Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 03:37 PM Nov 2013

JFK Conference: Mark Lane Addressed the Secret Government’s Role in the Assassination

As a Democrat, a DUer and as a citizen of the United States, I was proud to attend "Passing the Torch: An International Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" at Duquesne University in October.

One of the important speakers there I was privileged to hear is Mark Lane, whose program was entitled "The Secret Service and the Assassination of JFK." The title as printed in the program is a misnomer, as Mr. Lane referred mainly to the CIA and the related secret governmental agencies involved in national security, rather than just the Secret Service that is charged with the president’s physical protection. Mr. Lane made clear that no matter their motives, any role, or rationale -- the CIA blocked the investigations of the assassination from the Warren Commission, from which CIA withheld crucial information, including plotting with the Mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro; to that of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, who established many connections between the assassination and the anti-Castro CIA operations; to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, that had a CIA director George H.W. plant work to destroy the investigation; to the present day, where the CIA continues to fight FOIA requests for information they were ordered by a federal court to release to the public. This is a problem for us today, the people for whom they serve without any form of democratic accountability.



An attorney, author, and early critic of the Warren Commission, Mr. Lane said he is proud to be the only public official arrested for being a Freedom Rider during the Civil Rights movement. At the Duquesne conference, Mr. Lane stated that he believed he was the one guy in the room of about 800 people who also was personal friends with President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General and later Senator Robert F. Kennedy. He got to know them in his role as New York City for JFK campaign chair in the 1960 election, particularly RFK, who served as his brother’s national campaign manager. Speaking from his unique personal and professional perspectives, Mr. Lane discussed the role of secret government in regard to the assassination.



EXCERPT...

This is what Arthur Krock wrote, published in The New York Times on October 3, 1963: "A very high American official -- and he was talking about John Kennedy -- has said the CIA's growth was likened to a malignancy, which was, the very high official said, was not sure even the White House could control.” And this very high official, probably the president, said. And was published, as I said, in The New York Times, October 3, 1963. “If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the government, it will come from the CIA and not the Pentagon. The CIA represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.”

That's what was said in October. And the president was killed the following month.

The Warren Commission never called Arthur Krock to ask him who the official was; How come he could predict the assassination a month before it took place? or predict something happening; and who the high official was? The high official was John Kennedy. But, that has not been said (in the media). And so we have the government issuing a statement which is untrue. And then we have the news media accepting it and allowing no dissent.

No dissent. For one year, a full year after the assassination of the president, not one question was asked of the government or published anywhere in any newspaper, radio station, television station. Not one question about the validity of the government's investigation. Not one question.

I'd like to believe that now with the internet and instant communication we have all around the the whole world, that if that happened today, it would be very hard to keep it a secret. But, you can count on the fact that people will continue to try that, if events have to be covered up from their viewpoint.

And as I said, there was -- their statement (the Warren Commission’s) was, “Our position is that we must reassure the American people.” And Earl Warren came out and when he was asked, "When will we get the truth?” He said, “You may never get it in your lifetime. Hundreds of thousands of Americans might die if the facts came out.”

And so, he was terrified. The hundreds of Americans he was talking about was World War III, which was going to break out, if they told the truth. This was what the Warren Commission was told. It took me years to get (FOIA) transcripts of the in-house meetings of the commission.

But, this is what they were told: that Lee Harvey Oswald, according to the CIA, went to Mexico City in October, 1963. He then visited the two agencies there -- he visited the Soviet embassy, he was in the Soviet Union, and the Cuban embassy. And it's clear that he was planning after he killed -- this was in October, when he was there, they said -- he was planning to go to Cuba and from Cuba -- go from Mexico City after the assassination -- Oswald was -- and go to Cuba from Mexico City and then fly on to the Soviet Union. That's the story that was told to the Warren Commission.

And the CIA went on to say, however: “We don't believe that the Russians or the Cubans were in any way involved. But, if the story gets out, people will not believe us. And that's why hundreds of thousands of Americans will die in a war which is going to take place. That's what they told Earl Warren and scared him. He really was frightened by this.

The trouble was the story was a fabrication. Oswald had not been to Mexico City.

The person who designed that whole story was a man named David Atlee Phillips, who ran the Central Intelligence Agency for the entire western hemisphere from his office in Mexico City.

Not long before he died, in the last seven years (or so) ago, he said that, I was at USC and appeared on the program with him) he said that, in fact, Oswald never was in Mexico City -- which destroyed the entire story which had been told to the Warren Commission.

When that was reported, an apologist for the Warren Commission said, “Well, it was because, yes, he said it, we can't deny that he said it.” This was well-publicized, this statement. “But the fact is that Mark Lane had subjected him to a cruel, grueling cross examination and confused him and that's why he said it.”

It was a (1977) meeting at USC (University of Southern California). I was on the panel and he was on the panel. I directed no question to him at all. And a student got up at the end and raised the subject, which I had not, that was: “Can you tell us about Mexico City, Mr. Phillips?" There was no cross examination. It was just the kid asking the question. And that's when Phillips said, "Oswald was never there."

And so the cover-up was that I had subjected him to this cross examination that wasn't. Of course, I didn't ask him anything. It was the student that said it. But that became the mantra of the Establishment to try to explain how the man who ran the Central Intelligence Agency for the United States (in the hemisphere) and elsewhere and did it from his office in Mexico City, made that statement, because of my brilliant cross-examination, although I never asked him the question.

And so here we are now, 50 years later, almost 50 years later, and there still are files which are classified. We don't even know the number, but we know there are in the tens of thousands of documents, that are classified by reasons of national security. Which obviously makes no sense, 50 years later. Never made any sense at the time because they were saying Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone. But anyway, even if made sense, then what issue of national security can possibly still be involved?

Well it's a question of CIA’s security. If the American people were told then or were even told now the truth about who killed their president, that would be the end of the CIA.

Most of the people who were involved are dead; in fact, maybe all of them. I know some names, but I don’t (name them). I'm a lawyer and I believe in our system of justice. I've never spoken out the name of any one individual who i believe is a suspect in the case because I think that our system is: Nobody is guilty in this country, each person is presumed to be innocent, even when they've been indicted, it is unfair to give up our whole judicial system in this one instance by saying yes, so-and-so probably did it. Guilt is determined by a jury or a plea of guilty or if you waive a jury, by a judge. The outcome is the result of a judicial proceeding. That is crucial to who we are, not every country has this blessing, which was handed down to us by the founders at the very beginning.

CONTINUED...



First off: The transcription above of Mr. Lane’s remarks from Oct. 18 at Duquesne above is mine. Any errors it may contain are my own.

Want to add: DU has discussed these issues: Arthur Krock on JFK, the CIA and Vietnam here; and former President Harry S Truman here.

Want to say: [font color="orange"]I’m honored to be an American and proud to be a Democrat and a DUer who stands with Mark Lane.[/font color] Since 1964 when the Warren Report was issued, Mr. Lane has made clear the problems with the government’s narrative that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. And he since has made plain what those problems with the government's story are, and from where they originate, the halls of secret government, including those of the Central Intelligence Agency, still need to be held to account.
193 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JFK Conference: Mark Lane Addressed the Secret Government’s Role in the Assassination (Original Post) Octafish Nov 2013 OP
Here's what the HSCA thought about Mark Lane: stopbush Nov 2013 #1
CIA Director Bush helped destroy HSCA investigation. Octafish Nov 2013 #7
So, on the one hand, you hold out the HSCA as a beacon of fact finding stopbush Nov 2013 #15
"I demand evidence" WTF? RobertEarl Nov 2013 #64
You sure do a lot of bloviating, but you've yet to offer an iota of evidence stopbush Nov 2013 #66
Bull malarkey RobertEarl Nov 2013 #68
I see. You're the type of person who argues that you can't prove George Washington really existed. stopbush Nov 2013 #69
Read the OP again RobertEarl Nov 2013 #71
''Bloviating'' is a term of art. Octafish Nov 2013 #103
Thank you my friend! zappaman Nov 2013 #108
I'd still side with Jim Garrison than the likes of you. Octafish Nov 2013 #110
I did comment on what Lane wrote. zappaman Nov 2013 #112
Capitalism's Invisible Army Octafish Nov 2013 #82
Blah, blah, blah. stopbush Nov 2013 #91
''Your questions are almost as dumb as the committee's'' Octafish Nov 2013 #96
More boring cut-n-paste from Octa who refuses to answer why they believe the HSCA stopbush Nov 2013 #98
What part of the OP is ''cut and paste,'' stopbush? Octafish Nov 2013 #100
Answer the question: why do you consider the HSCA to be a reliable source stopbush Nov 2013 #101
No one's asking you to engage. That's your problem. Octafish Nov 2013 #104
Please look at YOUR post #7 in this thread: "CIA Director Bush helped destroy HSCA investigation." stopbush Nov 2013 #105
G. Robert Blakey’s 2003 Addendum to the PBS Interview: Octafish Dec 2013 #171
Blakey believes the mob was involved and will probably go to his grave believing that. stopbush Dec 2013 #172
So, what Blakey said about the CIA isn't what Blakey said about the CIA? Octafish Dec 2013 #173
That would be learning fiction. stopbush Dec 2013 #174
Revelation 19.63 Octafish Dec 2013 #175
Why is it so important to you? notadmblnd Dec 2013 #177
"Smirk." - Poppy 'Skull & Boner' Bush (R - CIA - BFEE) Berlum Nov 2013 #78
Don't understand why certain DUers don't appreciate the BFEE connections to Dealey Plaza. Octafish Nov 2013 #106
Did Bush not know the patsy was supposed to be Oswald? Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #116
Odd is how that same George HW Bush in Dallas Nov. 22, 1963 shows up to head CIA 12 years later. Octafish Nov 2013 #145
That is odd. Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #146
Doesn't work for me, your act. Octafish Nov 2013 #147
Are you really accusing me of being here under false pretenses? Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #148
Like your exchange with Jim DiEugenio? You did all you could to drive him off. Octafish Nov 2013 #149
Speak plainly, sir. Are you accusing me of being here under false pretenses? Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #150
Or leave these foolish games and Meta distractions aside and start dealing with the evidence already Octafish Nov 2013 #151
so basically you aren't man enough to accuse Bolo straight up backwoodsbob Dec 2013 #161
No, I have not been 'payed' or paid to write about the assassination of President Kennedy. Octafish Dec 2013 #179
Of course he is. zappaman Dec 2013 #158
Odd thing for you to point out, considering what you write. Octafish Dec 2013 #180
Why do you accuse people of being paid zappaman Dec 2013 #181
They're your own words. Octafish Dec 2013 #184
There's a good analysis of the Parrott memo in Russ Baker's book 'Family of Secrets' Mc Mike Dec 2013 #186
Well said! Thank you, Mc Mike! Octafish Dec 2013 #189
I'm sorry that you sometimes take so much flack and displays of antipathy for posting good info. Mc Mike Dec 2013 #190
The problem for them is that no matter how they try to discredit ANYONE who doesn't march in sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #53
You must feel the same way about Obamacare. stopbush Nov 2013 #62
Mark Lane: The Original Shyster zappaman Nov 2013 #2
CIA Instructions to Media Assets Octafish Nov 2013 #8
You stand with a liar. zappaman Nov 2013 #10
So what? You defend the BFEE. Octafish Nov 2013 #11
I'm sure you can back up your smears? zappaman Nov 2013 #12
Not a smear when true. Octafish Nov 2013 #16
Show where I'm wrong. Otherwise don't libel me. zappaman Nov 2013 #18
LOL. Octafish Nov 2013 #24
LOL. zappaman Nov 2013 #26
journal.. feh. you're no REAL journalist man... you've never even been in a shootout!!1111 dionysus Nov 2013 #57
On the contrary... zappaman Nov 2013 #58
yeah but, but, do you have a bayonet, huh? a bullwhip? i think not sir. dionysus Nov 2013 #59
I think he means the many times you joke about the BFEE. Rex Nov 2013 #17
I'm quite sure he can speak for himself. zappaman Nov 2013 #21
Oh I know it is a joke. Rex Nov 2013 #22
True. zappaman Nov 2013 #25
Well, Rextradomous will make a prediction about the future Rex Nov 2013 #29
Hmmm.... zappaman Nov 2013 #31
I swear that man IS an alien! Rex Nov 2013 #32
Thank you, Rex. Octafish Nov 2013 #33
Well my on speculation is that he was a Russian double agent. Rex Nov 2013 #34
I noticed the high volume of repetitive re-postings of that same accusation Mc Mike Nov 2013 #48
Lol! Now you deny your own words? zappaman Nov 2013 #72
P. S. A. Mc Mike Nov 2013 #80
How is not believing Lane the same as supporting the Bush family? Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2013 #79
E. Hunt was such an upstanding man. Now I'm convinced, Hunt denied it, therefore it must be true. sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #55
"So much effort to prevent people from speaking their minds on this historical tragedy." zappaman Nov 2013 #56
Most of us, a majority of the people, want to see bullshit countered and don't everything their sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #65
E Howard Hunt planted fake cables in WH safe to make it look like JFK ordered Diem assassination... Octafish Nov 2013 #141
CIA caught red-handed in HSCA safe, a pattern of obstruction of justice in JFK assassination. Octafish Nov 2013 #142
Wow, thank you for that. Tampering with evidence. Yet nothing was done about it, and some wonder why sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #144
There's a special place in hell for Mark Lane. duffyduff Nov 2013 #95
Pretty lousy thing to say about anybody, let alone a good Democrat. Octafish Nov 2013 #97
I don't know what Brehm said, but Lane interviewed him on videotape. It's on You Tube. Zen Democrat Nov 2013 #109
I don't think Mark Lane is the kind of person you want to be standing with. DanTex Nov 2013 #3
You also need to learn more. Lane was there with Congressman Ryan. Octafish Nov 2013 #9
Umm yeah, but that's not the only time he was there. DanTex Nov 2013 #19
Yes. Octafish Nov 2013 #77
It's not about predicting, it's about claiming a CIA conspiracy. DanTex Nov 2013 #81
interesting, have read his book and thought it was good gopiscrap Nov 2013 #4
Two important works: 'Rush to Judgment' and 'Plausible Denial' Octafish Nov 2013 #13
Who is defending Bush on DU, Octafish? zappaman Nov 2013 #14
You, for one. Octafish Nov 2013 #20
I see jokes about your obsession zappaman Nov 2013 #23
Didn't you just say something about being smeared and how you don't like it? sabrina 1 Nov 2013 #63
Both of those books are full of lies and manipulations by Mr Mark Lane. stopbush Nov 2013 #27
How many times does Mark Lane mention CIA in 'Rush to Judgment'? Octafish Nov 2013 #152
You've got the wrong book. The CIA went after Lane's idiocies in in his POS book stopbush Dec 2013 #153
Good catch. zappaman Dec 2013 #154
Luckily, I knew that one off the top of my head. stopbush Dec 2013 #155
Speaking of assume. Octafish Dec 2013 #159
LOL! zappaman Dec 2013 #165
The point: CIA had no reason to stalk Lane in 1966. Octafish Dec 2013 #156
What's your source for that claim about the CIA stalking Lane? stopbush Dec 2013 #157
National Archives and Mark Lane Octafish Dec 2013 #160
Your link is useless. It says nothing about Mark Lane, stopbush Dec 2013 #162
Mark Lane talked about it in Pittsburgh. Octafish Dec 2013 #163
So, your first link WAS quite useless. stopbush Dec 2013 #164
You should try the truth sometime. Octafish Dec 2013 #176
Lane: Lawyer for "We The People" Patriot group and anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby frazzled Nov 2013 #5
Guilt by association is un-American. Lane is an attorney who represented two clients. Octafish Nov 2013 #28
I can't believe you're defending this guy frazzled Nov 2013 #35
It's easy. Mark Lane says we don't know the whole truth, but it looks like CIA conspiracy. Octafish Nov 2013 #38
"Guilt by association is un-American." Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #36
rofl. nt BootinUp Nov 2013 #127
I watched the 'Firing Line' debate between Lane and Buckley on YouTube the other day KurtNYC Nov 2013 #6
I thought Mark Lane was outstanding in that match-up. avaistheone1 Nov 2013 #30
The only thing "outstanding" about Mark Lane is his outstanding in a field. Archae Nov 2013 #37
It doesn't matter, but I believe Mark Lane is Jewish. He also is an attorney... Octafish Nov 2013 #41
Mark Lane's involvement with Liberty Lobby references the JFK assassination. avaistheone1 Nov 2013 #50
False. zappaman Nov 2013 #52
Mel Ayton? The disinformationist? Octafish Nov 2013 #134
I'm pretty new to all the JFK conspiracy stuff, about the past 6-7 years or so. I was only 9 months Ghost in the Machine Nov 2013 #73
He does very well even as Buckley sneers and goes ad hom on him. KurtNYC Nov 2013 #42
Dr. Cyril Wecht believes it was a coup d'etat too. mother earth Nov 2013 #39
Thank you, mother earth. Dr. Wecht is a national treasure. Octafish Nov 2013 #46
YOU are a DU treasure, Octafish, keep the info coming. I look forward to your next reporting. mother earth Nov 2013 #47
+10000000000000000000000000 PCIntern Nov 2013 #49
... mother earth Nov 2013 #114
And yet when he was a part of the HSCA investigation, he agreed that the head wounds Bolo Boffin Nov 2013 #51
That's funny, because Wecht said something different to the HSCA Spider Jerusalem Nov 2013 #137
"Secret Government": taking a mile mathematic Nov 2013 #40
You must be new to the term, mathematic. Octafish Nov 2013 #43
Enjoy your stay. n/t mattclearing Nov 2013 #74
Looks like you've got a host of Hugh Aynesworth wannabees in this thread Sir-K&R, NGU bobthedrummer Nov 2013 #44
It's like watching a flock take off and spin around... Octafish Nov 2013 #83
So much more eloquent than what I was going to say! SaveAmerica Nov 2013 #90
"Do you have a book about Kennedy that you recommend?" red dog 1 Nov 2013 #119
Here are a few good reads... Octafish Nov 2013 #133
a very good post in the best thread yet reddread Nov 2013 #140
K&R! Omaha Steve Nov 2013 #45
LBJ got Earl Warren to go along... Octafish Nov 2013 #84
Bill Hicks on JFK Initech Nov 2013 #54
Jim Hicks used comedy to spell out Truth. Octafish Nov 2013 #85
Thank you, Octafish, for your work on the assassination. A-Schwarzenegger Nov 2013 #60
Same here... PCIntern Nov 2013 #61
'SPOOKS' MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE Octafish Nov 2013 #88
We forget that the first "conspiracy theorist" was Oswald himself. A-Schwarzenegger Nov 2013 #111
Excellent post. Major Hogwash Nov 2013 #67
Ford pardoned Nixon Octafish Nov 2013 #89
Yes, that is true. Major Hogwash Nov 2013 #93
You should have seen Piers Morgan get the vapors. Manifestor_of_Light Nov 2013 #70
Thanks for the heads-up! Piers is something to behold. Octafish Nov 2013 #92
I finally got around to reading Lane's Rush to Judgment in the mid-70s. I usually save books but struggle4progress Nov 2013 #75
Mark Lane hasn't changed his mind since then. Octafish Nov 2013 #99
Seems after forty years, Lane's still working to get more than two pebbles in a straight line struggle4progress Nov 2013 #115
The ''Secret Service'' men on the Grassy Knoll Octafish Nov 2013 #128
A spoon of barley tossed into a barrel of water makes mighty thin gruel. Here's the testimony struggle4progress Nov 2013 #129
It's no joke. It's what TWO DALLAS POLICE OFFICERS REPORTED. Octafish Dec 2013 #182
K&R burrowowl Nov 2013 #76
I noticed a couple o' typos on re-reading in the cold light of a new day... Octafish Nov 2013 #94
Message auto-removed Name removed Nov 2013 #86
I've still got a dog-eared copy of Rush to Judgment on my bookshelf. robertpaulsen Nov 2013 #87
You know Edwin Black? He wrote about the Chicago Plot... Octafish Nov 2013 #107
I love IBM and the Holocaust! robertpaulsen Nov 2013 #117
Joseph Adams Milteer saw that it keep going in Dallas 50 years ago... Octafish Dec 2013 #169
One more thing on the subject of Chicago robertpaulsen Nov 2013 #121
The Chicago Plot involved a tipster named ''Lee.'' And the DIA harrassed Edwin Black. Octafish Nov 2013 #132
Well, the DIA angle is a twist I wasn't aware of! robertpaulsen Nov 2013 #138
James Carroll wrote ''House of War''... Octafish Nov 2013 #139
I think you're right about the cabal. robertpaulsen Nov 2013 #143
I think YOU're right about the cabal... Octafish Dec 2013 #178
Octafish, did you SEE this? Veciana admits Bishop was Phillips! robertpaulsen Dec 2013 #191
And then the guy passed away. Octafish Dec 2013 #192
Apparently, Veciana's death was misreported, according to Vince Palamara. robertpaulsen Dec 2013 #193
I heard Lane speak many years ago. It was him Jackpine Radical Nov 2013 #102
'Rush to Judgment' woke me up... Octafish Nov 2013 #126
Thank you Octafish i miss america Nov 2013 #113
Oliver Stone: JFK conspiracy deniers are in denial Octafish Nov 2013 #122
K&R...Thanks for posting. red dog 1 Nov 2013 #118
Mr. Lane credited himself on that one! Said it should've been called 'The Mark Lane Bill.' LOL! Octafish Nov 2013 #120
"The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).. red dog 1 Nov 2013 #123
Thanks! Octafish Nov 2013 #124
It was, indeed, Oliver Stone's "JFK" that got Congress to pass the "JFK Act" red dog 1 Nov 2013 #125
Deep gratitude for your work on this, Mr. Octafish Holly_Hobby Nov 2013 #130
That's Acquila Clemons, who said it Oswald did not shoot Officer Tippit Octafish Nov 2013 #135
K & R !!! WillyT Nov 2013 #131
For the Record... Octafish Nov 2013 #136
A Death Bed Declaration? CIA Tied to JFK Assassination Judi Lynn Dec 2013 #166
Well that's new information. what a great thread Ichingcarpenter Dec 2013 #167
Veciana was set to talk to Gaeton Fonzi re David Atlee Phillips... Octafish Dec 2013 #168
Citizen Lane by NCIS' Pauley Perrette MinM Dec 2013 #170
Thank you, MinM. Here's FBI Agent Donald A. Adams on Joseph Adams Milteer... Octafish Dec 2013 #187
Mr. Lane, I will never forget upi402 Dec 2013 #183
Seems the Novo Brothers helped assassinate Letelier and Moffit in 1976... Octafish Dec 2013 #188
K&R (nt). Kurovski Dec 2013 #185

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
1. Here's what the HSCA thought about Mark Lane:
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 03:52 PM
Nov 2013

"Many of the allegations of conspiracy the committee investigated were first raised by Mark Lane, the attorney who represented James Earl Ray at the committee’s public hearings. As has been noted, the facts were often at variance with Lane’s assertions. . . . In many instances, the committee found that Lane was willing to advocate conspiracy theories publicly without having checked the factual basis for them. In other instances, Lane proclaimed conspiracy based on little more than inference and innuendo. Lane’s conduct resulted in public misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be condemned. (House Select Committee Report, Page 424, footnote 16)

Proud to stand with Mark Lane? Proud to stand with a liar.

BTW - I only mention the HSCA because Octa constantly cites them as an authority on the JFK assassination when it comes to CTs.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
7. CIA Director Bush helped destroy HSCA investigation.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:42 PM
Nov 2013

He not only shut down discussion, Bush worked to hide his and the CIA's affiliation with the assassination of President Kennedy. Take George Joannides. Bush, the record shows, also begged Jimmy Carter to keep him on at CIA.

FTR: That's the same George Herbert Walker Bush who told the FBI he was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. What a coincidence.

So, stopbush, when given the choice between finding out the truth, like Mark Lane, or burying the truth about the assassination, like Poppy Bush and his crew, I'll choose Mark Lane and all who want Justice for JFK. The fact you don't, tells me all I need to know about you.

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
15. So, on the one hand, you hold out the HSCA as a beacon of fact finding
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:12 PM
Nov 2013

when they allege that there was a conspiracy in the JFK case, while on the other hand, you say the entire investigation was destroyed by Poppy Bush.

It's really not a matter of "finding out the truth" with you. It's about having an unshakeable - indeed, paranoid - belief that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, and picking and choosing your sources and the very evidence within those sources to fit your preconceived fantasies.

All you need know about me is that I demand evidence, whether it's the JFK killing, the existence of gods (and fairies, for that matter - they're on the same level as gods), or RW economic policies.

All we need know about you in this matter is that you'll stick to your story even if it's been debunked (ie: McClelland), and pick and chose your "facts" to fit your agenda. Why, you'll even pick your own liars to believe over others that you accuse of lying!

I'll bet that even that liar Mark Lane wouldn't find that to be helpful.

BTW - was it Poppy Bush who wrote that HSCA paragraph I supplied in reply #1 above, the paragraph that exposes Mark Lane as a liar and a fraud? Didn't think so. So why bring up Poppy Bush in this context in the first place? Oh, right...almost forgot...typical JFK CT whack-a-mole crapola.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
64. "I demand evidence" WTF?
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 11:59 PM
Nov 2013

No you don't. If you did you would be demanding the secrets that are being kept from you be revealed. You have limited info and yet you have your mind made up. I pity the person who might ever have to be jurored by the likes of you.

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
66. You sure do a lot of bloviating, but you've yet to offer an iota of evidence
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 01:28 AM
Nov 2013

to back up the bloviating.

You're easy to dismiss as one who is willingly uninformed on the evidence in this case.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
68. Bull malarkey
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 01:50 AM
Nov 2013

I see you are not demanding evidence. You can, but you decline. Instead you are saying you know it all.

Maybe you don't know that secrets are being kept from you?

But how is that possible? The fact of secrets being withheld is in the OP. Maybe you didn't even read the OP? I think there is evidence that you did not read the OP. That you had your mind made up and the evidence in the OP is unknown to you.

I state firmly that I do not have all the evidence, since facts are being hidden by the government. I am not the one who is willingly uninformed, as I do demand that evidence. You are the one willingly uninformed since you do not demand that evidence.

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
69. I see. You're the type of person who argues that you can't prove George Washington really existed.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 02:00 AM
Nov 2013

Sorry, but you're not a serious person. You're a waste of my time. Others are welcome to engage you, I think I'm done.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
71. Read the OP again
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 02:33 AM
Nov 2013

Apparently for the first time.

I see now that you're pulling the old 'cop out' routine.

Instead of discussing the ideas presented, you are merely cussing your way out. Hahaha.

It is hell when someone makes you eat your own words, ain't it?

Willingly uninformed know-it-alls are the bane of democracy.

Knowing that one needs to become better informed and striving to make that happen, is what makes for a better person all the way around.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
110. I'd still side with Jim Garrison than the likes of you.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 07:40 PM
Nov 2013

Instead of showing the world the extent of your hypocrisy, why don't you comment on what Mark Lane wrote? You know, unlike you, he's admitted to think there is more to be learned about assassination of President Kennedy. For instance, two important witnesses should have their stories heard on national television:

FBI agent Don Adams, who interviewed Joseph Adams Milteer, a white supremacist who predicted the assassination less than a month before it happened, and was tape-recorded doing so by an FBI informant.

Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden, the first African American on the White House Secret Service detail who reported overt racism by his fellow agents and outright hostility toward the "n------loving president" and was railroaded after reporting what he saw to the Warren Commission.

Those two are living heroes. They should both be regular guests for dinner at the White House, IMFO.

I'd ask what you think, but I already know.

zappaman

(20,605 posts)
112. I did comment on what Lane wrote.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 07:43 PM
Nov 2013

Maybe you should read the thread?

And blah, blah, blah back at ya!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
82. Capitalism's Invisible Army
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 11:24 AM
Nov 2013

Joseph Trento, from the "Secret History of the CIA," explains the "How?":


"You know how I got to be in charge of counterintelligence? I agreed not to polygraph
or require detailed background checks on Allen Dulles and 60 of his closest friends...
They were afraid that their own business dealings with Hitler’s pals would come out.
They were too arrogant to believe that the Russians would discover it all..." -- James J. Angleton



Why that matters:

Know your BFEE: Spawn of Wall Street and the Third Reich

Don't ever stopbush.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
96. ''Your questions are almost as dumb as the committee's''
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 04:42 PM
Nov 2013

Thus spoke Richard Helms, as quoted in the Washington Post, when asked about Oswald after his 1978 testimony to the HSCA.



Among the officers in the know about the thoroughly obscure Lee Oswald when President Kennedy was preparing for his trip to Dallas:

— Tom Karamessines, Helms’s trusted deputy;

— Bill Hood, the urbane chief of CIA operations in the Western Hemisphere and a close friend of Angleton’s;

— Jane Roman, a loyal senior aide to Angleton;

— David Phillips, a charismatic protege of Helms and chief of anti-Castro operations outside of the United States;

— John Whitten (aka “John Scelso”), an overbearing senior desk officer for Mexican operations;

— Win Scott, the impressive Mexico City station chief;

— and Anne Goodpasture, Scott’s canny assistant.

SOURCE: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/andrew-sullivan-weighs-in-with-a-closed-mind/

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
98. More boring cut-n-paste from Octa who refuses to answer why they believe the HSCA
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 05:33 PM
Nov 2013

when it comes to their saying there was a conspiracy in the JFK killing but also avers that the entire HSCA investigation was ruined by Poppy Bush.

Why won't you explain that, Octafish? One would think it's one or the other.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
100. What part of the OP is ''cut and paste,'' stopbush?
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 05:44 PM
Nov 2013

I transcribed what Lane said at the conference. My own recording, it's off an Olympus digital recorder.

Here's something you may enjoy from the HSCA:

Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City (aka "Lopez Report&quot

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=799

The document was discussed at length at Duquesne by Dan Hardway. When time permits, I will post some of his observations he related.

I'd say you might learn something, stopbush, but going from what you write, you already know everything.

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
101. Answer the question: why do you consider the HSCA to be a reliable source
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 05:49 PM
Nov 2013

in proving a conspiracy in the JFK case when you also say the entire HSCA was ruined by Poppy Bush?

I'm not going to bother engaging with you until you answer that simple question, no matter how many links and cut-n-paste articles you post as replies to my question.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
104. No one's asking you to engage. That's your problem.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 06:06 PM
Nov 2013

And no where do I state what you allege. That's also your problem.

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
105. Please look at YOUR post #7 in this thread: "CIA Director Bush helped destroy HSCA investigation."
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 06:20 PM
Nov 2013

Last edited Fri Nov 22, 2013, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

That's YOUR post, Octa.

And yet you have the chutzpah to write "no where do I state what you allege."

Wow. We're really through the looking glass here! You can't even remember what you wrote in this thread.

So, no, it's not my problem that you state in post #7 that Poppy "Bush helped destroy the HSCA investigation," where elsewhere - and often - you cite the HSCA's acceptance of the Dictabelt evidence as proof of a conspiracy in the JFK case. Those are FACTS, Octa, YOUR facts.

Not that you care about facts.

So, are you going to explain that little deficiency in logic, or are you going to lie and stick with your "no where do I state what you allege" defense?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
171. G. Robert Blakey’s 2003 Addendum to the PBS Interview:
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 01:59 PM
Dec 2013

I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee. My reasons follow:

The committee focused, among other things, on (1) Oswald, (2) in New Orleans, (3) in the months before he went to Dallas, and, in particular, (4) his attempt to infiltrate an anti-Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil or DRE.

These were crucial issues in the Warren Commission’s investigation; they were crucial issues in the committee’s investigation. The Agency knew it full well in 1964; the Agency knew it full well in 1976-79. Outrageously, the Agency did not tell the Warren Commission or our committee that it had financial and other connections with the DRE, a group that Oswald had direct dealings with!

What contemporaneous reporting is or was in the Agency’s DRE files? We will never know, for the Agency now says that no reporting is in the existing files. Are we to believe that its files were silent in 1964 or during our investigation?

I don’t believe it for a minute. Money was involved; it had to be documented. Period. End of story. The files and the Agency agents connected to the DRE should have been made available to the commission and the committee. That the information in the files and the agents who could have supplemented it were not made available to the commission and the committee amounts to willful obstruction of justice.

Obviously, too, it did not identify the agent who was its contact with the DRE at the crucial time that Oswald was in contact with it: George Joannides.

During the relevant period, the committee’s chief contact with the Agency on a day-to-day basis was Scott Breckinridge. (I put aside our point of contact with the office of chief counsel, Lyle Miller) We sent researchers to the Agency to request and read documents. The relationship between our young researchers, law students who came with me from Cornell, was anything but “happy.” Nevertheless, we were getting and reviewing documents. Breckinridge, however, suggested that he create a new point of contact person who might “facilitate” the process of obtaining and reviewing materials. He introduced me to Joannides, who, he said, he had arranged to bring out of retirement to help us. He told me that he had experience in finding documents; he thought he would be of help to us.

I was not told of Joannides’ background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE.

That the Agency would put a “material witness” in as a “filter” between the committee and its quests for documents was a flat out breach of the understanding the committee had with the Agency that it would co-operate with the investigation.

The committee’s researchers immediately complained to me that Joannides was, in fact, not facilitating but obstructing our obtaining of documents. I contacted Breckinridge and Joannides. Their side of the story wrote off the complaints to the young age and attitude of the people.

They were certainly right about one question: the committee’s researchers did not trust the Agency. Indeed, that is precisely why they were in their positions. We wanted to test the Agency’s integrity. I wrote off the complaints. I was wrong; the researchers were right. I now believe the process lacked integrity precisely because of Joannides.

For these reasons, I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald. Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion, the Agency may well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could well be that it materially understates the matter.

What the Agency did not give us none but those involved in the Agency can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.

I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.

Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.

Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.

I am now in that camp.

SOURCE: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/biographies/oswald/interview-g-robert-blakey/#addendum

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
172. Blakey believes the mob was involved and will probably go to his grave believing that.
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:23 PM
Dec 2013

Blakey also said that if the Dictabelt evidence could ever be falsified it would blow apart the second shooter/4th shot theory of the HSCA.

That evidence has been falsified repeatedly over the decades, yet Blakey has never been a man of his word and admitted what he himself said he would admit. It was his standard, and he can't man up and admit the HSCA was wrong.

Sadly, Blakey seems to be a zealot for whom not contrary evidence is allowed. In that, he is just like you.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
173. So, what Blakey said about the CIA isn't what Blakey said about the CIA?
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 02:31 PM
Dec 2013

Other than the part where Blakey explains how CIA obstructed justice, you are so right.

For those interested in learning, the amazing Jefferson Morley:

http://jfkfacts.org/tag/george-joannides/

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
175. Revelation 19.63
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 04:36 PM
Dec 2013
For nearly four decades the CIA has kept secret the identity of a Miami agent who may have known too much too early about Lee Harvey Oswald

By Jefferson Morley
Miami New Times, Thursday, Apr 12 2001

When Fidel Castro's Revolutionary Armed Forces routed the U.S.-backed Cuban exiles in the Bay of Pigs fiasco 40 years ago this week, President John F. Kennedy took full responsibility for the defeat. But the contrition of the young commander in chief, while popular with the American people, played poorly among the tens of thousands of Cubans living here in Miami. Many believed the liberal chief executive's refusal to send planes to support the men scrambling for cover at Playa Girón was a failure of nerve, if not a betrayal. And to this day a certain embittered distrust of Washington, born four decades ago, runs deep in Cuban Miami, erupting whenever the federal government (in the person of Janet Reno or farm-belt Republicans in Congress) pursues policies contrary to the agenda of the first generation of el exilio.

But the truth is that whatever the disappointment of the Bay of Pigs, Miami's Cuban exiles have never lacked for support at the highest levels of the U.S. government. From the beginning their anti-Castro cause was taken up by senior leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency, who encouraged their ambitions to destroy the Cuban regime. For 38 years one of the most powerful of those leaders has guarded a secret about the events leading up to Kennedy's violent death, a secret potentially damaging to the exile cause as well as to the agency itself.

The man is Richard Helms, former director of the CIA. Now retired and living in the swank Foxhall section of Washington, D.C., the 89-year-old Helms declined interview requests for this story, the basic facts of which have emerged from recently declassified JFK files.

Through four intensive investigations of the Kennedy assassination, Helms withheld information about a loyal CIA officer in Miami -- a dapper, multilingual lawyer and father of three -- who guided and monitored the Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil (the Revolutionary Student Directorate, or DRE). His name was George Joannides, and his charges in the DRE were among the most notoriously outspoken and militant anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the early Sixties. For several weeks in the summer of 1963, those same exiles tailed, came to blows with, and harassed Lee Harvey Oswald, who just a few months later changed the course of U.S. history.

Helms never told the Warren Commission -- the presidential panel set up after Kennedy's death to investigate the assassination -- about his officer's relationship with the exile group. He never disclosed that the CIA was funding the DRE when it had contact with Oswald, who was agitating on Castro's behalf in New Orleans in August 1963. A skillful bureaucrat, Helms withheld files on Oswald's pro-Castro activities from an in-house investigation of the accused assassin (and when the veteran officer in charge of that probe protested, Helms relieved him of his duties).

Helms stonewalled again in 1978, when Congress created the House Select Committee on Assassinationsto re-examine Kennedy's murder. Once more the CIA kept every detail of Joannides's mission in Miami under wraps. Worse still, in veiled contempt of that inquiry, the CIA assigned to Joannides himself the job of deflecting sensitive inquiries from the committee's investigators.

As recently as 1998, the agency still disavowed any knowledge of Joannides's actions in Miami. John Tunheim, now a federal judge in Minneapolis, chaired the federal Assassination Records Review Board, which between 1994 and 1998 opened more than four million pages of long-secret documents -- including a thin file on Joannides. Yet even then the CIA was claiming that no one in the agency had had any contact with the DRE throughout 1963. The Joannides story, Tunheim says today, "shows that the CIA wasn't interested in the truth about the assassination."

Journalist and author Gerald Posner, whose 1993 best seller Case Closed argued that the DRE's harassment of Oswald was a "humiliation" that propelled him on his way to shoot the president, says he finds the Joannides piece of the JFK puzzle to be "obviously important" and suggests that the CIA is "covering up its own incompetence." In his view the agency's "intransigence, lying, and dissembling are once again contributing to suspicions of conspiracy."

G. Robert Blakey, who served as general counsel for theHouse Select Committee on Assassinations, says the agency's silence compromised that investigation. "If I had known then what Joannides was doing in 1963, I would have demanded that the agency take him off the job (of responding to committee inquiries)," he asserts. "I would have sat him down and interviewed him. Under oath."

CONTINUED...

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2001-04-12/news/revelation-19-63/

So, that's what Morley was reporting 12 years ago. Thanks to him, we've learned a great deal about the assassination of President Kennedy.

What were you doing 12 years ago, stopbush?

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
177. Why is it so important to you?
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 05:58 PM
Dec 2013

And do you really think you will successfully shut down the conversation with nothing but derision?

I hope this isn't your day job.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
106. Don't understand why certain DUers don't appreciate the BFEE connections to Dealey Plaza.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 06:34 PM
Nov 2013

But here are a few that really, really make them come out from the shadows:


Which is what GHWB told the FBI when dropping a dime on a suspect an hour afterward. Larry Sabato did not bring this up when talking about JFK the other day, for some reason.





TO: SAC, HOUSTON DATE: 11-22-63

FROM: SA GRAHAM W. KITCHEL

SUBJECT: UNKNOWN SUBJECT;
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY


At 1:45 p.m. Mr. GEORGE H. W. BUSH, President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company, Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar, Houston, telephonically furnished the following information to writer by long distance telephone call from Tyler, Texas.

BUSH stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he recalled hearing in recent weeks, the day and source unknown. He stated that one JAMES PARROTT has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston.

BUSH stated that PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active in political matters in this area. He stated that he felt Mrs. FAWLEY, telephone number SU 2-5239, or ARLINE SMITH, telephone number JA 9-9194 of the Harris County Republican Party Headquarters would be able to furnish additional information regarding the identity of PARROTT.

BUSH stated that he was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel and return to his residence on 11-23-63. His office telephone number is CA 2-0395.

# # #



A week later, FBI director J Edgar Hoover brings up "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency."





Date: November 29, 1963

To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State

From: John Edgar Hoover, Director

Subject: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
NOVEMBER 22, 1963


Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963, advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in U. S. policy, which is not true.

Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the U. S. but to all of Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.

An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that these individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.

The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W. T. Forsyth of this Bureau.

# # #



No one today on tee vee has brought up how the CIA failed to tell the FBI and the Warren Commission that it was involved in plots with the Mafia to murder Fidel Castro -- even after being ordered to stop by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. Not once.

Nor did the tee vee mention how the CIA failed to tell the FBI and the Warren Commission that it was monitoring Lee Harvey Oswald for weeks before the assassination. Not once.

What a coincidence. I'm told.

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
116. Did Bush not know the patsy was supposed to be Oswald?
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 08:17 PM
Nov 2013

Why's he dropping the dime on this Parrott clown? I thought the BFEE was pulling the strings here! Did HW not get the Oswald memo?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
145. Odd is how that same George HW Bush in Dallas Nov. 22, 1963 shows up to head CIA 12 years later.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 06:26 PM
Nov 2013

Then, he becomes vice president five years after that and acts as president for the next 12 seeing how his family friend plugged Pruneface. Then, his own dim son becomes president for eight more. All along the way, their cronies are making a buttload of money off war.



Why anyone would defend that BFEE crap over me pointing it out is beyond me.

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
146. That is odd.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 06:35 PM
Nov 2013

The guy who didn't know the BFEE was framing Oswald and tried to frame this Parrott clown after the assassination before heading to Dallas that day winds up head of the CIA! Talk about failing up the chain of command!

There are those that defend the BFEE by pretending it's no big deal or that they're doing the right thing, like the Bill Kristols and Sarah Palins of this works. And then there are those who defend the BFEE by accusing them of so much patent bullshit that their real evils cannot be seen. Heaven preserve us from these misguided people, Octafish.

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
148. Are you really accusing me of being here under false pretenses?
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 06:42 PM
Nov 2013

You better have your evidence for such an accusation ready to go, Octafish.

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
150. Speak plainly, sir. Are you accusing me of being here under false pretenses?
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 07:10 PM
Nov 2013

And do you consider that post evidence of that?

Be a man, Octafish. If you think I'm here under false pretenses, marshal your evidence and approach the administrators with your accusations and get me kicked off DU.

Or leave these foolish games and Meta distractions aside and start dealing with the evidence already.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
151. Or leave these foolish games and Meta distractions aside and start dealing with the evidence already
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 07:14 PM
Nov 2013

Your words, sound officious. These too:

116. Did Bush not know the patsy was supposed to be Oswald?

Why's he dropping the dime on this Parrott clown? I thought the BFEE was pulling the strings here! Did HW not get the Oswald memo?


146. That is odd.

The guy who didn't know the BFEE was framing Oswald and tried to frame this Parrott clown after the assassination before heading to Dallas that day winds up head of the CIA! Talk about failing up the chain of command!

There are those that defend the BFEE by pretending it's no big deal or that they're doing the right thing, like the Bill Kristols and Sarah Palins of this works. And then there are those who defend the BFEE by accusing them of so much patent bullshit that their real evils cannot be seen. Heaven preserve us from these misguided people, Octafish.


148. Are you really accusing me of being here under false pretenses?

You better have your evidence for such an accusation ready to go, Octafish.


I don't need to say it any plainer: You serve to distract discussion away from the crimes of the Bush family and the national security state. Why you do so is your business, not mine.
 

backwoodsbob

(6,001 posts)
161. so basically you aren't man enough to accuse Bolo straight up
Sun Dec 1, 2013, 01:41 AM
Dec 2013

you play word games and dance around the topic...just like you do with everything involving the JFK assassination.

I will ask you straight up...have you ever been payed to publish any work regarding this or have you been payed to speak in public about this?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
179. No, I have not been 'payed' or paid to write about the assassination of President Kennedy.
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 11:15 PM
Dec 2013

I went to the conference on my own dime. No secret agenda: I want justice for JFK.

The reason I post about it is to inform others about what I learned. President Kennedy lost his life keeping the country from the warmonger banksters Allen Dulles and Prescott Bush served.

Why my pointing that out would bother you so much is odd for a DUer, to put it politely.

zappaman

(20,605 posts)
181. Why do you accuse people of being paid
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 11:33 PM
Dec 2013

When they point out your false posts, smears, accusations, and silliness, Octafish?
Rest assured though, I will never accuse you of having a sense of humor!

Mc Mike

(9,107 posts)
186. There's a good analysis of the Parrott memo in Russ Baker's book 'Family of Secrets'
Fri Dec 6, 2013, 01:22 PM
Dec 2013

Last edited Sat Oct 25, 2014, 09:28 AM - Edit history (1)

It runs on pp 45 through 66 (paperback version). I'm not saying you must read my source, though. To sum it up: Poppy bush was in Dallas campaigning against Kennedy and the Democrats on 11-21 and 11-22 morning. He was in Tyler, Texas (he alleges) prepared to give a repug campaign speech, and heard that wires from Dallas confirmed that the President had been assassinated (1:38 pm Central). He didn’t give the political speech. Instead, a few minutes later, he called the FBI to 'finger' Parrott (1:45 pm Central) -- 'There's this guy who volunteers for the organization I'm leading, and he's been talking about killing Kennedy. Gee whiz, I hope he didn’t do anything rash against the guy I’ve been railing against in my Senate run. By the way, I’m not in Dallas, I used my oil buddy’s private jet to go to Tyler, and I’ll use it to go back to Dallas, now'. Fortunately for James Parrott, at the exact same time of the call, Poppy's right hand man in the Harris County repug Party, Kearney Reynolds, was visiting Parrott on behalf of bush to coordinate repug campaign activities with him, and so could provide an alibi to the FBI for Parrott. So what was the point?

There are several points, actually. First, as author Russ Baker points out, bush phoned a FBI agent named Graham Kitchel with the tip. Graham's brother George, an offshore oil engineer, was good friends with Poppy, long-time friends according to an interview George K. himself gave. This ensured his useless tip, among hundreds of calls fielded on what may have been the most hectic day in the FBI’s history, would get action and documentation, unlike a lot of other ‘tips’ that weren’t worthy of documentation. It wasted the Feds’ time and resources, but that waste wasn’t caused in furtherance of a plot against JFK. What the documentation of bush’s ‘tip’ ‘from Tyler’ did, was ‘establish’ the ‘fact’ that bush wasn’t in Dallas, though he was in Dallas on the morning of the 22nd and (according to bush) ‘flew back and was in Dallas on the afternoon of the 22nd’. The FBI memo functioned as a paper trail that explained bush’s presence in Dallas before and after the assassination (because many people saw him there), and ‘established’ that he wasn’t there during it. The result of the useless tip was that “Parrott became Poppy’s alibi, and Poppy’s assistant became Parrott’s.”(--Baker, p. 61). It’s the Texas two step.

Hoover didn’t like the Kennedys, but had no lost love for bush’s bircher crowd, either. He also knew that if they could kill JFK, they could kill Hoover. His reaction to the bush ‘tip’ was a memo of his own a few days later, saying ‘Mr. George Bush of the CIA , we’ve been watching that crowd of armed extremist Batista Cubans you’ve been training, and we think they’re trying to use the assassination as a pretext to launch a war from our soil against Cuba. We know that’s illegal, and we ARE in the business of law enforcement, after all.’ (Those Cubans are the people who Oswald had documented involvement with, working both in favor of their cause and, as the only documented member of the FPCC in New Orleans, ‘against’ their cause. Carlos Bringuier, Antonio Veciana, Col. Orlando Piedra, Sergio Arcacha Smith – those Cubans.)

Hoover’s memo was also important because Poppy denied being in the CIA until he was appointed to lead it, and denies having been in the CIA from the 50’s – 70’s, to this day. Hoover blew bush’s cover, quite purposefully, and told bush’s crowd that they had reached the end of their chain, in action terms.

The reaction to Hoover’s move was an immediate set of leaks in December to Dallas D.A. Wade and ‘friendly’ (to right wing repugs) Dallas reporters saying that Oswald was an FBI informant. And in January, Texas A. G. Waggoner Carr sent Warren Commission General Counsel Rankin a memo about the allegations. Carr said the allegations came from Dallas D.A. Wade, and Wade was unable or unwilling to specify the source of them. That’s the Texas repugs and CIA man bush’s crowd saying ‘How about we pin the assassination on you, Hoover?’

Interestingly, when D.A. Wade was giving a late night press conference as Nov. 22 ended, he identified Oswald as a member of the ‘Free Cuba Committee’. He was corrected by a strip-club owner named Jack Ruby, who had mixed in with the crowd of reporters, and who said ‘That’s the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.’ (The Crusade to Free Cuba Committee was an anti-Castro pro Batista Cuban expatriate crowd who had offices in the New Orleans building at 544 Camp Street. Oswald distributed flyers stamped with that address for the pro-Castro FPCC, he distributed those flyers on the street outside that building, and used that building as a base for his ‘work on behalf of’ Castro.)

I remember discussing Wade’s actions with Zap, the DU WC advocate last year. Why would a DA in a high profile international press conference take public correction from a mob flunky, instead of having the cops remove the guy from the room? How did a mob flunky strip club owner come to have such in depth knowledge about obscure pro and anti Castro groups, to make sure that the anti-Castro group didn’t get blamed, but the pro-Castro group did get blamed? Those two lines from the press conference showed that Wade knew Ruby, and Ruby knew Oswald, but the response to my question from Zap was a glib ‘Why don’t you ask Wade?’, (who is dead).

And finally, regarding Parrott: Baker’s book talked about an interview conducted with Parrott in ’93. The high interest in the Kennedy assassination in the early ‘90’s had led to Congress unanimously passing the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of ’92, which caused the Parrott memo to be released. This generated interest in Parrott, and he gave an interview in ’93. He noted that he had worked for bush’s re-election campaign in ’92, and “in an article covering the frenzied GOP-convention podium attacks on the Clinton-Gore team over family values, Parrott is described as passing out flyers saying ‘no queers or baby killing’, while wearing a plastic shield over his face, explaining that it was protection against the AIDS virus.” (-- Baker, p. 63, sourced to Minneapolis Star-Tribune reporter Steve Berg, 8-19-92.) Parrott was a teabagger 17 years before the movement existed. He suffered no harm from bush’s ‘tip’. If he did, bush wouldn’t have cared, because Parrott is deranged teabag cannon fodder. But he didn’t.

Parrott’s party activism illustrates a point: for those of us who find the ‘official story’ yarn spun by the Warren Commission to be composed of a thousand loose threads, we’re not just re-hashing academic historical facts about the murder of JFK. We believe that the people who committed the crime benefitted from it, and they and their heirs are still around hurting the country. Exposing them will help prevent them from hurting the country more.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
189. Well said! Thank you, Mc Mike!
Sun Dec 8, 2013, 04:30 PM
Dec 2013

The fact we can't prosecute the killers of President Kennedy shows why we can't prosecute the traitors who outted Valerie Plame and lied America into war, let alone the banksters who kicked millions of Americans out of their homes and looted their life savings and pensions.

Mc Mike

(9,107 posts)
190. I'm sorry that you sometimes take so much flack and displays of antipathy for posting good info.
Sun Dec 8, 2013, 08:58 PM
Dec 2013

But a look at the rec to reply ratio of your posts, compared to o.p. s with the opposite viewpoint, shows the other side's tactics aren't having the desired results. They aren't swaying the site's sense, obviously. And if they're operating from the school of thought that 'the nail that sticks up will be hammered down', they're obviously failing in that, also. I'm glad you can slough off the negative crap, you make it look effortless. You're reaching a lot of good people here, and they influence a lot of good Dems country wide.

Your work makes a difference. If people keep digging away at the lies, maybe we'll get the scumbag criminal class off the country's back and make them pay for their actions.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
53. The problem for them is that no matter how they try to discredit ANYONE who doesn't march in
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:35 PM
Nov 2013

lockstep with the 'Official Story', a majority of the people, who are way, way smarter than they are given credit for, FIND HIM to be far more believable and honest than they are.

And despite the gargantuan effort to smear and try to discredit anyone who dares to doubt their Theories, the public still doesn't believe them.

I give you credit for the struggle you are in engaged to try to do the impossible. In fact, you and others like you are responsible for my questioning of the 'story' to begin with.

Whenever there is such an enormous effort to stifle people, there has to be a reason imho, no matter what the issue may be.

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
62. You must feel the same way about Obamacare.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 10:33 PM
Nov 2013

Most Americans still feel negatively about Obamacare. People are struggling to get the real story out there.

Following your "logic," that struggle just says the defenders of Obamacare are trying to do the impossible.

zappaman

(20,605 posts)
2. Mark Lane: The Original Shyster
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 03:56 PM
Nov 2013

Judging from website reports, Lane’s supporters are unaware of his previous shenanigans which stretch back to December 1963; yes, Lane was present at the creation. In 1966, Lane’s first book, Rush to Judgment, was persuasive with the mainstream media who were taken in by Lane’s lawyerly tricks and silver tongue as he debated supporters of the Warren Commission around the world. As Commission lawyer Wesley Liebeler observed, Lane’s antics during these debates reminded him of “an old legend about frogs jumping from the mouth of a perfidious man every time he speaks . . . . If (Lane) talks for five minutes, it takes an hour to straighten out the record.” Even the counter-culture Rolling Stone magazine characterized Lane as a “huckster” and “hearse chaser.” Bugliosi describes Lane as having “infidelity to the truth” . . . a person who commits “outright fabrications” . . . “a fraud in his preachments about the known assassin” . . . and that he had “deliberately distorted the evidence” and repeatedly omitted “evidence damaging to his side.”[6]

In Rush to Judgment, Lane abused the Warren Commission testimony of Jack Ruby, Oswald’s killer, and others like Charles Brehm, an alleged “grassy knoll” witness, who said Lane took his statements out of context and added a different meaning to them. Lane also omitted the statements of key witnesses like Johnny C Brewer, who observed a nervous Oswald avoid police patrols after the shooting of Officer Tippit.[7]

But Lane has a long history of playing fast and loose with the facts. In the early 1970s he used unreliable testimony to accuse American soldiers of multiple atrocities during the Vietnam War, according to New York Times correspondent Neil Sheehan, a prominent critic of US involvement in the Vietnam War. Sheehan investigated the accounts in Lane’s book, Conversations with Americans Testimony from 32 Vietnam Veterans, and found most of them to be bogus.[8]


Whole article is worth a read about this sad lying man

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2012/05/lane.html



Octafish

(55,745 posts)
8. CIA Instructions to Media Assets
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:46 PM
Nov 2013

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

EXCERPT:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Octafish/107

zappaman

(20,605 posts)
10. You stand with a liar.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:52 PM
Nov 2013

I guess that is something to be proud of?


"His publishers promote the book by proclaiming Lane had successfully persuaded a jury that the CIA killed Kennedy. On the inside book flap they loudly state, “Mark Lane has tried the only case in the history of America . . . in which jurors concluded that the CIA killed President Kennedy.” In fact, the jury concluded nothing of the sort."

--

In support of his allegations against Hunt, Lane makes reference to an alleged “confession.” The Huntcircumstances of St John Hunt’s interview with his father are fraught with problems, not least the fact E. Howard Hunt was heavily medicated at the time he “confessed,” but Lane does not disclose this to his readers. Hunt’s memoirs were published posthumously and he vehemently denies any involvement in the JFK assassination. Hunt did “ . . . not believe the CIA had anything to do with JFK’s death.” He even discloses that Lane’s irresponsible accusations caused his family great suffering. Additionally, Hunt’s “confession” is nothing more than his own guesswork and ruminations as to who killed JFK. He may even have used this opportunity to vent his spleen over those in government who did not give him any support after he was indicted in the Watergate affair.[19]

--

In the end the sumptuous appeal of Lane’s book, the deliberate demonization of a federal agency without any real proof, doesn’t need to make sense. His work nourishes the appetite of a ready-made audience eager for stories that will prop up a belief system they are not willing to abandon. So the question remains—will Lane’s recitation of decades-old lies and myths about the assassination and alleged CIA responsibility provide ready-made paranoiacs with a larger arsenal of imagery and rumor? The answer to that is assuredly yes."

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2012/05/lane.html

Yep.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
11. So what? You defend the BFEE.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:56 PM
Nov 2013

Their trail as warmonger-banksters goes back at least to war profiteering during World War I, when Samuel Prescott Bush ran Remington selling rifles to both sides. Before that, there's evidence their ancestors were slave holders.

I've talked about his son, Prescott Sheldon Bush; grandson, George Herbert Walker Bush; and great-grandsons, George Walker Bush, John Ellis (Jeb) Bush, and Neil Mallon Bush. From what you've written about the BFEE, you consistently take their side, which is odd for someone interested in supporting democracy, let alone justice.

So, I'll take Mark Lane's word.

zappaman

(20,605 posts)
12. I'm sure you can back up your smears?
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:01 PM
Nov 2013

"You defend the BFEE."

Please point to any post where I do so.

Meanwhile, you stand proudly with a liar.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
16. Not a smear when true.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:13 PM
Nov 2013

Look in your journal or click on this DU thread from one year ago, tomorrow:

Justice for JFK

While you've turned up the volume, your tune has not changed.

zappaman

(20,605 posts)
18. Show where I'm wrong. Otherwise don't libel me.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:17 PM
Nov 2013

Sound familiar?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023964436#post83


You sure like to smear other people and react quite negatively if anyone attempts to point out where you are wrong.

Your link shows nothing, but smears is all I expect from you.

BTW, my journal clearly shows the opposite of your unfounded smears.

Oh well, now I see why you hold a pathetic liar like Mark Lane in such high regard.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
24. LOL.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:22 PM
Nov 2013

Look in your journal. Four posts. Two about me. One other mocking the BFEE.

The record is clear. Your agenda, as revealed by your posts, is very different from mine.

zappaman

(20,605 posts)
26. LOL.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:23 PM
Nov 2013

hy·poc·ri·sy
hiˈpäkrisē/
noun
noun: hypocrisy; plural noun: hypocrisies

1.
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

dionysus

(26,467 posts)
59. yeah but, but, do you have a bayonet, huh? a bullwhip? i think not sir.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 08:35 PM
Nov 2013


you can take your BFEE support and shove it, buster!

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
17. I think he means the many times you joke about the BFEE.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:17 PM
Nov 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024009415#post32

The BFEE is also responsible for...

your backed up toilet...
the local liquor store running out of your favorite beer...
and leaving the dog poop on your lawn.

THEY ARE EVERYWHERE!



zappaman

(20,605 posts)
21. I'm quite sure he can speak for himself.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:19 PM
Nov 2013

"Joking" is "defending"?

Guess DU better stop all those jokes about Republicans then.

Not to mention the jokes about Denmark.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
22. Oh I know it is a joke.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:21 PM
Nov 2013

The one with the ancient aliens guy is funny, maybe not everyone sees it that way.

zappaman

(20,605 posts)
25. True.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:23 PM
Nov 2013

Pretty certain I've never accused Octafish of having a sense of humor.

I have accused him of thinking Oswald may have been a hero, but that is a direct quote...

"As for Oswald, I don't know if he was a hero in all this or not."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2232672

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
29. Well, Rextradomous will make a prediction about the future
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:29 PM
Nov 2013

that you two will be arguing about the JFK assassination for years to come.

As for the link, I am a little surprised;

LHO a hero? Octafish what did you mean by that? How can he be a hero if he shot and killed America's first liberal POTUS? Even if he is a patsy like he said and so many want to believe to be true...a hero would have warned the SS that day, not went along with the assassination imo.

A hero does not turn against their own country!

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
32. I swear that man IS an alien!
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:36 PM
Nov 2013

What better way to hide you are an alien, then dressing up and pretending to be one! Genus!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
33. Thank you, Rex.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:37 PM
Nov 2013

Do you think I wrote that Oswald was a hero?

I said Oswald had not been convicted of killing the President or Officer Tippit. I don't know what his role in the assassination was. As he was murdered while in police custody, we never got a chance to get his side of the story. For all I know, he may have been trying to break up the plot to kill JFK.

The fact zappaman makes me the center of the story shows how little he has added to understanding the assassination of President Kennedy on DU.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
34. Well my on speculation is that he was a Russian double agent.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:42 PM
Nov 2013

He had way too many chances in Russia and in Cuba to spill the beans to the CIA and he could have avoided going back to the US altogether. The man was no hero, then again Jack Ruby was no hero.

Ruby caused more problems then he supposedly fixed imo. One of the main reasons we sit here today and argue who is responsible.

Mc Mike

(9,107 posts)
48. I noticed the high volume of repetitive re-postings of that same accusation
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:09 PM
Nov 2013

and thought 'Poor Zap's needle got stuck'.

It should be obvious to anyone who's followed the discussions on your o.p. s that you never said that Oswald shot at Kennedy as part of the conspiracy, and you thought he was a hero anyway. But repeatedly stating that fallacy somehow counts as logical debate for some 'reality based' WC advocates.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
79. How is not believing Lane the same as supporting the Bush family?
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 11:05 AM
Nov 2013

It seems perfectly reasonable to dismiss a crackpot and still revile the Bush family.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
55. E. Hunt was such an upstanding man. Now I'm convinced, Hunt denied it, therefore it must be true.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:57 PM
Nov 2013

Bush Sr. too is an upstanding, honest, ethical character who never could remember where he was on that fateful day. Maybe he still 'doesn't remember' but we know now where he was.

I assume that people on their deathbeds are probably medicated. Why does that need to be emphasized? I've been present, sadly, when someone died who was heavily medicated for pain, but they were not impaired mentally.

So much effort to prevent people from speaking their minds on this historical tragedy. And despite all the money spent, all the effort to silence people, to make them forget, even through all that, a majority of the people still don't believe the 'official story' or the smears against those who have spoken out.

Maybe it's time to put to rest the all out attempt to squash the instincts of the people, instincts that are far more trustworthy than any of those I've seen trying to discredit them.

zappaman

(20,605 posts)
56. "So much effort to prevent people from speaking their minds on this historical tragedy."
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 08:03 PM
Nov 2013

No one is doing that.
Maybe in your mind, arguing a point is "preventing people from speaking their minds".

Sorry, but some of us like to see bullshit countered and don't buy everything an anonymous poster says.

Maybe you do.

But thanks for the lecture....again...and again...





sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
65. Most of us, a majority of the people, want to see bullshit countered and don't everything their
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 12:15 AM
Nov 2013

their government tries to sell them. Some of us didn't believe the WMDs in Iraq and were told we were spewing bullshit airc. I never have cared much about online insults, they tend to do the opposite of what they are intended to do, at least as far as I am concerned.

To a majority of people from the moment the official story was foisted on the public, THAT is the bullshit that needs to be countered.

And thank YOU for your many lectures also. Sometimes it's a good idea, if you're going to get personal, to take a look in the mirror.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
141. E Howard Hunt planted fake cables in WH safe to make it look like JFK ordered Diem assassination...
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 10:03 PM
Nov 2013
Hunt was a professional disinformationist. His boss at CIA, Richard Helms also spread stories like Robert Kennedy was ordering hits on Castro when Helms was doing so "on his own authority."



Isn't it odd, Sabrina-san to cross paths with people any time, but particularly so DUers, who side with Helms?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
142. CIA caught red-handed in HSCA safe, a pattern of obstruction of justice in JFK assassination.
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 11:17 PM
Nov 2013

CIA officer Regis T. BLAHUT, some kind of liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, an "employee of the Office of Security" who was caught burglarizing the safe where the HSCA stored important documents, including, photographs from the autopsy of President Kennedy.



1. I RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM MR BLAKEY YESTERDAY MORNING. HE STATED THAT A PROBLEM HAD ARISEN IN THE HSCA STAFF. SENSITIVE MATERIAL RECEIVED FROM A NON-CIA SOURCE, CONCERNING THE KENNEDY AUTOPSY, SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN MISHANDLED. ONE OF THE STAFF MEMBERS NOTICED THAT CERTAIN PHOTOGRAPHS HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THEIR PLASTIC CONTAINERS ALTHOUGH REMAINING IN THE BOOK CONTAINING THEM. THEY DO NOT KNOW THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS BUT ARE CONCERNED THAT IT REFLECTS AN IMPROPER PROCEDURE WITHIN THE HSCA STAFF.



The HSCA doesn't sound like it had much backing from Congress. Wonder if NSA was sharing 8 X 10 glossies with members of the relevant committees?



17 JULY 1978
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: MEETING WITH ROBERT BLAKEY AT THE HSCA

1. AFTER MR BLAKEY AND MR CORNWELL MET WITH THE DCI, THE DDCI AND THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL ON THE MORNING OF 17 JULY, THE DDCI GAVE HIM A COPY OF THE POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION OF REGIS THOMAS BLAHUT AND TOOK THEM DOWN TO 7D-6015 TO EXAMINE THE PAPER. THE DDCI THEN CALLED THE DIRECTOR OF SECURITY AND ASKED HIM TO COME UP TO MY OFFICE.

2. WHEN BLAKEY FINISHED HIS EXAMINATION OF THE PAPER, HE AND GARY CORNWELL CAME INTO MY OFFICE. I REINTRODUCED BOB GAMBINO AND BLAKEY IMMEDIATELY ASKED HIM FOR BLAHUT'S SECURITY FILE. GAMBINO DEMURRED AND HANDED BLAKEY BLAHUT'S OFFICIAL PERSONNEL FILE INSTEAD.

3. MOST OF THE DISCUSSION CENTERED ON WHAT BLAKEY WANTED THE OFFICE OF SECURITY TO ACCOMPLISH IN THEIR FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION OF BLAHUT. THIS WILL BE COVERED IN MR GAMBINO'S MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD. AS THE CONVERSATION WOUND DOWN, I FELT IT NECESSARY TO ASK MR BLAKEY WHETHER OR NOT THE HSCA WOULD ACCEPT THE VALIDITY AND OBJECTIVITY OF A CIA INVESTIGATION OF BLAHUT. THIS CONVERSATION CONTINUED FOR BETTER THAN FIVE MINUTES. ALTHOUGH MR BLAKEY WAS NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT THE HSCA WOULD ACCEPT THE VALIDITY AND OBJECTIVITY OF A CIA INVESTIGATION, HE DID SAY THAT BEFORE COMING OUT TO HEADQUARTERS, THE STAFF HAD DECIDED THAT A CIA INVESTIGATION WAS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE TO THEM. THEY REJECTED THE DC POLICE BECAUSE OF POLITICAL OVERTONES; THEY REJECTED THE FBI BECAUSE AS A MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THE FBI MIGHT BE PRESUMED TO BE BIASED IN FAVOR OF THE CIA; AND THEY DECLINED TO CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO. THUS, A CIA INVESTIGATION WAS THE ONLY COURSE LEFT OPEN TO THEM.

4. DURING THIS PORTION OF OUR CONVERSATION, AFTER CONSULTING WITH BOB GAMBINO, I SUGGESTED THAT THE HSCA SHOULD PICK A "MORE OBJECTIVE INVESTIGATING BODY." I SAID I DID NOT WISH THERE TO BE ANY QUESTION IN A POST MORTEM WHICH MIGHT SOMEHOW IMPUGN THE CIA. I TOLD BLAKEY THAT AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED, I WAS 99.9 PERCENT SURE THAT CIA'S INVESTIGATION WOULD NOT IMPUGN THE CIA OR GIVE EVIDENCE OF ANY CIA EMPLOYEE'S COMPLICITY WITH BLAHUT. THUS, I WAS SAYING THAT MY PREDICTION WAS FOR A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH FOR THE CIA THROUGH A CIA INVESTIGATION. WAS MR BLAKEY PREPARED TO ACCEPT THIS? ME BLAKEY SAID HE WAS PREPARED TO ACCEPT THAT AND THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THE CIA WAS NOT GUILTY OF ANY COMPLICITY IN MR BLAHUT'S ACTIVITIES.

5. MR INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT MR BLAKEY SAID WAS THAT HE WISHED CIA TO GO AHEAD WITH THE INVESTIGATION OF BLAHUT AND THAT HE EXPECTS US TO COME UP WITH A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH FOR THE CIA.

HAVILAND SMITH JR

SA/DDCI

DISTRIBUTION: ORIG - DDCI & RETURN TO MR SMITH
1 - SCOTT BRECKINRIDGE
1 - MR GAMBINO (D/OS)
1 - EXEC REG



It's easy to see what side you're on, sabrina 1. Justice demands integrity.

PS: Wish I knew then what I know now. If we had a news media with integrity, we might've known.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
144. Wow, thank you for that. Tampering with evidence. Yet nothing was done about it, and some wonder why
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 01:35 PM
Nov 2013

so many do not believe the official story of this momentous historical event. No wonder there is such an effort to suppress any discussion of it. They have so much to hide.

There is no statute of limitations on Murder. And I guess they know that.

Thank you for all you do, Octafish, and to everyone else who refuses to let this go until all questions are answered. The American people deserve that.

 

duffyduff

(3,251 posts)
95. There's a special place in hell for Mark Lane.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 04:19 PM
Nov 2013

And for all of the others who traffick in this bullshit designed to capitalize on people's distrust of government.

All for money, too. It's thoroughly despicable.

I read Lane's book many, many years ago and had once believed the bullshit he was shoveling.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
97. Pretty lousy thing to say about anybody, let alone a good Democrat.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 05:07 PM
Nov 2013

Were you friends with President Kennedy, duffyduff?

Going by what you wrote, I doubt it.

Mark Lane was friends with President Kennedy and his brother, Robert Kennedy. Mr. Lane also was a New York State Assemblyman from Harlem.

Unlike you, Mark Lane hasn't reached closure on the case. In fact, and I agree with him, there are many important questions and many important issues that still need to be addressed. One important area concertn the CIA's pre-assassination dealings with Lee Harvey Oswald, facts concealed from the Warren Commission by disgraced former CIA director Allen Dulles, also a member of the Warren Commission. What a coincidence.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
3. I don't think Mark Lane is the kind of person you want to be standing with.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 03:57 PM
Nov 2013

Another person Mark Lane stood with is Jim Jones (the mass murder/suicide cult leader), where he was also claiming that there was some government conspiracy trying to undermine People's Temple.

This is one of the general problems with JFK conspiracy theories, is that the tend to come from people with low credibility. I'm not an expert on the assassination, but I've started reading literature on both "sides", and the more I read, the more evident it becomes to be that it was Oswald acting alone.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
9. You also need to learn more. Lane was there with Congressman Ryan.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:51 PM
Nov 2013
Mark Lane is Much More Than An "83-Year-Old Jonestown Survivor"

By Chuck Strouse
Miami New Times Tue., May 18 2010

EXCERPT...

Mark Lane's request that the Miami New Times approach its series about Gerald Posner with civility and accuracy was met by a published snide description by the newspaper of Mr. Lane as "an 83-year-old Jonestown survivor." That's hardly a fitting response to a person who one of nation's leading trial attorneys, a best-selling author, a leader of the Civil Rights Movement, a former NY State Legislator and much more. It also smacks of a kind of ageism which I would think is beneath your standards of criticism under any circumstances.

If the newspaper wishes to focus on the Jonestown episode, some relevant facts should be known. Lane had been asked by U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan to accompany him as he was officially investigating the "People's Temple" of Jim Jones. It might have interested your readers to know that and that during that visit in Jonestown, Lane, at the risk of his own life, saved the life of Congressman Leo Ryan while one of the Jonestown activists tried to murder Ryan with a knife. Lane wrested the knife away, was slightly injured and was praised by the congressman for having saved his life in an interview on film by NBC correspondent, Don Harris, who was later shot to death on Jones' orders at the airport. Harris' filmed interview survived and was broadcast later on NBC.

At Ryan's request, Lane remained behind in Jonestown to carry out the congressman's mission of interviewing those residents who wished to leave. During the subsequent hours, Jim Jones had Lane arrested and sentenced him to death. Lane and Charles Garry, who was the attorney for Jones, escaped and fled into the jungle that night until they found a road out.
If that matter was considered too remote for Florida readers by the New Times, it might have reported that after an innocent man, James Richardson, a resident of Arcadia, Florida, who had been sentenced to death in 1968 for the murder of his seven children Lane entered the case. At the time the Florida press remained silent. Lane uncovered proof of Richardson's innocence, presented it to the governor and demanded that a special counsel be appointed.

The governor appointed the Miami-Dade County State Attorney, Janet Reno. Her investigation revealed that the charges against Richardson should be dismissed. The photograph of Richardson and Lane leaving the jail, after Richardson had been freed after being imprisoned for more than two decades, was featured on the front page of numerous Florida newspapers and it became one of the most prominent news stories that year in Florida. The story was the lead editorial in the New York Times (about the death penalty). The story was also featured in Newsweek, and on nearly every major network news program, CNN and in media throughout the world.

CONTINUED...

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2010/05/mark_lane_is_much_more_than_an.php

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
19. Umm yeah, but that's not the only time he was there.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:18 PM
Nov 2013

He was in favor of Jim Jones before he was against him. For example, here's an old NYT article:

Last September Mark Lane was proclaiming Jonestown a socialist paradise and professing that he had found a conspiracy within the United States Government to destroy the People's Temple and its founder, the Rev. Jim Jones. By December, he was calling Jonestown a horror and Mr. Jones a paranoid murderer, insisting that he had suspected as much all along.

Mr Lane's turnaround came almost immediately after the events of Nov. 18, when Representative Leo J. Ryan, Democrat of California, and four other persons were shot to death after a visit to the commune in Guyana and when Mr. Jones and more than 900 residents of Jonestown died, many of them apparently by suicide.
...


http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lane%20Mark/Lane%20Mark%20Peoples%20Temple%20Massacre/Item%20005.pdf

Do you still think this is the kind of guy you want to be standing beside?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
77. Yes.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 10:48 AM
Nov 2013

Mark Lane couldn't predict what Jim Jones was going to do.

Jones, and whoever pulled his strings, tried to kill Lane.

What Jim Hougan wrote:



What follows is a work in progress about Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple. In so far as it has a central thesis, it is that Jones initiated the 1978 massacre at Jonestown, Guyana because he feared that Congressman Leo Ryan’s investigation would disgrace him. Specifically, Jones was afraid that Ryan and the press would uncover evidence that the leftist founder of the Peoples Temple was for many years an asset of the FBI and the CIA. This fear was, I believe, mirrored in various precincts of the U.S. intelligence community, which worried that Ryan’s investigation would embarrass the CIA by linking Jones to some of the Agency’s most volatile programs—including “mind-control studies” and operations such as MK-ULTRA.

CONTINUED...

http://jimhougan.com/wordpress/?tag=mark-lane



So, there is that.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
81. It's not about predicting, it's about claiming a CIA conspiracy.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 11:24 AM
Nov 2013

Unless you're arguing that there actually was a CIA conspiracy against People's Temple...

Not to mention the fact that this guy who presents himself as an inquisitive investigator and sees murderous conspiracies around every corner didn't happen to pick up any signs that People's Temple was actually a cult led by a madman rather than a socialist utopia. Odd, isn't it. The one time he was in a unique position actually to uncover the truth about a leader who was not what he claimed, instead he defended Jim Jones well past the time that most everyone else, who didn't have his privileged position and knowledge, had become suspicious.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
13. Two important works: 'Rush to Judgment' and 'Plausible Denial'
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:05 PM
Nov 2013

Mr. Lane described the inner workings of the plot way before the documentation existed to prove his case. For instance, the information about the CIA-Mafia assassination program was not public until 1975.

That caused a firestorm at CIA which led to the appointment of George Herbert Walker Bush to head the agency. Despite lying to Congress about his treasonous role in the Iran-Contra arms for hostages make war when Congress said no scandal, Bush would go on to become the first CIA director to "serve" as president. Amazing number of DUers defend the guy, too, meaning there's no accounting for loyalty, neither.

zappaman

(20,605 posts)
14. Who is defending Bush on DU, Octafish?
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:08 PM
Nov 2013

Why do you continue to make things up?

"Bush would go on to become the first CIA director to "serve" as president. Amazing number of DUers defend the guy, too, meaning there's no accounting for loyalty, neither. "

If there is an "amazing number of DUers defend(ing) the guy", it should be quite easy to point to those posts.

So let's see' em!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
20. You, for one.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:19 PM
Nov 2013

Look in your journal:



Use GOOGLE: Octafish + zappaman + BFEE and tell me what you see.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
63. Didn't you just say something about being smeared and how you don't like it?
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 11:30 PM
Nov 2013

Yet you attempt to smear Octafish and don't see the irony of your 'outrage'?

And speaking of obsessions, imo, it is a GOOD thing to be obsessed about a crime that so adversely changed the course of this country.

Some people, airc, confine their obsessions to other DUers, a totally useless waste of time, but for some, apparently a worthy 'cause'.

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
27. Both of those books are full of lies and manipulations by Mr Mark Lane.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:28 PM
Nov 2013

In particular, the way he twists the words of people he's interviewing and in the way he chooses to omit testimony that blows up his CTs.

For instance, he quotes Jack Ruby's jail cell interview with Earl Warren & Gerald Ford. Lane makes it sound as if Ruby wanted them to take him to DC so he could spill his guts about a conspiracy to kill JFK and later, Oswald. What Lane OMITS is the fact that what Ruby really wanted was to go to DC to take a lie detector test that would prove that he was NOT involved in any conspiracy to kill Oswald.

So much for Mr Truth teller.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
152. How many times does Mark Lane mention CIA in 'Rush to Judgment'?
Sat Nov 30, 2013, 03:20 PM
Nov 2013

Zero.

So how come the CIA goes after him for writing that book?

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
153. You've got the wrong book. The CIA went after Lane's idiocies in in his POS book
Sun Dec 1, 2013, 12:53 AM
Dec 2013
Plausible Denial - Was The CIA Involved In The Assassination of JFK?

Now, why would the CIA go after a guy for accusing them of being involved in killing JFK?

As usual, you've hauled out a straw man to make apologies for a person who the HSCA said was a liar.

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
155. Luckily, I knew that one off the top of my head.
Sun Dec 1, 2013, 01:02 AM
Dec 2013

I'm sure Octa wanted to send me off on some wild goose chase over the wrong book.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
159. Speaking of assume.
Sun Dec 1, 2013, 01:25 AM
Dec 2013

Your ignorance shows, firstly, that you didn't read "Rush to Judgment."

CIA was not mentioned in the book, published in 1966. The following year, CIA put in writing their program to counter Lane's book.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2082945&mesg_id=2090644

Why did CIA then set out to stalk Lane, spying on him and then launching an illegal program to discredit him when he never mentioned the agency in the book?

You can use an emoticon to answer, it won't change what you know.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
156. The point: CIA had no reason to stalk Lane in 1966.
Sun Dec 1, 2013, 01:13 AM
Dec 2013

Condescension really is your singular distinguishing characteristic, stopbush.

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
162. Your link is useless. It says nothing about Mark Lane,
Sun Dec 1, 2013, 01:45 AM
Dec 2013

and I don't see anything to indicate it's from the National Archives.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
163. Mark Lane talked about it in Pittsburgh.
Sun Dec 1, 2013, 02:08 AM
Dec 2013

He also details the disinformation and harrassment in his memoir, "Last Word: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B009LPY0G0/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/184-9978287-5082167

The document in my post above details CIA instructions to mass media assets, read: anchors, reporters and editors, in regard to countering Lane's ctiticisms of the Warren report.

It is evidence of the organized effort to publicly discredit a law abiding American -- a veteran, former statesman, an officer of the court, and a good Democrat.

If you had read even a little bit of it, you'd have found where to locate it in Washington.

That copy at MaryFerrell.org is for readers interested in restoring democracy and ending secret government spying and police.

stopbush

(24,378 posts)
164. So, your first link WAS quite useless.
Sun Dec 1, 2013, 03:00 AM
Dec 2013

First off, unless one is willing to PAY Mary Farell, one doesn't get access to her pdfs. Why you provide a link to a site with a a pay wall is a mystery. If the info is in the National Archives, it is FREE. Why not provide a link to the National Archives?

Second: "Mark Lane talked about it in Pittsburgh." Your link didn't take anyone to "Mark Lane talking about it in Pittsburgh."

Third: you forgot to add "liar" to Mark Lane's accomplishments. The HSCA made no such omissions:

"Many of the allegations of conspiracy the committee investigated were first raised by Mark Lane, the attorney who represented James Earl Ray at the committee’s public hearings. As has been noted, the facts were often at variance with Lane’s assertions. . . . In many instances, the committee found that Lane was willing to advocate conspiracy theories publicly without having checked the factual basis for them. In other instances, Lane proclaimed conspiracy based on little more than inference and innuendo. Lane’s conduct resulted in public misperception about the assassination of Dr. King and must be condemned." (House Select Committee Report, Page 424, footnote 16)

BTW - good Democrats don't need to resort to lying to make their case.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
176. You should try the truth sometime.
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 05:17 PM
Dec 2013

[font color="purple"]Between 1963 and 1975, the existence of the note and its destruction were kept secret by the Dallas FBI Office.[/font color]

SOURCE: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=69263

It's free and available for all to read. And you don't even have to drive to the National Archives to read it.


frazzled

(18,402 posts)
5. Lane: Lawyer for "We The People" Patriot group and anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:26 PM
Nov 2013

From Southern Poverty Law Center, way back in 2004.

Held in January to celebrate lawsuits filed by We the People to challenge the constitutionality of the IRS, the conference was hosted by group founder Bob Schulz, a 64-year-old tax protester from Queensbury, N.Y. Schulz is a celebrity in Patriot circles for his months-long hunger strike last year against the IRS.

The focus inside the auditorium was on the myriad evils wrought by the federal government, from gun control to taxes to judicial tyranny. The complaints came from a remarkable array of people, from anti-Semites to conspiracy mongers to white supremacists and even right-wing Republicans, some of whom ducked in from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) featuring Vice President Dick Cheney and held just around the corner in another hotel.

(snip)

We The People apparently has the financial means to pursue its legal theories. In the past, it has run several expensive full-page ads in USA Today, and at the conference, Schulz handed the group's attorney Mark Lane (also known as a leading Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist) a check for $100,000.

But finding clients may be harder. When Lane, formerly the attorney of the anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby, asked audience members to sign on to the suit, several said that they were afraid they would lose their "sovereign status" if they deigned to be represented by a lawyer.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2004/spring/talking-tough


This thread should be locked.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
28. Guilt by association is un-American. Lane is an attorney who represented two clients.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:29 PM
Nov 2013

BTW: I've been a member of SPLC since 1995. Mr. Lane has long championed many of the same causes decades before the organization existed.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
35. I can't believe you're defending this guy
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:48 PM
Nov 2013

or entertaining these conspiracy theories. But far be it from me to disabuse a person of their misguided pleasures. That's all I can say.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
38. It's easy. Mark Lane says we don't know the whole truth, but it looks like CIA conspiracy.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:07 PM
Nov 2013

The defenders of the Warren Report say, "Case closed."

Why I side with Lane: We don't know all the facts. Some of the facts Mark Lane pointed out at Duquesne include the fact that the CIA lied to President Kennedy; CIA lied to the Warren Commission; CIA lied to Jim Garrison; CIA lied to the HSCA; CIA lied to Congress; which means the CIA lied to the American people.

So, I'll defend Mark Lane. He still thinks this is a democracy, where We the People are are supposed to be the ones who oversee the nation, not the other way around.

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
36. "Guilt by association is un-American."
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:03 PM
Nov 2013

I'm not even believing I see that coming off of your keyboard.

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
6. I watched the 'Firing Line' debate between Lane and Buckley on YouTube the other day
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:35 PM
Nov 2013

It was interesting but they didn't get into much substance since Buckley was hosting and seemed more intent on discrediting Lane than anything else. It reminded me of O'Reilly grilling that 9/11 orphan in Fahrenheit, except the orphan wasn't smoking a pipe the whole time.

 

avaistheone1

(14,626 posts)
30. I thought Mark Lane was outstanding in that match-up.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:30 PM
Nov 2013

Buckley kept trying to get Mark Lane off course and change the line of questioning as Lane kept gaining ground.
I was really impressed with Lane's brilliance and strength despite Buckley continued attempts to make a mockery of the exchange.

k&r

Archae

(46,262 posts)
37. The only thing "outstanding" about Mark Lane is his outstanding in a field.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:04 PM
Nov 2013

He keeps stepping in bullshit, and spreading it around.

He was a lawyer for the viciously anti-Jew "Liberty Lobby," and has been caught many times making things up.
All he does is make excuses when caught.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
41. It doesn't matter, but I believe Mark Lane is Jewish. He also is an attorney...
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:14 PM
Nov 2013

He defended a client in court. Why? Because he believes in the Constitution.

The Liberty Lobby story, for those new to the subject, is where E Howard Hunt was unable to establish his whereabouts on Nov. 22, 1963, a problem for the CIA and its then-director Richard Helms, per one of its officials, Victor Marchetti. The rightwing paper or magazine that printed an article detailing that information was sued. Mark Lane defended Liberty Lobby, successfully. In the process, he also established a compelling case against the CIA.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2185465

 

avaistheone1

(14,626 posts)
50. Mark Lane's involvement with Liberty Lobby references the JFK assassination.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:22 PM
Nov 2013

Mark Lane was the legal representative of Liberty Lobby.

When Hunt brought suit against Liberty Lobby, in the United States District Court in Miami, Florida, the institution retained a local lawyer. The attorney stated that Hunt had not been in Dallas on Nov. 22. Hunt won the case and was awarded $650,000. The Court of Appeals reversed. It sent the case back for a new trial. Liberty Lobby, retained Mark Lane to then take the case.

At the first trial Hunt had appealed to the jurors by saying that when he was accused of killing the president his own children believed he had committed that crime. At the second trial, as at a deposition Mark Lane had taken before trial, Hunt, who kept on changing his alibi as to where he was on that tragic day, ended up with the story that his entire family remained together in his home for 72 hours as they were sadly glued to the television set. Yet his children believe he killed the president.

They were supposedly with him at home the entire period. Hunt appeared to be the only adult in the United States (along with George HW Bush) not to recall where he was when he had heard of the president’s assassination. When he was confronted with the blatant contradiction in his testimony, he was speechless. The jury, however, was not. It awarded the victory to Liberty Lobby, and its forewoman reported to the media that she was convinced that Hunt and the CIA had murdered the president.

To this day, that remains the only verdict in a federal court establishing responsibility for the assassination.
..

Mark Lane is Jewish by the way, but probably not Jewish enough for your taste.











zappaman

(20,605 posts)
52. False.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:29 PM
Nov 2013

"Lane claims the jurors accepted his premise that the CIA was responsible for murdering the president. Lane wrote, “The evidence was clear, she [jury forewoman Leslie Armstrong] said. The CIA had killed President Kennedy. Hunt had been part of it, and that evidence, so painstakingly presented should now be examined by the relevant institutions of the United States trial government so that those responsible for the assassination might be brought to justice.”[16]

However, two of the jurors told the Miami Herald they did not believe Lane had proven that Hunt was a co-conspirator. Suzanne Reach said that the jury’s verdict was “absolutely not” the reason for the verdict. “We were very disgusted and felt (the article) was trash”, she said, “. . . . The paper published material that was sloppy – but it wasn’t malicious.” While Lane avoids literally telling lies in his book, he uses the same convoluted expositions he used before the Miami jury to persuade his readers that Hunt was indeed guilty of conspiring to kill the president.[17]

Lane trades on the sound presumption that the vast majority of his readers have no way of knowing what he’s doing. In the Lane tradition of carefully concealing from his readers any information that might undermine his thesis, he portrays Hunt as having only two alibi witnesses at the trial, and denigrates these because they were CIA employees. But in fact there were three CIA employees who testified at the trial, and three witnesses (two of Hunt's children and a domestic) who swore to the 1974 Rockefeller Commission that Hunt was in the Washington area, and not in Dallas, on the day of the assassination.[18]

In support of his allegations against Hunt, Lane makes reference to an alleged “confession.” The Huntcircumstances of St John Hunt’s interview with his father are fraught with problems, not least the fact E. Howard Hunt was heavily medicated at the time he “confessed,” but Lane does not disclose this to his readers. Hunt’s memoirs were published posthumously and he vehemently denies any involvement in the JFK assassination. Hunt did “ . . . not believe the CIA had anything to do with JFK’s death.” He even discloses that Lane’s irresponsible accusations caused his family great suffering. Additionally, Hunt’s “confession” is nothing more than his own guesswork and ruminations as to who killed JFK. He may even have used this opportunity to vent his spleen over those in government who did not give him any support after he was indicted in the Watergate affair.[19]"

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2012/05/lane.html

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
134. Mel Ayton? The disinformationist?
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:58 AM
Nov 2013

4. Mel Ayton. Mel Ayton is the British equivalent of the above. Mel couldn't recognize a cover-up if it fell on his car. His work on the RFK case in particular is ridiculous. He heavily sources a member of Sirhan's defense team as if he's a credible observer, when the guy he references was in such trouble with the law there could be only one reason he was on Sirhan's defense team: to inform on the defense to the police. That's a long story I have yet to write up, but will, because it's important. And it's not like this guy's background was hard to find. It's right there in the LAPD's files, which are well organized and easily cross-referenced.

http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2010/02/spot-spooks-on-internet-start-at-this.html

Ghost in the Machine

(14,912 posts)
73. I'm pretty new to all the JFK conspiracy stuff, about the past 6-7 years or so. I was only 9 months
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 03:31 AM
Nov 2013

old when it happened, but remember as a kid hearing my dad and his friends talking about it and all in agreement that it was a CIA hit. I never was a history buff, either. My train of thought was always "who cares about what happened a long time ago, or what a bunch of dead people have to do with what's going on now?" Yes, I was incurious and didn't really care much and hated school.

It was several years ago that I actually looked up "the magic bullet theory", after reading about it on here so much. Once I read this:

According to the single-bullet theory, a three-centimeter (1.2&quot -long copper-jacketed lead-core 6.5-millimeter rifle bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository passed through President Kennedy’s neck and Governor Connally’s chest and wrist and embedded itself in the Governor’s thigh. If so, this bullet traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory
,

then saw the bullet that supposedly did all this: CE399: ... I just had to laugh! I've seen bullets that have hit deer and hog rib bones that were damaged worse than this!

That being said, can you please cite, then link to, where Mark Lane "has been caught many times making things up" and do the same for where "All he does is make excuses when caught"??

Thanks in advance,

Peace!

Ghost

KurtNYC

(14,549 posts)
42. He does very well even as Buckley sneers and goes ad hom on him.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:22 PM
Nov 2013

While watching it I was reminded again that Dustin Hoffman based his character in the otherwise dreadful movie "Hook" on William F Buckley. Hoffman said he wanted to do a more layered kind of evil and be true to the genteel origins of the real life pirates, many of whom had come from upper class backgrounds in Britain and then went "rogue."

I give Buckley credit for being a very quick thinker and I think that Mark Lane at the very least, matches him in that exchange. Lane doesn't let Buckley get away with anything, not flawed analogies, not nuthin'. And Buckley is agile while his questions perhaps by design, fail to get the best argument out of Lane.

Another recent favorite is the Garrison equal time on NBC clip. From the era before the Fairness Doctrine went away:



I have tried to focus on the evidence this year because I have found that to be a more straightforward and efficient way of getting through the data on the shootings, Oswald, Ruby and other players. I love the YouTube-available TV from the 1960s but since it is more focused on how the dots get connected than it is on the dots themselves I think analysis of Lane and Garrison and all the surrogate defenders of the WCR leads more to an understanding of the role of media than to an understanding of the crime itself. But also, for an intermediate student of the assassination, I think that in both 'Firing Line' and the equal time piece, Garrison and Lane point to all the major things that a person should research for themselves to their own satisfaction.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
39. Dr. Cyril Wecht believes it was a coup d'etat too.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:08 PM
Nov 2013
http://www.dailytribune.com/general-news/20131030/forensic-pathologist-kennedy-assassination-was-the-overthrow-of-the-government-with-video

Ask Dr. Cyril Wecht what happened in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963 and he doesn’t hesitate.
“There were two shooters. One shooter was behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll,” he said Friday before lecturing at Oakland Community College. “The second was from the rear.”



The 82-year-old forensic pathologist and attorney said the majority of Americans don’t believe the single shooter, single bullet theory in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, but it could take another generation or two before the country can comfortably accept a conclusion about his death.
“We understand and we accept and we label it for what it is when these things occur: The overthrow of the government. Coup d’état,” Wecht said. “We have met the enemy and he is us. And the enemy was us, baby, and that’s why this case has yet to be resolved.”
At the time of his death, Kennedy was preparing to withdraw ground troops from Vietnam and was at odds with the country’s military and industrial powers, Wecht said.
“The CIA hated Kennedy, and Kennedy was out to destroy the CIA.”
A half-century after Kennedy’s death, the audience still gasped when the Zapruder film was shown on the screen behind Wecht on Friday.
Wecht narrated as the frames flashed by on the screen.
“Think of the force exerted, and now look at the movement of his body. Backward. Backward. Backward. Backward.”
Wecht said Kennedy’s autopsy was performed by two naval pathologists who had never dealt with a gunshot case.
He described his visit to the National Archives more than 40 years ago to examine evidence from Kennedy’s death, only to discover that the president’s brain was missing.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
46. Thank you, mother earth. Dr. Wecht is a national treasure.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:43 PM
Nov 2013

I met him and heard him speak at the Duquesne Conference. The guy is a genius, both a practicing physician -- a pathologist -- and an attorney and educator.

In addition to outlining the forensic case at the October conference, Dr. Wecht made clear his anger at the coverage afforded the assassination of President Kennedy by the nation's corporate news media.

Please know that I plan on reporting what he said in detail.

mother earth

(6,002 posts)
47. YOU are a DU treasure, Octafish, keep the info coming. I look forward to your next reporting.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:48 PM
Nov 2013




K & R

(What a nation we might have become if JFK, RFK & MLK were not taken from us. The loss to this nation is incalculable.)

Bolo Boffin

(23,796 posts)
51. And yet when he was a part of the HSCA investigation, he agreed that the head wounds
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:23 PM
Nov 2013

were as the Warren Commission stated - the entrance in the back of the head, the exit in the front. And now he's saying differently?

How odd.

 

Spider Jerusalem

(21,786 posts)
137. That's funny, because Wecht said something different to the HSCA
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 01:40 PM
Nov 2013
Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, does the present state of available evidence permit the conclusion that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty there was not a shot from the side which struck the President?
Dr. WECHT. Yes, with reasonable medical certainty I would have to say that the evidence is not there. I have already said it is a remote possibility and I certainly cannot equate that with reasonable medical certainty.
Mr. PURDY. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscawech.htm


NB: "Shot from the side" = "from the grassy knoll".

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
43. You must be new to the term, mathematic.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:31 PM
Nov 2013

While I don't know much about it, I do want to learn more: Know your BFEE: The Secret Government

That's why I'm a democrat: I believe I have the right to know what the government is doing and not the other way around.


 

bobthedrummer

(26,083 posts)
44. Looks like you've got a host of Hugh Aynesworth wannabees in this thread Sir-K&R, NGU
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:36 PM
Nov 2013

Hugh Aynesworth Never Quits (by James Di Eugenio)
http://ctka.net/aynes.html

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
83. It's like watching a flock take off and spin around...
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 11:35 AM
Nov 2013

...well coordinated, to move as one like that.

Here's another name to add to Sunstein... Zelikow... and Limbaugh:



The Minister of Diz at Dealey Plaza

by William Kelly

TODD LEVENTHAL – MINISTER OF DISINFORMATION

EXCERPT...

That the United States doesn’t engage in such psychological warfare is an urban myth quickly dispelled by Todd Leventhal, America’s Minister of Disinformation, whose official title is State Department Counter-Mis and Disinformation Officer. As such Leventhal has been the subject of a spate of recent publicity, especially in regards to debunking conspiracy theories.

We’ve heard from Leventhal before, pushing the Bush foreign agenda, disputing reports that Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq was a false pretense for war, and more recently as the State Department’s spokesman designated to officially debunk conspiracy theories that the federal government considers serious threats—like UFOs, faked moon landings, 9/11 missiles and President Obama’s birth certificate.

Leventhal’s official blog on debunking such “conspiracy theories” serves as fodder for legitimate journalists looking for a good column when news is slow, but most real conspiracy theorists considered him just another media spokesperson for the government, not unlike those who speak for the al Quada and the Taliban, and trusted as much.

But Leventhal recently created a mini-firestorm when some mainstream publications began commenting on his inclusion of the assassination of President Kennedy among the “conspiracy theories” worth debunking, and his ridicule of those who believe anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald was responsible for the murder of Kennedy.

As the official State Department specialist and spokesperson whose job is to counter-misinformation and disinformation, Leventhal’s blog (since suspended but archived under Rumors, Myths and Fabrications1) touches on a number of controversial subjects, including AIDS, the moon landing and the war in Iraq, but the subject of the Kennedy assassination seems to have struck the most sensitive nerve.

THE MIS & THE DISINFORMED

On Leventhal’s official State Department web site, under the banner of “Countering Misinformation,” it is noted that, “The purpose of this webpage is to counter misinformation,” which is defined in parenthesis as “unintentional mistakes.” Their mission is also to counter “conspiracy theories, urban legends, and disinformation,” which also rates the definition of “deliberate falsehoods and distortions.”

Originally disinformation, as explained by John Barron2, was defined as not only “deliberate falsehoods and distortions,” but contained the caveat that the deliberate falsehoods and distortions were the product of a foreign intelligence network.

It was technically defined as “Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency for the purpose of influencing public opinion or the government in another nation.”

http://www.ctka.net/2010/Levanthal.html

CONTINUED...

http://www.ctka.net/2010/Levanthal.html



They certainly like to get the last drop of guano in.

SaveAmerica

(5,342 posts)
90. So much more eloquent than what I was going to say!
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 01:43 PM
Nov 2013


Do you have a book about Kennedy that you recommend?

My instincts about Kennedy are that he took everything that was happening in our government at face value at the beginning of his presidency but then became aware of other elements and started to look at everything differently, through a more clear lens, later. I saw a clip of him meeting with Eisenhower about Cuba and wonder what part his counsel had in how Kennedy started making his decisions.

red dog 1

(27,648 posts)
119. "Do you have a book about Kennedy that you recommend?"
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 09:38 PM
Nov 2013

I do.

Besides Mark Lane's books,

!) "Ultimate Sacrifice" by Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann
http://www.ultimatesacrificebook.com/

2) "The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond"
by U.C. Berkeley Professor Peter dale Scott (Editor)
http://www.alibris.com/The-Assassinations-Dallas-and-Beyond/book/14386582/

You also might want to go to:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15824/
"Michael Parenti.."The JFK Assassination II Conspiracy Phobia On The Left"

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
133. Here are a few good reads...
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:55 AM
Nov 2013

To start, I'd recommend "Not in Your Lifetime" (first published as "Conspiracy&quot by Anthony Summers. The work does an excellent job of laying out the facts, the names, and the issues. The title refers to Justice Earl Warren's reply when asked when We the People could expect the truth in regards to the assassination of President Kennedy.

These I've read and own:

Rush to Judgment -- Mark Lane

Accessories After the Fact -- Sylvia Meagher

On the Trail of the Assassins -- Jim Garrison

Whitewash -- Harold Weisberg

The Echo From Dealey Plaza -- Abraham Bolden

Plausible Denial -- Mark Lane

Spy Saga -- Philip Melanson

Treachery in Dallas -- Walt Brown

The Man Who Knew Too Much -- Dick Russell

JFK and Vietnam -- John M. Newman

Deep Politics and the Death of JFK -- Peter Dale Scott

Oswald and the CIA -- John M. Newman

The Last Investigation -- Gaeton Fonzi

Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case -- James DiEugenio

Deadly Secrets -- Warren Hinckle and William Turner

Act of Treason -- Mark North

JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy -- Fletcher Prouty

Crossfire -- Jim Marrs

High Treason -- Harrison Edward Livingstone and Robert J. Groden

High Treason 2 -- Harrison Edward Livingstone

Killing the Truth -- Harrison Edward Livingstone

The Killing of a President -- Robert J. Groden

Coup d'Etat in America -- Alan J. Weberman and Michael Canfield

First Hand Knowledge: How I Participated in the CIA-Mafia Murder of President Kennedy -- Robert D. Morrow

Who Killed JFK? -- Carl Oglesby

Brothers -- David Talbot

A Farewell to Justice -- Joan Mellen

Family of Secrets -- Russ Baker

Breach of Trust -- Gerald D. McKnight

Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA -- Jefferson Morley

Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam -- Gareth Porter

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters -- James Douglass


Currently reading:

The Last Word -- Mark Lane


These three have been recommended to me over the past few weeks. I plan to read them in the coming months:


Nexus: The CIA and Political Assassination -- Larry Hancock

Crime and Cover-Up -- Peter Dale Scott

JFK vs. CIA: The Central Intelligence Agency's Assassination of the President -- Michael Calder

 

reddread

(6,896 posts)
140. a very good post in the best thread yet
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 05:44 PM
Nov 2013

please keep putting these pieces of the puzzle together.
you are making it clearer for more legitimate doubters and believers,
and damn difficult for the incurable skeptics and salesmen.
your efforts are heroic and truly what Americans should stand for.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
84. LBJ got Earl Warren to go along...
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 11:48 AM
Nov 2013

...when LBJ “pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City.”

"Oswald was never in Mexico City." -- David Atlee Phillips

Thanks for grokking, Omaha Steve!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
85. Jim Hicks used comedy to spell out Truth.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 12:23 PM
Nov 2013

A transcript:



I love talking about Kennedy. I was just down in Dallas, Texas. You know you can go down there and, ah, to Dealey Plaza where Kennedy was assassinated. And you can actually go to the sixth floor of the School Book Depository. It’s a museum called … The Assassination Museum. I think they named that after the assassination. I can’t be too sure of the chronology here, but …

Anyway they have the window set up to look exactly like it did on that day. And it’s really accurate, you know. ’Cause Oswald’s not in it.

Yeah, yeah, so wow, that’s cool. Painstaking accuracy, you know. It’s true. It’s called the ‘Sniper’s Nest’. It’s glassed in, it’s got the boxes sitting there. You can’t actually get to the window as such but the reason they did that, of course, they didn’t want thousands of American tourists getting there each year going (mimes looking out of window) “No fucking way! I can’t even see the road. Shit, they’re lying to us. Fuck! Where are they? There’s no fucking way!”

Not unless Oswald was hanging by his toes, upside down from the ledge. Either that or some pigeons grabbed onto him, flew him over the motorcade -- surely someone would have seen that. You know, there was rumours of anti–Castro pigeons seen drinking in bars -- someone overhead them saying: “coup, coup, coup.”

CONTINUED...

SOURCE: http://22november1963.org.uk/bill-hicks-jfk-assassination



Thank you for the heads-up, Initech. Wish Mr. Hicks was still with us.

A-Schwarzenegger

(15,596 posts)
60. Thank you, Octafish, for your work on the assassination.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 08:53 PM
Nov 2013

Rush to Judgment was the bell that woke me up
to the fact that, Yes, it can happen here, and it did
happen here.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
88. 'SPOOKS' MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 01:10 PM
Nov 2013

As President Kennedy worked toward peace in Vietnam, someone was trying to keep a war going.

Here's the column from the guy on the scene that was quoted by Arthur Krock in The New York Times:



'SPOOKS' MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE

'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam

Richard Starnes
The Washington Daily News, Wednesday, October 2, 1963, p.3

SAIGON, Oct.2 - The story of the Central Intelligence Agency's role in South Viet Nam is a dismal chronicle of bureaucratic arrogance, obstinate disregard of orders, and unrestrained thirst for power.

Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, according to a high United States source here.

In one of these instances the CIA frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought with him from Washington because the agency disagreed with it.

This led to a dramatic confrontation between Mr. Lodge and John Richardson, chief of the huge CIA apparatus here. Mr. Lodge failed to move Mr. Richardson, and the dispute was bucked back to Washington. Secretary of State Dean Rusk and CIA Chief John A. McCone were unable to resolve the conflict, and the matter is now reported to be awaiting settlement by President Kennedy.

It is one of the developments expected to be covered in Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's report to Mr. Kennedy.

Others Critical, Too

Other American agencies here are incredibly bitter about the CIA.

"If the United States ever experiences a 'Seven Days in May' it will come from the CIA, and not from the Pentagon," one U.S. official commented caustically.

("Seven Days in May" is a fictional account of an attempted military coup to take over the U.S. Government.)

CIA "spooks" (a universal term for secret agents here) have penetrated every branch of the American community in Saigon, until non-spook Americans here almost seem to be suffering a CIA psychosis.

An American field officer with a distinguished combat career speaks angrily about "that man at headquarters in Saigon wearing a colonel's uniform." He means the man is a CIA agent, and he can't understand what he is doing at U.S. military headquarters here, unless it is spying on other Americans.

Another American officer, talking about the CIA, acidly commented: "You'd think they'd have learned something from Cuba but apparently they didn't."

Few Know CIA Strength

Few people other than Mr. Richardson and his close aides know the actual CIA strength here, but a widely used figure is 600. Many are clandestine agents known only to a few of their fellow spooks.

Even Mr. Richardson is a man about whom it is difficult to learn much in Saigon. He is said to be a former OSS officer, and to have served with distinction in the CIA in the Philippines.

A surprising number of the spooks are known to be involved in their ghostly trade and some make no secret of it.

"There are a number of spooks in the U.S. Information Service, in the U.S. Operations mission, in every aspect of American official and commercial life here, " one official - presumably a non-spook - said.

"They represent a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone," he added.

Coupled with the ubiquitous secret police of Ngo Dinh Nhu, a surfeit of spooks has given Saigon an oppressive police state atmosphere.

The Nhu-Richardson relationship is a subject of lively speculation. The CIA continues to pay the special forces which conducted brutal raids on Buddhist temples last Aug. 21, altho in fairness it should be pointed out that the CIA is paying these goons for the war against communist guerillas, not Buddhist bonzes (priests).

Hand Over Millions

Nevertheless, on the first of every month, the CIA dutifully hands over a quarter million American dollars to pay these special forces.

Whatever else it buys, it doesn't buy any solid information on what the special forces are up to. The Aug. 21 raids caught top U.S. officials here and in Washington flat-footed.

Nhu ordered the special forces to crush the Buddhist priests, but the CIA wasn't let in on the secret. (Some CIA button men now say they warned their superiors what was coming up, but in any event the warning of harsh repression was never passed to top officials here or in Washington.)

Consequently, Washington reacted unsurely to the crisis. Top officials here and at home were outraged at the news the CIA was paying the temple raiders, but the CIA continued the payments.

It may not be a direct subsidy for a religious war against the country's Buddhist majority, but it comes close to that.

And for every State Department aide here who will tell you, "Dammit, the CIA is supposed to gather information, not make policy, but policy-making is what they're doing here," there are military officers who scream over the way the spooks dabble in military operations.

A Typical Example

For example, highly trained trail watchers are an important part of the effort to end Viet Cong infiltration from across the Laos and Cambodia borders. But if the trailer watchers spot incoming Viet Congs, they report it to the CIA in Saigon, and in the fullness of time, the spooks may tell the military.

One very high American official here, a man who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy, likened the CIA's growth to a malignancy, and added he was not sure even the White House could control it any longer.

Unquestionably Mr. McNamara and Gen. Maxwell Taylor both got an earful from people who are beginning to fear the CIA is becoming a Third Force co-equal with President Diem's regime and the U.S. Government - and answerable to neither.

There is naturally the highest interest here as to whether Mr. McNamara will persuade Mr. Kennedy something ought to be done about it.



Details: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6918706

You are most welcome, A-Schwarzenegger. I very much value your friendship on DU and I very much appreciate you grokking the situation.

A-Schwarzenegger

(15,596 posts)
111. We forget that the first "conspiracy theorist" was Oswald himself.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 07:42 PM
Nov 2013

He was the first to throw everything into question.

On that day, even as a kid, when I saw and heard Oswald
deny the charges & describe himself as a patsy, I thought
that is exactly the way that I would act if I was charged
with such horrible crimes and didn't do them.

But the fact he called himself a patsy showed that he knew
something more than a completely uninvolved man who was
simply arrested by mistake.

He didn't say "This is a big mistake."

"I'm just a patsy" was the beginning of the story they had to kill
him to keep him from finishing.

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
67. Excellent post.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 01:48 AM
Nov 2013

I wonder if Lane has ever commented on why the Rethuglicans picked Gerald Ford, of all people, to replace Nixon.

I realize they picked Ford to replace Agnew first, but that was just a preliminary move to keep Agnew out of becoming the President if Nixon were to be impeached, which by then was becoming a real possibility.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
89. Ford pardoned Nixon
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 01:20 PM
Nov 2013

Nixon went unpunished, as did his "Unindicted Co-Conspirators."

Odd how George Herbert Walker Bush of Dealey Plaza, CIA, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Chile, Watergate, October Surprise, El Salvador, Reagan Survives Hinckley and Bush, NAZI Ethnics for Reagan-Bush, Voodoo Economics, INSLAW/Promis, Haiti, Iraq-gate / Banca Nazionale del Lavoro arms to Saddam, BCCI International Money Laundering for Terrorists & Intelligence Community arming Dr AQ Khan, Savings & Loan scandal in general and Silverado in particular, Iran-contra Guns/Drugs/Martial Law, Gulf War I Glaspie Gives Go-Ahead, Selection 2000 Shreds US Constitution, Tax Cuts for UltraRich, Criminal Justice Department, Suicidal Environmental Policy, ENRON Energy Policy, 9-11 Criminal Negligence, at best; Treason, most likely, Illegal Iraq Invasion, Paperless Selection 2004, Great Bankster Bailout of 2008, fame also went unpunished during the Iran-Contra treason.

Poppy claimed to have been "Out of the Loop" then, too. What a coincidence.

Mr. Lane did bring up the curious fact Gerald Ford was forced to move the location of the bullet wound in the President's back in order to better support the "Single Bullet Theory."

Major Hogwash

(17,656 posts)
93. Yes, that is true.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 03:27 PM
Nov 2013

Ford was also instrumental in shutting down any continuing discussion of Watergate after he pardoned Nixon.
I wonder if stopbush and the others think that was just a simple break-in.

I was in high school when Watergate happened, and I paid much closer attention to what was going on in Washington by that time.
When Nixon erased 18 minutes of one of his White House tapes, he had just started talking with Haldeman about the Bay of Pigs at that point in time.

 

Manifestor_of_Light

(21,046 posts)
70. You should have seen Piers Morgan get the vapors.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 02:23 AM
Nov 2013

A couple of years ago, he had Jesse Ventura on his show.

Piers said, "Do you think Oswald killed Kennedy?"
Ventura: "No."
Piers: "Why?"

Ventura: "Because I'm a Expert Marksman from when I was in the Navy. And Oswald supposedly got 3 shots off in six seconds. And I tried to get three shots fired from a piece of crap bolt action rifle, a Mannlicher-Carcano, and couldn't do it."

Piers: Gasps in incredulity.

Ventura then tells Piers that governments lie to us all the time. And Piers looks like his whole world has crumbled, like Santa Claus doesn't exist.

It was excellent television. Almost as good as the Buckley-Vidal shoutfest of decades ago where the insults were "crypto-Nazi" and "goddamn queer".

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
92. Thanks for the heads-up! Piers is something to behold.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 02:43 PM
Nov 2013

OTOH, no matter his politics, Ventura is a heckuva guy.



Thank you, Manifestor_of_Light! Never would have known about this show...

struggle4progress

(118,039 posts)
75. I finally got around to reading Lane's Rush to Judgment in the mid-70s. I usually save books but
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 04:11 AM
Nov 2013

I got rid of that one

It was, I must admit, full of details

Yes, Lane seemed to know lots and lots of details

But I can best describe the book as gloop: there was simply no way for anyone to check whether many of the details, that Lane flouted, were really facts or just fictions -- many could have been rumors or misunderstandings or outright falsehoods from various sources

And in fact, it often wouldn't matter whether many of Lane's "facts" were real facts, because Lane produce paragraphs and paragraphs, or even pages and pages, of pure conjecture for every tiny detail that he alleged as fact

Seeming to know lots of details is really no substitute for being able to think clearly

Lane has by now made himself an entire career based on stringing together tiny alleged details with great steaming heaps of conjectural blather

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
99. Mark Lane hasn't changed his mind since then.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 05:34 PM
Nov 2013

In fact, he's learned more and he still hasn't reached closure on the case. I agree with Mark Lane when he states there are many important questions and many important issues that still need to be addressed.

Did you read the transcript from his remarks I provided? If so, you might see many of the issues first raised in "Rush to Judgment" now are backed by solid evidence from the government's own files.

Among the things Lane first reported in 1966 and now are established as FACT are the CIA's pre-assassination dealings with Lee Harvey Oswald and the CIA-Mafia assassination plots.

These critical programs and their connections to Dallas were concealed from the Warren Commission, in large part by former CIA director and Warren Commission member Allen Dulles, the man who approved bringing in the Mafia to kill on behalf of Uncle Sam.

struggle4progress

(118,039 posts)
115. Seems after forty years, Lane's still working to get more than two pebbles in a straight line
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 08:12 PM
Nov 2013

Even today, people would sit up and take notice if somebody could provide a credible alternative to the WCR with good supporting evidence

But an isn't-this-odd here and an isn't-that-odd there, over and over and over again, is still just gloop -- unless a lot of such pebbles line up neatly in a nice straight line

Do I find it credible (say) that the CIA knew about LHO before the assassination?

Sure, why not? He was a Marine who defected to the USSR; and Aline Mosby's 1959 Moscow interview with him was published in US papers. After he returned to the US, it seems entirely possible the CIA tracked him on-and-off: just as the USSR seems not to have trusted Oswald, the CIA may similarly have distrusted him

Do I find it credible (say) that folk in the CIA lied about its tracking of LHO before the assassination?

Almost everybody of my generation is pretty cynical about official declarations, and I might even suspect some of those CIA creeps were congenitally incapable of telling the truth in public about almost anything. So, hell yeah, I think folk in the CIA could have lied about whatever they might have known of Oswald

You can pile up great heaps of little details like this -- but a coherent story is unlikely result from dedicated cherry-picking of sexy-sounding [\i]isn't-this-odd factoids or fictoids: nothing results but [\i]gloop

Yeah, I know the Church Committee found that the CIA had worked with organized crime to assassinate Castro or to make his beard fall out so he would lose his charisma and so on; that is interesting and worth thinking about, but without a coherent chain of documented evidence connecting that to the JFK assassination, it's just sexy [\i]gloop in any discussions of JFK's death

Personally I'd love to blame E Howard Hunt, but I really haven't seen evidence to support such conclusions: OK, perhaps Hunt late in life did name LBJ, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Philips, William Harvey, Antonio Veciana, Frank Sturgis, David Morales, and Lucien Sarti as his co-conspirators -- but it seems no evidence actually supports the claim these people were involved

It's an entirely pointless waste of time chasing sexy sexy leads in this matter. Most details that might support a credible alternative to the WCR wouldn't be sexy: they be dull nit-picky details, supported, one boring statement at a time, by real evidence



Octafish

(55,745 posts)
128. The ''Secret Service'' men on the Grassy Knoll
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:46 AM
Nov 2013

Mr. Lane brought up something important: The agency responsible for creating the Secret Service credentials in use on the Texas trip was the Central Intelligence Agency.

Coincidentally, we're told, several people, including two police officers, reported encountering individuals in civilian clothes near the picket fence and behind the Texas School Book Depository who showed SS identification. What's wrong is that the SS had no men stationed in those places. So, who were these "agents-that-weren't"?



THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE,

WAS THERE

PHONY SECRET SERVICE AGENTS IN DEALEY PLAZA


Michael T. Griffith
1996@All Rights Reserved

Some witnesses said they encountered Secret Service agent in Dealey Plaza moments after the assassination. These reports continue to be the subject of much controversy. Why? Because it has long been established that no genuine Secret Service agents on the ground in Dealey Plaza until later that afternoon. This fact suggests phony Secret Service agents were in Dealey Plaza, and that they were there to help the assassins escape. David Scheim(1) summarizes:

"After the shooting, Dallas Police officer Joe M. Smith encountered another suspicious man in the lot behind the picket fence [on the grassy knoll]. Smith told the Warren Commission that when he drew his pistol and approached the man, the man "showed (Smith) that he was a Secret Service agent."

Another witness also reported encountering a man who displayed a badge and identified himself as a Secret Service agent. But according to Secret Service Chief James Rowley and agents at the scene, all Secret Service personnel stayed with the motorcade, as required by regulations, and none was stationed in the railroad parking lot (behind the grassy knoll). It thus appeared that someone was carrying fraudulent Secret Service credentials--of no perceptible use to anyone but an escaping assassin. (Scheim 30-31)


Not only were there no Secret Service (SS) agents stationed on or behind the grassy knoll, but there were no FBI or other federal agents stationed there either. Officer Smith was not the only witness who encountered an apparently phony federal agent. Malcolm Summers ran to the knoll moments after the shooting. He related the following in the 1988 documentary Who Murdered JFK?:

"I ran across the--Elm Street to right there toward the knoll. It was there [pointing to a spot on the knoll]--and we were stopped by a man in a suit and he had an overcoat--over his arm and he, he, I saw a gun under that overcoat. And he--his comment was, "Don't you all come up here any further, you could get shot, or killed," one of those words. A few months later, they told me they didn't have an FBI man in that area. If they didn't have anybody, it's a good question who it was. " (Anderson 14)


CONTINUED...

http://www.jfklancer.com/ManWho.html



That was the story as know in 1996 or so. The documentation for the CIA/SS credentials only recently was discovered. Mr. Lane indicated this serves as evidence that individuals with power within CIA were aware of what was to come.

PS: It is gloopy, as professional capers tend to be. Thanks for reminding me, struggle4progress!

struggle4progress

(118,039 posts)
129. A spoon of barley tossed into a barrel of water makes mighty thin gruel. Here's the testimony
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 03:28 PM
Nov 2013

of Joe Marshall Smith on 23 July 1964:

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I checked all the cars. I looked into all the cars and checked around the bushes. Of course, I wasn't alone. There was some deputy sheriff with me, and I believe one Secret Service man when I got there.
I got to make this statement, too. I felt awfully silly, but after the shot and this woman, I pulled my pistol from my holster, and I thought, this is silly, I don't know who I am looking for, and I put it back. Just as I did, he showed me that he was a Secret Service agent.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you accost this man?
Mr. SMITH. Well, he saw me coming with my pistol and right away he showed me who he was.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember who it was?
Mr. SMITH. No, sir; I don't--because then we started checking the cars. In fact, I was checking the bushes, and I went through the cars, and I started over here in this particular section.


So Mr Smith thought he met a Secret Service agent but didn't remember who it was and never specified how the unknown person "showed" Smith that he was Secret Service. Meh. Really. There's nothing anybody can do with that except engage in fruitless speculation

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
182. It's no joke. It's what TWO DALLAS POLICE OFFICERS REPORTED.
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 11:54 PM
Dec 2013

Evidence that illuminates the acts of traitors is something that should be of interest to all who care about justice and democracy. That it doesn't register as such for you says less about your intellect than it does your character.

For those interested in learning about the armed men who claimed to be with "Secret Service" reported by Dallas Police Sgt. D.V. Harkness, Officer Joe M. Smith and at least one more eyewitness, each apart from the others:

http://www.jfklancer.com/ManWho.html

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
94. I noticed a couple o' typos on re-reading in the cold light of a new day...
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 03:34 PM
Nov 2013

Rather than edit the OP, here it is, tweaked. Tweaks are underlined.



EXCERPT...

This is what Arthur Krock wrote, published in The New York Times on October 3, 1963: "A very high American official -- and he was talking about John Kennedy -- has said the CIA's growth was likened to a malignancy, which was, the very high official said, was not sure even the White House could control.” And this very high official, probably the president, said. And was published, as I said, in The New York Times, October 3, 1963. “If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the government, it will come from the CIA and not the Pentagon. The CIA represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.”

That's what was said in October. And the president was killed the following month.

The Warren Commission never called Arthur Krock to ask him who the official was? How come he could predict the assassination a month before it took place? or predict something happening; and who the high official was? The high official was John Kennedy. But, that has not been said (in the media). And so we have the government issuing a statement which is untrue. And then we have the news media accepting it and allowing no dissent.

No dissent. For one year, a full year after the assassination of the president, not one question was asked of the government or published anywhere in any newspaper, radio station, television station. Not one question about the validity of the government's investigation. Not one question.

I'd like to believe that now with the internet and instant communication we have all around the the whole world, that if that happened today, it would be very hard to keep it a secret. But, you can count on the fact that people will continue to try that, if events have to be covered up from their viewpoint.

And as I said, there was -- their statement (the Warren Commission’s) was, “Our position is that we must reassure the American people.” And Earl Warren came out and when he was asked, "When will we get the truth?” He said, “You may never get it in your lifetime. Hundreds of thousands of Americans might die if the facts came out.”

And so, he was terrified. The hundreds of thousands of Americans he was talking about was World War III, which was going to break out, if they told the truth. This was what the Warren Commission was told. It took me years to get (FOIA) transcripts of the in-house meetings of the Commission.

But, this is what they were told: that Lee Harvey Oswald, according to the CIA, went to Mexico City in October, 1963. He then visited the two agencies there -- he visited the Soviet embassy, he was in the Soviet Union, and the Cuban embassy. And it's clear that he was planning after he killed -- this was in October, when he was there, they said -- he was planning to go to Cuba and from Cuba -- go from Mexico City after the assassination -- Oswald was -- and go to Cuba from Mexico City and then fly on to the Soviet Union. That's the story that was told to the Warren Commission.

And the CIA went on to say, however: “We don't believe that the Russians or the Cubans were in any way involved. But, if the story gets out, people will not believe us. And that's why hundreds of thousands of Americans will die in a war which is going to take place." That's what they told Earl Warren and scared him. He really was frightened by this.

The trouble was the story was a fabrication. Oswald had not been to Mexico City.

The person who designed that whole story was a man named David Atlee Phillips, who ran the Central Intelligence Agency for the entire western hemisphere from his office in Mexico City.

Not long before he died, in the last seven years (or so) ago, he said that, I was at USC and appeared on the program with him) he said that, in fact, Oswald never was in Mexico City -- which destroyed the entire story which had been told to the Warren Commission.

When that was reported, an apologist for the Warren Commission said, “Well, it was because, yes, he said it, we can't deny that he said it.” This was well-publicized, this statement. “But the fact is that Mark Lane had subjected him to a cruel, grueling cross examination and confused him and that's why he said it.”

It was a (1977) meeting at USC (University of Southern California). I was on the panel and he was on the panel. I directed no question to him at all. And a student got up at the end and raised the subject, which I had not, that was: “Can you tell us about Mexico City, Mr. Phillips?" There was no cross examination. It was just the kid asking the question. And that's when Phillips said, "Oswald was never there."

And so the cover-up was that I had subjected him to this cross examination that wasn't. Of course, I didn't ask him anything. It was the student that said it. But that became the mantra of the Establishment to try to explain how the man who ran the Central Intelligence Agency for the United States (in the hemisphere) and elsewhere and did it from his office in Mexico City, made that statement, because of my brilliant cross-examination, although I never asked him the question.

And so here we are now, 50 years later, almost 50 years later, and there still are files which are classified. We don't even know the number, but we know there are in the tens of thousands of documents, that are classified by reasons of national security. Which obviously makes no sense, 50 years later. Never made any sense at the time because they were saying Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone. But anyway, even if it made sense, then what issue of national security can possibly still be involved?

Well it's a question of CIA’s security. If the American people were told then or were even told now the truth about who killed their president, that would be the end of the CIA.

Most of the people who were involved are dead; in fact, maybe all of them. I know some names, but I don’t (name them). I'm a lawyer and I believe in our system of justice. I've never spoken out the name of any one individual who I believe is a suspect in the case because I think that our system is: Nobody is guilty in this country, each person is presumed to be innocent, even when they've been indicted, it is unfair to give up our whole judicial system in this one instance by saying yes, so-and-so probably did it. Guilt is determined by a jury or a plea of guilty or if you waive a jury, by a judge. The outcome is the result of a judicial proceeding. That is crucial to who we are, not every country has this blessing, which was handed down to us by the founders at the very beginning.

CONTINUED...



The transcription above of Mr. Lane’s remarks from Oct. 18 at Duquesne above is mine. Any errors it may still contain are my own.

Thank you very much -- for your friendship on DU -- and for grokking, burrowowl.

Response to Octafish (Original post)

robertpaulsen

(8,632 posts)
87. I've still got a dog-eared copy of Rush to Judgment on my bookshelf.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 12:36 PM
Nov 2013

Before Gaeton Fonzi, before Jim Garrison, Mark Lane was on the mofo. No one has had a longer and more consistent history of opposing the Official Government Placification Consensus. I am glad he is still out there speaking truth to power. Bravo to you, Octafish, for taking part in this!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
107. You know Edwin Black? He wrote about the Chicago Plot...
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 06:47 PM
Nov 2013

...same M.O. as Dallas, ambush, high-power rifles, high-rise, and one patsy by the name of Thomas Arthur Vallee, a USMC veteran from a U-2 base in Japan. The plot was broken up by the Secret Service in Chicago. Not that they wanted to, they sort of had to when the local cops got a call from a landlady with the guns, passports, maps and "parade route" in Highlighter still on the bed.

Very important read in PDF:

http://www.thechicagoplot.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot.pdf

Once a New York Times reporter, Black is the author of "IBM and the Holocaust" and "War against the Weak."

robertpaulsen

(8,632 posts)
117. I love IBM and the Holocaust!
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 08:22 PM
Nov 2013

I did not know he wrote about the Chicago Plot. First time I read about that was in JFK and the Unspeakable. I just finished reading A Farewell to Justice yesterday and thought that was a very thorough account of the Garrison investigation. Thanks for the pdf, I'll be sure to read it.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
169. Joseph Adams Milteer saw that it keep going in Dallas 50 years ago...
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:18 PM
Dec 2013


A rabid right-wing racist who was tape-recorded 13 days before Dallas by FBI detailing the assassination of JFK "with a high-powered rifle from a high-rise office building" outlined the official version of Dallas, complete with patsy, before it happened. Seems he was prophetic, as two weeks later, Milteer or his lost twin, appears in photographs in Dealey Plaza should make the front page and lead every broadcast, but it doesn't, for some reason.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
132. The Chicago Plot involved a tipster named ''Lee.'' And the DIA harrassed Edwin Black.
Mon Nov 25, 2013, 11:23 AM
Nov 2013

The amazing Edwin Black reported that in 1975 -- before the Lopez Report, AARB, etc.



Forward by Edwin Black

Five years ago, on commission from Atlantic Monthly, I began investigating a Chicago conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy just twenty days before Dallas. When I asked the wrong questions and came too close to sensitive information, I was followed and investigated by a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) operative. By examining my own files, I identified him and embarrassed the DIA into halting the harassment. There’s a record of their "project" in the credit bureau where it began, Credit Information Corporation (named Cook County Credit Bureau at the time). The DIA’s inquiry listed my employer as Atlantic Monthly, although that assignment was my only work for the magazine.

Unfortunately, the harassment didn’t end until after my apartment was broken into. No valuables were taken. But all my files were obviously and clumsily searched.

But that was five years ago, before Watergate, a different era. Today, when reporters edge close to dirty government secrets, it is the agencies that become nervous. And they think thrice before attempting the retaliation and tactics once common to the game.

My investigation, revived within the past eight months, took me to New York, Long Island, Houston and Washington as well as through courts, warehouses, police stations and federal offices in Chicago.

Hundreds of hours scrutinizing federal, state and local documents, dozens of interviews, hundreds of leads. And always with the Secret Service and FBI working against me. Doing what they could do make the investigation tedious, time-consuming and expensive. Perhaps they hoped the investigation would just disappear for all the obstructions.

I hope they now know they must come up with the answers. It is simply unacceptable to wait until the 21st Century for the release of seventy or so top secret Warren Commission documents.

Edwin Black

Another SOURCE where one can download their own copy, gratis: https://archive.org/details/TheChicagoPlotToKillJfk



PS: Thanks for the heads-up, robertpaulsen! I think the world of Hopsicker. Lots going on this week. Pardon the tardiness in my replies.

robertpaulsen

(8,632 posts)
138. Well, the DIA angle is a twist I wasn't aware of!
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 03:49 PM
Nov 2013

It certainly has been a busy week, but I appreciate your response.

Gee, what could the DIA possibly have to hide regarding the JFK assassination?

I'd really like to read some of the in-depth research from analysts who haven't written books on the assassination, like Edwin Black and Bernard Fensterwald. Some of that research is quite intriguing.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
139. James Carroll wrote ''House of War''...
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 04:10 PM
Nov 2013

...detailing the history of the Pentagon and how it got a life of its own.

President Kennedy selected James' father to serve as the first head of the DIA. Congress approved and gave him the senior Carroll the rank of Brigadier General.

James talked with Amy Goodman:

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/5/10/house_of_war_james_carroll_on

My point: I trust the top guy at DIA -- based on his background and the fact most of the Pentagon folk I know (and am related to) are good, loyal citizens. Same for CIA -- but, I think the cabal came out of CIA.

Wish I could write more at present -- must be in two places at one time today. Will follow up later.

robertpaulsen

(8,632 posts)
143. I think you're right about the cabal.
Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:42 AM
Nov 2013

I definitely think it was an elite group loyal to ousted Dulles: Helms and Angleton were likely in that clique. That would probably disqualify Carroll from that circle. Your analysis on him seems correct.

But I can't say the same for William "Buffalo Bill" Quinn. His long-standing ties with Dulles, as I documented on this DU thread, make him seem the likely candidate to facilitate a relationship with Operation Gladio and other black ops. I believe this hidden side of the DIA correlates directly to CIA infiltration, which I found further evidence of in Joseph Trento's The Secret History of the CIA, page 369:

One of Helms's greatest tactical successes had been in keeping the paramilitary side of United States covert activities under the aegis of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). "This is how he kept his tunic clean," Robert Crowley explained. "The CIA-DIA partnership was one of many ways the CIA hid the dirtiest and most vile of its operations. It gave the Agency deniability." In 1975, when Senator Frank Church's Select Committee held its hearings on CIA transgressions, many Americans believed they were learning all there was to know about the CIA's "family jewels," its darkest secrets. But the real dark secret is how the CIA became the public whipping boy while military secrecy was used to protect even more damaging operations.


I appreciate your input on this, Octafish. Thanks!

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
178. I think YOU're right about the cabal...
Thu Dec 5, 2013, 07:02 PM
Dec 2013

...Look what happened to one officer of the United States Navy who did her duty and obeyed the law and her orders:

The Railroading of LCDR Terri Pike

By William Kelly

EXCERPT...

The ARRB meeting report said that, “Pike explained that most of the relevant records they found were discovered ‘by accident;’ that is to say, they were misfiled in boxes outside where they should have been. This is important for two reasons. 1) If they had been filed where they ‘should’ have been, they would have been routinely destroyed by this point, and 2) as they continue their review of the approximately 900 cu feet of records they have self-identified, they expect they might well continue to discover records of interest to us...LCDR Pike further stated that ONI remained responsible for searching an additional 950 cubic feet of records located in Suitland, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Seattle and San Francisco, and stated those searches were scheduled for completion during fiscal year 97..."

LCDR Pike Faxed the ARRB; indicating that she had finished a declassification review of the.8 cubic feet of defector records, and had prepared a page-by-page index of same. She indicated that transmittal of these documents would occur in the near future.

That appears to be the beginning of the end of such cooperation and the end of LCDR Terri Pike, as there are two different copies of this meeting report in two different typefaces, one with the first sentence of the fourth paragraph highlighted by two circles on one and completely redacted in the other. The line redacted reads: “There are a total of 18 folders of material which ONI has determined should go into the JFK collection and have earmarked for delivery to us...” Another redacted paragraph follows: “Pike said that ONI is going through review of all records covered by the EO; in most cases, they have been willing to release in full about 96% of the documents. She said that for the other 4% they expected that the Board has the power to overrule them anyway, but they had to at least make the request. .”

The redacted paragraph reads: “Pike concluded her report by suggesting that we might find more of the records we suggested we wanted in BG38 the records of the CNO. She said that currently ONI is currently organizing a review team...to look through this group...however, ARRB staff may also wish to personally review these records for relevant material. She suggested that changes in alert status, etc. might also be found in CNO records...”

CONTINUED...

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2011/10/railroading-of-lcdr-terri-pike-over.html

Ignoring the law and lying to Congress and the people are not the actions of law-abiding government, let alone democracy.

robertpaulsen

(8,632 posts)
191. Octafish, did you SEE this? Veciana admits Bishop was Phillips!
Tue Dec 10, 2013, 01:53 PM
Dec 2013

I just went over to CTKA and found out he signed this for the record on the 50th anniversary:



http://www.ctka.net/2013/veciana_docs.html

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
192. And then the guy passed away.
Tue Dec 10, 2013, 01:59 PM
Dec 2013

Too bad Gaeton Fonzi wasn't alive to see that.

As for Mr. Phillips, he lived and died in a world of hurt after his family learned about his associations.



Shawn Phillips, email to Gary Buell (January, 2003)

The "Confession", you refer to was not in so many words as such. I cannot remember the time frames involved, but this was what was told to me by my father, James Atlee Phillips, who is deceased. He said that David had called him with reference to his (David's), invitation to a dinner, by a man who was purportedly writing a book on the CIA. At this dinner, was also present a man who was identified only as the "Driver". David told Jim that he knew the man was there to identify him as Raul Salcedo, whose name you should be familiar with, if your research is accurate in this matter. David then told Jim that he had written a letter to the various media, as a "Preemptive Strike" , against any and all allegations about his involvement in the JFK assassination. Jim knew that David was the head of the "Retired Intelligence Officers of the CIA", or some such organization, and that he was extremely critical of JFK, and his policies. Jim knew at that point, that David was in some way, seriously involved in this matter and he and David argued rather vehemently, resulting in a silent hiatus between them that lasted almost six years according to Jim. Finally, as David was dying of irreversible lung cancer, he called Jim and there was apparently no reconciliation between them, as Jim asked David pointedly, "Were you in Dallas on that day"? David said, "Yes", and Jim hung the phone up.

SOURCE: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKphillips.htm



Thank you for the kind reminder, robertpaulsen! We are learning more and more each day -- and that is really bothering some people who are threatened by the truth.

robertpaulsen

(8,632 posts)
193. Apparently, Veciana's death was misreported, according to Vince Palamara.
Tue Dec 10, 2013, 05:17 PM
Dec 2013

I just read this:

ANOTHER IMPORTANT UPDATE RE: ANTONIO VECIANA- HE IS ALIVE (!); someone is playing games on the matter of his life status. Per renowned author and researcher Scott Kaiser, who JUST SPOKE TO HIM: "I don't know where your getting your information from, but Antonio is very much a live I just got off the phone with him 5 minutes ago. In-fact I have a video of him giving me that very statement you posted, he asked that I call him back on Monday because he was in a meeting with some of his vendors, he wants to talk to me, I will be recording our conversation.

Antonio is NOT dead, I repeat, he is NOT dead, I'm not sure where all this information is generated from or who started it all, but Antonio is very much alive."


Antonio Veciana was interviewed just a few weeks ago, here. It includes a video interview too, but I don't speak Spanish. Translated, the article says in part, "Antonio Veciana, an anti-Castro activist who said he saw Oswald with his CIA co...ntact in Dallas weeks before the murder, said in an interview that Kennedy was the victim of a plot by senior military and intelligence officials. Veciana said these officials were angered by the failure of the Bay of Pigs, the negotiations with the Soviet Union that ended the missile crisis and the perception that Kennedy sought to improve relations with Cuba. "The assassination of Kennedy," Veciana told El Nuevo Herald, "was a coup." (THANKS TO JUSTIN LOZOFF)
http://www.elnuevohe...-asesinato.html

http://www.newcombat...Translation.pdf


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20821&page=1

Also, CTKA confirmed Veciana is still alive:

Initial reports of Veciana's 2013 statement erroneously said Veciana had died.

CTKA obtained a copy of the statement from former HSCA staff member Dan Hardway, who got it from Marie Fonzi.

http://www.ctka.net/2013/veciana.html


You're right about Phillips causing his family a lot of grief, Octafish. I'm sure a lot of those involved with the plot, such as E. Howard Hunt, caused quite a lot of pain for their family members through their actions.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
102. I heard Lane speak many years ago. It was him
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 05:50 PM
Nov 2013

who started me on the road to becoming the pathetic tinfoil-hatter I have subsequently become.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
126. 'Rush to Judgment' woke me up...
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 10:27 AM
Nov 2013

...in the early 70s. It made me examine what the Warren Commission and Corporate McPravda missed: the big part of the story that demonstrated the goverment was lying about the assassination of President Kennedy.

The mountain of evidence we've learned since then supports Mr. Lane. For one thing, the CIA hired the Mafia in 1960 to kill Castro and others and didn't stop when ordered to do so by JFK. Another is how the CIA monitored Oswald closely before the assassination. Then there's the "little incident in Mexico City" where someone impersonated Oswald and some in CIA said it's him and others in CIA said it wasn't.

What's convinced me, however, is seeing with my own eyes what organizations and individuals have most benefited by national policies since Nov. 22, 1963: the warmongers, greedheads and power trippers historically aligned with the Dulles Brothers -- from Wall Street to Offshore Banking, from War Inc to Spy Central, from Mafia Economics and KKK election stealers to Welcome Back NAZI. You know, Jackpine Radical, these are the most un-democratic forces in the United States of America.

It's clear the last half century has been the time, as George W "5-4" Bush put it: "Money trumps peace." President Kennedy, for 1,037 days, moved us away from that path, thankfully. Sadly for democracy, the nation's corporate controlled press have largely succeeded in burying this reality.

i miss america

(832 posts)
113. Thank you Octafish
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 08:06 PM
Nov 2013

Your endless persistence in shining beams of truth has enlightened the path for so many, myself included.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
122. Oliver Stone: JFK conspiracy deniers are in denial
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 12:15 PM
Nov 2013

Should have been on the front page...



JFK conspiracy deniers are in denial

By Oliver Stone
November 21, 2013

Living through the news media assault of the past few weeks leading up to this 50th year's commemoration marking the violent end of JFK's presidency, I'm amazed there is any single adult left in the USA who would think that Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only assassin.

SNIP...

We're supposed to accept all that even though:

» More than 50 witnesses testified at the time to the Warren Commission that they heard or saw a shot coming from that fence area to the front of the president.

» The Assassination Records Review Board found that over 40 witnesses in two locations saw a large avulsive (i.e. penetrating outward) wound in the rear of JFK's skull. This includes highly qualified medical personnel at hospitals in Dallas and Bethesda, as well as FBI agents James Sibert and Frank O'Neill, who were at the autopsy in 1963 and restated it to the board. This wound again indicates an exit wound from a shot to the front. Conclusion: The president was shot from at least two sides, front and back — not one location.

» An accidental film made that day, the Zapruder film, shows a sequence of motions that indicate five, probably six shots fired. It also shows that when the president is shot in the back by the "single bullet," that he's moving forward while Connally is still holding his Stetson hat, which is impossible if Connally was hit by the same bullet in his right wrist. The governor himself said he was not hit by the same bullet as Kennedy and added, "I do not for one second believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission."

Yet the mainstream media in recent weeks tell us more strongly than ever that Oswald, with his twisted motives, did it alone with his Mannlicher-Carcano Word War II rifle. What kind of history are they talking about? Not the one that is perhaps too dark for them to deal with and unsettling to their smug belief in some form of American exceptionalism, by which our politics are unflawed by such corruption. Is this why the media, with very few exceptions, have not allowed any serious presentation of the evidence against their official story from qualified pathologists, scientists, photographic and ballistics experts, and doctors who disagree?

As Friday approaches, please take a moment to remember that no professional marksman has replicated the Warren Commission scenario with Oswald's flawed rifle. To my knowledge, there have been at least four attempts with professionals to simulate the shooting without that rifle. No person ever achieved what the commission said Oswald did on the first try, i.e., attain two of three direct hits in the head and shoulder area to Kennedy in six seconds. This alleged shooting has been achieved only with computer simulations.

In the face of this recent onslaught on the truth, let us be very exact about Oswald's alleged guilt. He was never given a trial, either staged or fair. As such, he should always be identified as the alleged assassin.

History is a struggle of the memory. But when the counter evidence is stifled, we are closer to a Soviet-era manufacturing of history in which the mainstream media deeply discredit our country and continue to demean our common sense. We must always question those who tell us what to think.

SOURCE:

http://www.freep.com/article/20131121/ENT01/311210074/Oliver-Stone--JFK-conspiracy-deniers-are-in-denial?source=nletter-entertainment



Thank you for your kind words, i miss america! Please know your Friendship means the world to me.

red dog 1

(27,648 posts)
118. K&R...Thanks for posting.
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 08:54 PM
Nov 2013

Good work, Octafish.

Has Mark Lane ever mentioned the "JFK Act"?
"President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992"
Congress passed the Act mandating "the gathering and opening of all records connected with the death of the President."

Out of the "JFK Act" came the
"Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board"

From the preface to the Records Review Board:
"The major purpose of the Review Board was to re-examine for release the records the intelligence agencies still regarded as 'too sensitive to open to the public'
In addition, Congress established the Review Board to help restore government credibility.
To achieve these lofty goals, Congress designed an entity that was unprecedented."

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024078014/

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
120. Mr. Lane credited himself on that one! Said it should've been called 'The Mark Lane Bill.' LOL!
Fri Nov 22, 2013, 11:57 PM
Nov 2013

Mr. Lane described how he approached Herman Badillo, then a Democratic Congressman for whom he had campaigned. Mr. Lane "explained" the importance of re-investigating the assassination. Congressman Badillo said, "No one will sign it." Mr. Lane said, "One will." "Oh, who?" "You." And Mr. Badillo went on to introduce the legislation, got about 100 more signatures, and helped get passed the law that helped create the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Mr. Lane said he was in the gallery, above the House, when the vote took place. He said he was going to take a swan dive and make a splashy exit if it hadn't passed.

It's hard to describe how he brought levity and a profound tone at the same time. I don't have access to my tapes right now. I'll try and transcribe that section Monday, if time permits. A great man, in many, many ways. Mr. Lane is a veteran, having served as a member of the U.S. Army in World War II.

red dog 1

(27,648 posts)
123. "The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)..
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 04:10 PM
Nov 2013

..was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King.Jr....The Committee investigated until 1978 and issued it's final report, and concluded that Kennedy was very likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy."
(Wikipedia)

What I was asking you about was a totally different piece of legislation,
"The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992" (JFK Act)
out of which came the "Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board"

I wonder if Mark Lane ever mentioned either the "JFK Act" or the "Records Review Board"

I am curious to know if any classified information about the JFK assassination was ever released by the Review Board.

Have you ever heard of either the JFK Act or the Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board?

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
124. Thanks!
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 05:11 PM
Nov 2013

Like I wrote, I don't have access to Mr. Lane'staped comments at the moment. I related what he said from memory about the legislation that led to the HSCA. I believe he did mention that we have learned a great deal from the "JFK Act" and the "Records Review Board."

In answer to your other question: If memory serves it was Oliver Stone's film that helped get the JFK Records Act and ARRB established. Sorry I'm not perfect, lots going on in my life besides answering my kind interlocuters on DU.



red dog 1

(27,648 posts)
125. It was, indeed, Oliver Stone's "JFK" that got Congress to pass the "JFK Act"
Sat Nov 23, 2013, 06:22 PM
Nov 2013

which I pointed out in an OP I did yesterday about the Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board, which got absolutely no replies at all.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024078014/

Holly_Hobby

(3,033 posts)
130. Deep gratitude for your work on this, Mr. Octafish
Sun Nov 24, 2013, 04:44 PM
Nov 2013

I was watching some of Mark Lane's interviews on youtube yesterday, and found an interview with a witness of Officer Tippit's murder. You've undoubtedly seen it, but posting for others.



Octafish

(55,745 posts)
135. That's Acquila Clemons, who said it Oswald did not shoot Officer Tippit
Tue Nov 26, 2013, 01:01 PM
Nov 2013
Acquilla Clemons: The black witness the Warren Commission ignored

by Adam Howard
The Grio | November 21, 2013 at 7:44 AM

Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly committed two murders on November 22, 1963 — and while the first will forever make him infamous, it was the second that arguably helped convict him in the court of public opinion as the lone assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

SNIP...

“How do we know Oswald killed President Kennedy?” a legal aid to the Warren Commission once said. “Because he killed Officer Tippit.”

However, many key aspects of this story have always rung false, especially for those who suspect a conspiracy was behind the president’s death.

There are conflicting viewpoints about whether Tippit was shot with an automatic weapon or a revolver (which Oswald did have in his possession when he was taken into custody). The four bullets found in Tippit’s body were also a source of confusion. The lead officer on the scene of the Tippit shooting marked the shells with his initials before they were entered into evidence, yet the shells later produced by the FBI didn’t have his demarcation on them. Others have simply questioned why Oswald would have even been roaming the streets of Dallas after having allegedly pulled off the murder a sitting president.

And although the Warren Commission interviewed 13 witnesses in connection to the Tippit murder, only two said they actually saw it take place. One, Domingo Benavides, could never positively identify Oswald as the shooter, and the other, Helen Markham, was inconsistent with her descriptions. She both described Oswald accurately (thin, balding) and inaccurately (pudgy with “bushy” hair.)

Yet there was one witness, with a clear view of Tippit’s shooting, who was startlingly consistent with her story. She also happened to be African-American. Her name was Acquilla Clemons and among conspiracy theorists her testimony is legendary because it was never formally taken.

She told investigators that she saw two men at the scene of the crime from her front porch. One had a pistol and was waving the other man away. The armed man was described by Clemons as “chunky,” “short” and “kind of heavy” and the other man was “tall” and “thin,” wearing a white shirt and khakis, neither of which matched Oswald’s appearance on that fateful day.

Three of the bullets fired into Tippit were manufactured by one company (Winchester) but the fourth was made by another (Remington), an unusual occurrence which may support Clemons testimony that there were multiple shooters.

Later, Clemons claimed she received an intimidating visit from Dallas authorities warning her not to repeat what she saw.

Clemons later described the encounter in writer and investigator Mark Lane’s seminal book Rush to Judgment, a bestseller which called the Warren Commission’s conclusions into question:

Clemons: He looked like a policeman to me.

Lane: He did? Did he have a gun?

Clemons: Yes, he wore a gun.

Lane: And did he say anything to you?

Clemons: He just told me it’d be best if I didn’t say anything because I might get hurt.


Clemons was never called to tell her story before the Warren Commission, which refused to even acknowledge her existence in the numerous volumes of their final report. In fact their findings, which still stand as the official record, suggest there was only “one female witness” to the killing of J.D. Tippit.

There may be doubts about whether there was a conspiracy and whether of not Lee Harvey Oswald was involved, but we do know that Acquilla Clemons most certainly a living, breathing human being and her story deserve to heard and investigated.

CONTINUED...

http://thegrio.com/2013/11/21/acquilla-clemons-the-black-witness-the-warren-commission-ignored/

PS: You are most welcome, Holly_Hobby! Please know Your friendship means the world to me.

PPS: Here's another important witness who also went against the grain: Abraham Bolden. What does he know? He's only the first African American Secret Service agent -- personally selected by President Kennedy to serve on the White House detail.

Judi Lynn

(160,217 posts)
166. A Death Bed Declaration? CIA Tied to JFK Assassination
Sun Dec 1, 2013, 06:51 AM
Dec 2013

General News 12/1/2013 at 02:11:36
A Death Bed Declaration? CIA Tied to JFK Assassination
By Jim Lesar

This afternoon the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC) learned that Antonio Veciana, the leader of Alpha 66, a Cuban exile organization devoted to overthrowing Cuban Prime Minister Fidel Castro, has died. His death comes just days after he authorized Marie Fonzi to release a statement identifying "Maurice Bishop" as David Atlee Phillips, a longtime "dirty tricks" operative for the CIA who widely suspected of having played a role in a plot to assassinate President Kennedy. Marie Fonzi is the widow of Gaeton Fonzi, who investigated Kennedy's assassination for the Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations. He contended in his book, " The Last Investigation ," that Phillips was Bishop. His statement is at variance with his testimony before the HSCA, where he stated that a sketch of Maurice Bishop closely resembled Phillips but was not the same man. This new declaration, written shortly before his death, has all the earmarks of a deathbed confession.

This and other aspects of Veciana's statement should lead the American people to demand (1) the immediate release of the thousands of pages of JFK Assassination-related records that the CIA is still withholding, and (2) demand that Congress hold oversight hearings into the CIA's subversion of the investigation conducted by the HSCA, which conducted the last official investigation of the assassination

Below is the declaration Antonio Veciana transmitted to Marie Fonzi on November 11, 2013 along with a handwritten note authorizing her to publish it in whole or in part. On November 22 nd Veciana dropped the other shoe, confirming to Marie Fonzi that Maurice Bishop and David Atlee Phillips were the same person. Veciana passed away on November 29, 2013.

In the days leading up to (fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy) G. Robert Blakey, chief counsel and staff director to the 1977 House Select Committee on Assassinations, has worked hard to discredit "The Last Investigation," a book written by the late Gaeton Fonzi, a longtime investigator for this same committee. In his book, Fonzi meticulously details the conspiracies and various motivations that led to that fateful day.

More:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Death-Bed-Declaration-C-by-Jim-Lesar-Conspiracy_Federal-Agency-CIA_JFK-Assassination-131201-910.html

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
167. Well that's new information. what a great thread
Sun Dec 1, 2013, 07:20 AM
Dec 2013

with so many sources for further studies.
Thanks Judi Lynn and as always to Octafish
plus those I didn't mention.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
168. Veciana was set to talk to Gaeton Fonzi re David Atlee Phillips...
Sun Dec 1, 2013, 12:38 PM
Dec 2013

...back in 1975, but had a memory problem when he learned what happened to other people set to talk to the HSCA.



DUer Bill Kelly explains why this -- a CIA agent identified in contact with Lee Harvey Oswald in the USA -- is remarkably important:



Veciana Identifies Phillips as Bishop

Saturday, November 30, 2013

EXCERPT...

Marie Fonzi has taken up her late husband’s banner – and attended the Wecht Conference in Pittsburgh in October, mingling with some of those researchers and writers who worked with Gaeton Fonzi over the years.

Besides working as a respected and renown investigative reporter in Philadelphia for many years, Fonzi was recruited to be an investigator for the Schweiker-Hart Subcommittee of the House Intelligence Committee, also known as the Church Committee. Republican Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania and Colorado Democrat Gary Hart were assigned by the Committee to look into specific allegations that certain CIA officers were either at Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination or were somehow involved in the assassination.

In the course of his investigation Fonzi met Antonio Veciana, an anti-Castro Cuban who led the Alpha 66 commandos who told Fonzi how he was recruited as a CIA agent when he worked at a bank in Havana, before Castro took power. The man who recruited him said his name was “Maurice Bishop,” and they worked together on many operations over the years, including plots to kill Castro.
Trained by the CIA in intelligence operational procedures, the tradecraft of espionage and psychological warfare, Veciana told Fonzi that one day in September, 1963, it had been arranged for him to meet his case officer “Maurice Bishop,” in the lobby of the Southland Center in Dallas. When he arrived, Veciana said he saw “Bishop” talking with another man, who he assumed had a similar relationship with “Bishop” as his own. Two months later, Veciana identified the man he saw talking with “Bishop” as Lee Harvey Oswald, the ostensible assassin of President Kennedy.

Questioned thoroughly by Fonzi and other Congressional investigators, Veciana detailed the background of “Maurice Bishop” and they had a sketch artist draw a picture of his face, which Sen. Schweiker identified as a CIA officer who had recently testified before his committee – David Atlee Phillips.
When the background details of “Bishop” as provided by Veciana were compared with the background of David Atlee Phillips from his autobiography “Nightwatch-20 Years of Peculiar Service,” over two dozen points matched, but when Veciana was introduced to David Atlee Phillips at a conference dinner of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO), Veciana told Fonzi he wasn’t sure. Close but no cigar was not good enough for Fonzi.

CONTINUED...

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2013/11/veciana-identiies-phillips-as-bishop.html



Remarkable admission that should serve to speed the release of the thousands of documents -- and un-redact the hundreds of thousands more -- on the assassination of President Kennedy still kept secret. Odd thing for the CIA to continue to block their release, considering Congress passed laws and the federal courts have ordered them declassified.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
187. Thank you, MinM. Here's FBI Agent Donald A. Adams on Joseph Adams Milteer...
Sat Dec 7, 2013, 11:30 AM
Dec 2013

The man's mind is sharp and his story is remarkable:



Georgia Law Professor Wilkes details the story -- from before Adams went whistleblower:



DID HE KNOW JFK TO DIE?

Author: Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law.
Published in The Athens Observer, p. 2A (February 12,1987).

A south Georgian named Joseph Milteer, now dead, represents a second possible Georgia connection to the assassination of President Kennedy. According to FBI documents published by the noted assassinations expert Harold Weisberg in this book Frame-Up in 1971, Joseph Adams Milteer was born in Quitman, Ga., on Feb. 26, 1902. Thus, at the time of the assassination, Milteer was 61 years old. In 1963 he apparently lived in both Quitman and Valdosta. Like many of the persons who were eyewitnesses to Kennedy's death, or who have been suspected of involvement in the Kennedy assassination, Milteer apparently died a violent and unnatural death. According to Robert Groden, a photographic expert who worked for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Milteer died of burns in 1974 at the age of 72 after a Coleman heating stove exploded.

Information concerning Milteer and his possible connection to the JFK assassination is not new. Milteer's possible connection was first divulged (although his name was not mentioned) in a Miami newspaper in an article by a reporter named Bill Barry as far back as Feb. 2, 1967. The FBI presented information on Milteer to the Warren Commission, although Milteer is not mentioned in the Warren Commission Report or in the 26 volumes published by the Commission.

Who was Joseph Milteer? On this question there is general agreement. Miller was a segregationist and arch-conservative on the far right. In his co-authored book The Plot to Kill the President (1981), G. Robert Blakey, who served as counsel for the House Assassinations Committee, describes Milteer as "a right-wing extremist." Anthony Summers, in his 1980 book Conspiracy, uses similar language ("a known right-wing extremist&quot to describe Milteer, as does Henry Hurt ("an ultra-right wing Georgia business man" in his Reasonable Doubt, published in 1985, and the best single book on the assassination, Michael Kurtz's Crime of the Century (1982), calls Milteer "a well-known right-wing extremist."

The House Assassinations Committee referred to Milteer variously as "a militant conservative," "a militant right-wing organizer," and "a right-wing extremist." Milteer was apparently associated with the National States Rights Party and the White Citizens Council and actively opposed to integration and social justice.

On the morning of Nov. 9, 1963, two weeks before the Kennedy assassination, Milteer engaged in a conversation in a Miami hotel room with a man named Willie Somersett. Apparently unknown to Milteer, Somersett (who died in 1970), was an informer for the police who surreptitiously tape-recorded the conversation. The tape was promptly turned over to local Miami police, who then forwarded it to federal authorities. The taped conversation was revealed for the first time publicly in the Miami News in February 1967, although Milteer's named was not mentioned. The Miami News article was quoted at length (again without mentioning Milteer's name) in Harold Weisberg's Oswald in New Orleans, also published in 1967. In 1971 in Frame-Up Weisberg published a transcript of the taped conversation, together with various FBI documents relating to Milteer. This time Milteer's name was given. In 1979 the House Assassinations Committee included information on Milteer in several of its published volumes, and quoted verbatim an excerpt from the transcript of his Nov. 9, 1963 conversation with Somersett.

According to the House Committee transcript, Milteer told Somersett that the killing of Kennedy "was in the working," that the president could be killed "[f]rom an office building with a high-powered rifle," that the rifle could be "disassembled" to get it into the building, and that "[t]hey will pick up somebody within hours afterward, if anything like that would happen just to throw the public off." He also mentioned "the Cubans."

When Miami police turned the tape-recorded conversation over to the Secret Service and FBI, there was a flurry of activity and extra security precautions were taken to protect the president on his trip to Miami, which took place on Nov. 18, the Monday before the Friday assassination. However, information about the Milteer remarks apparently was not passed on to Secret Service officials responsible for the trip to Dallas.

Here, then, is a second possible Georgia connection to the JFK assassination: less than two weeks before the president's death, a Georgia political extremist on the far right was recorded saying things that indicate--at least in retrospect--that he knew not only of a plot to kill the president but also some of the details of the plot. Milteer's statements, as noted, were taken seriously by federal authorities; and the Secret Service's Miami office filed on Milteer was entitled "Alleged Possible Threat Against the President."

However, the recorded conversation of Nov. 9, 1963 is not the only evidence of the possibility of a Georgia connection through Joseph Milteer to the JFK killing. According to FBI documents published by Harold Weisberg, Milteer told an informer (presumably Somersett) in an unrecorded conversation in Jacksonville, Fla., on the afternoon of the assassination: "Everything ran true to form. I guess you thought I was kidding you when I said he [Kennedy] would be killed from a window with a high-powered rifle."

CONTINUED...

http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/jfk_4did.html



ETA Wilkes article.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
188. Seems the Novo Brothers helped assassinate Letelier and Moffit in 1976...
Sun Dec 8, 2013, 11:40 AM
Dec 2013

Mark Lane said if the FBI had done its job, instead of doing Hoover's bidding, they could've investigated Marita Lorenz's incredible report of the two Novo brothers accompanying Frank Sturgis before the assassination of JFK.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/mobile/JFKnovoG.htm

If the FBI had, the two likely would be in jail and not free and in a position to bomb former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffit in Washington DC, 12 years later -- a bombing tied clearly to then CIA head George HW Bush, whose office had been warned but allowed to proceed.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2214484



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»JFK Conference: Mark Lane...