Operation Mockingbird

[William Kelly]

Hi Guys,

Did anybody else notice Gen. Victor "Brute" Krulak in the Penthouse story on Coply?

He was Fletcher Prouty's commander, who later confirmed Prouty's identificaiton of Gen. Ed Lansdale walking in the background of the tramps at Dealey Plaza.

John Newman said he was working on Lansdale, and discovered Lansdale was in Ft. Worth on 11/21/63, possibly staying in the same hotel as JFK.

Also, I'm working on a review of Max Holland's "The Kennedy Assassination Tapes," and will touch on Holland's study of Soviet disinformation and the assassination, and compare it to CIA disinformation on the assassination - as propagated by Holland.

BK

[Dawn Meredith]

Trento has "been there, done that". Not so John Simkin.

The above article is another confirmation of Trento's investigative astuteness and the fact that he has no political agenda, either left or right.

Trento is right. Simkin is wrong in his arm-chair analysis from thousands of miles away. It is that simple.

Is this the only song you know? Don't you get tired making the same old post day after day, week after week, month after sorry month? You have it backwards: SImkin is right. Trento is wrong.

BORING.....is an understatement.

Dawn

[William Kelly]

In regards to John's speculation that there is a British version of Opeation Mockingbird, I think it's more like the British developed the techniques of using journlists for espionage purposes, refined it and passed it on to us, as US mentors in the great game.

The British (and Russians) had Philby, both Peter (MI6) and Ian Fleming (ONI) masquarding as journalists, Philby in Spain, Peter in China and Ian in USSR, beginning with his "coverage" of the Vics spy trial. As Oswald did returning from USSR, Fleming wrote two different stories on the outcome of the trial, then submitted the correct one when the verdict was announced.

I just posted a new thread with an article I wrote about the Catherwood Foundation, with more details, and will post the article "Bottlefed by Oswald's NANA" when I find it. It's around here somewhere.

Also recalled the name of the guy who bankrolled and published Gerry Posner - Harold Evans, err Sir Howard Evans, who knew Ian Fleming from their days at the Sunday Times of London, where Evans became editor. While he was known for his investigative reporting and exposing Kim Philby as a doubleagent, he failed, with Posner, to get to the truth. According to Posner's intro, Evans gave him free reign, but he must have known the slant from the get go.

It's ironic that Random house, which published "The Invisible Government" by Wise and Ross, would also publish "Case Closed," one eyes wide open, the other closed.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Dawn wrote:

[i]Is this the only song you know? Don't you get tired making the same old post day after day, week after week, month after sorry month? You have it backwards: SImkin is right. Trento is wrong.

I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that Dawn has not read (probably does not even own a copy of) "The Secret History of the CIA". Dawn, John could not even figure out that Studies In Intelligence was the official journal of the CSI. How can you say Trento was wrong without having even read his book?

Was Trento wrong about everything? Surely not. If some of the matters he investigated and revealed in the press were correct, how then can you (without access to the information that he had and to the people he interviewed) claim his reports were wrong about anything?

Why not just admit it: you have rejected Trento's theory of the assassination, without ever having read his book, because it disagrees with your own scenario. You find it "boring" to read anything with which you disagree.

Edited October 31, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that Dawn has not read (probably does not even own a copy of) "The Secret History of the CIA". Dawn, John could not even figure out that Studies In Intelligence was the official journal of the CSI. How can you say Trento was wrong without having even read his book?

I have already pointed out in some detail (using the foreword of Moles and Molehunters) that the CSI was a CIA think-tank that published documents for internal circulation. This documents was declassified on 11-10-2003. The idea that the CSI was a CIA journal for public consumption is a joke.

I have of course read Joe Trento’s Secret History of the CIA. You apparently have only read the couple of pages where Trento suggests the possibility that Castro was behind the assassination of JFK.

When I emailed Joe about this he replied that he was not sure at all whether Castro was actually behind it. His main reasoning was that he did not think the CIA was capable of organizing the assassination of JFK. He said this for reasons of competence rather than morality. This is of course not an either/or question. I doubt very much if the CIA as an organization was behind the assassination. However, that does not mean it was a Castro operation. Nor does it mean that CIA officers or assets were not involved.

[Tim Gratz]

John, of course I have read the book in its entirety. My comment about not reading the book was directing to Dawn not to you.

But as you must know if you read Trento's book his primary scenario is that it was a group within the Politburo that orchestrated the assassination (although he states the group did involve agents of Cuban intelligence as well).

By the way, when I said that "Studies in Intelligence" was an official "organ" of the CIA, it was in fact the organ of the CSI, whether or not it was originally intended for public distribution or availability.

I find it hard to believe that Trento would publicly (or to you privately) disavow the scenario he sets forth in his book, which is now being sold in a paperback edition. If he really thought his book was in error, one would think he would either: a) publish a correction to it in the paperback edition; or shut up about his new beliefs. Why would he disavow his book to you but not do so on the Forum?

[Pat Speer]

I find it hard to believe that Trento would publicly (or to you privately) disavow the scenario he sets forth in his book, which is now being sold in a paperback edition. If he really thought his book was in error, one would think he would either: a) publish a correction to it in the paperback edition; or shut up about his new beliefs. Why would he disavow his book to you but not do so on the Forum?

Tim, I read the Secret History a few years back now, but my take on it was exactly what its title implies it is, a secret history of the CIA, told by former agents. Trento was presenting the views of former agents, including Angleton. It was not Joe Trento's history of the CIA. If it had been, he would have been doing his sources a disservice. They told him their story so he could write their story, not his story using their facts. This fact is essential to understanding the book. Your repeated assertion that Trento must have believed everything he wrote in the book is a mistake.

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, that is not the way the book is written. Trento could have phrased it: "According to Angleton [etc etc]" but he uses no such conventions. In fact, when there exists a disagreement about an event or a person I believe he so indicates. His chapters on the Kennedy assassination are written, in my opinion, as if he believes the facts set forth therein.

[John Simkin]

In February of 1976, the House of Representatives, voted to suppress the final report of its intelligence investigating committee. The chairman of the report, Otis Pike, was furious with this decision. Another member of the committee, Ronald Dellums, shared this view. Daniel Schorr, who had managed to get an advance copy, leaked the information to Village Voice. This led to his suspension by CBS and an investigation by the House Ethics Committee in which Schorr was threatened with jail for contempt of Congress if he did not disclose his source. Schorr refused and eventually the committee decided 6 to 5 against a contempt citation.

The report was published in the UK by a left-wing publisher called Spokesman in 1977. The book includes an introduction written by Philip Agee. I have managed to get hold of a copy of this book and will be posting passages on the Forum over the next few weeks.

One of the most interesting parts of the report concerns Operation Mockingbird. The report points out the battle they had with the CIA over this information. However, from the documents it was able to obtain, Pike's committee came to the conclusion that it was the "largest single category of covert action projects undertaken by the CIA".

[Ron Ecker]

Tim wrote: "Of course, when I found the Cram article on the Internet last night, I read it. But here is the cite so others can read it:

http://www.cia.gov/csi/kent_csi/Default.htm

Instructions: You need to go into the Electronic Index, then go to "C" and go down a rather long list to find Cram. The monograph is in PDF format."

The document linked to in PDF format is NOT "the monograph." If you read the editor's note, it says that it is a "background essay" (abstract?) that appeared in the monograph.

IOW John is telling the truth. The Cram monograph was published as a monograph, i.e. a document all by itself, in 1993, not in the journal "Studies in Intelligence."

Or maybe I can't read. Someone tell me if I'm wrong in defending John in this fight.

Edited November 7, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Tim Gratz]

Ron, the precise language is that the essay first appeared in "a" monograph, not in "the" monograph. In fairness, one really cannot deduce from the language whether the "essay" contaned in the journal is the same as the "monograph". Since John has the "monograph" he can presumably verify if what is in "CSI" is the same article or essay.

[John Simkin]

The document linked to in PDF format is NOT "the monograph." If you read the editor's note, it says that it is a "background essay" (abstract?) that appeared in the monograph.

IOW John is telling the truth. The Cram monograph was published as a monograph, i.e. a document all by itself, in 1993, not in the journal "Studies in Intelligence."

Or maybe I can't read. Someone tell me if I'm wrong in defending John in this fight.

Thank you very much for your support. I have told Tim Gratz several times that this was an internal document that was only declassified in 11-10-2003 as a result of the JFK Act. Despite receiving this information, Tim has continued to argue that it was taken from some magazine. There is little you can do with someone like Tim who is determined not to understand what he is being told. Other than banning him from the Forum, which I am reluctant to do, I am not sure what else I can do about his constant disinformation campaign.

We are having the same problem at the moment on several different threads. For example, read his nonsense on the Otis Pike Report thread. It seems that as long as the Republicans were in favour of it, he is in favour of the CIA suppressing information about their illegal activities. He seems a very strange sort of JFK assassination researcher.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5314

By the way, I have managed to obtain a photograph of Cleveland C. Cram. I will post it with a brief biography later today.

[John Simkin]

I have added a photograph and biograph of Cleveland C. Cram here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5194

[Ron Ecker]

Did anybody else notice Gen. Victor "Brute" Krulak in the Penthouse story on Coply?

He was Fletcher Prouty's commander, who later confirmed Prouty's identificaiton of Gen. Ed Lansdale walking in the background of the tramps at Dealey Plaza.

Bill,

It's worth noting that in his ARRB interview, when asked if he would identify the "acquaintance" who corroborated that it's Landale in the photo, Prouty said, "No. No, that's a personal matter." Why would Prouty say that when his identification of this person as Krulak was a matter of public record?

Also, Gerry Hemming, who apparently knows Krulak and tells of a recent fall that he suffered, has stated on the forum that Krulak "denies ever even hinting at said statement." Gerry may wish to clarify whether he heard this denial from the horse's mouth.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4588

IMO (thanks to James Richards first pointing out the resemblance) the man in the photo looks more like Maxwell Taylor (the hair, plus a drooping shoulder just like Lansdale's) than Lansdale (again, the hair).

John Newman said he was working on Lansdale, and discovered Lansdale was in Ft. Worth on 11/21/63, possibly staying in the same hotel as JFK.

Certainly a significant find. Do you have details as to how Newman discovered this, etc.? Stone's people were able to trace Lansdale through a "claim check" to the Hotel Texas where JFK stayed, but didn't have the date he was there. The ARRB considered looking into Lansdale's travel records on this question, but unfortunately decided that the records "are not worth our checking out."

Ron

[Owen Parsons]

Did anybody else notice Gen. Victor "Brute" Krulak in the Penthouse story on Coply?

He was Fletcher Prouty's commander, who later confirmed Prouty's identificaiton of Gen. Ed Lansdale walking in the background of the tramps at Dealey Plaza.

Bill,

It's worth noting that in his ARRB interview, when asked if he would identify the "acquaintance" who corroborated that it's Landale in the photo, Prouty said, "No. No, that's a personal matter." Why would Prouty say that when his identification of this person as Krulak was a matter of public record?

Also, Gerry Hemming, who apparently knows Krulak and tells of a recent fall that he suffered, has stated on the forum that Krulak "denies ever even hinting at said statement." Gerry may wish to clarify whether he heard this denial from the horse's mouth.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4588

IMO (thanks to James Richards first pointing out the resemblance) the man in the photo looks more like Maxwell Taylor (the hair, plus a drooping shoulder just like Lansdale's) than Lansdale (again, the hair).

John Newman said he was working on Lansdale, and discovered Lansdale was in Ft. Worth on 11/21/63, possibly staying in the same hotel as JFK.

Certainly a significant find. Do you have details as to how Newman discovered this, etc.? Stone's people were able to trace Lansdale through a "claim check" to the Hotel Texas where JFK stayed, but didn't have the date he was there. The ARRB considered looking into Lansdale's travel records on this question, but unfortunately decided that the records "are not worth our checking out."

Ron

I don't consider Hemming's information on this point, and many others (Esterline as Maurice Bishop, Garrison placing Ferrie under house arrest, etc.), valid. Here is a transcript of Krulak's letter to Prouty with his identification of Lansdale. Prouty has a much better record than Hemming (as entertaining as he is), IMO.

Newman's information about Lansdale is indeed significant, I'd like to hear more about it.