [entity or group] have a cryptonym, that is a sure fire "Gore-in-tree" that said "subject-of-interest" was linked to the CIA, or snitched for the CIA, or did propaganda work for the CIA.

Now there is a big fat "war crime" for you -- a citizen collaborating with his "own country's" Intel/Services, the military, or law enforcement agencies. Just what I expect to hear from one of the "starving masses loafing about in "South Central Los Angeles, i.e.: "..Da POH-lice done did dat...done did dis..!!" NOT what you might well expect from ex-cons, probationers, and parolees who brag daily that: "... They are just going to work..." -- when queried as to which Korean convenience store they plan to rob that night !!

Sometimes I spent an entire shift, just sitting with I.A.D. at Parker Center in downtown L.A. -- and that was just so that I might enjoy hearing allegations that some minority pogue "felony-bender" had just got his ass whipped by the "Hollenbeck Goon Squad".

"...Well S/A Hemming..you were there...now tell us what 'really' happened..!!" Well, for some strange and unexplained reason, and no doubt due to early onset "old-Zeimers -- they never really ever got the "inside track".

What really happened was: That while putting one gang member [of several, who had been stopped from killing one another] into the back seat of a "Black & White". Thereupon, the doped-up dude quickly turned and kicked the dumb-ass rookie "Copper" in the balls. And then what did the now pissed-offrookie do?? Nothing more nor less than just "what-comes-naturally" -- especially to someone only partially recovering from excrutiating pain ?? He quickly put ON his lead-weighted "Sap-Gloves" and pounded the dog-xxxx out of said "misbehaving" miscreant !!

Now, back to the slurs against Bohning [and many other journalists]. Most often it is to get the bona fides of some person/source as to the verity of an Intel story being floated by a "disinterested?" party. NOT some "whistle-blower" [from within the ranks of the agency]; but too frequently from one of the sweating masses -- who do grunt work on the outermost periphery of some "proprietary".

Oftentimes it comes from some "day-laborer", who want to impress his boyfriends [and/or girlfriends] with tales of intrigue, and how important he is to this great nation's security. You know the type:

"Elderly-cynical-self-important-egotistical-low-life-wannabe-operator/SOFers" !!

ONLY the ignorant or ill-informed would doubt the lawful mandates of an Intel/agency, and which requires that it liaise with the media, and oftentimes "asking" either for a "temporarily-sit-on" or a complete "kill" of a proposed "minor expose". Most likely it is something which hostile services might add to their "sources & methods" chatter filters.

NOW, and because of 9/11 -- there is NO "asking" anymore. Should you be one who is without Diplomatic, Parliamentary, or Congressional immunities -- then you are soon going to experience the many pleasures of a "War Daddy" or ["Momma"] useing the moniker "Rocky" whilst you "sun and loaf" about in a distant "Cell-bar Inn" !!

Also, as John well knows -- there is an abundance of "Trolls" who front their kid's [or somebody elses kid's] personal identiites [including pictures and bios] -- just so as to "spoof" the gullible. These pesky critters know that: In this country it is against the law for unauthorized parties to garner information about pre-teen/teenage shool students.

Therefore, your personal photograph is a complete waste of time. Even your volunteering as to your school, personal ["job-type"] references would be inevitably of no avail.

Proof of that is the Khazar "snitch" A.J.W. -- he sent me e-mails from a "family member's account", and immediately thereafter, I received several inquiries as to my knowing the "true" identity of said author of said e-mails ?? And moreover, notifying me that they originated from an illegal account. Always a pleasure hearing from the Secret Service & the UCE.Gov folks during dinner-time !!

Do me a favor, and don't bother giving us that line: "...I are just a simple widdle "speed-reader" -- with a 200+ gigabyte PC my mommy bought me..!!" Yeah, THAT along with an alliance with Google surely provides one with a "personal collection" of the entirety of the Library of Congress !! That was AJW's dodge in his attempt to cover the illegal reality that he has not given up using "Captain Ball-Buster" as his personal "phone-freaker" when hacking into a Super Cray Mainframe.

Of course, one has to be more than wary of those who: Via personal contacts with some of the "good-guy" hackers; with just a little bit of your personal Bio might open the floodgates to volumes of realities

SO, give it a rest -- why don't ya "KID?" We already have hordes of anarchistic "doodlers" jamming up the band-widths in cyber-space !!,

Chairs,

GPH

_________________________

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...