Jump to content

Was Harold Weisberg a witting servant of the CIA?


Recommended Posts

Astonishing - not a counter-argument in sight, just an appeal for reinforcements!

I accept the complement!

Paul

Uh, Paul....don't flatter yourself. As I found out on another thread, you're really not worth arguing with.

When you got called for trying to have Zapruder's testimony both ways, you turned things really ugly.

To date, not one Forum member has agreed with your assessment of Weisberg, including people that met him, were helped by him, and spent time with him.

Keep on thinking you've got things all figured out. And Paul, the word is compliment.

You obviously have not read AARB testimony regarding the Zapruder film.... we let those things pass when it comes to neophytes and the Z-film. Truck on Mr. Hogan.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To date, not one Forum member has agreed with your assessment of Weisberg, including people that met him, were helped by him, and spent time with him.

Childish stuff. As I noted previously, no argument of substance, just a call for help. Presumably the Department of Zapruderland Security will again despatch Bill Miller to the attempted rescue.

And of course Weisberg would help, everyone from the genuine enquirer from Hicksville to, er, George Lardner, Jr., that committed truth-seeker from WaPo. That was his cover.

I don't care if Weisberg was good with puppies - he still sought to sell the Z-fake as an authentic record. It isn't, and he lied. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care if Weisberg was good with puppies - he still sought to sell the Z-fake as an authentic record. It isn't, and he lied. Period.

Uh, you left out the part about him being a "witting servant of the CIA."

How very true - he was. Nothing to say about Mr. Lardner? Thought not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care if Weisberg was good with puppies - he still sought to sell the Z-fake as an authentic record. It isn't, and he lied. Period.

Uh, you left out the part about him being a "witting servant of the CIA."

How very true - he was. Nothing to say about Mr. Lardner? Thought not.

Paul, your assertion that Weisberg was some spook is an insult to every early critic of the Warren Report. Just about every critic in the sixties believed the Zapruder film was the Rosetta Stone that would prove conspiracy. Well, the Zapruder film is now avaliable on DVD. The single-assassin theorists use it to "prove" their theory. And apparently this makes you think people like Weisberg, who devoted their lives to making the truth available to you, were part of some set-up. You shouldn't be so gullible. Quit believing what you see on TV. Isn't it more likely that the single-assassin theorists are simply "spinning" the film to suit their needs, than that Harold Weisberg, a man known to live a modest life devoted to revealing the truth, was a part of a conspiracy to cover-up the murder of a man he so clearly admired?

The Zapruder film, when interpreted in conjunction with the autopsy photos, provides conclusive evidence that there was more than one shooter. Kennedy is not leaning forward enough to make the single-bullet theory feasible. His reaction to the head shot is not indicative of a shot impacting on the back of the head. The reaction of the crowd, when compared against the closest eyewitness testimony, is indicative that the last shot missed, and not the first... There is little in the film to support the shooting scenario propped up on these TV simulations. I suggest you open your eyes and see the film as it is and not as you think it should be. Ditto Weisberg.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, I was just reading your thread on Vietnam and was about to write a complimentary post there...then realized it was you who were the source of the skepticism on Weisberg and found this gloating post. Listen, you are obviously bright and able to think deductively and not follow the pack. Fine. I have been studying JFK for decades, read hundreds of books on the subject and ALL of Weisbergs twice. I also had a letter exchange with him and a few phone conversations. Add to that, many of those I have worked with have also had close research connections with him. I don't have his books with me at the moment or would look up the reference you mention, but the idea that he was pro-WC/CIA/FBI or anything of that flavor is just outlandish and incorrect. It has to be out of context or misconstrued. Perhaps he didn't fully realize that intrugue surrounding the film and its likely alteration - but even that is hard for me to believe. I don't know why you have this axe to grind with one of the fathers of the research on the case against the govenment..but you should withhold declaring 'victory' on this....it seems you are newer than many here to this field - not that one couldn't right off the bat find something new...I think this is a red herring that has no merit. Send in a friendly way. Reconsider it. Peter

Peter,

I like what I've seen of you, and your posts. I take, believe it or not, no pleasure in following the logic of the case, and rounding on someone whose work I initially thought irreproachable. But as you well understand, the CIA played - is playing - a deep and dark game; and we must meet that challenge.

Let me offer you a concrete example of why I turned against Weisberg:

"In one of those tricks of fate which later assume importance, this motorcade had no photographic car in the lead, no camera trained on the President from the front or otherwise close and with him in constant focus"

(Whitewash: The Report of the Warren Commission (NY: Dell, December 1966), p.30)

I must put it to you that the above is preposterous: It was no accident; and that Weisberg was too shrewd to have believed any such thing.

I wont labour the point, but I ask you, as you so politely asked me, to reconsider.

Best wishes,

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To date, not one Forum member has agreed with your assessment of Weisberg, including people that met him, were helped by him, and spent time with him.

Childish stuff. As I noted previously, no argument of substance, just a call for help. Presumably the Department of Zapruderland Security will again despatch Bill Miller to the attempted rescue.

And of course Weisberg would help, everyone from the genuine enquirer from Hicksville to, er, George Lardner, Jr., that committed truth-seeker from WaPo. That was his cover.

I don't care if Weisberg was good with puppies - he still sought to sell the Z-fake as an authentic record. It isn't, and he lied. Period.

Wow...bad reasoning. Until recent years, EVERYONE THOUGHT THE Z FILM

WAS GENUINE. ALL researchers used it as a TIME CLOCK. Weisberg was no

different than others. Then, in the eighties, some of us, like Lifton and me,

began to smell a rat after getting GOOD COPIES of the frames. I said so

in all my lectures. Jim Marrs mentioned in his 1989 book CROSSFIRE that

"Jack White believes the film has been altered". It took at least ten years

to convince others of our viewpoint. That's why Jim Fetzer dedicated TGZFH

to "Jack White for showing the way".

But back when Weisberg was writing his books, I and every other researcher

considered the Z film our most important piece of evidence. So you cannot

fault Harold for not realizing it was fake.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Astonishing - not a counter-argument in sight, just an appeal for reinforcements!

I accept the complement!

Paul

Uh, Paul....don't flatter yourself. As I found out on another thread, you're really not worth arguing with.

When you got called for trying to have Zapruder's testimony both ways, you turned things really ugly.

To date, not one Forum member has agreed with your assessment of Weisberg, including people that met him, were helped by him, and spent time with him.

Keep on thinking you've got things all figured out. And Paul, the word is compliment.

******************************************************

"Uh, Paul....don't flatter yourself. As I found out on another thread, you're really not worth arguing with."

Exactomundo, Mike. I was just getting ready to answer your reply to me at the beginning of this thread, but opted to read on to the second page. Originally, I kind of figured your were interrogating him, but you know me, I just had to throw a roundhouse. But it wasn't intended as an aside to you, at all. It was intended for Rigby, whom I wouldn't reply to if his house was on fire and about to burn to the ground. His deductive reasoning leaves much to be desired.

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Peter Lemkin' date='Aug 21 2006, 07:04 AM' post='72725']

Paul, I was just reading your thread on Vietnam and was about to write a complimentary post there...then realized it was you who were the source of the skepticism on Weisberg and found this gloating post. Listen, you are obviously bright and able to think deductively and not follow the pack. Fine. I have been studying JFK for decades, read hundreds of books on the subject and ALL of Weisbergs twice. I also had a letter exchange with him and a few phone conversations. Add to that, many of those I have worked with have also had close research connections with him. I don't have his books with me at the moment or would look up the reference you mention, but the idea that he was pro-WC/CIA/FBI or anything of that flavor is just outlandish and incorrect. It has to be out of context or misconstrued. Perhaps he didn't fully realize that intrugue surrounding the film and its likely alteration - but even that is hard for me to believe. I don't know why you have this axe to grind with one of the fathers of the research on the case against the govenment..but you should withhold declaring 'victory' on this....it seems you are newer than many here to this field - not that one couldn't right off the bat find something new...I think this is a red herring that has no merit. Send in a friendly way. Reconsider it. Peter

Peter,

I like what I've seen of you, and your posts. I take, believe it or not, no pleasure in following the logic of the case, and rounding on someone whose work I initially thought irreproachable. But as you well understand, the CIA played - is playing - a deep and dark game; and we must meet that challenge.

Let me offer you a concrete example of why I turned against Weisberg:

"In one of those tricks of fate which later assume importance, this motorcade had no photographic car in the lead, no camera trained on the President from the front or otherwise close and with him in constant focus"

(Whitewash: The Report of the Warren Commission (NY: Dell, December 1966), p.30)

I must put it to you that the above is preposterous: It was no accident; and that Weisberg was too shrewd to have believed any such thing.

I wont labour the point, but I ask you, as you so politely asked me, to reconsider.

Best wishes,

Paul

How sure am I that Weisberg was not a secret CIA dupe or mole??? About 99.9999999999999999999999999%! What Jack White just said here is the truth and everyone was shocked when the Z-film began to be considered as tampered evidence. Now many accept that - I do! JFK research is a fun-house mirror-maze and can make one question reality but your suggestion that Weisberg was 'on the other side' and you have the 'clues' based on a few lines and his War background is about as believable as one suggesting that the whole assassintation was Jackie's idea to get a 'divorce' and that she even shot him herself - she was after all closest and we can scour her statements and actions for clues.... I am currently working on a book in part on the OSS and CIC crowd and while, yes, many of the post-War crowd of CIA et al. spooks and criminals came from their ranks, many others were good people of good morality who rolled-up their sleeves to help defeat fascism. I communicate with some still around and many are as upset that some of their bosses and ranks became what the former enemy was, as you and I. I believe Harold would have fit in that category. You can have you unique fantasy of him, but I think you will find precious few to join you on this. Peace.

I am not taking sides here but, that said, I think we can all agree that the Company inserted a good number of "researchers" into this case from day one. I never had the pleasure of meeing Weisberg and only know him by his work. (Which remains supurbe).

I think that detecting who is a spook and who is not is quite difficult as the work of the spooks contains much truth. Of course the paranoia in this community is also to be considered. Personality differences and infighting cause many to be called "disinformationists" when it's merely a difference in opinion that's afoot.

I apply a personal "rule", but for the purposes of this discussion that would put Weisberg in the spook mode, which I do not believe to be the case. Peter, Jack or anyone: Do you know what caused Weisberg to turn on Garrison?

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No...I didn't know Harold that well.

But I did know Mary Ferrell rather well, and many researchers

considered her a spook. To name a couple, Groden and Livingstone.

And Lifton once became furious at her when she tried to secretly copy

a video without his permission.

Mary had numerous "CIA friends", such as Gordon Novel. She was

heavily involved in the Garrison investigation. Her motives were

sometimes suspect, since her law firm was heavily involved in

Texas politics. Her husband Buck once was employed by Carlos

Marcello. She was very close to Bud Fensterwald, who had CIA

connections

However, I always believed that Mary was just what she seemed

to be...a grandmotherly woman who became obsessed with knowing

EVERYTHING about the case. Her method of collecting information

was to cultivate everyone on both sides...spooks and researchers

alike, and know everything that was going on.

She was a great help to every researcher, letting them stay at

her house and comb her immense collection, and encouraging them

to find the truth. I, for one, would never have become a serious

researcher without Mary's encouragement and help and phone

conversations...and I was just one of many. It was she who

recommended me as a photo consultant to the HSCA. She had

a lot of clout in many circles for a little old lady who lived in a

modest house in a modest neighborhood and was just a legal

secretary. More than any other researcher, Mary almost single-

handedly kept the investigation going for years, with her chief

helpers Penn Jones and Gary Shaw. We miss Mary. I do not think

she was a spook. Neither was Harold. Why? Both were a burr

under the saddles of the real spooks.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Peter Lemkin' date='Aug 21 2006, 07:04 AM' post='72725']

Paul, I was just reading your thread on Vietnam and was about to write a complimentary post there...then realized it was you who were the source of the skepticism on Weisberg and found this gloating post. Listen, you are obviously bright and able to think deductively and not follow the pack. Fine. I have been studying JFK for decades, read hundreds of books on the subject and ALL of Weisbergs twice. I also had a letter exchange with him and a few phone conversations. Add to that, many of those I have worked with have also had close research connections with him. I don't have his books with me at the moment or would look up the reference you mention, but the idea that he was pro-WC/CIA/FBI or anything of that flavor is just outlandish and incorrect. It has to be out of context or misconstrued. Perhaps he didn't fully realize that intrugue surrounding the film and its likely alteration - but even that is hard for me to believe. I don't know why you have this axe to grind with one of the fathers of the research on the case against the govenment..but you should withhold declaring 'victory' on this....it seems you are newer than many here to this field - not that one couldn't right off the bat find something new...I think this is a red herring that has no merit. Send in a friendly way. Reconsider it. Peter

Peter,

I like what I've seen of you, and your posts. I take, believe it or not, no pleasure in following the logic of the case, and rounding on someone whose work I initially thought irreproachable. But as you well understand, the CIA played - is playing - a deep and dark game; and we must meet that challenge.

Let me offer you a concrete example of why I turned against Weisberg:

"In one of those tricks of fate which later assume importance, this motorcade had no photographic car in the lead, no camera trained on the President from the front or otherwise close and with him in constant focus"

(Whitewash: The Report of the Warren Commission (NY: Dell, December 1966), p.30)

I must put it to you that the above is preposterous: It was no accident; and that Weisberg was too shrewd to have believed any such thing.

I wont labour the point, but I ask you, as you so politely asked me, to reconsider.

Best wishes,

Paul

How sure am I that Weisberg was not a secret CIA dupe or mole??? About 99.9999999999999999999999999%! What Jack White just said here is the truth and everyone was shocked when the Z-film began to be considered as tampered evidence. Now many accept that - I do! JFK research is a fun-house mirror-maze and can make one question reality but your suggestion that Weisberg was 'on the other side' and you have the 'clues' based on a few lines and his War background is about as believable as one suggesting that the whole assassintation was Jackie's idea to get a 'divorce' and that she even shot him herself - she was after all closest and we can scour her statements and actions for clues.... I am currently working on a book in part on the OSS and CIC crowd and while, yes, many of the post-War crowd of CIA et al. spooks and criminals came from their ranks, many others were good people of good morality who rolled-up their sleeves to help defeat fascism. I communicate with some still around and many are as upset that some of their bosses and ranks became what the former enemy was, as you and I. I believe Harold would have fit in that category. You can have you unique fantasy of him, but I think you will find precious few to join you on this. Peace.

I am not taking sides here but, that said, I think we can all agree that the Company inserted a good number of "researchers" into this case from day one. I never had the pleasure of meeing Weisberg and only know him by his work. (Which remains supurbe).

I think that detecting who is a spook and who is not is quite difficult as the work of the spooks contains much truth. Of course the paranoia in this community is also to be considered. Personality differences and infighting cause many to be called "disinformationists" when it's merely a difference in opinion that's afoot.

I apply a personal "rule", but for the purposes of this discussion that would put Weisberg in the spook mode, which I do not believe to be the case. Peter, Jack or anyone: Do you know what caused Weisberg to turn on Garrison?

Dawn

*********************************

Here's what Weisberg told me [on more than one occasion], first being, nearly 30 years ago:

"You don't have to go outside the WCR and the attendent volumes to prove conspiracy. However, when it comes to who was involved, THAT is another matter..."

Perhaps, he felt Garrison's character role in 'JFK'-the movie went a bit too far OUTSIDE THAT box. I recall Harold got a chance to view the script and created quite a stink...

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To date, not one Forum member has agreed with your assessment of Weisberg, including people that met him, were helped by him, and spent time with him.

Childish stuff. As I noted previously, no argument of substance, just a call for help. Presumably the Department of Zapruderland Security will again despatch Bill Miller to the attempted rescue.

And of course Weisberg would help, everyone from the genuine enquirer from Hicksville to, er, George Lardner, Jr., that committed truth-seeker from WaPo. That was his cover.

I don't care if Weisberg was good with puppies - he still sought to sell the Z-fake as an authentic record. It isn't, and he lied. Period.

Wow...bad reasoning. Until recent years, EVERYONE THOUGHT THE Z FILM

WAS GENUINE. ALL researchers used it as a TIME CLOCK. Weisberg was no

different than others. Then, in the eighties, some of us, like Lifton and me,

began to smell a rat after getting GOOD COPIES of the frames. I said so

in all my lectures. Jim Marrs mentioned in his 1989 book CROSSFIRE that

"Jack White believes the film has been altered". It took at least ten years

to convince others of our viewpoint. That's why Jim Fetzer dedicated TGZFH

to "Jack White for showing the way".

But back when Weisberg was writing his books, I and every other researcher

considered the Z film our most important piece of evidence. So you cannot

fault Harold for not realizing it was fake.

Jack

Chris Brown.

Jack,

Good afternoon.

I agree.

I’ve only purchased and read (1 ¼ times to date) one of harolds books.

‘Never Again’. A critique of JAMA (the ‘Journal of the American medical association’ I think) I have also listened to his views on the JFK assassination on various documentary’s.

I would have thought that Harold’s area of expertise as a critic was in regard to the WC report, the autopsy report and his long battle to acquire freedom of information.

It seems to me that Paul’s criticism of Harold is similar to someone admonishing Tiger Woods Basketball prowess.

Regards

Chris Brown

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...